Alright, so Brian's arguement is basically stating that when you compare Skyrim to Zelda, that Zelda is superior. I have a lot of beef with that.
So anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot? Grow up. Skyrim's merits are open to discussion and as much as I like the game, it falls short of providing freedom and variety.
1) You can't compare two games that aren't apart of the same Genre. Zelda is a more action oritened RPG with a linear adventure, having quest picked up along the way. Skyrim, from the start, you have freedom - PURE Freedom. An RPG based around a depth of Lore and exploration that only Zelda fans could DREAM about.
Uh, how is Skyrim's gameplay open or free? Sure, you can pick any race, give it any face you want and use any equipment you want, but at the end of the day, these are mostly cosmetic choices that do not affect gameplay significantly. Quest design? Please. Apart from the random quest generator (which isn't anything to boast about, STALKER games had the same FedEx random quests, and that's just the most recent example), Skyrim is painfully linear and forces the player to perform very specific series of steps in the correct sequence. Can you bypass any stage of the main quest? Can you make a choice that takes the questline in a different direction (eg. with the Dark Brotherhood or Thieves Guild)? Can you make ANY choice, in fact? Apart from changing the banner you fight for, Ulfric or Tallius?
Skyrim provides a nice setting, but fails to capitalize on the richness of the province lore and the potential provided by the conflicts in the area (Forsworn-Nords, Nords-Thalmor, Thalmor-Empire, Empire-Ulfric etc.).
2) Zelda is a another Mario-type. How many times, different ways can you save the princess? (that should be the title of the new Zelda.) Although you play a strong hero(ine)(OR Villian even, do that Zelda..) in Skyrim, the main plot in EVERY elder scrolls has been different. Never have you had to continously kill Dagon, or walk in the depths of Oblivion, or kill a Dragon in every game.
The main antagonist in Morrowind is Lord Voryn Dagoth of House Dagoth, not Mehrunes Dagon.
Your argument is also self-contradicting. You're stating that Zelda series' plot is of the same type in every game (save x), while consciously ignoring that the same simplification can be applied to the TES series, where every plot is of the "kill x" variety. No matter whether it's Dagoth Ur, Mehrunes Dagon or Alduin, you're still the good hero killing the bad villain.
3) The Elder Scrolls carries more of a mature theme as Zelda has always been a kiddish-type of feature, made for anyone. You're basically, in lamen terms, comparing an advlts game, to a child's game. That's like comparing Left 4 Dead to Pok'e mon. Come on....
I can't speak for Zelda, but The Elder Scrolls a mature series? I can agree about Daggerfall and Morrowind, but Oblivion and Skyrim? Oblivion is generic black-and-white fantasy, while Skyrim... Skyrim tries to incorporate mature themes, like genocide (both physical and cultural), imperialism, slavery, politics etc., but falls short of providing any kind of social commentary or food for thought. Compare that to Deus Ex series, which focus on sociological, economical and political effects of human augmentation, government types, corporate expansion etc. Or New Vegas, which uses the post-apocalyptic backdrop of the Mojave to explore topics of human survival, conflict, politics, religion etc., all in a very mature and very thought provoking way. Even Morrowind, with the Nerevarine plot asked a lot of questions about fate, politics, religion and absolute forms of government.
Skyrim? Sorry, no dice.