I played Morrowind off and on for about 4 years. I didn't start Oblivion until well after it was released as I determined it was too much of an 'Action RPG' for me. As it turned out I was right, but I still enjoyed it. I've got 10 MW characters that I heavily role-played and have written stories about. Must be hundreds I never retired, or died.

ah, the roleplaying rationale again. lol.

amazon queen- i should NOT have to use my mind to enjoy skyrim. gameplay mechanics should be the force.

a true rpg game has implemented elements as part of the game. using my own creative mind has NOTHING to do with the argument.

I create (in my mind of course) back stories and character traits, motivations etc for my characters and whenever possible act as that character would act and only do the quests that character would do. I also have them eat and drink once a day and sleep at night. I also restrict my char skills come up for reasons why my warrior char has a basic knowledge of alchemy (he can only make a basic health potion or two which he learned serving in the Legion back in Cyrodiil) or why my mage has a basic knowledge of lockpicking, which he improves on during the game, (he used to hang out with a cheeky thief as a youth who tought him basic lockpicking in exchange for a little magic tuition).
I also restrict each character to only one crafting skill and try to make sure I don't accidentally do too much and make them overpowered.
I also stick to self imposed classes rather than create jack-of-all-trades.
That's just how I play but I find that personally I have to do that to get the most out of Skyrim. I wouldn't say you'd have to be an experienced RP'er to do that though, I've played all TES games that way.

EDIT: It does irritate me though when my char is forced to 'say' something they never would because that's the only response option you're given to use or it's only one of two and you're char would never say that. I just have to pretend my char said something else, not ideal.

Whatever the gameplay mechanics you have to put some thought into playing your characters. I've seen too many players who play exactly the same regardless of their characters INT to doubt that.

Yes, experience and pre-conceived notions of what a game should be like can be just as much of a handicap as inexperience. There is a freshness and curiosity to the approach when you are new to a game genre or series ("oh...you can do this...wow!) that doesn't come back once you've mastered it.

those that will put thought into their characters will do it. i should never be forced to replace gameplay mechanics with my imagination.

i will add my imagination anyways.

edit: ninjaboy- my points are beyond straightforward. your continuous acceptance of skyrim's faults, are not. it makes me wonder why.

The main thing I like about skyrim is that in a way it is just like real life. At the start of the game we all get off the cart to begin our skyrim life. We then all head in the same direction but following different and multiple paths until we get to the end. You can can be good or bad. A person with moral judgement or someone that takes whatever they can get there hands on and live in the fast lane.you can inject so much of what real life has to offer into the skyrim world.
This is my first elder scrolls game and its by far the best game I have played so far. because I can basically do what I want and not feel like I'm having a game style forced on me. I also understand what the op is saying about helping out newbies to the game. It is a game that can corrupt your mind in the same sense as someone handing you a blank check and telling you to write down the amount of money that will make you happy in life.

I have to agree with the OP, to get the best experience with Skyrim you will have to limit yourself and in my opinion that's a terrible design decision. It doesn't help that Skyrim is a very shallow RPG, still an excellent game but a very shallow RPG that leaves a lot to be desired.

no elder scrolls game forces anything.

gameplay mechanics define a game.

minimum mechanics means a limited game.

Papercut_ninja is Dragonborn1. I'm certain of it.

^ This.

I don't understand why people advocate this in LIEU of gameplay elements and mechanics. I agree that interjecting RP can give players a greater sense of attachment to their character, but that isn't the be-all-end all. In order to have a successful game, the game needs to be designed in a way that your character can be defined in the game. This means your dialog options you have are greater, your choices have an impact on the course of later events and your path, your character will play and control like how you designed them to, etc. It should not just be an empty environment with a SecondLife character we just "imagine" everything. Imagination should help reinforce the content, not replace or fabricate it.

To give you an example how it SHOULD work. From character creation, I can customize my appearance, birth sign, backstory, alignment, and skills/perks. I should not have to wait until level 40 to feel like a Ranger. From level 1, I should feel like a Ranger and define that even more so as I progress. Alignment and factions are VERY much integral. Evil, Good, Neutral. There is not enough of that. You can "pick" sides of a very civil Civil War. Dialog options do not really matter and neither do your choices. If I am running around completing Daedric quests and sacrificing people, I need to FEEL and SEE my character becoming evil. A major part of that is how NPCs react to me. To not hurt any butts, the Skyrim approach is "everybody can be friends!" and there are no consequences which is a huge misstep. I think the anology of Kotor and its success is pretty spot on.

Some people want to defend Skyrim. Some people want to bash Skyrim. Some are indifferent. Opinions are opinions, and I'm reasonably sure that being an RPG vet has little to do with whether or not you enjoy this game.

Just my opinion.

But for myself, I've been around a long time and I enjoy this game.

It doesn't mean the people who don't aren't seasoned RPG vets.

By the same token, it doesn't make them 'right' when they say this game is shallow compared to previous TES titles.

It's an opinion. And a very valid one at that. But not 'right'. Just valid.

Now an less defendable opinion would be to say that Skyrim is deeper than, say, Daggerfall or Morrowind. That doesn't make it 'wrong', just harder to defend given the absolute astonishing scope of those two games.

I wish Bethesda would keep its rpg elements instea of remove them. Seriously, why in the world would you remove good rpg traits from an rpg game but were in your previous games?

Of course to attract cod fans with the hack and slash ommmmyygooooddd I shoots lasers outtza my hands lololol.

Seriously. I bet for the next tes, they will also try to attract cod fans again and fail to implant more rpg elements.

Whatever happened to ruining economies and stuff?

Lies.

I agree, Skyrim certainly would've had no problems transfering over Oblivion's attribute setup although that attribute system needs to be tweaked a bit. Still would've been better then the 3 lame attributes that don't do much.

I guess Skyrim falls under the title of, "Great game but an incredibly shallow RPG".

being right or a vet isn't even the actual (logical) argument.
semantics. right or wrong does NOT apply.

i'm talking specific. very specific.

edit: to disregard the obvious malfunctions of skyrim is weird.

I, uh, wasn't refering to you and your specifics. I was commenting on the topic in general.

The OP didn't ask about game mechanics. If he/she did, I would have addressed that.

I believe that the opinion that Daggerfall is deeper than other TES-games is quite easy to argue. See in Daggerfall everything is randomly generated, from the layouts of the towns to it's inhabitants and the dungeons. This means that there is no consistency, no purpose, because the guy you just helped with some important task, no longer exists within the game, even the town he came from is not the same town the next time you return. You can have quests that asks you to deliver a letter from Jane Doe in Muddleville to...Jane Doe in Muddleville (because the random quest engine just created a random person in a random town for you to deliver this to, which happened to get the same name and be placed in the same town as the quest giver). Apart from those specific locations that relate to the main quest (which are very few), nothing in the game relates to anything else. Kill a whole town...next time you return, the entire town is back up again. Clear an entire dungeon of vampires, then on your next quest you are asked to go to the same dungeon, which now looks completely different and is inhabited by bats. Skyrim, despite all the stupid guards, town inhabitants and repetitive radiant quests, responds to your actions and character a lot better than that.

ok.

we disregard Tuckley when talking about actual specifics.

And that's your opinion.

So umm…what would make someone RIGHT?
If one thousand and one FACTS don’t do it and hundreds of side by side comparisons that show that Skyrim only advanced in the visual and the action department but not in anything else.
Skyrim is a great game: FACT (considering the awards, sales, mod production and other variables it is pretty much a consensus, sure there are a few nut cases but they are always there)

Skyrim RPG elements have been watered down: FACT (less, npc interactions + cookie cutter quests and no consequences to your actions, there are hundreds of other reasons and all of them are FACTS not opinions)

Skyrims action elements have greatly surpassed its previous TES titles: FACT (I really don’t see the need to even mention why since it’s a fact so strong it punches you in the face after 3 min of gameplay)

You mad. bro?

i'm tired of, how many months has skyrim been out now?

im tired of illegitimate arguments. and the non acceptance of what skyrim does wrong.

That's an awful lot of facts telling me that the game has very different elements to it. It doesn't make the opinion that seasoned vets enjoy Skyrim more or less.

I never said there weren't faults with the game. Every game has faults. You think Oblivion and Morrowind had less faults.

I didn't even disagree with you.

Just saying which one fares better for which players is opinion, unless you have a survey of players.

lol. no i was just commenting.

not specifically to you.

i was in a rant, lol.

not against you.