A lot of art that is popular isn't that great. It's like pulp-fiction, just a rehash of an old story, once you're done you throw it to the side and pick the next one up. They don't leave a long lasting impression. They exist to temporarily fill an emotional yearning. People have built and run entire industries out of this concept whether they want to admit it or not, because it's a cycle that makes them money. In my opinion, The Elder Scrolls series is the best of both popular art and fine art in that it has an aspect to it that can be enjoyed by anyone. These are the people that just rush through the main quest, in it for action, and the story, even though they probably don't understand half of it. Then there's that other aspect that is filled with content that gives the player the opportunity to immerse themselves within the world and gain a lot out of it.
Saying Skyrim will be bad because it aims toward a large audience in a matter of fact way is really annoying to me, especially sense we have only seen about 10 minutes of Game play. It's like playing, no, watching someone play a game for 10 minutes and deciding it's the worst game in the entire series, and could have been infinitely better. This is exactly what happens when I'm working on a painting; people come up to me while I'm working and judge the painting, and say very weird things about it even though it won't be done for another good 10 to 15 hours of work. If you ever saw the progression of one of my paintings, you'll know that it changes quite a bit as it progresses toward something I find satisfying. I especially despise people that ask me if I'm done when it's just a doodle, or say it's very good, even though I know it could be so much better. Like what vsions said, nothing can be entirely perfect and criticism is a very valuable thing if it's in the right context or it just makes the artist feel like [censored]. It's like people who say they like Morrowind more than Oblivion. That's nice, but it means nothing if you can't give a reason why. Artist's want to hear why people like it, and why people don't like it. We can only judge aspects of Skyrim we've seen, and I think it's impossible and rude to try and judge the whole product when it's not done and fully experienced.
It's okay to say we don't like how Armor customization seems to work, but there's not much weight to that, because we don't know for sure how it works and is presented in the game. Saying Skyrim will be bad because we can't separate greaves from the briastplate is like me saying Harry Potter is bad because the last chapter in the last book seemed like bad fan fiction. It's a bad chapter in a great book. It's possibly a bad feature in an overall great game in very a enjoyable series, but a bad game? No. I honestly don't mind this decision, because I didn't think it was that big of a deal in Fallout 3, sure it limits your customization a little, but it really doesn't effect the overall enjoyment of the game.
I love you.
You have managed to take my entire life philosophy, and turn it into 3 small paragraphs.
I will be quoting you in future essays.
Every time I see something cut out, I don't rage. I don't question whether it will be a great game. Everything they do is for a reason to make the game better. They wouldn't cut out greaves if there wasn't a reason. There's time, money, and technical troubles people need to consider.
I plan to one day be a developer, and so when I come to gaming forums, I tend to attempt to see issues from a developers point of view, not a consumers point of view.
Everybody wants Skyrim to be their personal game, and that's impossible.
Obviously criticism is necessary, but before you cry wolf, make sure you know the wolf is there - or rather, isn't there.