While that's true, you're applying a "form is function" mentality which didn't develop until the modern eras. Take historical Japan, for example. The peoples in Kyoto were building the same structures as they were in Kyushuu. While the materials may differ, the form of the structures and the various accoutrements are similar. In historic Japanese structures, you can expect to see certain features of the Momoyama Period that mark a clear delineation from structures in the Edo Period--from the top of Japan to the bottom.

Or for a more classical example... The peoples of ancient Greece built similar structures despite an increasingly hostile relationship amongst themselves. Athens and Sparta didn't differ in style. Athens and Massilia differed because of their distance and time, but Massilia was still recognizable as a Greek settlement because there were the expected Greek features--even being closer to the Romans than the Greeks.

Whether the Nords are building their structures out of stone or wood, they're building structures that look similar and share artistic elements that are clearly distinguishable as being Nord. I have to assume that the concept artists for Skyrim did their homework because this whole idea is visible in the game. Just look at the old barrows and compare them to Windhelm (supposedly the oldest city). There are clear similarities that make Windhelm Nordic.

That's the point I'm trying to argue.

Your argument isn't wrong, but it's severely limited in scope.

EDIT - For an in-game example, the Nords are prone to using A-frame structures. They like tall sweeping roofs. This is a feature common in some of the barrows, with the dragon skeleton motif drawing on the same sweeping A-like shape. Look at Windhelm now; still stone, but also still using the same A-frame type of structure. Now to Whiterun, a supposedly more modern but traditional city. Even there, even with wood now, they're building A-frame structures.

Do not forget that this is a fantasy RPG we're talking about here. The sun was created by a mage who tore the veil of Mundus. Almost everything has a touch of magic to it, bringing up arguments with real-life philosophy/reasoning to a fantasy game is like holding a candle to a blinding sun.

Oh, I understand that completely. But don't confuse fantasy for unrealistic. There are certain expectations that come with world-building. Using the "it's fantasy so it can be anything" argument would allow for upside-down buildings with vertical floors, and no doors or windows, but that wouldn't be very accessible to us in the real world, would it? =P

Hardly. People of that era didn't have the mechanical systems available to allow them to ignore their environments like we do today. As a result, their designs themselves had to do it. This can be seen as you look at traditional architecture all over the world. That's true whether we're looking at the Greek Isles, Japan, or Ethiopia. This effect can even be seen as you look at single styles of architecture. Italian Renaissance is different from French Renaissance is different from Polish Renaissance. Why are they different? Because each region adapted the style to their unique environmental conditions. The French buildings have steeper roofs than the Italian buildings because they have to deal with snow. The Polish buildings often have taller windows because daylighting is a bigger concern there.

There is certainly a cultural influence on the building designs, but I don't know of any culture that did not adapt their styles for their environment. Provided they've been there long enough to adapt.

Oh, and monumental architecture like palaces, shrines and temples don't count.

The Nords have been in Skyrim for thousands of years. That's more than enough time to adapt. Yet their architecture shows no sign of adaptation whatsoever.

Some excellent contributions have been made and it’s interesting to see how you all look at an issue that has bothered me for some time. But for me at the end of the day, I know that even the poorest and simplest of peoples takes pride in their possessions. That four ancient Hold’s capitals only unique attributes architecturally speaking should be the banners that decorate their walls speaks to me of a disturbing lack of depth and design and I can’t help, but find that galling, intentional or not.

Does not compute

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b110/Aerianas/thinkofthecatgirls.gif

You're basically saying the sciences behind art history, archaeology, and anthropology are hogwash? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue or disagree with at this point...

Are you saying that French buildings are different from Italian buildings because of the materials they used, but not because of the differences in culture? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just silly. Do I even need to rebut that? It takes care of my counter-argument for me. They're different because the cultures behind them are different. French is not Italian. Period.

You would have more success arguing the difference between Italian and Sicilian styles, but even then, there are plenty of similarities due to the two groups sharing cultural similarities.

Example: I can point to a French building and tell you where and from what cultures the various motifs, architectural elements, and artistic styles are from. The Renaissance, being an artistic and intellectual movement that was a throwback to the classical eras, featured a return of the rounded arch--a uniquely Roman architectural feature. Are you saying that because the Romans built them out of stone, a wooden round arch is not a Roman architectural style? So while the building might be made by the French, in France, the use of a rounded arch is a uniquely-Roman (and therefore Italian) style.

Columns and the orders of design behind them: You have Doric, Ionian, and Corinthian for the Greeks. The Romans borrowed these, and added their own: Etruscan and Composite, among others. Because of this, I know that if a temple (or house since you're averse to structures that disprove your argument) uses Doric-order columns, it is likely Greek. But I also know that if the temple is arranged to only have stairs in the front (not in the round), it is either Etruscan or Roman. If those same Doric columns are made of wood, there's a chance the building is Etruscan. The point is, I can tell you something about the style and where it came from.

Applied to the game, I can tell you that Falkreath is a Nordic city because it shares the same features of the buildings in Whiterun and Winterhold. I can tell you that Bleak Falls Barrow is a Nordic ruin and not a Dwemer ruin (despite them both being built NEXT to each other and from the same materials) because the style is different.

[EDIT - Sure they've adapted over time and environment. I've already given examples of in-game ancient history as compared to the modern period. I'll take it a step further: Looking at Caesar's palace in Vegas (or even the Paris), you can tell it's supposed to be Roman. Just because it has a skyscraqer, is built with steel, has central air and heating, and a very nice pool doesn't make it a different style--or belonging to a different culture. You could argue it's a modern Roman inn. =) ]

Look, I don't want to drag this topic off-topic. I presented a sound art historical and anthropological argument to offer an explanation to the OP as to why the cities might look similar. I'm sorry you want to debate the very nature of art history with me, but in the interest of keeping the thread open, I'm going to leave my arguments thus.

It's a problem to me too. I was excited to know there were 9 important cities and small settlements much like Morrowind, but Falkreath, Morthal, Dawnstar and Winterhold could very be settlements themselves. Yet they are hold capitals... how did this happen? I know Winterhold got a problem, but that was just an excuse for it being gutted. I remember reading that since Winterhold was a city that was influenced greatly by the Dunmer (economy among other things) because of it being closer to Morrowind. Guess what happened? That gave Windhelm a Dunmer ghetto instead (rather than the Dunmer influencing the city in a more meaningful and good way) and moved Winterhold further West, when it was clearly closer to the Morrowind border in prior maps. It's not the first time Bethesda did this, the Imperial palace was originally not a LotR-esque tower, and Cyrodiil was more of a jungle-type of place than your generic green forests (as good as they looked). Sutch was also shown in the game as a small ruined fort when it was supposed to be a city. And not only that, but there's remnants of Sutch quests as well as a character who was supposed to live in Sutch still present in the game. I know Morrowind saw Ebonheart a bit more up North, but they only moved it up to include it in the game, not to ditch another city or something like that.

I was looking forward the big Nord cities in the snow and mountains, but they all ended up being small villages, except Windhelm but it looks like a small city-fort. I was looking forward Winterhold, but it's a wonder it's still considered a hold capital, there's not even a small village for the city to be a capital of! It's a freaking ruin, there's like 4 houses left. People were afraid Skyrim would be all snow, but there's barely any city that feels particularly "Nordic", if you get what I mean. And I think there's like 2 quests in Dawnstar, one which is a daedric quest. Morthal and Falkreath are also quite disappointing. Don't call them hold capitals if they're not that, it just doesn't make sense.

@PlayfulDreamer, you missed his point. He did not deny the cultural influences at all, on the contrary, he acknowledged them. What he's saying, is that it's not ALL about culture, but also about the environment. The history of humanity is one of adapting, hell, every living being is adapting, or dying. So he just gave real examples as to why certain architectures have certain features, other than the obvious cultural ones. Window height has nothing to do with how the windows will look like stylistically. It's only logical that a city built in the Reach is made of stone, while one built in the area surrounding Falkreath is made of wood. It's much easier to just use the resources you have at hand, rather than take some from across the province because every Nord city should look alike. And I doubt every major French city have the exact same architecture. Heck, I've been to France to a major city, then took an hour-long train ride to a small one which also featured a castle, and not only both cities were quite different, but the castles too. Even if you're in the same country/province, you got to adapt to different realities or get influenced by different cultures.

this!!!!!

I can however understand Winterhold's current status and i would like a mod/dlc to make it better
the other 3 however is inexcusable ive wanted to see both Winterhold and Falkreath as citys not towns they arnt even larger than oblivion's cities/towns, content or population wise

This post also!

Honestly, primitive or not, how hard is it to cut down some trees and throw them on a horse-drawn wagon to bring lumber to a developing settlement that does not have a lot of that available locally? Or float the logs down river as is done in logging communities these days? Remember that Skyrim is a modest-sized province, not an entire country or continent. You are never really too far in this land from the forested areas. Would it really be easier for "primitive" people to mine and fabricate stone simply because it is close by than it would be to send some people 20 or 30 miles away to cut down some trees and bring them back in the wagon?

Besides, people keep mentioning how old this place is. How do we know that some of the places that have few trees aren't simply a result of excessive over-harvesting at some time in the past? Perhaps at one time in the history of these places they had many more trees available, built their buildings and towns, and decades later found themselves short on trees because they overused their supply?

I really think you are overthinking this aspect of game design.

I don't know about you, but I'm discussing architecture. It's certainly true that differences in culture would result in tweaks to the style, but it's equally true that there are some very distinct differences in the environments that require modifications to the style. Many of the great Italian Renaissance buildings are from regions that don't get any snow, or very little. Move those same buildings to France and the snow loads they have to deal with there and the snow loads they have to deal with would likely collapse those roofs. So in France, they had to adapt the style to deal with the snow. They did so by increasing the roof's pitch.

Poland is much further north than Italy. They don't get nearly as much sunlight. At that time, with no electricity, daylighting was an important concern. In order to get sufficient light into the buildings, they had to adapt the style. They did so by enlarging the windows.

Environmental differences required changes to the style. What works well in one environment does not work well in others. There's a reason you get courtyard houses in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East, but not in Germany or Russia. Yes, culture has an influence, but the big reason is because courtyard houses are ill suited for those environments. You build one up in those areas and between the cold snow and the resultant heat loss, you're not going to build another one. And even though the Mediterranean and Middle East regions both built courtyard houses, the Middle East is a hotter climate. So they often added water features to help bring the temperature down within the courtyards and their houses. The Mediterranean houses had gently sloping red tile roofs while the Arabs often had flat roofs because of less rain and it gave them a space to go to feel the wind and where it was cooler at certain times of the day.

Culture and environment were intrinsically linked. But it was the culture that adapted to suit the environment when it came to architecture. After the buildings met their environmental needs, the cultures added flares and flourishes. The examples you give are actually irrelevant because they are artistic flares added after the environmental needs of the design have been met. You are arguing art. I am arguing architecture, which I majored in.

And the reason I said monumental architecture like palaces, shires and temples don't count is because there was much bigger pocketbook behind them. Shrines and temples are ceremonial spaces and were often systematized. They were the same everywhere no matter what the difference in environment. If they needed to import materials, they did so.

The common man had no such luxuries. They had to work with what was readily available.

After walking through each of the nine Holds of Skryim, it's very clear that each one of them has different environmental conditions, yet there is zero adaptation. Ultimately, what it really comes down to, though, is one of a few things. It's either laziness, lack of time or low priority on part of the devs.

Tell me, why would you import trees if you can just get the rocks you're already mining there? Or why would you import rocks when you can just use the trees you're already chopping? And what is your definition of a province? First, Tamriel is an empire, and empire usually contains countries. Province is just the fancy new name they got since they are not sovereign anymore. That, and just look at Canada's provinces. The province I'm from, Quebec, is bigger than France. Or Russia is dozens of times the size of Switzerland which is a country too.

As for the argument of over-harvesting, it doesn't work. First of all not every type of tree can grow everywhere. You won't see the type of trees you can use to build houses around Dawnstar for example. Which is a wonder the city was built with wood since there's two mines pretty much inside the city. As you won't see trees in areas where the soil is too poor for several reasons. And even if they over-harvested trees in the past, it would grow back up. After all this time in the province, the Nord people surely would know not to over-harvest and lose a source of income for a relatively long period of time.

That's not entirely true. The American Southwest used to be forested with juniper trees, but the Anazasi deforested the region and it never recovered.

That being said, the Nords have been in the region for what? Four thousand years? If they were going to deforest it, they would have done it a long time ago and their buildings would reflect that. Ie, they wouldn't be made of wood.

nevermind

DVD's are REALLY holding back game development. If all games were made on Bluray Discs, games would have SO much more content.

DVD's hold what, 8GB? Whereas Bluray discs hold something like 54GB. That's a HUGE difference!

what bothers me about the cities in this game are how small they are