So this conversation came up at work this afternoon as 4 out of the 5 members of staff on shift are Bethesda fans and can't handle the wait until the next Elder Scrolls game.
Someone brought up how they'd wished Skyrim was bigger! Saying that they thought the questlines were dull in comparison to Morrowind.

So I thought why not post here too:

What would you guys have done differently if you were making Skyrim? How would you have changed the Main Questlines? Ignore graphics ideas but more about the game in general. Would you have included more Thalmor attacks, more story based Dragon attacks, what motive would you have given Alduin?

Well for starters I would've had the world be more reactive to your progress through it. So much of the game feels limp because major events that should realistically impact the world kind of don't. The Civil War aspect is terrible because it's basically another guild quest chain like the Thieves Guild or something. The inconsequential dialog is far too static and based solely on which tree you have the most shit in rather than, say, the fact that you're kind of a big deal. More diverse quests would have also been welcome. When the game was in development a great deal was said about the dynamic, radiant quests but in actuality it's just an endless series of fetch quests that get foldered into the miscellaneous tab or else it's diving into another prefab cave to kill like six bandits.

The strong part of Skyrim, which is the strong part of any given Bethesda game, is the big dumb world. Bethesda knows how to make a world that rewards exploration (the quality of the world is debatable but ehhh) but they utterly fail at giving a reason to stick with it long term. The various guild quests are poor because you do like five things and suddenly you're the hotshit leader after an hour. It's so wrapped up in being a power fantasy that it ultimately makes the power fantasy part less interesting because, again, the world is so god damn static.

The questlines WERE dull, particularly the side quests. I can't speak to the main quests because every time I play Skyrim I wind up installing mods for like five hours then I start a game and get bored right around the time you fight the first dragon and I'm done after like an hour and a half. But side quests boiled down to talk to person A, go to place, kill x or find y or kill x AND find y then report back to person A for a leveled reward. In a game that takes pride in letting you "do what you want" the things you wind up doing are remarkably similar.

How would I have made Skyrim better?

By making it a good game.

While I think Fabs been listening to too many angry game reviewers, I think they could have done better by keeping a lot of the side quests as diverse as the ones in Oblivion. However, I kind of don't blame them that they didn't because while it has a massive open world with a lot of opportunities, the game is meant to be played like you're an epic Nordic hero. You don't see Beowulf running around and collecting chickens that escaped from a pen or else the Khajiit maid will get fired from her job. You slay shit, which is why there are many dungeon diving, draugr slaying quests.

While I think Fabs been listening to too many angry game reviewers

No, because I can form an opinion without yelling and swearing and never making a point in a thirty minute video.

No, because I can form an opinion without yelling and swearing and never making a point in a thirty minute video.

I didn't say you were quoting them verbatim. ;)

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>
I didn't say you were quoting them verbatim. ;)

Perhaps if these so-called 'angry reviewers' and I have similar points then clearly it's not just pissing in the wind.

Perhaps if these so-called 'angry reviewers' and I have similar points then clearly it's not just pissing in the wind.

Well if about 90% of the population disagrees, and your main experience is

I can't speak to the main quests because every time I play Skyrim I wind up installing mods for like five hours then I start a game and get bored right around the time you fight the first dragon and I'm done after like an hour and a half.

then it's probably not gospel.

Look, I've played Skyrim multiple times over long ass hours and points on your post was an exaggeration to say the least, and you used your exaggerated points to prove an overarching exaggerated point.

The various guild quests are poor because you do like five things and suddenly you're the hotshit leader after an hour.

This

In a game that takes pride in letting you "do what you want" the things you wind up doing are remarkably similar.

This, because it depends on your play style.

But side quests boiled down to talk to person A, go to place, kill x or find y or kill x AND find y then report back to person A for a leveled reward

And this for instance.

Though I did explain in my initial post that the 3rd one had some merit, and I agreed, even if it was understandable the game did it that way.

I wasn't trying to call your post shit in general. I was saying that calling it a bad game because you found a lot of it dull yourself when a lot of people didn't, and you provide little in the amount of reasoning that wasn't somewhat exaggerated, had to say it sounded like someone who posts vids on youtube so they can shit on a game.

I get where you're both coming from, I think the issue is comparing it to older games. Skyrim, in itself, was great. But compared to Morrowind and Oblivion, it kind of lacked. I know they're different stories but it's very much lacking in comparison. The quests are very samey but still fun. Just very similar.

I get where you're both coming from, I think the issue is comparing it to older games. Skyrim, in itself, was great. But compared to Morrowind and Oblivion, it kind of lacked. I know they're different stories but it's very much lacking in comparison. The quests are very samey but still fun. Just very similar.

Yeah, Skyrim is like a huge expansion pack. It has a certain theme and isn't as open as the other two games (even if it's still a huge ass world). Oblivion was made to be the pinnacle open world because it was set in the very center province with the most diversity. I've not played Morrowind much, but I've heard it's the best from a few people.

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>
Well if about 90% of the population disagrees, and your main experience is then it's probably not gospel.

But 90 percent of the population doesn't disagree? Even people that like the game have pointed out is numerous flaws and its most vocal critics aren't exaggerating. Skyrim is an INCREDIBLY flawed game from a gameplay and design standpoint, but then it's by the studio that shipped an actually broken level up system in Oblivion and pisses all over lore with Fallout so what did we expect.

Look, I've played Skyrim multiple times over long ass hours and points on your post was an exaggeration to say the least, and you used your exaggerated points to prove an overarching exaggerated point.

Or maybe your long ass hours have blinded you? It can't be good for the eyes.

This

Okay let me count.

The Companions: 6
College: 8
Thieves Guild: 12
Dark Brotherhood: 12

It is not at all an exaggeration to say that you don't have to do much at all to complete these guild quests. The entire guild system works on you having an endless supply of radiant quests which are one off things. In the Companions you go kill something somewhere and come back and it's like five minutes with quick travel, maybe ten if you don't have anything close enough unlocked. You can join the College of Winterhold at level one and be the archmagister by level 3. You just do five things and then have a bunch of one off collection missions to fill the gap.

This, because it depends on your play style.

Your playstyle doesn't make the insane number of spelunking quests to kill bandits or find yet another 'puzzle' where it's owl or bird or snake plates and a radial door any different. Your playstyle is how you kill the things between you and yet another spinning door puzzle. The reason the whole stealth archer meme exists is because that was literally the fastest way to get through that stuff.

And this for instance.

Which is accurate? The large majority of side quests and damn near every radiant quest consists of talking to person A, going to location X, and getting thing Y. What those are change or sometimes you'll have to talk to person B after person A. But it still doesn't make for a particularly engaging gameplay loop when your objectives are five ways of doing the same thing. Blood on the Ice and some of the Daedric quests are remembered fondly precisely because they break the monotony of the fetch quest nature of the side quests.

I wasn't trying to call your post shit in general. I was saying that calling it a bad game because you found a lot of it dull yourself when a lot of people didn't, and you provide little in the amount of reasoning that wasn't somewhat exaggerated, had to say it sounded like someone who posts vids on youtube so they can shit on a game.

I think Skyrim is a bad game because it's the melting pot of Bethesda RPG design distilled down into the basics of the basics that was only topped in outright simplicity and poor choices by Fallout 4's entire existence. I don't think Skyrim is bad just because I find it dull or the gameplay/combat actually outright terrible. I could go into what makes Skyrim a bad game and why Bethesda are snake oil salesmen but how much time do you have and do you really care.

Someone being critical of a game doesn't mean they are just doing it to shit on it. And someone not liking something you like doesn't invalidate your opinions. It's okay to be critical of the things you love. I criticize my favorite games with the same intensity I criticize things like Skyrim. I wouldn't be so critical of the studio if I didn't know they could and SHOULD be doing better than they are. Bethesda has not made a truly great game and The Elder Scrolls series is just more disappointing than anything else. I wanted to like Skyrim. I probably did at some point in 2011. I probably did to the point where I bought all the DLC. I wanted to like it so much that it's still installed on my computer and every so often I consider re-installing mods and maybe giving it another shake. And inevitably the same conclusion is reached: "Yeah but will I have fun?"

And the answer is no.

Well the answer is more "Probably for about an hour as I see how I can actually break this thing with all these mods" and then I have a depressed sigh because no amount of awesome lighting and overhaul mods can fix the core experience.

By exaggeration, you're over-blowing the inevitable flaws of the game to make them seem far more crippling than they are, when you could break down any game like that to suit your world view. That's not critical, that's just shit talking, not to mention a straw man fallacy.

Same with literally all of your points. You're complaining about things you don't need to do, or things most games are guilty of. You don't need to break the game and ignore everything else and go to the College of Winterhold. You can defeat enemies in a myriad of ways, find random encounters, do quests I enjoy instead of slaying quests, I can go on all day. Almost all games have

side quests boiled down to talk to person A, go to place, kill x or find y or kill x AND find y then report back to person A for a leveled reward

but then again, no one is making you do those kinds of quests. If you're not into it, get into the story, explore the cities, there's so much more content and there's so many ways to play the game you don't need to do fetch quests, and honestly all of your points can be boiled down to the above. You don't need to do what you don't want to do, if you want to skip over the gameplay by fast traveling or skip the story part by saying 'lol all I gotta do is this' and you honestly don't care about the world or what is happening, you're going to think it's dull just like in anything.

P.S.
And a lot of your word fluff is about 'the dialogue is static.' You could have just said that, but instead just created a blog on that being your point for much of your initial post. And while it's not tehcnically untrue somewhat, it's also not really a good point, as its such a large game (and dare I say province) that people seeing you as a blacksmith and giving a preprogrammed reaction to it is still immersive if you've traveled across 30 in game miles to another settlement you've visited once in the past, and them not knowing you're Dovahkiin isn't that bad of a thing.

I could go into what makes Skyrim a bad game and why Bethesda are snake oil salesmen but how much time do you have and do you really care.

Also many game developers are like that, and it doesn't inherently make Skyrim poorer which is what you're speaking on.

By exaggeration, you're over-blowing the inevitable flaws of the game to make them seem far more crippling than they are, when you could break down any game like that to suit your world view. That's not critical, that's just shit talking, not to mention a straw man fallacy.

It's not shit talking at all. Nor is it a straw man fallacy. You're the one using straw man on my examples here. Straw man occurs in arguments, not from simply voicing an opinion.

You're complaining about things you don't need to do, or things most games are guilty of. You don't need to break the game and ignore everything else and go to the College of Winterhold. You can defeat enemies in a myriad of ways, find random encounters, do quests I enjoy instead of slaying quests, I can go on all day.

I'm complaining about things that are literally core to the fundamental design of the game. Your whole counter point here is "Yeah but you don't HAVE to do that" where my point is that the entire game is built around activities that are not enjoyable to interact with. When the majority of the quests are the fetch quests or the kill X quests, that doesn't refute my claim, it reinforces it since that's what I have issue with in the first place. When the game is advertised as an open world do whatever game and then the do whatever part is shallow, it's an issue with the game.

Almost all games have
<Snipped quote> but then again, no one is making you do those kinds of quests.

Almost all games don't have that but then again the crux here is "Yeah but you don't HAVE to". You should WANT to and Skyrim shines when you don't have it be a guided experience. Except then the shallowness of the game and its design and systems becomes obvious much sooner. The average quest in Skyrim is not memorable because they are shiny distractions that activate the carrot on a stick mentality that is core to Bethesda's design.

If you're not into it, get into the story, explore the cities, there's so much more content and there's so many ways to play the game you don't need to do fetch quests, and honestly all of your points can be boiled down to the above. You don't need to do what you don't want to do, if you want to skip over the gameplay by fast traveling or skip the story part by saying 'lol all I gotta do is this' and you honestly don't care about the world or what is happening, you're going to think it's dull just like in anything.

At some point you have to do SOMETHING, that's the point of a game. What if you're not into the story? Because how could you be when it's badly written and uninteresting? The interesting bits of Skyrim are in its lore which is scattered in books. There isn't that much content that's worth doing. Skyrim deals in quantity but it doesn't have enough quantity to make it a balanced, enjoyable experience. If you're not into the quest, do the story quests which still contain a majority of the type of quest that turns one away from the side content. If you're not into THAT what's left? The combat? Hands down the worst part about the game?

Skipping over the gameplay by fast traveling suggests that the gameplay is the exploration - which is what I said in my first post.

The strong part of Skyrim, which is the strong part of any given Bethesda game, is the big dumb world. Bethesda knows how to make a world that rewards exploration

There is fun to be found in Skyrim, it's just not in the majority of the quests or the guilds which are microcosms of Skyrim's quest issues.

And a lot of your word fluff is about 'the dialogue is static.' You could have just said that, but instead just created a blog on that being your point for much of your initial post. And while it's not tehcnically untrue somewhat, it's also not really a good point, as its such a large game (and dare I say province) that people seeing you as a blacksmith and giving a preprogrammed reaction to it is still immersive if you've traveled across 30 in game miles to another settlement you've visited once in the past, and them not knowing you're Dovahkiin isn't that bad of a thing.

But when you're the Thane of their region and all they do is "Don't cast any spells, magic user" or "Fuck off, elf" it's less immersive. And how immersive is it if you've never been to a place and yet a guard is like "HANDS OFF, THIEF" because your pickpocket skill is high? So they know you're a thief but not the Dragonborn? The world feels incredibly hollow and part of that is how unresponsive it is to the player's actions.

Also many game developers are like that, and it doesn't inherently make Skyrim poorer which is what you're speaking on.

Now who's strawmanning? I didn't say other developers aren't like that. But that doesn't make the claims against Bethesda here any less valid. Skyrim is a functioning dumpster fire of a video game but it's still a dumpster fire. It is a stripped down experience in order to make it more immediately rewarding and less obtuse. Which is fine, it's a good financial decision and makes for a game that is easy to review, but it's like building a house on solid foundation and then using cheap lumber. Or, in the meme sense of the word, it's wide as an ocean but deep as a puddle.

.

2. Have quest givers delay each step in a chain, if applicable, so you don't finish quest lines in less than a day.

There's a mod for that! It's amazing! I'm currently on day 5 of waiting for the "Friend" to contact the DragonBorn. Its lovely.

There are mods for pretty much all of those. Mods sort of make these games greater than the sum of its parts.

It's not shit talking at all. Nor is it a straw man fallacy. You're the one using straw man on my examples here. Straw man occurs in arguments, not from simply voicing an opinion.

You're literally voicing an opinion to make a discussion or argument. That is what we are doing.

I'm complaining about things that are literally core to the fundamental design of the game. Your whole counter point here is "Yeah but you don't HAVE to do that" where my point is that the entire game is built around activities that are not enjoyable to interact with. When the majority of the quests are the fetch quests or the kill X quests, that doesn't refute my claim, it reinforces it since that's what I have issue with in the first place. When the game is advertised as an open world do whatever game and then the do whatever part is shallow, it's an issue with the game.

The core fundamental design of the game is the

big dumb world

and usually in a game there is a learning curve and a few levels you need to grind through before you're more or less free, but as soon as you leave Helgen you have all of skyrim to explore. Skyrim is open ended on how you can complete those quests. It's not open ended because it gives you quests that no one has ever seen (hence why no one has ever seen them), it's how you do it. Dual wielding spells, using different shouts to your tactical advantage, and random encounters in a huge ass world to find them in.

However, so as not to get off point, yes. Many of the quests are fetch or kill quests, but as I said earlier that's not in any way, shape, or form calling Skyrim bad. That's like saying "well in Halo all you do is pull the trigger." As I said, that's exaggerating the flaws to make the game seem like it's worse than it truly is, and you could do it with anything.

Almost all games don't have that but then again the crux here is "Yeah but you don't HAVE to". You should WANT to and Skyrim shines when you don't have it be a guided experience. Except then the shallowness of the game and its design and systems becomes obvious much sooner. The average quest in Skyrim is not memorable because they are shiny distractions that activate the carrot on a stick mentality that is core to Bethesda's design.

At some point you have to do SOMETHING, that's the point of a game. What if you're not into the story? Because how could you be when it's badly written and uninteresting? The interesting bits of Skyrim are in its lore which is scattered in books. There isn't that much content that's worth doing. Skyrim deals in quantity but it doesn't have enough quantity to make it a balanced, enjoyable experience. If you're not into the quest, do the story quests which still contain a majority of the type of quest that turns one away from the side content. If you're not into THAT what's left? The combat? Hands down the worst part about the game?

While I can't say you're wrong because it's simply your opinion on it being uninteresting, I can say the numbers disagree with you. The number of players, the fact that it's been on the top 20 most played games of steam every day for the past 6 years, and all of the rewards it has, and the fact its still selling show it is interesting. If you don't find it interesting, just say that and don't call it inherently bad. I think the lore is Bamf and so do many.

Now who's strawmanning? I didn't say other developers aren't like that. But that doesn't make the claims against Bethesda here any less valid. Skyrim is a functioning dumpster fire of a video game but it's still a dumpster fire. It is a stripped down experience in order to make it more immediately rewarding and less obtuse. Which is fine, it's a good financial decision and makes for a game that is easy to review, but it's like building a house on solid foundation and then using cheap lumber. Or, in the meme sense of the word, it's wide as an ocean but deep as a puddle.

I wasn't straw manning.

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I was simply saying that hit at Bethesda wasn't bringing any merit to the argument when we're talking about the game and not the developer, and if we were, then well, it's good to note that a lot of developers are like that.

So Skyrim was groundbreaking and fun and the mod scene makes it even better and that's great and it was a good game.

If I was going to make it better, I'd build it a little more like Witcher 3. Comparably open world, but what they did was they said "Know what, we're paying professional writers to write professionally, let's make it so that matters." I feel like Witcher 3 gave you some crayons and said "Color in the lines," and the result couldn't fail to be a pretty compelling picture; where Skyrim gave you some wax and some dye and a blank canvas and said "Good luck, maybe smear that into that, and rub it on that, and i dunno kinda looks like a dragon a little?"

There's value to that. I enjoyed doing that. But I enjoyed Witcher more.

<Snipped quote>
You're literally voicing an opinion to make a discussion or argument. That is what we are doing.

It wasn't an argument until you started disagreeing with my opinions, which I'm now backing up. I wasn't making an opinion to start an argument, I was answering the topic at hand. Snipily, sure, but still. I wasn't giving a straw man because there wasn't an argument or debate going on when I posted initially.

The core fundamental design of the game is the and usually in a game there is a learning curve and a few levels you need to grind through before you're more or less free, but as soon as you leave Helgen you have all of skyrim to explore.

Ah, but that IS the learning curve. It introduces you to all three basic trees of Red, Blue, and Green, you probably get a level up or at the very least close to one which imparts how the level up mechanic works, you get your combat tutorial, and even a lesson in stealth with the bear at the end. It's the same thing with Oblivion's intro except Skyrim is mercifully shorter at the expense of having a far longer scripted section with the cart ride and the dragon shit.

Skyrim is not a deep game mechanically which is why Helgen is all a player needs before they understand literally how everything in the game works except maybe speechcraft. But who the fuck needs that, right?

Sidebar: Really want to break your immersion from the start? When you climb the tower right after you get control and Alduin breaks the tower, just don't move and let him burn you.

Skyrim is open ended on how you can complete those quests. It's not open ended because it gives you quests that no one has ever seen (hence why no one has ever seen them), it's how you do it. Dual wielding spells, using different shouts to your tactical advantage, and random encounters in a huge ass world to find them in.

But again, that doesn't forgive the problem that is the quest design as a whole. Being able to kill a bandit leader in a different way doesn't make the experience any more worthwhile the second or third time around. At some point, killing something with a hammer is no different than killing something with double fireballs if the end result is still the same exact three door spinning puzzle with a claw-like thing. It becomes a game of "Bandit, Vampire, or Mage" when you go into a cave and then "Okay how many draugr will there be here? Probably a dragon shout at the end of this then". When you stumble upon some falmer or dwemer shit it's a welcome change because it's something different - which is why the exploration aspect is the most enjoyable bit, especially for a first time through.

But when you've gone through it multiple times, which I'm sure people have, the more glaring shortcuts appear and the exploration no longer has that same appeal. Which is probably when people start doing roleplay runs or specific builds which, admittedly, does add to the game but should I reward the game for making me want to only engage with a specific or minimal amount of its content?

The fundamental Skyrim experience won't change because you decided to be a mage instead of a sword person. Mods do but this is strictly the game as it exists without enhancements.

However, so as not to get off point, yes. Many of the quests are fetch or kill quests, but as I said earlier that's not in any way, shape, or form calling Skyrim bad. That's like saying "well in Halo all you do is pull the trigger." As I said, that's exaggerating the flaws to make the game seem like it's worse than it truly is, and you could do it with anything.

The quests themselves are not the sole factor in why I think Skyrim is a bad game. They are a contributing factor. And you could say that in Halo all you do is pull the trigger but Halo isn't an RPG nor does it have side quests and thus, in the first trilogy anyway, the moment to moment gameplay is different. And it's a fundamentally different argument anyway since this is about flaws (of which Halo has its share as well). But for the sake of argument, you could say the same about Halo that you defend about Skyrim. It's open ended on how you complete a level. You can choose which weapon(s) to use or turn on modifiers for a different experience or even play it with other people but the fundamental experience won't change on repeat runs through the campaign because you'll still have to play through the god damn Library in Halo 1 and you'll still have to fucking play the fucking Cortana level with the fucking Flood in Halo 3.

Skyrim is a sandbox that doesn't have the decency to fill up the box all the way but still tells you to have fun building your whatevers. Some people get a lot of mileage out of that sand but it's still lacking.

While I can't say you're wrong because it's simply your opinion on it being uninteresting, I can say the numbers disagree with you. The number of players, the fact that it's been on the top 20 most played games of steam every day for the past 6 years, and all of the rewards it has, and the fact its still selling show it is interesting. If you don't find it interesting, just say that and don't call it inherently bad. I think the lore is Bamf and so do many.

It's still selling because Bethesda keeps putting it out on consoles and because it's practically free whenever there's a sale going on on Steam. Number of players isn't an argument for quality the same way that a movie being the top grossing movie of a year doesn't mean it's a good movie. There are people that adore Skyrim. There are people that haven't played it. There are people that think Skyrim is the greatest game ever made and they are allowed to think that just the same as I'm allowed to never really go to them for an opinion on something. There are people for whom Skyrim is a meaningful game for a variety of reasons.

Now substitute Skyrim in the above paragraph for Halo or ANY game and it can likely apply.

How many of those people on Steam are playing Skyrim in its vanilla state? How many of them are playing it with the Requiem overhaul which fundamentally changes the entire game down to the combat mechanics? Skyrim with mods vastly improves the experience. Some people play Skyrim to fuck around with weird ass anime porn mods. How many people are still playing Skyrim on the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3? Just because Skyrim is still getting played doesn't mean it's the same Skyrim from 2011.

I do think Skyrim is uninteresting and that's because Bethesda is better at lore (unless it's Fallout which wasn't even theirs to begin with) than they are at storytelling. I'm allowed to think Skyrim is a bad game and I have my reasons for thinking that. My thinking Skyrim is a bad game because the story is uninteresting, though part of it is because of how little is done with its more interesting parts like the Civil War.

I was simply saying that hit at Bethesda wasn't bringing any merit to the argument when we're talking about the game and not the developer, and if we were, then well, it's good to note that a lot of developers are like that.

It does bring merit because Bethesda style games are basically in their own genre within the larger WRPG genre the same way that 'Ubisoft open world' is basically its own thing that constantly gets derided because it's climbing towers. Bethesda has proven with just its last two releases alone (Fallout 4, Skyrim) that they're less about compelling gameplay experiences and more about giving the idea that there's a lot to do when there actually isn't. Fallout 4's settlement shit is just Skyrim's radiant quests. Skyrim got rid of a lot of the more systems and crafting mechanics of Oblivion which already gutted spell crafting and such compared to Morrowind; Fallout 4 got rid of entire systems to make everything homogeneous and remove player agency. Bethesda pulls the wool over the eyes of the consumer with the promise of open world freedom and then they forget to craft a reason to care about or invest yourself in the world.

They make their games to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and in so doing sacrifice a lot of actual, genuine, true player choice and freedom.

Skyrim is the Bethesda version of No Man's Sky.

The quests and guilds are rather dull, unless they make a picking random flowers guild than you being guild master will never make sense. There are good quests sure but none of them have any real impact. Slay Alduin and most won't even notice a difference. Have the NPCs react to what you do even if it's major milestones. But don't worry mods will fix everything wrong with the game.

It wasn't an argument until you started disagreeing with my opinions, which I'm now backing up. I wasn't making an opinion to start an argument, I was answering the topic at hand. Snipily, sure, but still. I wasn't giving a straw man because there wasn't an argument or debate going on when I posted initially.

Right, but now we are discussing it, and the points made after we started are being used.

Ah, but that IS the learning curve. It introduces you to all three basic trees of Red, Blue, and Green, you probably get a level up or at the very least close to one which imparts how the level up mechanic works, you get your combat tutorial, and even a lesson in stealth with the bear at the end. It's the same thing with Oblivion's intro except Skyrim is mercifully shorter at the expense of having a far longer scripted section with the cart ride and the dragon shit.

Skyrim is not a deep game mechanically which is why Helgen is all a player needs before they understand literally how everything in the game works except maybe speechcraft. But who the fuck needs that, right?

Sidebar: Really want to break your immersion from the start? When you climb the tower right after you get control and Alduin breaks the tower, just don't move and let him burn you.

Most games from my experience have far more of a linear story line to the gameplay, particularly in the beginning, and Helgen is very very short compared to breaking out of Oblivion's prison for instance (which you did acknowledge) so I suppose it's a much shorter learning curve, you're correct on that. Though it only explores the basics and doesn't go into smithing or riding horses or shouts or soul gems or what is effective against different beasts unless you happen to find the right people/trainer for that later on, which a lot of games just hand feed you. (Though if you decide to go straight for the Civil War quests, it does help. Like the Blacksmith ready to help teach you once you reach Riverwood).

But again, that doesn't forgive the problem that is the quest design as a whole. Being able to kill a bandit leader in a different way doesn't make the experience any more worthwhile the second or third time around.

Yes it does. You can assassinate him with a well placed bowshot. You can sneak in and shout him off the walls to fall to his death. You can be open about it in combat. You can cast a spell to summon something that wreaks havoc in the base to distract him or the guards. It takes multiple playthroughs to get tired of it for many. Particularly if you've explored everything and the newly randomized encounters or even set enemies seem new the 2nd or 3rd time because...well you've explored everything and can't remember half of it. (Saw the rest of your section of the post, I just replied and didn't quote the rest because it might confuse me/you).

It's still selling because Bethesda keeps putting it out on consoles and because it's practically free whenever there's a sale going on on Steam. Number of players isn't an argument for quality the same way that a movie being the top grossing movie of a year doesn't mean it's a good movie. There are people that adore Skyrim. There are people that haven't played it. There are people that think Skyrim is the greatest game ever made and they are allowed to think that just the same as I'm allowed to never really go to them for an opinion on something. There are people for whom Skyrim is a meaningful game for a variety of reasons.

Now substitute Skyrim in the above paragraph for Halo or ANY game and it can likely apply.

Not true. There isn't 'any game' that has those kinds of numbers or statistics. And even taking away mods, it would still be more played than most games out there. And re-releasing it on other platforms let's people play it...because they want to. Because they like it. There are only a handful of games in the world that could claim to be as well sold or as frequently played as Skyrim. And even if it has some free to play sometimes, an everyday statistic is far more than can be accounted for that as reasoning.

The quests themselves are not the sole factor in why I think Skyrim is a bad game. They are a contributing factor. And you could say that in Halo all you do is pull the trigger but Halo isn't an RPG nor does it have side quests and thus, in the first trilogy anyway, the moment to moment gameplay is different. And it's a fundamentally different argument anyway since this is about flaws (of which Halo has its share as well). But for the sake of argument, you could say the same about Halo that you defend about Skyrim. It's open ended on how you complete a level. You can choose which weapon(s) to use or turn on modifiers for a different experience or even play it with other people but the fundamental experience won't change on repeat runs through the campaign because you'll still have to play through the god damn Library in Halo 1 and you'll still have to fucking play the fucking Cortana level with the fucking Flood in Halo 3.

Skyrim is a sandbox that doesn't have the decency to fill up the box all the way but still tells you to have fun building your whatevers. Some people get a lot of mileage out of that sand but it's still lacking.

But Halo is constricted by levels (that have no different biomes or random enemies and encounters) and actual static dialogue, with no open ended anything, with even more limited game mechanics that in turn limits the scenarios in which you beat it, and without a myriad of different things an RPG has.

I do think Skyrim is uninteresting and that's because Bethesda is better at lore (unless it's Fallout which wasn't even theirs to begin with) than they are at storytelling. I'm allowed to think Skyrim is a bad game and I have my reasons for thinking that. My thinking Skyrim is a bad game because the story is uninteresting, though part of it is because of how little is done with its more interesting parts like the Civil War.

You're definitely allowed to say it's a bad game. And I definitely agree that Bethesda's lore is better than it's storytelling. I think the same on Game of Thrones/ASOIAF stuff too. Some series are better at lore than getting you through their own adventure. However you're saying it's a bad game through reasoning I think you can use for a lot of different things to make them sound bad.

From your entire set of posts, I can tell that you don't find Skyrim immersive (which you did say plainly, bear with me), which is what is needed in order to enjoy a game. A lot of people find it very immersive. You have approached Skyrim with an "A+B=C" kind of outlook, when every game can be reduced to that and seem dull. You might be serious and if you don't find it immersive, then that's your right. But a lot of internet trolls use that kind of logic to just shit on a game to be alternative.

Not saying you are, like I underlined. But that was why I initially said "might have watched too many angry game reviewers" which also didn't inherently mean I completely disagreed with your initial post.

It does bring merit because Bethesda style games are basically in their own genre within the larger WRPG genre the same way that 'Ubisoft open world' is basically its own thing that constantly gets derided because it's climbing towers. Bethesda has proven with just its last two releases alone (Fallout 4, Skyrim) that they're less about compelling gameplay experiences and more about giving the idea that there's a lot to do when there actually isn't. Fallout 4's settlement shit is just Skyrim's radiant quests. Skyrim got rid of a lot of the more systems and crafting mechanics of Oblivion which already gutted spell crafting and such compared to Morrowind; Fallout 4 got rid of entire systems to make everything homogeneous and remove player agency. Bethesda pulls the wool over the eyes of the consumer with the promise of open world freedom and then they forget to craft a reason to care about or invest yourself in the world.

They make their games to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and in so doing sacrifice a lot of actual, genuine, true player choice and freedom.

Skyrim is the Bethesda version of No Man's Sky.

I still don't completely understand exactly why we're talking about Bethesda as a whole, but I will say yes. Bethesda brags about things in the same way Fable famously bragged all those years about it's 'freedom/realstic world' gameplay, they leave bugs, and use some gimmicks to distract players. Totally. I really enjoy Bethesda games but I'm not a blind follower of them.

Also I've not played No Man's Sky. (Googles). Damn it got a 5/10 on steam, and at best 7/10 everywhere else.