Uh, no one posting here has been from the developer team. And they're the developers, so yes, their decisions ultimately have more impact on the game than yours... because they're the developers.

And I also think you aren't saying the same thing as carrotfeets. At least you don't appear to be in this last post, but I honestly can't make heads or tails out of the first sentence.

If we want to improve something, so we looking to others ideas. If we wait until come to our minds, it can be late to do, because some else used in elsewhere. If this company want be first and get always nominations not only because some give nominees because they are fan on this game (or for advertisemant), but also because this game is worth to have.

Sorry, I'm really not clear on what you're saying here.

Are you saying that the game didn't deserve nominations because the people who nominated it for awards liked the game?

For me was fallout series, oblivion and morrowind. Others I didn't played. I didn't see more improvement gameplay (dragon battle is something new, and castles, but other rest it was removed). This version doesn't worth nominations. I can give better nomination for witcher I and II. I saw something new and interesting.

Ok. That's great.

But you aren't in charge of the awards that Skyrim's been nominated for. So if you'd like to host your own awards, you should do that. But that doesn't mean you get to dismiss every other opinion because "They like it, and I don't. Therefore, they are wrong."

This is my opinion. And I know where is worth to give where is not. Don't think that all nominations is giving because is worth, especially when You know title. You have look what this nomination is meaning to them and for players . Sometimes I call is for businesses but sometimes for great work

Right... awards are rigged, so are sales. The game is actually terrible, but everyone playing it is too dumb to know that.

Actually, the system of reviews, sales numbers, and awards are pretty trumped up. Skyrim can lend much of its success to clever marketing and a pretty face. Reviews and Awards? Hah! I have some beach front property in Nebraska for sale if you put much faith in main stream reviews and awards. I won't deny Skyrim in its own right is a pretty good game, but far from being a "Game of the Year" in my opinion. Skyrim doesn't stand out really more than other titles. The fact is that there just really isn't much competition...It's like being first place in the Special Olympics.

And if all else fails, you can always say, "Well, nothing's very good these days, so it's no surprise people think this is good."

Are some main-stream awards and reviews based around advertising? Sure. Does that mean that none of them have anything to do with quality? No. Did Skyrim only win "main-stream" awards? No. Do Skyrim's sales reflect a poorly-made game? No.

Advertising can only do so much. If the product isn't good, it will fail. Period.

I didn't say it wasn't good. I said in my opinion it isn't the "Game of the Year" but in the same vein, there haven't been many huge innovative games that released this year to compete. It isn't a "bad" game, but there are glaring issues with the game. The thing that is so frustrating is that the issues could be resolved rather easily also.

Now, let's be absolutely clear.

When you say "issues", do you mean the world-famous Bethesda Bugs ™? Or do you mean design decisions that you don't agree with. Because only one of those categories can be considered something that needs to be resolved.

While I really don't want to bring it too much in Dragon Age 2 is an example of this. The game has some good sides yes, but isn't a very great game(I'm not trying to say anything against those who like it) and so it didn't do well in sales(isn't it under 1.5 mill still?) despite having pretty good marketing as far as I can tell.

Attributes should not have been replaced by perks, let alone perks that are just mainly percent boost.

Attributes should define your character physically while perks help define your skills in a meaningful way.

The two together would allow for more depth and diversity with your characters.

Both. They have created a scaling world, then hamstring it. They have static itemization in a world where everything else scales. Why do you think the overwhelming consensus is that Magicka svcks? It DOESN'T SCALE. When your enemies have more and more HP and your spells still deal the same damage, that is what I would call inverse scaling. As you level up, you should become more powerful. There are countless posts all relating to the same issues on these forums. How trivial the game is, how busted crafting is, how there aren't any choices that impact the game or rather paths, no factions, the Perk system design etc.

So, in other words, you consider design decisions that you don't agree with to be universally accepted "issues" with the game. And you think this in spite of the fact that, even on these forums (which have a disproportionate number of critics, as do all gaming forums), you can find people who do not find these things to be problematic.

I very agree with You. Is very strange, how You can gain level if don't nothing about it. I mean I have sneak level up to 100 hundreds and don't abilities because I didn't choose. What mean skill level and they this skill affect you level?

How You can get experience if You didn't learn nothing new. Why You can call yourself master of skill if You don't have any abilities. I was trying to say skill and perks system doesn't have connections.

Except they do.

You can't invest perks in a skill you haven't leveled up. And while you can have a skill at 100 without perking it, it's nowhere near as good as the same skill with perks.

what why I very liked oblivion and morrowind way. When growing skills, You will now what you will learn new things, because everything is from experience. And You like do this because is interesting to discover skill system

And this is different from Skyrim... how?

You still have to use skills to level them. You still benefit from leveling your skills up. All perks do is make sure that your character is specialized in the end-game, instead of specialized at the beginning and completely generic by the end.

if you not planned to take skills these so why they show to you. It takes more space in windows, it takes time to load and use computer resource. It likes advertisemant, I have skill level 100, ops I don't have perks. But if You not be mage, they should allow to grow this skill, so will be choice to put perks on other things. And why need perks system? From point I can understand if skill have tree and You have priority to put perks.

When You know what You will spend all perks in these skills so why need perks system? Just spend more time with mouse very time put perk? Is something is not real and just waisting time. I prefer what perks unlocks automatically after You reach skill level. Even better what they not show all perks, but with skill level you find more and more perks in that skill tree. Is more interesting and nice to explore skill system.

Yeah... no idea what you're saying in the first paragraph.

As for the second point, at least insofar as I understand it, the point is that they wanted to design a game where you couldn't just level up every skill to the same level of mastery and become a jack of all trades. This was a deliberate design choice. Deliberate. Design. Choice. And, ironically, it enforces exactly what you seem to be lobbying for, which is a more defined class system.

Typically the people who do not find faults in these areas are of a lower intellectual capacity. I find fault in a lot of the so-called Design choices. Yet, I am not quite sure we can call them Design choices when there does not seem to be much logic or backwards logic behind many things.

I get it now! I don't agree with you, so I'm an idiot! And if I don't agree with you that I'm an idiot for not agreeing with you... I'm an idiot! You've discovered the best way to win any argument anywhere ever.