Spell making would be nice, but many of those are rather useless or are covered by other things in the game. For example, Slow Fall is replaced by the Shout, Become Ethereal. Weakness to X, Y, Z can be done with potions. If you use spells for those then why not just make the fire/frost/shock spell stronger in the first place? Even if the 'Weakness spells could only be attained at a higher level, I'd rather have a stronger fire spell than a Weakness to X spell. Detect enchantmens? Not a lot of purpose to that one as there's not a lot of enchanted traps in the games; but there is Detect Life which I've never used but some people do.

Recall = Fast Travel, etc.

Lockpicking and Open Lock both do the exact same thing - they open a lock. There is no gameplay that is changed by how you go about doing this, only a roleplay aspect of using a lockpick or a spell. Also, the ability to just use a spell to unlock chests completely negates the entire Lockpick tree - why invest in the Lockpick perks when you can just cast a spell and use your perks elsewhere?

fast travelling turns forward time and so does not break RP, dont use it if it bothers you. it is not required

So they made you see the light?

What is this light you speak of? They made me become sick of people not taking Skyrim with a pinch of salt because its not the same as Morrowind.

What is this light you speak of? They made me become sick of people not taking Skyrim with a pinch of salt because its not the same as Morrowind.

Let's look at it this way:

you play, you have fun, the perks work for you. Objectively, this is a success of the system. Reasonably, we can agree that this is an expected, desirable outcome.

I play, I stop taking perks because I don't care. Do we reasonably consider this a success? Is this somewhere you, as a developer WANT some players to wind up?

Our experiences are subjective, but objectively I consider the system to have succeeded in your case. Likewise, I expect that a reasonable individual will say that the system most emphatically resulted in the opposite of success in my case. The objective failure comments, if you'd care to re-read what I wrote refer specifically to *my* case (notice, I said "I represent a failure", meaning I constitute ONE failure, as opposed to the failure, which would imply I'm important enough to make the system a global failure*), and not to the whole. It *is* quite possible to reasonably agree that a system that works for you has failed someone else, or that a system that has failed you has worked for someone else.

I ask simply: is my outcome something you would reasonably consider a success for the system, or something you would consider the antithesis of a success (ie, a failure)? Not of the system over the whole of the population. Just in my case.

Editted once to stress the difference between single vs. global failure, and editted twice because I screwed that up.

Hi The Plebeian! Sure is nice to see you're around.

I think your post exemplies just how trapping pigeonholing can be, pardon my french. The moment we encapsulate a game in its self-proclaimed RPGyness it becomes easy to rationalize and accomodate the fact it's lacking on this or that foreign department. And what's a RPG without a story? A fantasy simulator? So because Dragon Age has such a terrible plotline we should tolerate a slightly less messed up one? Appreciate Skyrim for all te good things it has to offer. But by all means admit to all its flagrant shortcomings.

Meh, I don't think the story is a "shortcoming". I think Skyrim's story is just fine. Certainly no worse than Morrowind or Oblivion.

Hi there PhonAntiPhon! Good to see you.

I think the premise goes like this: every single task can be perfomed within the boundaries of any given archtype. A mage will not bash a door open or pick the lock. He will use his inherent magical skills to, voilá!, open it. Likewise, he will not swin and risk getting his precious cloak soggy. He will waterwalk a la Michael Jackson. I think this makes perfect sense. It certainly makes the game richer. Ad absurdum, why have spells when you can wield a sword? Conversely, why have axes when destruction spells are at hand?

There should have been 3 ways to open a locked chest
1) Lockpicking
2) Spells that open locks
3) Possibility to damage a lock enogh that it unlocks

It doesn't make sense that a barbarian or mage would use lockpick, the barbarian would use his great axe the mage his magic.

When it comes to waterwalk it should be in the game as people then could roleplay a mage that cannot swim or is afraid of water. These things might seem minor, but stuff like this does add a value to the game.

Saying what a mage does or doesn't do is in contradiction of Elder Scrolls' freeform "be whoever you want to be" mantra. I.E. - a mage does whatever you want a mage to do, so if you want a mage that can pick locks, you take lockpicking and you are no less of a mage for doing so.

Saying a mage can't pick a lock, or a mage wouldn't get his cloak soggy, reverts to an arbitrary, D&D way of "classing" characters that Elder Scrolls has been throwing out the window since Daggerfall. My mage certain can pick a lock, and my mage certainly doesn't wear cloaks.

It would be nice if the people that like the game so strongly would leave a list of the the things they like about the game instead of picking apart peoples opinions.
(I'm guessing that is to much to ask)

Do you have a hatred for options or something? I don't care that a mage can pick a lock, of course they can, but that doesn't justify the removal of Open Lock spells. What if I wanted to make a mage that couldn't pick locks? Well, too bad, you just missed out on most of the loot in the game. I'm starting to hate Bethesda's attitude of removing things because "it was redundant" or "it was unnecessary," when most of the time that really isn't true at all. What's wrong with giving more choices to the player? I thought The Elder Scrolls was about freedom, not restriction.

Why does it not make sense that a barbarian or a mage would use a lockpick?

Because an arbitrary class system that has not been existent in Elder Scrolls since Daggerfall says so?

Waterwalk shouldn't be in the game when the world isn't designed to need it. There are no areas that would require walking on water to get to. It would be an absolute waste to add that into the game.

Nobody (other than perhaps serious roleplayers) invests in lockpicking perks anyway because it is just too darned easy to open a lock and picks are cheap and plentiful. And most roleplayers would like to have options to do things so they can do them differently with their various characters. That type of stuff is what makes a game rich and rewarding and adds to replay value.

Saying what a mage does or doesn't do is in contradiction of Elder Scrolls' freeform "be whoever you want to be" mantra. I.E. - a mage does whatever you want a mage to do, so if you want a mage that can pick locks, you take lockpicking and you are no less of a mage for doing so.

Saying a mage can't pick a lock, or a mage wouldn't get his cloak soggy, reverts to an arbitrary, D&D way of "classing" characters that Elder Scrolls has been throwing out the window since Daggerfall. My mage certain can pick a lock, and my mage certainly doesn't wear cloaks.

The difference between using a spell or a lockpick does not add to replay value. None.

You asked in your OP for people to respond to your list or create their own...

Do you have a hatred for options or something? I don't care that a mage can pick a lock, of course they can, but that doesn't justify the removal of Open Lock spells. What if I wanted to make a mage that couldn't pick locks? Well, too bad, you just missed out on most of the loot in the game. I'm starting to hate Bethesda's attitude of removing things because "it was redundant" or "it was unnecessary," when most of the time that really isn't true at all. What's wrong with giving more choices to the player? I thought The Elder Scrolls was about freedom, not restriction.

Never once did I ask for people to respond to my list.

For you perhaps, but not for everyone. I can tell you right now that it would add replay value for me, and judging by the number of people I have seen on this forum asking for an Open Lock spell, it would add replay value to a great number of folks. I don't understand why you are trying to force your particular playstyle on everyone else.

EDIT: If you go to the spell vendor and there is an additional spell for sale called Open Lock, how does that hurt your game?