On one hand we have food recipes which are another kind of potion making.
On one hand we have shouts which are another kind of magic.
On one hand we have stones which are another kind of enchanting.
On one hand we have skills-of-three that are another kind of overpowered items or unlimited skill buffs.

On the other hand we have far less spells
On the other hand we have far less potion effects
On the other hand we have far less enchantments
On the other hand we have far less weapons / apparel types

Plus all the other design choices like number of quests vs quest quality / length or very limited effect of one's quest decisions on the game world or many other things. Even the UI is simplifying.

I thought the average gamer age was above 30. And I also didn't think he was also an idiot redneck as the above suggests. (Edited out because ppl were just commenting this sentence) Instead: I always assumed that 30ish gamers preferred to have more options on how to do stuff vs less than is the case with Skyrim - in comparison to older TES games that is.
I should add that I love this game, but the longer I play, the more these things stand out vs the previous versions. My will to play will not go away so quickly, but these design choices don't really save much work for Bethesda IMHO. Each increase on one side has a decrease on the other and vice versa so this must have been a well thought out decision.

So what exactly is the target audience for this game?

Please stick to the question, we had enough Beth bashing posts already. I just don't get it and would honestly like an answer.

Edit:
This discussion is interesting but I'm not getting any wiser about who would go buy the game because of all the simplifications. I mean, the additional gameplay elements in previous games would not have been immediately apparent to a new player - actually the new player has no way of detecting them since he has nothing to compare to. To be honest, except for character leveling I only noticed omission of elements later in the game. It wasn't something that stuck out immediately upon entering the game. I find that rather hard to believe to have been the major sales point. And judging from average forum topic the forums also make for poor advertizing.

I believe the major sales success here was the hype they successfully built. However, now that they sold all those millions of copies, is the average gamer that actually plays this game happier or not about playing it than the same gamer that played previous versions? Will the future create more gamer turnover or less?

It's more fun.

Simplification doesn't mean simplistic, it can lessen barriers to immersion and enjoyment of a more complex game.

if you don't want to play, no one is stopping you. Go get some fresh air.

Allow me to explain.

$$$

You're welcome.

Calling people "idiot rednecks" is not the way to change opinions.

Simplification doesn't make a complex game more enjoyable. It makes a simplistic game.

Change opinions? Calling people? Then I guess I just called myself that since I said I love the game...

This. To attract a larger fan base. Its about extending to those who've yet to experience the game. Instead of them TRYING to make an enjoyable game for everyone, which is impossible, it would have been better to focus on improving the game for people who actually enjoy the series and have been from its early stages.
$.$

But it seems that the reasoning was correct since this game sold in many million copies. It would certainly seem that short-term at least, the decision was extremely profitable. In comparison Oblivion which kept lots of stuff from Morrowind (at least compared to Skyrim) did not do as good sales-wise.

This.

Jeez! How many Hands do you HAVE! You some kind of mutant, or something...?

people with no idea about the series didn't know about the crafting system, how dragons acted or the various bells and whistles of the game, But Beth decided for them. why simplify so extensively a series that was never hard to begin with, for an audience that doesn't exist or didn't ask for it to be "dumbed down" if you read his post properly you'd see he's not calling anyone....nevermind notpick and ignore the statement all you want :rolleyes:

This. Everyone knows if you wanna change people's opinions you either gotta invoke godwyn's law, or toss around words that end in -ist.

If the thing being "simplified" doesn't work because of its "complexitity" or could work better then no, it makes a complex game enjoyable.

Lord knows plenty of pen and paper RPGs have learned how to refine systems and discovered that having an eye bleeding number of tables doesn't necessarily make a game complex in a good way.



And the people who actually enjoy the series and have been from its early stages who enjoy Skyrim and (hold your breath) don't think that some of the changes made are bad? That some are even good?

If something it is simplified, it is simple. If something is simple, it is not complex. This is logic. Simple doesn't mean it will work better than complex either. And if part of a game's enjoyment for people is it's complexity, making it simple removes said enjoyment for said people.

If your enjoyment is in having to stumble over pointless things just for the sake of it then yes, you're right, your enjoyment will be lessened by now being able to access the wider complexity of the game world without having to come across interface or character build limitations.

Skyrim is the most open character system yet in TES - and it's done that by being more simplified. No class choice makes it simpler, but also opens up the play so that you can play any character you like, including changing!

So yes, I'm a fan of the older RPGs, and previously Daggerfall was my probably my favourite (along with Ultima 7, but no doubt you never played that because it was far too simplistic!).. however I'm really really enjoying Skyrim.. and I think... it's the best TES game yet.

Welcome to game design. They're called trade-offs.

I wasn't commenting on his post, I was commenting on yours. Specifically the bit where you say simplification doesn't make a complex game more enjoyable.

I rather like driving cars. The fun part, for me, comes from the driving of the cars. I have been in some test cars that have stupidly complex start ups (as opposed to sensibly complex start ups). The simpler and easier the start up, the more fun I have found because I am driving the car sooner (and there can be enjoyment just in the physical act of starting).

Cutting out junk, replacing it with streamlined versions etc can make something more enjoyable. It can make accessing the actual, important, enjoyable complexity more fun. Or it can open up different complexity. Besides which it is a popular mantra of late "complexity = options", complexity = fun. Quite often without any kind of detail and lumping it all together (complex story, complex quests, complex mechanics etc). Quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality (why I didn't download every single mod for Morrowind, but rather picked carefully).

Because numbers composed of multiple digits seems to scare/offend most gamers. Bethesda is slowly making their games worse less scary.

Also, yes, complexity isn't neccessarily good.

But simplicity isn't neccessarily good, either.

The Elder Scrolls games pride themselves on being a giant open world with almost limitless possibilities. How can simplicity be effectivly added on to such a game? It can't. I could understand if the extra features people want were ridiculous, but they're not. I want more armour, more skills, more spells. There's nothing wrong with that.

Subjectivity of terms renders this logic moot.

Yes, key point being "CAN lessen barriers". In this case, not so much.

So, excluding the last statement which I share - I too think Skyrim is the best TES yet - you are saying that despite this you don't miss anything from the previous games? Or maybe I put that badly: you don't wish for certain things to have been made a bit differently, or gave you more options or whatever?
You were given a sword at beginning of TES 3 just like you are given one in TES 5. Inclusion of smithing is then pretty much the opposite of exclusion of spellmaking. It makes little sense to me since the mechanics are the same - giving you the power to create something yourself...

Can someone explain these design choices to me?

Short answer: No.

Long(er) answer: derp.

I red a comment on pnp RPGs making systems more flexible due to simplified machanics... this, while may hold some truth IS NOT APPLICABLE or relate to video games. In said games YOU ARE BOUND and RESTRICTED by the means, there is no place for creativity and improvisation from gamer's part (in shaping the world and events).
That assertion is incorrect.

EDIT:
to be understood correctly - pnps can implify mechanics and not lose its depth because of narrative play, interpretation, improvisation and so on. So while you can have a [censored] load of stats, you may be doing far less rolls etc. And GM is not a rigid-thinking machine... mostly

Very simple. The target audience is those that don't like RPG's. It's been that way since Oblivion and I don't see it changing any time soon.