I'd still give it a low rating.

I've been having alot of fun with it recently, but that's thanks to the modders.

Excellent points, and while I agree, that DAO's presentation is an outstanding display of game design, and story-telling (Which makes their death by EA's hand all the more painful...) I would still score Skyrim's replay value a bit higher due to the extent of (modding) playing the thousands of mods yet to come. And while DAO also released an SDK, it is trumped by the CK's user-friendliness and the entirety of which you can build upon the existing game world...But if I were stuck playing on the console, then DAO would win, hands down!- Replay value that is...

Never forget that Bioware in general just milks their games...

Still trying to tell myself that the pre-order bonus on all their games isn't a marketing ploy and that the 50,000 different DLC packs they release with nothing but ridiculously powerful equipment isn't clever business and totaly couldn't have fir into the game without DLC.

That might be EA's fault THROUGH Bioware... But still... It's a sore spot. At least I know when I buy a Bethesda game that it's complete on its own and I won't need to drop 5 bucks on DLC in order to have access to more than one weapon.

i just don't see these "rpg" elements being used. skyrim is a level what you use and pick some perks game. i like the idea, but, without the rpg elements (as you can see we disagree) that is all the game is for me. i feel forced to roleplay more than anygame i've ever played (that's good but mostly bad, imo.)

it is one of the simplest roleplaying games i've ever played and has way to many poorly developed and implemented systems. (i won't even make that list here.)

i want the ability to roleplay, but, the game needs proper mechanics that define the gameplay.

thanks VERY MUCH.

The difference is that Skyrim gives you the option of hand holding. DAO doesn't. I play with all quest markers off, crosshairs off and the transparancy of the compass turned down so far that I can barely see it. Just enough so I can see my health/magicka/stamina bars.

Yes, most of Skyrim's quests are fairly linear, and that is unfortunate. But you do not have to do any of the quests. You can do the ones you want and ignore the rest. You can just explore. That is something you cannot do in DAO. In DAO, you are forced to proceed in a linear fashion from point A to point B. Every once in a while, you are offered a limited number of side quests that you also must pursue in a linear fashion. There is no exploration in DAO.

Bad game is bad.

Osheao: (can't quote with my iPad). Oh I'm not saying that Bethesda are masters of the roleplaying game and that's why I consider Elderscrolls games, under the direction of Todd Howard, to be more action adventure. But at least this time around you come across dialogue with more than one response option (in Oblivion there was usually just one) but even so, I'm not saying dialogue in Skyrim is full of awesomeness, it's not uncommon for me to feel 'eh' at the choices I'm given because they don't fit or the one option is completely opposite of what my character would say.

However, it seems to me that this time around gamesas is making some progress with certain roleplaying elements like giving the player a choice in the beginning of who to follow and thus, which side you're on, and other examples that I can't go into without them being spoilers but I was pleasantly surprised by. I guess I'm more encouraged after being so disillusioned with Oblivion.

the problem with skyrim is that it only allows you to play with handholding because everything i can do to make it harder has to be a severe crippling of the entire game.

running around in a robe and iron sword, not using skills, isn't a true "option."

they can't even get the setting options correct.

I'm loving the game more than when I first started playing. The game is not perfect by any means (freezes and lag, choices lack impact), but the game is just so intensely big, and there is so much to do. I'm not sure if it's my favourite game of all time, but it is definitely close. In the past few months I've already spent more time in this game than in any other game I ever played (beating Black Ops at 150 hours), and I'm expecting to put at least double my current playtime into the game. Definitely a top-notch game.

I would score it at 8/10. Graphically outstanding but lacking in depth and soul. Biggest let down were the cities and locations. Having spoiled my self in OB with the Better Cities Mods I guess i set myself up for a fall. However with the CK out I am sure than if I revist this thread in 3 months time and the quality of modmaking rivals OB's then I'm sure to give Skyrim a 10!

Sounds like an echo of Skyrim MQ. Anyway, total disagreement here, it totally hit the target in becoming the epic hero and then being shoved aside so the politicians can take all the glory. Perhaps being shunned that way is why his Mer descendant in Skyrim doesn't side with the Imperials, doesn't trust the Stormcloaks and would take up the Thalmor cause to kick the usurpers out of Tamtiel if given the option. Romanes eunt domus... er, Romani ite domum... oh heck, Long live the Mer!

What are you talking about? In Skyrim I can kill most of the mages from the get go, and once the Mage Guild quest is over and the essential tag is removed, I can kill the rest. Or if I have a PC, it's even easier. Just remove all the essential tags, and you can kill every bloody mage in Skyrim, just cause you don't like snooty mages. Can you do that in DAO?

I guess my point is that DAO and Skyrim are completely different types of games. Skyrim is an open world exploration game and DAO is something completely different. I don't think you can really compare the two. Sure, they look similar at first blush but get under the hood and they are completely different.

My wife and I both played and enjoyed Oblivion greatly. I played Morrowind, but she'd never played it to compare. However, we're both loving Skyrim and have sank a metric ton of hours into it. One major thing we noticed(came up in conversation) that Bethesda did improve greatly over Oblivion, is the dungeon-crawling and exploring. Having to find dragon shouts and unique items has made it so even after hundreds of hours, I have never bothered to retread back to an old dungeon. In Oblivion, I would ransack the same dungeons over and over for loot to sell, since there was no reason to bother finding new ones(same enemies, same loot, reset in 72 hours, etc). This time around, it just never happened. I never consciously committed to not retreading, I just never bothered. I consider that an improvement.

Simply adding unique conclusions to dungeons has me constantly looking over the horizon for the next dungeon, not waiting for the current one to repopulate.

Agreed, plus I would wager the fact that Bioware (They actually resemble their name now.) has a hand in it as well most likely because they have contractual responsibilities to generate a steady revenue for EA, but that's just a guess, as I'm not well-versed in business management...If only Bioware sold out to Zenimax instead of the RPG black-hole that is EA, then we'd actually see Bioware RPGs again!...BTW, I will never touch a Bioware game while they're still on EA's leash!

But at least we still have Obsidian!

I have played ES games since Arena and this is by far my favorite. It may be because I have always been a Nord at heart, but I really think Bethesda did a lot of things right with Skyrim. I have always played RPG/Action/Adventure games and more attributes doesn't really add to my enjoyment. My favorite RPG of all time was Ultima 7 part 1 and 2 and it had the same kind of focus; story and environment, not attributes and leveling. Is Skyrim flawed? Of course, never played a game that wasn't. I loved Morrowind to death and played it more than is healthy for any person to play a game, but I see it as WAY more flawed game than Skyrim. When I play Skyrim I don't feel limited at all in my gameplay, nor do I feel like it is dumbed down.

I do have an opinion about these games on consoles though. NO. I have always felt that RPG, Adventure and Strategy games are the domain of PC's. I understand why Bethesda supports consoles ($$) but I feel that if you truly have a love for RPG type games you should invest in a solid PC.

Sorry I was defensive, I just do not see any point in comparing Skyrim to DAO. They are just too different.

Regarding DAO, I did not feel that my actions had any real lasting consequence on the game. I restarted four or five times trying to escape with the blood mage but I couldn't, and I just didn't feel like helping the "good guys" because frankly I did not like any of them, so I put the game away. Perhaps later quests give you more branching options, I don't really know because that style of play going from point A to Point B was not for me.

Regarding Skyrim, whether it has replay value depends on how you play the game and what you are looking to get out of it. If you try to play it the way you would play Dragon Age: Origins, going from point A to point B, following one quest right up with another, until you are finished with that quest line and then starting another quest line and doing the same thing, then yeah, it probably does not have a lot of replay value. But you do not have to play Skyrim that way.

Right now I am playing five different characters. An Altmer robed mage, a Dunmer nightblade, a Nord warroir, a Khajiit archer and a sneaky but tough Khajiit dual wielder. I could play those characters sequentially, rather than concurrently, and if I did that, I would get lots of "replay value" because I plan to play each of those characters for at least a couple hundred hours.

BUT, I will not do all quests with all characters. I will only do the mages quest with the Altmer and the Dunmer. I will only do DB with the Dunmer. I will only do Stormcloaks with the Nord. I will only fight for the Imperials with the sneaky but tough Khajiit. I will only do companions with the sneaky but tough Khajiit and the Nord. I haven't decided which character will do the thieves quest, but I will only do it with two of them. I may never complete the main quest. I have over 1,000 hours into Oblivion and have never even started the main quest (other than dropping the amulet off and leaving the fate of the world to others). So each character will only do about a third of the quests, but I will get 1,000 hours of play or more with those five characters.

The replay in a game like Skyrim is in developing your character and roleplaying it in an open world. I spend most of my game time wandering the land, gathering ingredients, hunting, looking for randomn encounters of all types, taking back my pelts, filled soul gems, ores and ingredients and crafting something out of them, visiting the local merchants to see what they have in stock and trade the stuff I have crafted, doing radiant fetch quests, etc. These types of things take up about 70% of my game time or more. Doing scripted quests takes up less than 30% of my time.

You cannot do any of these things in a game like DAO. So I just do not see the point in comparing the two.

Even though I love a great story and epic character development/personal conflicts, the main reason I keep coming back to Bethesda games is because I do not get the feeling of being transplanted into another world so deeply quite like I do whenever I fire up these games!


I would only buy a console for JRPGs, (Started out on JRPGs, so I will always respect console playing/ers) because linear or not, I love experiencing a good "Book" whenever I can, but you can only truly experience WRPGs by living them out on a PC!

This is my experience as well. I was expecting something quite hollow, that I would approach casually, hack a dragon or two as it looked very cool from the previews but not being too impressed in general. The game did start off as expected, some cheesy dialogue, a little tutorial dungeon and then off to the first village and the first little plot starters which felt very much like being babysat through the game. BUT, the game grew better and better (except for a few disappointments such as Winterhold), there is stuff to discover, from little notes left on end tables to long forgotten legends. It's like a playhouse rpg, not as contrived as Oblivion, it's more like the game simply says: "come, join us in our world for a while, relax and we will entertain you", and it does (entertain) this well.

I love how bringing up PC vs. Console elistism has so much to do with the OP. I play on console. I started playing RPG's on consoles with Ultima 3 Exodus on NES back in the late 80's. Consoles will continue to get RPG's. There are plenty PC-only RPG"s out there I'd imagine.

I'll never understand how purposely restricting the number of platforms any game can be available on can have any positive effect on the growth of the game, it's developers, or fans, except to satisfy PC elitists. Unless the game in question requires technology beyond the scope of current gen consoles. Otherwise, the more the merrier.

Oh, we have a lot of options. "Yes", "yes" and "ignore".

There are choices (however few of them), but there are no consequences whatsoever, so making these choices is kinda pointless.

I would have paid up to $200 USD for Skyrim. I've played so many games that I only got 20 to 30 hours out of, the 1000+ hours that I will get out of Skyrim over the life of the game + mods are totally worth it.

There are consequences. Maybe not as many or as severe as we would like, but there are consequences. My characters have experienced some of them. For instance, my first character

Me too, and I play on a console. Heck, I would pay $200 just to get OOO on my PS3

turija-

that has an effect on what you can now do in the game, but, isn't quite the kind of "meaningful" choice most people are referring to.