The Dangers of Abundant Praise - Skyrim thread

[Sharp Blue]

I get the soulless comment, my least favourite part so far has been the Mages Collage, I started their questline because I needed a way into Saarthaal, three quests later I am the Archmage, I rarely used magic in those three quests and now I am the ARCHMAGE? I know this is probabily a way to let players feel a sense of achievement, but I am probabily the most under qualified Archmage EVER, also I the ARCHMAGE have to go on a fetch quest given by a collage member to get some guy's staff? That was really silly. I now understand why the previous Archmage used to just stand in the courtyard.

What I do like However is how my charicter who used to be a sword swinging barbarian seemed to adjust so smoothly to sneeking and throught slitting. Sneaking completely unnoticed through entire camps of forswarn murdering everything without anyone noticing is pretty emersive. Certain parts of the game were certainly better made but what can you expect from a game as vast as Skyrim? That said I sigh every time I enter a crypt full of Drauger, I know this is where they are supposed to be and sometimes there are other things with them in the crypt like the bandits in Bleak Stone Burrow but with Drauger I get the same feeling I get when I see the the words: "A wild Magicarp apeared", I prefer fighting mudcrabs.

A mistake I think Bethesda made is making super weapons so plentiful, I remember in Oblivion I once found a suit of rare armour it was orange with gold eagles on the shoulders. That was the coolest piece of armour ever, it wasn't even enchanted, it just looked different than the armour anyone else ever wore, I kept it on even when it became uselessly outdated. I still love that armour but in Skyrim it seems that every bandit and necromancer could have a super ultra enchanted item if they wanted. This I feel removes the feeling of having achieved something by making what I do achieve seem irelevant.

Overall I am still loving Skyrim even with all its flaws and bugs.

PS. you guys should check out the bugs in jars mystery and see if that doesn't put purpose back into your games.

 

[Thespian]

Dear lord, some gamers must just go buy a game, throw in the disc, sit still, and wait for something to motivate them to play it. You decided to buy it, you must have hopes that it will be fun. You don't need a narrative reason for everything in a game. This doesn't mean games are becoming mindless, elaborate versions of Pong. Once you elect to do a quest, then you enter a little storylet that is engaging to experience. Skyrim won't encourage you to pick a quest much in the way that a book of short stories doesn't end each tale with a convincing argument as to why you should read the next one. Turn the damn pages yourself, people.

Besides, Skyrim gives context in it's own right. People need to realize that games aren't movies, or books. You have no motivation for adventuring or exploring? Look over there. See that mountain? You can just fucking walk to it. Who knows what's there. Who knows what's on the way? Oh, I know. A tribe of giants, a fortress of necromancers, an enclave of vampires, a band of orcs, a hungry dragon, a village plagued by nightmares. What's that, the undead soldiers are unharmed by your attacks? You should find better destruction magic in that college... Halfway across the map. And now you've found a questline.

Just because you don't have anyone falling at your feet shouting tales of woe and mystery doesn't mean the game is mindless. That is not the only form of engagement when it comes to story-telling.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

I have a long list of problems with the game, but I am definitely on the pro-Skyrim side of this argument, and the reason is the freedom and organic feel of the world. It gives me a world I can explore at my leisure, and no shortage of interesting things to see and do. And, most importantly to me, these things happen ORGANICALLY: they are not scripted, one-time events that happen the same way every time. They arise out of the game's carefully crafted system of mechanics and depend - at least partially - on the player's actions. These events might not be anything special on their own; as impressive as the system of mechanics I just mentioned is, it can't come close to the crafted chain of cause and effect that constitutes the storyline of a novel or film, and you would be crazy to expect it to be. But in exchange you get the thrill of knowing that it didn't HAVE to happen like that. It wasn't scripted. And when you bring your own imagination to it, it's even better.

As an example: I'm typing this while my brother plays Skyrim in the same room. Two minutes ago as I typed the last paragraph, he was walking his character down the road when a group of Thalmor soldiers approached. Being a true Nord who despises the Thalmor, he decided to kill them. He charged up a firestorm spell and held it for a few seconds. "Walk away!" cried the nearest Thalmor, and then the Nord released the spell and battle ensued. He killed them all and piled them behind a rock out of sight of the road. This was an event that didn't need to happen. It wasn't part of a story that Bethesda wrote and rail-roaded the player into. It just turned out that way.

That's the main thing I love about TES.

There's one more thing I want to say in response to the OP and that's about SETTING. The OP seems to think the "context" (to use Yahtzee's term) of Skyrim is lacking: the quest lines, the dialogue, the characters. I can't argue with this. I overlook it to some extent because, as others have said, it's not the main area Bethesda have chosen to focus on, and if I want those things I'll turn to a different game, but I agree there is plenty of room for improvement in those areas. But what about the other aspect of context? Setting. TES games have always had a rich, detailed, beautifully realised and painstakingly fleshed out setting. I'm not talking purely about the pretty mountains and forests either. I mean the history, the lore, the politics and the different nations and factions. I got a huge amount of satisfaction from piecing together what had happened in the world of TES in the 200 years since Oblivion, through talking to NPCs, reading books and overhearing conversations. I think the game deserves some recognition for this aspect.

 

[Ninjat_126]

Could this be the beginning of the conditioning of a whole new generation of gamers? A generation that does not need genuine reasons, ambiguities, subtleties, only clear targets and shiny loot? A murdering, looting mass of magpies...of the Dovahkiin variety.

Probably not.

Now I'm a few years behind, I've just been replaying Fallout 3 and have never played Skyrim or an Elder Scrolls game. Still, all the time I've been playing Fallout 3, I've been thinking "Wow, this game would be brilliant if it was better written. I'm not talking story, I'm talking dialogue. Like at the Reilly's Rangers base, it feels like there should be more content there than there actually is, even just the option to get into a conversation. Fawkes was awesome when I first met him, but after being companioned by him for a few hours, he just got on my nerves since he was saying the same 5/6 lines over and over again.

Even the dialogue options have little impact- the difference between saying "No way, go fuck yourself" and "No thanks, I'm fine" is little more than a karma hit and possibly missing out on a discount or item. There's hundreds of ways to do everything, but in the end it's the same thing that gets done, and your Lone Wanderer remains a blank slate somewhere between the extremes of Mother Teresa and Baby Eating.

So from my limited experience, RPGs like Skyrim and Fallout 3 do seem a little lacking in actual role-playing and characterisation.

 

[nackertash]

Im probably not the first to say this and im probably not the last. But TES looks like its gonna go the same way as Call of Duty.
Even follows the same pattern sorta. First three games see good sales and establish the series. Fourth game extremely popular. Copy/paste the game annually (I know TES isnt annual... yet) for infinite moniez. I really really hope this doesn't happen.

EDIT:
I mean this in the sense that it seems to follow the same formula in terms of gameplay. Reflexiv gameplay, little planning, potentially played for many hours, doesn't require much thinking etc.

 

[badgersprite]

I always find it amusing when people have to justify their opinions by resorting to the old, "I'm the only intelligent person on the planet, and the only possible reason people could like something I dislike is because they're mindless, stupid, gullible morons with incredibly low standards."

Did it ever occur to you that video games, like any other artistic medium, and in fact more so than any other artistic medium, are highly subjective things that other people are likely to have a vastly different experience with than the experience you had?

One person might see an incredibly shallow, empty game that has nothing more to it than, "Go here, do that," repeated ad nauseum, while someone else might find a very rich and liberating world that's brought to life by a wealth of political, historical and socioeconomic context and lore that gives every aspect of the game a deeper meaning.

Just because you don't see that side of the game doesn't make the people who have fun with Skyrim stupid, just the same as you not seeing or being interested in that aspect of the game doesn't make you a stupid person, either. It just makes us different people coming to the game with different perspectives and tastes and thresholds for different things.

Now, you don't have to like Skyrim. No one is saying you have to like games you dislike. I just want you to be a little bit aware of the fact that there's room for different types of games and that people who just want to have fun playing in their sandbox and got a damn good sandbox in the form of Skyrim shouldn't be dismissed as idiots or as the downfall of civilisation. Really, that's like saying no action or horror movies should ever be highly regarded or highly praised because those movies aren't Citizen Kane, and therefore people taking pleasure in something like Die Hard or The Hitcher must be morons for watching those movies.

What people do for a pastime, i.e. to escape from the stresses and pressures of real life, isn't indicative of intelligence. All it tells you is how different people like to relax and unwind. People who like sandboxes like Skyrim might just be a different group of people with different interests than your classical CRPG purists. Different things that different people find entertaining. Just like some people like basketball and some people like cricket.

 

[Terminate421]

For the love of god, can people stop complaining about Skyrim?! No game is perfect, and Skyrim is no exception.

 

[6_Qubed]

On the topic of stealth; Stealth is my primary play style. However, I like my stealth to be predatory; The first shout I fully mastered was Throw Voice, and I used it with gusto every time I needed to line up a shot or do a quick head-count of the surrounding territory. I use poisons whenever I can, I never have enough Imp Stool or River Betty in my alchemy stash, and I was genuinely mad at that one miscellaneous quest that involved picking up sixty Damage Health ingredients, because I could've used them myself. The Dark Brotherhood questline was the first I completed, and my primary strategy in draugr-infested tombs is to stealthmonster everything before it wakes up.

...And yet I distinctly remember one occasion about twenty levels back where I spotted a dragon flying overhead just as I exited a riverside cavern. I didn't have room in my inventory for the scales and bones the ancient creature would surely deliver upon its death, but more importantly my invisibility and health potions- not to mention my various poisons- were running dangerously low. I would not survive a fight with this beast and I was also in broad daylight to boot. Fortunately there was an outcropping of large rocks nearby, and the sun was hitting them just right to provide a generously large shadow.

That image is still stuck in my mind of the Listener, arguably the deadliest Breton in Skyrim, cowering in a rock's shadow like a frightened rabbit.

Stealth may be overpowered but stealth alone won't win this game for you.

 

[Manji187]

The Escapist's own Dennis Scimeca called Skyrim soulless: it doesn't give a shit about who you are or what you have done.

User "Vault101" says in his thread that the game makes him feel there's no reason to do anything ("Why am I wandering around adventuring?") and that all the quest-givers are more than happy to burden you with requests even though you are technically a stranger and they therefore have no reason to trust you.

User "Anthraxus" says that Skyrim relishes in shallow, mindless violence and presents it as the predominant solution to almost all problems.

And so on.

So the picture that emerges is one of a game that, at its core, fails utterly in the role-playing department.

And yet, it is praised into the sky (no pun intended). If its gameplay alone (never mind the bugs) can create such addiction/ compulsion in gamers that they're perfectly fine with Skyrims failed core...then Skyrim is just a very efficient Skinner box.

The danger is that Bethesda, inspired by sales and overzealous fans, will draw the wrong conclusion; that for TES VI it just has to provide an improved Skinner box...that it can leave out the role-playing entirely if gameplay is addictive enough.

The message is: "Don't think too deep/ hard about the details, just play play play...kill this, loot that, another cave, another dungeon...craft, kill, loot, stash away, ad infinitum ad nauseam (ie and so on forever). Are we having (mindless) fun yet?"

Could this be the beginning of the conditioning of a whole new generation of gamers? A generation that does not need genuine reasons, ambiguities, subtleties, only clear targets and shiny loot? A murdering, looting mass of magpies...of the Dovahkiin variety.

Maybe I'm missing the point but as a softcore RPG player it always seemed to me that roleplaying was at it's core killing and looting. I assume there are other aspects to consider but gameplaywise that hasn't changed for as far as I can cast my memory back. So new generation: no, I don't really think so. As an RPG Skyrim may not be evolving in a manner of your preference but I don't think it is dumbing down RPGs. If anything Skyrim is too similar to it's predecessors.

I would like to know exactly what you are using as a point of comparison.

If roleplaying would be strictly limited to selecting gender, race, physical appearance and acquiring proficiencies in various areas in order to kill hordes of enemies and loot countless dungeons, then Skyrim gets a gold medal.

However, there is no way for me to actually express my character as I truly see him/ her: dialogue options are either limited (resembling Mass Effect's Paragon/ Renegade divide) or absent and rarely are there alternate completion paths for quests that could visibly indicate the nature of my character (honourable, cunning, devious etc); the overwhelming majority is of a "do as you are told, thanks, here's your reward, now piss off" variety.

I have to fill in too many blanks with my imagination; i.e. constantly narrate to myself without the game helping me. Some people tend to construe this as a lack of imagination on my part but it is equally possible to construe this as the game not being designed to provide sufficient means to actually roleplay. Apparently I am what I look like and what I do (never mind what I actually think or how I do things...or why). I could join all manner of factions...but what if I intended to infiltrate them, snatch their secrets and sell em and cause internal strife between the members before assassinating their leader and frame someone else for it? Nope, not possible...just follow the indicated lines. What I am saying is: the structures are too rigid, my influence on them is non-existent.

Also, roleplaying is two-way, you interact with the world and vice versa. In Skyrim you do the predominant part of the interacting....the world, not so much. You could be Jesus reborn and have performed miracles beyond any NPC's imagination and NOBODY will have heard of you, let alone care. Like Dennis Scimeca has shown: you can change some NPC's situation profoundly and they'll go on as if nothing happened. Lazy, very lazy design. If I am so damn important and can influence the world, the world should acknowledge my existance and actions through speech and action of its own. Also: I am the only mute character (except for when I grunt in pain or shout "thu'ums") in the game, does that mean I speak in sign language or perhaps I'm telepathic? I admit, it is ultimately understandable from a technical perspective.

I can wear all kinds of armour/ weapons, use all kinds of magic, slay all kinds of foes, join all kinds of clubs...but I can not be "my own person" with the help of the game. In all instances that truly matter, I must do ALL the work with my mind.

Skyrim places too much emphasis on action and appearance; it doesn't give a shit about the player's actual motivations or morality but pretends to offer depth through its rigid structures, which are linear/ sequential and mostly static: i.e. a list of chores you work through, chores that ultimately do not influence anything.

To me Skyrim feels like one of those painted optical illusions; looks 3D (has depth) but on closer inspection is 2D (lacking real depth). But it is shiny and action-packed.

Point of comparison: older games like Fallout 1 and 2, Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape: Torment and Deus Ex 1.

 

[Manji187]

Could this be the beginning of the conditioning of a whole new generation of gamers? A generation that does not need genuine reasons, ambiguities, subtleties, only clear targets and shiny loot? A murdering, looting mass of magpies...of the Dovahkiin variety.

Even the dialogue options have little impact- the difference between saying "No way, go fuck yourself" and "No thanks, I'm fine" is little more than a karma hit and possibly missing out on a discount or item. There's hundreds of ways to do everything, but in the end it's the same thing that gets done, and your Lone Wanderer remains a blank slate somewhere between the extremes of Mother Teresa and Baby Eating.

So from my limited experience, RPGs like Skyrim and Fallout 3 do seem a little lacking in actual role-playing and characterisation.

That is indeed the major problem of contemporary "RPGs" that, more often than not, get the prefix "action". Soon we'll be playing hack & slashers and calling em RPGs because you can level up and invest skill points in your hacking and slashing moves...

 

[Anthony Wells]

That's like handing someone a sheaf of blank paper and a pen and calling it a book. Then when they point out that there's nothing written in it you say, "Jeez dummy, are you too brain-dead fill in the gaps with you imagination?"

Again, since when do you read a book to get a role-playing experience. You read books to experience a narrative, not to actively take part in it.

Back in the days of D&D, what you described was pretty much what happened: you were given a sheet of paper, a couple of dice, and had to do all the legwork from there. That was roleplaying. If you weren't able to fill in the blank sheet of paper with details of your character/the setting/ etc, then it was because you were too braindead to roleplay properly.

Skyrim is exactly the same kind of experience as Dungeons And Dragons, except with pixels to help visualise everything. People didn't get into D&D because they wanted to read the latest fantasy story, or experience the greatest fantasy tragedy, or witness the greatest fantasy battle. That's what books like Lord Of The Rings and A Song Of Ice And Fire are for. Role-playing exists to allow you to create your own adventures, and that is something that the Elder Scrolls has done ever since the first instalment.

If my imagination is doing all the work, what do I need the game for? Because there is no way to express any imagination through the game. The closest you can come to role-playing is choosing how to decorate your house. The dialogue certainly doesn't allow for anything of the sort. The only options available are 'wander the land helping assorted strangers' or 'wander the land murdering assorted strangers'.

Your imagination doesn't have to do all the work. The game is there to provide the visual element, to inform you of the world, the setting and the characters. However, as with all roleplaying since D&D, it is up to you the player to create your own motivations, your own goals, and your own backstory. The game cannot do everything. Part of the appeal of role-playing is the thrill of creating your own character and injecting it into a new world. If this character is going to be your character, then the game has to relinquish some of the work to you. The game cannot tell you everything about your character, otherwise the character ceases to be yours, and simply becomes the game's character instead. And for a game that is essentially trying to be the virtual equivalent of a D&D session, that is absolutely anathema.

You seem a little naive of how much effort it requires to make a game. It's quite true to say that with Skyrim, Bethesda pulled off a Herculean task. They created an entire country, riddled with cities, towns and villages, populated it with characters, then filled that country with caves to explore, quests to achieve and secrets to discover. Quite simply, Bethesda did just about everything they could have done with the technology currently available. Claiming that they should not only have created Skyrim in its entirety, given you all the available quests and side-quests to achieve, but also allowed you more options than the one presented is simply hopelessly naive. The game already offers you a stupendous amount of choice regarding how to play. What more do you want? There is no third option between 'murdering a stranger' and 'not murdering a stranger' as you so put it. You either murder someone or you don't. What other options do you want?

this guy right here man. I agree completely. and Skyrim does have deep story...i'm not thinking about what will have the best ending when i make a decision...i think about what my person...as a character would choose to do in that situation. THAT is true roelplaying..something that makes you think and imagine yourself in your characters shoes. thats a well made rpg in my opinion. not one that is needlessly coplex to flesh out a characters stats.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

You display the worst trait that people have of video game criticism, you provide a problem, but dont offer a solution. In fact you compile other peoples ideas and thoughts, without a counter arguement, and take it as solid fact, excentuating it to an extreme level, and then painting a rediculous picture and try and rub that in peoples faces in some sort of accusing manor, that skyrim fans are ruining the future of gaming.

Also if you don't like it, don't play it. You mention about playing for 500 hours. I think that's a good life for a game, before you no longer want to play. But if you get to the point where you no longer want to play it, because you lack the imagination to carry on, don't then turn spitefull and attack the fans who still enjoy the game and want to play, because seriously, what is that trying to acheive?

And for these reasons I think you arguement as poor and misguided, and would like to see actual examples of shortfalls, rather than just other peoples opinions as an attempt of evidence before I respond to the actual matter at hand.

 

[Vault101]

The Escapist's own Dennis Scimeca called Skyrim soulless: it doesn't give a shit about who you are or what you have done.

User "Vault101" says in his thread that the game makes him feel there's no reason to do anything ("Why am I wandering around adventuring?") and that all the quest-givers are more than happy to burden you with requests even though you are technically a stranger and they therefore have no reason to trust you.

User "Anthraxus" says that Skyrim relishes in shallow, mindless violence and presents it as the predominant solution to almost all problems.

And so on.

So the picture that emerges is one of a game that, at its core, fails utterly in the role-playing department.

And yet, it is praised into the sky (no pun intended). If its gameplay alone (never mind the bugs) can create such addiction/ compulsion in gamers that they're perfectly fine with Skyrims failed core...then Skyrim is just a very efficient Skinner box.

The danger is that Bethesda, inspired by sales and overzealous fans, will draw the wrong conclusion; that for TES VI it just has to provide an improved Skinner box...that it can leave out the role-playing entirely if gameplay is addictive enough.

The message is: "Don't think too deep/ hard about the details, just play play play...kill this, loot that, another cave, another dungeon...craft, kill, loot, stash away, ad infinitum ad nauseam (ie and so on forever). Are we having (mindless) fun yet?"

Could this be the beginning of the conditioning of a whole new generation of gamers? A generation that does not need genuine reasons, ambiguities, subtleties, only clear targets and shiny loot? A murdering, looting mass of magpies...of the Dovahkiin variety.

oh hey...thanks for the mention

to be honest though this is exactally what I expected from Skyrim..in both the actual game and how it was received

basically its oblivion all over again...well received..but for some people (me included) gaping holes that make it really fall flat, BUT for others those elements are why they love the game..its a grey area definetly

so in other words Im not surprised its praised, and Im not surprised people have problems with it

It always astounds me that people presumably with a perfectly straight face come out with comments like isnt realistic the npc doesnt even know me but he wants me to get the magic toothbrush from the creepy bandit cave, yet all the while completely ignoring the fact you can shoot fire from your hands and shout people to death. its not a game about realism or a deep plot with important characters in all honestly role playing game is very much the wrong catagory for the most part its an action adventure explortation dragon fighting monster slaying simulator.

"its a fantasy game" is hardly an excuse for people doing things that make no logical sense (which hurt my imersion..YES Im using that word dammit) again its a personal thing, and its part of the reason Im almost becoming bored with skyrim..only after a few days, its not about realism at all

and again I find it interesting that you described it as "explortation dragon fighting monster slaying simulator"

which is another way of saying "why?....because its a fantasy RPG..THATS why" which is fine for alot of people I supose

but personally I dont think they should be getting a free pass for that, now the real question is can you do aomthing with that..without affect the freedom everyone loves? mabye...fallout 3 worked for me...

but yeah, I dont know

 

[Vault101]

To me, as someone who grew up in the 80's loving old school d&d, the IDEA behind Bethesda's games is good, but it's the execution that's terrible. Obsidian showed with NV, that it is possible to have an open world game with interesting plots/characters/writing and different ways of going about playing it. Will Beth ever learn, or do they even care ?? Idk. All they probably care about is the sales figures.

Just like Zhukov said, it's all about quantity over quality with Beth.

yeah..I get the feeling bethedesa is getting a free pass with this stuff..mabye that isnt a bad thing, but its annoying thing because I would like to be able to enjoy thease games a little more (like I did with fallout 3 and NV)

 

[Manji187]

You display the worst trait that people have of video game criticism, you provide a problem, but dont offer a solution. In fact you compile other peoples ideas and thoughts, without a counter arguement, and take it as solid fact, excentuating it to an extreme level, and then painting a rediculous picture and try and rub that in peoples faces in some sort of accusing manor, that skyrim fans are ruining the future of gaming.

Also if you don't like it, don't play it. You mention about playing for 500 hours. I think that's a good life for a game, before you no longer want to play. But if you get to the point where you no longer want to play it, because you lack the imagination to carry on, don't then turn spitefull and attack the fans who still enjoy the game and want to play, because seriously, what is that trying to acheive?

And for these reasons I think you arguement as poor and misguided, and would like to see actual examples of shortfalls, rather than just other peoples opinions as an attempt of evidence before I respond to the actual matter at hand.

I present the problem for people to think about and form their own opinions. Perhaps wiser people can come up with a solution.

I admit the language I used is not exactly neutral but there really is no need to read all kinds of insinuations into it. Unless of course you believe you have completely figured me out as a person just by reading a few lines of text on an internet forum. Your assumptions are more revealing about you.

Are you telling me there is no merit in Dennis Scimeca's opinion, which is substantiated by argument? Go read it for yourself: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/firstperson/9265-Skyrim-is-Soulless

"Actual" examples of shortfalls...is that shorthand for examples that confirm your own beliefs/ opinions? "Don't like, don't play". How does this "argument" help game franchises to grow/ evolve? Are all critics supposed to be either full of praise or shut the hell up?

 

[Manji187]

Of course Skyrim has terrible role-playing. You can't role-play on computer games, unless you're generic enough that the arc of your character was thought up by the developers. Want role-playing, come on over to the tabletop. Other than that, as a representative of the most procedural parts of tabletop RPGs, yes Skyrim copies those effectively and has enough detail added to the world to make it an effective time-sink.

You know, table-top has started to sound very appealing to me. I'm already into Magic the Gathering (EDH/Commander only though)...so the next logical step does seem something like D&D.

 

[Legendsmith]

I agree with OP, as detailed here. [www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.336533-Skyrim-shouldnt-be-classified-as-an-RPG-Discuss]

 

[Fishyash]

The message is: "Don't think too deep/ hard about the details, just play play play...kill this, loot that, another cave, another dungeon...craft, kill, loot, stash away, ad infinitum ad nauseam (ie and so on forever). Are we having (mindless) fun yet?"

There are plenty of details within the game, but it isn't shoved into your face like most RPGs do. I do think they could have integrated all the lore into the game a little better, on the other hand though, lots of gamers couldn't care less about the lore.

But either way, have you even played the game? Have you read the books? The elder scrolls universe is massive and interactive. There is very little scripting, which is a breath of fresh air compared to most games that focus on a linear story with the occasional "big story-changing choice".

Skyrim is not a story, it is a canvas. You mould your character around the world and you roleplay it with your ACTIONS rather than your DIALOGUE CHOICES.

It's an RPG, but since video games have never been able to get the best of both worlds, it focuses on a different aspect of roleplaying.

EDIT: Not to say your criticisms aren't valid, they perfectly are.