I thought it was time to finally post a topic on this as I could not one anywhere else.
I would like to hear your opinions on the matter and please,Don't be shy!

A simple "Yes" or "No" is preferred in polls like this, otherwise it makes it sound like the people voting "Yes" ONLY feel that way because of the description you included and they feel OPPOSED to the other description, which is not true. "... customization and options to define my game experience" has never been more true than with Skyrim.

I think the Elder Scrolls is absolutely headed in the right direction, because it is moving away from some of the "traditional" RPG elements of statistics and numbers and moving more toward a realistic genuine roleplaying experience. In the past, these attributes and stats were only included in games as a placeholder for real world traits. I don't have any list of my attributes or stats or anything in the real world, so they are inferior when it comes to realism. The sooner we can take those things away and replace them with a more natural, seamless, realistic experience, the better! That's what TES games have always been about, roleplaying and immersion into a realistic world.

Maybe, but I certainly don't see a trend towards that direction. What you cite as "traditional" RPG elements of statistics and numbers in reality is a trait of early pen&paper RPGs which came from the war game simulation period it evolved from. In the meantime, we've seen plenty of original ideas in roleplaying styles, including diceless, story- instead of character-focussed etc. At the same time, while you don't have a list of your attributes, if you regularly exercise, you would, perhaps, know what your maximum lifted weight is. And you'd know if you were exercising in favour of concepts such as long-term endurance, short-term sprint ability, sheer physical force or general combat-readiness, and there would be some kind of parameters you'd judge your performance by (time for 100 m, how many laps you can run before you're down and out etc.)

I fully agree that roleplaying and immersion into a realistic world is key for a good roleplaying game - I just don't see this as the trend pursued by streamlining of the game engine, quite the contrary. Immersion into a "realistic" world means that if I can slay Almalexia, I can also slay Vivec, and MW gave me that choice. It even gave me the choice to slay Vivec the first time I met him and STILL finish the game. Compared to that, the choices that Oblivion gave me in terms of the main quest were by and large how much work I want to have cut out for myself in the defense of Bruma - i.e. do I recruit support from more or from less towns. I didn't have the choice to say "Screw Martin, if I can take out Jyggalag, I can take out Mehunes Dagon, too" (which might not be the case given that Jyggalag at least subconsciously wanted to be beaten, but...)
An immersive, realistic world means one thing first and foremost: Choices. Plenty of choices to make. Oblivion, alas, had me work my way through a laundry list someone else had prepared. I hope and pray this will be different with Skyrim.

I said other because I really don't see the streamlining everyone is talking about. They combined a few skills that seemed stupid and removed attributes but going back and playing oblivion even made me realize how stupid combat was. The combat and action in this game is a HUGE improvement over the last game. Finishing moves make it seem realistic. Players that can't run 20-25 mph make so much more sense and looks so much better. DRAGONS. Dualweilding spells and swords? Dualwielding spells for super spells. Animations that make the player look like he is running instead of gliding on the ground. Mostly look and feel I know.

As far as customization goes they added perks?? One thing this game has been missing has been talents and guess what we got them. you get to choose which ones you want and not limited to 4 that are giving at certains designated levels. Its unbelievable how people are apposed to change. The only way to progress a genre is to add things and take things out that don't make sense anymore.

You need change to progress or else you'd just have oblivion with dragons and better graphics. Sorry but I probably wouldn't play that game.

I think things are moving in the right direction.

Getting rid of classes, birthsigns, and attributes was a plus. They were an obstacle because before a player even knew the significance of the decisions he would have to make, he had to make them. Okay, sure, its all fine and dandy on your fourth or fifth play through, but it shouldn't be like that. Especially in a game that you could easily spend over a hundred hours in. In several of my first play throughs, I remember that I really screwed myself over because of character design, and had to start over before I got too far into the game because I was being killed by everything. These decisions are decisions you should make as you play, and they should be decisions you can make time and time again. Hell, you should be able to make these decisions without even noticing that you're making them. Not by spending a half-hour in char gen biting your teeth over what birth sign you want your character to have.

I can't decide whether I like or dislike Skyrim's skill shuffle, but I can say the new one offers more in the way of choice. For example, getting rid of blade, blunt, and hand-to-hand as skills and replacing them with one-handed and two-handed was a great idea. Why? It helps us make those important little decisions I talked about above as we play. It doesn't punish a player for their decisions, it doesn't restrict a player to making certain decisions, and it doesn't take away from character customization at all. While not perfect, it allows my character to flow more easily from one skill to another as I wish. If my hand-to-hand disciple of Stendarr found a two-handed club called "Stuhn's Mercy" he could pick it up and wield it with maximum effectiveness. If my Battlemage character, who wields mostly enchanted one-handed blunts with a shield, but comes across the most powerfully enchanted one-handed sword she has ever seen, she can pick it up without suffering the penalty whatsoever.

I think when people argue that these changes allow for less customization, they are essentially arguing for the right to see that they have a high blunt skill over a low blade skill on the skill menu. It doesn't matter that they already choose to only use blunt weapons, or that they already excel at it in game. They dislike the fact that they *could* pick up a sword and wield it just as well as they wield blunts. This game is about choice. No one makes you wield swords.

The customization is still there. But its power lies with the player. Not with the skill screen.

I really would like to see how many people actually buy and play this game without drastic improvements to action elements of the game. My bet is that the hardcoe will but few else and I'm willing to bet that the hardcoe audience of this game is maybe 25% tops. Clearly just a guess and can't be backed up with anything but If you aim to pnly please the hardcoe audience guess what, TES: VI doesn't happen. espcially in this economy. You have to give the hardcoe enough while also give new things that can atractt a bigger audience and expand the brand of the game. This game doesn't even come close to selling out it looks like nothing else but an elder scrolls game with 10x more custimation than any other game in this genre.

Yes less stats more game is they way to go, rp is in your mind and with completely relating experiences seamlessly within the game world, there's need for fisical stats when your actions and exsperience have progression and balance to them. The process still needs ironing and for shore they probably haven't got it all right in skyrim but I thinks it's the closest thing we have and it's defiantly the right direction this discussion can't really be addressed till we've played the game for a while and have seen the industries response to it. Till then enjoy want you can and chill you'll only disappoint your selves further or convince your self of something before you've even experienced it.

I voted other because your "yes" option assumes too much when it talks about streamlining. I'm a big fan of TES being in a league of it's own. It doesn't bring you any closer to being unique if you insist on over-classifying yourself. RPG is a very loose term, so we shouldn't rely on other RPGs to define it. We can define within the context of TES. If Bethesda says that they have a new approach to role playing that doesn't rely on a stats screen, then we ought to experience that before we declare it inferior to the current systems.

I've always felt that the learn by doing aspect of TES was the clincher. I can't accept the idea of leveling up in order to choose my skills over performing those skills to get better. I'll play a game with experience points, but I'll just end up creating character builds that rely solely on numbers. That way, I calculate until I've achieved my desired build, I slay monsters so that I can implement it, and by the end I just have an artificially created character. TES follows a natural progression of character building, much like what would expect to see in reality. This is a game, not reality, but it's easier to get into a game if it mirrors reality because your mind already accepts the laws of reality. This allows me to define my gaming experience. This allows me to choose what I do, and have that affect what I become, rather than using a spreadsheet to pick out what I want to become, and have the game make it for me. Perks and an open world give me more choices than number scales. Rather than say that I want to train my block so that I can one day become a better basher, I'm just going to say that I'll become a better basher by focusing on bashing. I level up, I choose the perk, and I feel like I've done that. I committed all my special training that level to becoming a better basher. If I got the level by training block, then that's fine, that's one way to go about it. But now I can choose to just bash and get that perk directly.

I am attracted to a game that allows me to perform the entire range of possibilities. TES does have a way to go before it reaches my vision. It will still push me into conflict when I may prefer a different solution. I haven't played a Skyrim quest yet, so I don't know how much free rein I'll get. However, I think it's a bit much to say that this is becoming a streamlined action game. A game doesn't need to go out of its way to become more complex than reality. If I pick up a sword in my right hand and a shield in my left, then that makes sense to me. If you call that streamlining, then I think that's alright, but I just see it as optimizing. I think that crafting is the sort of thing that ought to be more complex than it has been in the past, so I like that they're doing that. They're not streamlining armorer by changing it into smithing, they're optimizing it to make it more believable and give you more options.

So, I guess my "Other" vote should say "Yes, a more optimized, believable, free form experience is the way to go!"

I think they'er going in the right direction for this game with the hardware that they have to work with (Xbox). The next game i wouldn't be surprised if we had a few more options back again.

I disagree. Birthsigns are a distinct flavour of the world they exist in. If it is the decision you are worried about, there's an easy remedy: Making birthsigns random. You don't get to choose in which sign you're born in real life either. And you certainly don't get to choose in which sign you're born at age 30. The real solution is the precise opposite of what you ask for: Reduce the impact. If mistakes in character design make a character irrevocably broken, the process needs to be optimized, certainly. But if you are spending a half-hour in chargen to decide which birth sign you want your character to have, you're quite obviously number-crunching because you expect a significant advantage from the choice. So that advantage should be reduced to a point where you decide to go with what "feels" right.

I

It's about choice? Not the way you want to play it. Because you want a safeguard in it. You want your choice to be without consequences - and then it's not a choice. Yes, it allows your character to flow more easily from one option to another - that's not choice, that's pure whim. And frankly, as someone who has wielded a blade, it is a killer for immersion. The idea that someone who has used maces all his life could pick up a sword and be just as good as any fencing master out there is ridiculous. In previous games, when your blade broke in mid-combat and you only had a mace left that you just looted from a chest or opponent, you had a problem because while it was a weapon, you couldn't use it as effectively. Now, it doesn't matter. Yes, you can decide you won't use that mace. But what kind of roleplaying is that? Instead of choosing a suboptimal option, your system of "choice" means to go for the completely moronic option?

It's not about skill screens. It's about plain and simple common sense and the effect that violation of it has for immersion and suspension of disbelief.