I enjoyed oblivion a tad bit more then skyrim. However, it is probably just because I am older now and video games don't hold my attention for as long As they use to. I never felt like skyrim was repetitive though, nor did I think the a.i. was "dumb".

The problem with Skyrim is that it is way too shallow. Did it not reach its potential? Not easy to answer, because I can't tell wheter Bethesda intended it to be like this or if they simply didn't put enough effort into it.

Skyrim is a good game nonetheless.

I can think of a reason: Roleplaying. Makes no sense to have a good guy character to go and join the DB. So, I'll take a new character and roleplay it instead of doing every single thing on one file, completely destroying the RP aspects.

Indeed, and with Skyrim they didn't even attempt to hide that So, anything but world desgin is more or less half-assed

You might be right about that. But still, those quests were small and insignificant. In Skryim we have a WHOLE quest line that's just repeated.

You also have to remember the game had to fit on the cheap 5gig hd xbox. I'm suprised the game is as big and good looking as it is, with the amount of content it has.

This is true. It's just a shame there isnt much of a reason to go exploring all those dungeons...which kind of damages the point of the game if dungeon crawling is what they were actually aiming for.

Why did it have to? There are several 360 games that come on two or more disks.

Edit: Why does there need to be a reason to explore the dungeons? I happily go around to dungeons just to explore inside and get the loot. Quests are a story objective, not an exploring objective.

Yes but what your forgetting is that it is the same quest line just from the opposite side (story wise). Both have the same goal of taking the others cities. Sure they could have tried making it completely different but for that they could have added another guild or something. If I wanted them to spend time on something else it would have been the companions or another guild that felt too short not one that only real difference is the way the battle front moves. In my opinion the civil war is fine as it is especially since you can only play one side per character. It is like those quests that give you a decision that seem to end with the same outcome just a different people being considered friend and foe.

edit- tried to make it more clear of what I was saying

It's not a question of DVD disk space, eventhough it's not that big. It's a problem with the instal size. I really believe they were able to do a 10-20 gig install alot of content would have been added, or not cut.

I'm sure there are several games on the 360 that are much larger than Skyrim when it comes to install size. No way Skyrim is #1.

Edit: TES V's install size is 3.8 gb. Not even close to the highest.

ha not even close but Compression techniques have improved vastly since the last TES iteration ;p

If there are any larger it's by kb. The entire game is installed onto the hard drive. You only need the disk to start up the game.
Edit: it's a 200-300 hour game that had to fit in 3.8 gb. Don't you think they could have used more space.

http://www.stripesonfire.com/xbox-360-game-install-list/#S

Even a golf game has a larger install size than Skyrim. By about 2 gb.

Couldn't care less. My xbox hasn't even been plugged in in 2 years. The point I was getting at was.. Things had to be cut from the game so it could fix in the small hd xbox.

Time, money, profitability.
Missed potential? Yes. Was/ Is it still a good game? Yes.
Blame the xbox, or Todd Howard or anyone we like.
I personally feel they made a deadline they were hard pressed to meet.
I also feel the dungeons took alot of the Dev time.

Not as much as it looks like has been cut. A golf game has 2 more GB of install data on it, compared to the large, open world skyrim. Obviously lots more could have been included with plenty to spare. Your posts just shows you have a difficult time dealing with information that contradicts you.

But he just disproved your claim, can't you accept that?

Anyway, Skyrim did not have to cut anything, I'll tell you that. The only reason I would think of would be cutting some content just to make us buy it later on via DLC.

I do. I still love the game, but it's difficult to ignore all the wasted potential and mistakes in Skyrim.

I'm thinking the things like mounted combat and the better looking underwater were held because they weren't perfected just yet, since there was no cost on them yet. But with as much seems to be added with Dawnguard, I don't see how they could have held that much back, I'm thinking they started working on the Dawnguard stuff before release, but it was too late/not even close to being done before release.

Next time they shoulden't do a 11/11/11, but whenever the game is ready.

Indeed, altough I would prefer if they included it when they released the game. The fact that they added mounted combat and stuff via patches is good though, it's when you have to pay for something that you would expect to be in the game when I start to get grumpy.

Dawnguard is good as well, it's a promising expansion, and I'm not sure if it would have fit in the final release or not. It's sorta like Shivering Isles or KOTN. And by fit I mean "it's more fitted as a DLC, rather than a part of the actual game".

I wasn't really saying they cut things from Skyrim, I was just saying that it would have been a more plausible explanation, than having limited memory in the disc.

It's not something that bothers me.

this game is amazing, on all ends. you have to be able to make up your own story in some aspects where the game does fall short, this isnt a "look at this flaw" its a "look at the whole big picture" type of game/. let go and LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE

um no, that's just insanity. not being able to acquire the realization of being a daedric Prince and RPING it/ vocalizing or mentally making your own dialog from your own character is fine. but making excuses for an entire questline is borderline derp territory.