It felt pretty bad, and soulless. I didn't feel anything in any part of the game after the intro sequence. Maybe that's because i had played Xenoblade Chronicles through just before playing it. Now that was the true GOTY (and one of the best games of all time).

What are you talking about? The exact same thing happens in Skyrim!

Keep telling yourself Skyrims quests are not linear.And as for games holding your hand did you not notice the arrow maker on the compass?

You're being defensive as if I were making an attack on the game, I only addressed "Replay Value" not how the game plays and its world, you're just inter-mixing all elements when that isn't what I was doing. Skyrim is a fine game, but seriously lacking in story progression, RPG elements and player agency (<--- especially this). If browsing an open world means replay value to you, I won't argue that. Replay value means playing the game again and getting different experience from it, Skyrim does not do that as neither did Oblivion. Fallout 3 actually does this much more than Skyrim with player agency even.

Sure, you can go anywhere and attack people and things in Skyrim, but do they actually have consequences? (no they do not). In DA:O, yes, it make a difference, and yes the battles and who you can fight are scripted, but role playing your character with the story and your companions and NPCs are not scripted; you have choices that actually change the game. And in this respect, Skyrim is scripted since you have no choice in the matter of the story and NPC interactions, other than to just do them or not. This is what I mean by replay value. I don't feel, and this is my opinion, that I can just roam around an open world and keep doing the same thing (which is mostly killing things) and find much gratification from it as far a replay value when nothing changes at all because of my actions.

Are you rating Skyrim on its own or comparing to other RPGs on the market? Comparing to alternatives it's the best out there imo, taking all things into consideration. Unfortunately, it does feel like missed opportunity in some segments. To me the world just felt lifeless after a while and chain quests were too short.
I'll play it again once enough mods come out though.

Imagine a life-like world like Skyrim and being able to play out the game like Dragon Age: Origins, that would be WOW! Heck, even being able to play a story out like Daggerfall or Morrowind would be awesome, as daggerfall had six different endings from choices made during questing about.

10/10 nothing to explain great game

People have become boring.
You can always make a personal connection with a game but only if you are willing to do it.
Morrowind had no more soul than Skyirm. It's a game, it doesn't have soul.
You, as the player, provide the soul for the world.

I've played Skyrim more than Morrowind or Oblivion and after all the time I've spent playing it, the one thing I think Skyrim lacks is real emotion. I've taken a short break to let more patches come out and iron out the bugs, and in this time I've gone back to Dragon Age and Dark Souls. Both of these have quality voice acting that doesn't feel nearly as forced. I'm not nearly as far into Dark Souls so I can't really speak too much about that game, but Dragon Age just has more raw emotion in the game that seems to be lacking in Skyrim.

Skyrim performs better in all aspects, including stability, compared to Oblivion except for two things.

1. NPC reaction to your deeds. Vekel the man and Dirge dies the very next time they try to talk down to me as the guildmaster. And who's idea was it to give every guard a scouter so they can see my skill levels, because that man needs a spanking.

2. Either spell damage should scale with skill, or spell making should be in. Not having either is one of poorest (or laziest) decision in Skyrim.

Is it possible for Beth to patch the AI? Just improve it a little where followers will actually avoid traps as well as hostile NPCs. Maybe not have NPCs I trade with on a regular basis forget who I am.

9/10

It's kept me entertained for over 200 hundred hours so far.

That's more than I can say for just about any other video game I've played (even Oblivion and Fallout)

No, I won't grease up an iron helmet and sit on it. Bethesda, for their size, budget, and resources, WAS lazy. Combat-- a HUGE part of the Elder Scrolls games, hasn't changed since Morrowind-- (unless you're fooled by the slick slow-motion cut scenes once in a while). The fact that not a single NPC recognizes who or what you are in any way-- LAZY. Fable had an alignment system in which NPC's reacted to your overall alignment. That game is old. The technology is there, it's available, but it wasn't taken advantage of. Don't even get me started on dungeon "puzzles" or the monster variety (or lack thereof).

I LOVE Bethesda, and I LOVE the Elder Scrolls-- but that doesn't mean I can't point out a problem when I see it.

Edit: And your 10 additional years is pretty dramatic. I outlined specific shortcomings that I noticed in the game.

The problem with that comes in because, other than technical issues, nobody can totally agree on what is really bad/really great about it. What some may feel are faults, others perceive as virtues. You can see examples of that on this forum every day, heck, you're seeing that in this thread.

Hate to say this but I did not like this game, there were a few improvements but way to many steps backwards in so many things.

This elder scroll release has been the one i have played least of them all, I think something like 20 hours or something over a period of one weekish. The previous games were played ALOT more and still are being played from time to time.

Compared to the previous games (I have played them all) I would say this one is the least interesting, this is the first elder scroll game where I gave up long before I finished the main story line.

You do not need to get a top end PC to maximize the graphis, it was coded to work on xbox 360 and ps3 (4-5 year old hardware) and the pc users got the same version.

So the awesome factor really does not exist for pc users in a sense..

Nice to see the old "DA:O changes with your character, Skyrim stays the same" argument re-hashed. What happens in DA:O if I decide to kill a shopkeeper? Oh, wait. And really, do the Alienage Elves give a damn if you allowed the Dalish to be butchered? It's a linear game with branches, and all those branches lead to which allies you get at the end, little more. Don't think I am knocking DA, I love Origins, I just think it's unfair to compare a linear game with character depth and choices at glaring plot crossroads, and a game that sells itself on it's open world nature.

I forced myself to put so many hours into it because i really loved FO3 and Morrowind, so was hoping that somewhere in Skyrim there was a game to match their quality - sadly I was wrong.


Pretty much agree with this^

One word which seems to keep re-occuring on this thread about Skyrim is "Shallow" - for all it's size it has very little depth.


Sorry mate, but good games, like any good enterainment media (films, music etc.) provide the soul. Morrowind was FAR deeper and immersive.

While that is true, Skyrim is only collection of linear questlines in a pile that you can play trough in order of your choosing. They are not attached to eacother in anyway, most are accesible right away, most do not have any branches, and none have any consequences. So even though Origins choices have quite limited consequences, it's still more than Skyrim has.

And thus i play it as a dungeon crawler, with dissapointing loot and repetitive enemies. But really, that's about what i expected. An open world dungeon crawler and modding platform And as expected, the world is amazing (though cities could be better), and the dungeons beautiful and unique(-ish), the rest needs some work.

I have already posted in this thread about the lack of some rpg elements in Skyrim, so I agree to some extent. I still think it's an unfair comparison, though, you wouldn't complain about DA:O lacking sprint, jump and first person. If you took the story, cutscenes with different characters, and branches out of DA, there wouldn't be a game left worth playing.

8.5/10. The 0.5 is for the shiny new texture pack.

Overall, I love Skyrim and it's one of the best games I've played in years. There's certainly room for improvement in some areas and there are an awful lot of bugs, but there's just so much to do and so much fun to have. I have two copies of the game (360 and PC) and I still feel like I've had my money's worth already. I'm eagarly awaiting DLC and expansion-size mods.

8/10, mostly because of the annoying bugs and some questlines that are too short, else it would've be a 10

That's true too, they are games with quite different design goals. Still i feel Skyrim could've used some more depth in it's quests.

That's not the point...The point is there are plenty of side quests in the game to keep it fresh and fun.

I love the game, and I have lots of quests to finish still. I love discovering new places such as caves and forts. But the world itself feels a bit dull. Even though there are villages I sometimes feel Skyrim is deserted. And now I think of it, most people in Skyrim are bandits or necromancers! The NPC's connected to a city hardly ever go outside. The MQ also isn't that memorable. So I love the game, but it could have been so much better.