I feel like I just have to clarify since everyone seems to think I′m saying that Bethesda is going away from RPG elements that it′s wrong, I′ve always been talking about how the community seems to be in favor of less RPG elements with all the arguments of "I′m the Dovahkiin, we don′t need feature X because it doesn′t fit the role of a Dovahkiin", I know Bethesda is expanding on RP features but my question is that with all the people saying that we should scrap this feature and scrap that feature because we are going to be the Dovahkiin, can you really blame Bethesda if they will eventually cave in to the requests of what I presumed to be the majority of the player-base, based on recent polls.

Just one more time, I love Bethesda and I love TES, but I don′t want the community to impact Bethesda when it comes to designing the game in a negative way when it comes to RP elements.

There hopefully I won′t see more people going all "If the OP hates TES he can just go away to some other genre" since that is just a waste of time, I thought I wrote my post well enough to make it clear I don′t dislike TES.

Then you're really looking at the wrong place, TES has never really been a "hardcoe" RPG but more of an action RPG due it's realtime combat where player skills matters a great deal over character skills. This is how it's been since Arena, and it won't change anytime soon.

I can't learn to swim unless I go into the water. Learning to swim by running is stupid. Your END might improve, which gives you advantage in water too, but not the skill.
Swimming IS a quite useless skill, but it makes sense to be separated from running (athletics).

I can't learn to insert a dagger between the ribs by stalking deer and other creatures all day long. I sure as hell wont learn to pick locks, or even pockets, by stalking deer.
Stealth, Backstabbing (or Critical Strike) and Security make the most sense only if they're separated.

I don't know how the Skyrim skill trees work, but I'm hoping they make sense, nothing more.

Okay, here's the deal. I just want the game to stay true to it's combat/stealth/magic-based adventurer rootss with alittle bit on the side. That doesn't make it less of an RPG, nor does it make it more of one, but that's mainly due to how the term is so vaguely defined. If the only goal Bethesda had was "make an RPG, it could turn out with practically no resemblance to anything ever in TES and still fit the bill.

How is this interpreted as being in favor of less RPG (roleplaying) elements from the argument that "feature X" doesn′t fit the role? :confused:

Actually neither system is realistic at all. The first one presumes that the PC has a bit of a life outside of the player's constant control, and the second one assumes that the PC has had no life whatsoever, and begins their life as an advlt.

Swimming as a skill, changes the gameplay in RPG's because those characters that cannot swim, cannot freely cross deep water... Its like an additional wall that others are not stopped by, and requires the PC to take water obstacles into account. I've played RPG's where the PC cannot swim, (even drowns 100% of the time they are in water over their head). Swimming skill should not be assumed without a background story element explaining why the PC knows how to swim well; and would seem best to be if there are competing skills of equal value and that the player must decide which one to improve. If one starts the game as a novice swimmer (or with no ability), then one should run the risk of drowning/choking when in deep water.

I don't like this poll. Very biased.

The term "RPG" is subjective nowadays. It means different things to different people. When I think RPG, I think TES. Back in 2004, when I thought RPG, I thought Phantasy Star.

I would never want criticize a developer for abandoning the numbers that "make" an RPG. There is a reason that developers use them though...

...they work. It's an efficient way for the Dev to explain to the player "who the PC is." Eventually, years from now, the numbers will probably be hidden, or another medium will surface. But for now, statistics and numbers are fine.

Very good post OP

I will not be disappoint because my expectations are very low

Gaming industry is down in general if you check out most releases are just bad . Take for example Risen , most RPGers have praised it highly but can you imagine what people would say if it was released together with Troika's games , or PS:T ? at best it would be ignored because it is very limited in scope , it presented nothing new innovation wise , combat and dialogues were awful and it has the worst end in the history of games.
I think that the bar is set lower with every year passing and it has nothing to do with what the gamers like but with what is available to play and of course not everyone has the time to go around and look for games made by small / medium studios because mainstream media never cover them.

AAA "RPG" titles are no longer for "us" , you know that we will have a good laugh when we watch gameplay videos in the internets in between searches for the next indy we buy.

To me what a RPG should be and should is changeable. Everything is a compromise. I'd compromise a lot to gave a game where emergent game play was possible where your actions effect the world in way that are complex and unknowable. Then again a game where everything is very linear but presents a great story to play with many choices is just as much an RPG in my mind.

At this point, having played Morrowind and Oblivion all I see is a top-heavy game were legacy elements of past games are uncomfortabkley mixed with new ideas. It is a mess in other words, so something needs/needed to be done. So I'm going to sit back and see what they make, then I will play it, and then I will comment.

In the mean time I'll pipe dream and say, "What if", but I won't whine about what they are making now until I can play it. All games are a compromise of features and ideas, and I won't say they are doing it wrong til I can play it.

I guess that depends on how much you expect.
Many people sound like they want Morrowind2, but I want something new yet familiar.

RPGs were made for PCs....period. Consoles cannot handle them.

The problem is not that there are less RPGs, it is that the designers are trying to design for both PCs and Consoles, and because consoles are inferior in every aspect they end up watering down the PC version because they cannot afford to design two separate entities.....even though PC gamers have no interest in playing a RPG on a console.

Computer RPGs were meant to be played on the PC. Platform games were meant to be played on consoles.

I think people like to have options for relaxing and chilling out in this kind of game. Taking a break from constant exploration and hack/slashing.
Chopping some trees, smithing weapons or whatever, well it`s a nice kind of distraction for a while and can also make you feel part of the world more. Immersion.
Limiting an RPG to purely questing and combat may work well for some people, but others may well want to experience Skyrim in lots of other ways, including being a tradesman for a while or whatever. I believe that extra content can add that extra layer of depth that will make the game more immersive. Just my view on it.

"Many people sound like they want Morrowind2, but I want something new yet familiar"

Amen to that.

Only if the client is misinformed about the content. It′s a bit early to answer that question imo