I think it's more that people complaint that combat is easy while they're pausing and drink 50 potions.

Something like that

I don't think that is the reason most people hate the game... At least not on these forums.

Well I think it's one of the biggest.

Probably a consequence of BGS' attempt to make the game more appealing to the masses.

To be fair, the potions are *http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/magic.jpg*, and I don't recall playing many RPG's with Magic potions, where they were not instantaneous heals. But I agree it's an exploit.

The Witcher (1) was great about this (I thought). Geralt had to actually drink the potion and could get hit a few times before he swallowed it.
*Witcher 2 was a disappointment, because they engineered around free potion use by requiring him to kneel down in a safe environment to drink potions that he used to carry in a shoulder strap for easy access during a fight.

Oblivion and Morrowind has limit on how many potion you can drink at a time. But now that they remove it, it's better I think those that want to RP can simply limit themselve and thosethat don't can drink as many potions as possible as long as they don't complaint combat is easy.

There are people who hate the game because they saw a few live streams, during which people drank a few potions and complained?

Uh huh ...

Not in Skyrim. They were magic in past games in the series, but that was changed in Skyrim.

What makes it better (exactly)?
I'd assume that because the game was [seemingly] all about the virtualized life of the PC, that unlimited potion use (being physically impossible to do), would be detrimental (and unbalancing to the game mechanics).

Really!? What did they change? (and how does it instantly heal if not ~magical).

Well, it offers more freedom and it doesn't hurt anyone, I won't use excessive potions,but there are those that does, so let them I say because I can smply limit the number of potions, like I want spellmaking back because those that says it's op can limit the potency of the created spells.

Hmm... I'm generally opposed to broken mechanics needing to be ignored by the player looking for deeper or more balanced gameplay. See, the game also has Steam Achievements (and folks that value them); and to allow that kind of exploit IMO does hurt those that would feel cheated by it's use.
(Personally Steam achievements are meaningless to me, but I find the exploits to be a caustic irritation; but don't mistake... I'm not complaining or suggesting they change it; I'm just surprised by it.)

yeah its an RPG not a challenge game. Its about the adventuring, not about pausing and taking a bajillion potions.

I could just as easily argue the autosave and quick save features ruin the game, but they are there for me to use if I want to or not.

This is a problem to me... RPGs were challenge games until recently.

** I wonder... (something that just occurred to me). Could it be that recent gamers only accept failure when playing multiplayer with other people, and start to hate games (that are solo/singleplayer) if they find them difficult and are apt to fail? If so it might explain a lot about the recent change in game design. But certainly not every studio thinks like that; "Almost Human" put out a monster of a good dungeoncrawler in April, and it was single player (at least for the time being); and intended to stump and to challenge; and it was great.

When I watched the E3 coverage last year, I saw several game reps in interviews all say the same thing, they said "You can succeed in our game". I thought that was rather odd (even bizarre) at the time... but perhaps they had a market reason for saying it just that way.

And they still are. Skyrim is no RPG.

spellcreation is not broken, it can go both way I once see a thread about people complaining that paralyze is op and there are those that says magic is weak, solution is spellcreation they can tone down or up the potency of the spells.

I see no difference between someone carrying around 10,000 potions and others having their character run around kitted out from head to toe in heavy armour day in, day out. Unless we're talking about heavy armoured horse back infantry, i highly doubt wearing heavy armour can be worn for prolonged periods of time. Especially some of the gear at the top end of the scale. Add to that, i highly doubt swinging a two handed weapon would come naturally either under those conditions. But you know what, it's only a game and for that very reason, individuals are free to do with it as they wish.

Hmm.. I haven't gotten that far in the game; I wasn't meaning spell creation.

It can be ~if you are used to it, and it was (by some); and you get stronger for wearing it too.
Heavy armor weigh about 45 to 65 pounds +/-, but it's distributed across your whole body; it's not like you were carrying it in your arms.
Some guys can do cartwheels in some of those suits

If I pay ￡30 for a game I'll play it how I please.

Pffffffffft.
It's a ROLE PLAYING GAME.

You're quite wrong, this is the main reason why people love this game. Of course you can ultra role-play and want to be killed, use terrible weapons and be against earning real money - but that's just not fun for most people.

And that's why the TES series go down , Skyrim is the best game I ever played and playing , TES VI will be the same.
The thing is , I Role-Play like a maniac , that's why it's fun for me.

I'm people and I don't hate Skyrim. It has many different ways to play and it's up to the person how it's played. If someone wants to complain about a game after they've chosen to play it a certain way, maybe they need to change how they're playing. There are a lot of ways to play and there are tons of choices. Choose wisely and it's a blast. When playing, we enter a world and what we do there is our choice...whether it's exploits or not.

After wearing it for hours on end, after long treks over uneven terrain etc? I highly doubt it, that just simply goes against everything i've read on the subject. we're talking about medieval type armour here, not modern lightweight alternatives. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14204717

http://www.youtube.com/watch&v=0kKLgSTkCEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=WMuNXWFPewg&NR=1

I would bet that the volunteers were not people that trained and used those suits for weeks or months, or years; and I would expect anyone not used to them to have a more difficult time with them on.