I can attest ro this I have not played many games that I can pour countless hours into. TES and Fallout 3/NV I have put so many hours into these two games. Sixty bucks is well worth it for all the time I logged in these games. I do feel for the guys that wish for a top down isometric RPG byt that will not happen.

People don't wish for an isometric RPG, they just want a Bethesda game, known as an RPG, to be a decent RPG.

Not forcing anyone, just saying, after 7 years of complaining and no changes, you should probably move on, it doesn't add to the conversation. And thus my opinion is that after such a long period of time, you should let it go.

That's probably true, and I agree that expressing your frustration and disappointment can be good, after a while it's time to let go. After a while you're just expressing frustration in order to express frustration.

There's no fault in that, but Bethesda rpg's beginning with Arena have been classified as the sub-genre: "action rpg."

I agree with the OP here, though also give credit to Bethesda as a whole too. Not just the leader.

Ye'h. Bethesda does Action Open World RPGs.

I like all the little things that have nothing to do with the actual gameplay, like the little ants and fish jumping upstream in Skyrim. In Fallout 3 I walked into a store once and saw some arrows painted on the floor leading to a pressure plate. I used to go Pearl Diving in Morrowind. And that sunrise as I left the sewer tunnel in Oblivion.

And Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 3 all had amazing sunrises.

I was more of a fan of the sunsets myself.

And this is why I have no problem with preordering Bethesda games.

That is a very good point!

( tries reading that word head explodes..)

Double trouble

Well that's what I want. I want a great Bethesda RPG I wish we had more diversity like Morrowind for instance. I would like skills to remain I wish they was tied into leveling with the perks. I love the perks I they should supplement the skills I don't think they need to be integrated.

I also think the shooting in Fallout should be refined it was horrible in 3 and New Vegas. Do I think refined shooting equates to a lesser roleplaying game, hardly.

Since I have joined these forums I have advocated diversity and options when we play Bethesda games. Player choice and freedom are essential components to these sprawling worlds. I would also like less removing and gutting features I am of the mindset it's time to now start adding instead of trimming the fat. Heck just look at what magic has become in TES a shell of what it once was. I was up in arms about removing spells and spell creation and I will advocate its return. That is however for another conversation.

I've always thought the whole deification of Todd Howard was a joke. The OP and some of these posts make me wonder.

You spelled Godd Howard wrong.

I too miss magic as it was in Morrowind, and I am just as fanatical about wanting spears to return. Did the loss of awesome spells like levitation, unlock, and weapons like spears keep me from playing TES games? Nope. I see each game as its own thing with its own features and flaws, and if after waiting patiently for the things I loved and lost in Morrowind to return and they never do, I will always remember fondly my adventures in Vvardenfel for the unique experience that it was.

It's a shame that we lost all of those features. Those few spells are the tip of the iceberg there was the cornerstone of the system spells creation as well. You could really make the magic system your own and create unique effects that suited your character.

I have kept playing these games yes for the love of the stories I create within them I have two families in The Elder Scrolls dating back four thousand years and just the other day I decided that the two families was actually one due to a marriage of circumstances an old dunmer spellsword of mine kept secret because he was in love and had children with a queen that birthed a generation of Altmer.

Anyways I got lost forgive me. I will advocate these things to return in future TES games and I miss these features for sure.

Sadly, both the Fallout and Witcher series are in the same boat where sequels are concerned. Witcher 2 discarded the bulk of the series gameplay that mattered, and/or defined it.
*It also removed Geralt's stoic pragmatism. If you want to see the Witcher (or Fallout) as it is supposed to be, play version 1 of each. Witcher had three camera setups, and multiple sword styles designed for handling large groups, or powerful individuals. Geralt wore a bandolier of potion bottles, and could quaff them as needed, and as the situation changed; but always keeping watch over the toxicity and not drinking too many. With Witcher 2, the styles are gone, and only the over-shoulder cam remains... Geralt cannot handle himself in combat anymore and merely thrashes away like a madman; hitting whatever happens to be in front of him ~if anything.
Before Witcher 2, combat was a joy; in W2 & 3 combat was a chore. Witcher 2 did the same thing as FO4 has done with the dialog; you cannot know what Geralt will espouse. Once I was playing and he responded casually to some peasant with death threat, and combat commenced. Bar Fights were replaced with Quicktime events. It's bad what they did... really bad IMO. Originally, Geralt could assess and take a potion that was sensible to the changing situation; but now Geralt must kneel in the mud before taking potions [and cannot do so in combat ~as per the whole point of the bandolier in Witcher 1], and he must now guess at what may or may not be useful in the next surprise attack ~if one even comes.

*How were Warcraft 2 & 3 different? (I have them both installed, we should be able to understand each other on this one.)
*Dawn of War 2 ... As a sequel of the DoW series, this is how DoW2 should have been: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzVlpUf7e5w
It's sad that it was prevented. One can only speculate that they were told to to fill some void or publisher demand instead. It would be sad indeed if they made the change of their own volition.

But would you accept the adventure gameplay of a TES themed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UIXVxSsDUk&t=20s under the brand name 'The Elder Scrolls VI', and as the official sequel to Skyrim? There is such a thing as the wrong kind of fun. (This is precisely the situation Bethesda has created with FO3 & FO4.) So many score of members here say that gameplay doesn't matter, yet it is totally possible to skin ZUMA with TES lore, and if one takes their opinion at their word, then such a game would be seen by them as a true Elder Scrolls sequel.

*But I don't believe it. What I believe is that anything they personally prefer is what they would call a fine sequel... irrespective of the series in question. I can play a game and laud it as a sequel ~yet not like the game; same as I can like a game and cite it as a terrible sequel. Wasteland 2 is a terrible sequel to Wasteland [IMO], but a grand game, and would have made a decent sequel as "Fallout 3"; had it used the Fallout lore instead. It is the best 'Fallout' I've seen in 15 years ~despite having none of the lore.

TES games I've played seem to be decent sequels of the one that preceded each; (with Oblivion being a sour note that changed the intent for the franchise).
But Skyrim seems a reasonable sequel to Oblivion, and Bethesda fans know what to expect in an Elder Scrolls game. Unfortunately they know what to expect in a Fallout game too ~now; because they are essentially the same now. Anyone coming from Fallout 2 to FO3 is in for a rude awakening if they reasonably expected FO3:Fallout 2, the way others expect Skyrim:Oblivion; and what they get is FO3:Oblivion.

No one here is asking for, or expecting any changes whatsoever.
But the Power Armor change, (mentioned copiously in the forums over the years), was a welcome advent.

Definitely. An awesome feature whose return I will drink to!Wow! Sounds like you've put a lot of thought into it! I like giving my characters background stories but nothing as in depth as that! No worries, honestly I'm surprised this thread hasn't been moved since it's more about Bethesda games in general. I would say talking about TES is, in fact, on topic!

What happened to spells, exactly? I only played Skyrim, I'm not a fan of fantasy themes (unless it's Steampunk, or Dark Souls-esque).

They removed spell creation. Even worse, destruction didn't scale properly so compared to an archer or warrior, a destruction mage was more or less gimped - even on normal difficulty. Essential crowd control abilities like paralysis were, to my understanding, gated behind getting to alteration level 70 just so you could buy the tome. Illusion and alteration were ok, but destruction in general was atrocious, and conjuration was overpowered.

It's a mess that could have been avoided with spell creation

And why did they even remove that?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/spell-making-removed-from-skyrim-todd-explains.63075/

Too spread-sheety apparently.

In context, that's actually a pretty good answer by Todd. He's right, in that it does indeed take the *magic* out of spell casting.

Personally I think it would be an improvement if spell crafting were influenced by circumstance... Where it was done; what time; what weather; what components; where the stars and planets were... you get the idea. Such that it lacked a measure of finite control and/or complete understanding by the player.
(This is of course against their apparent policy, but... )

(Also @SofaJockey )
In the original Witcher ~not the sequels AFAIK, alchemy was superbly implemented, and the various components you could acquire had secondary characteristics. It meant that Geralt could substitute things he had for things he needed, and they could work, but were not ideal... It also meant that potions could (under ideal circumstance) result in above average quality. It meant that his understanding allowed him to adapt formulas, but that time/money/and availability limited his control over crafting results; and sometimes he just had to settle for second best.

'Sea' makes a good point as well:

But he's responsible for the creative direction. Not unlike what a Directors job is in movie making. All the props, the set, the actors, concept art, story boards etc. have to be aproved by the director. He is taking part in every step of the creative process. And as much as it is about creativity it is also an industry. Games are relatively similar to movie production with story boards, concept art and all that. Good teams can fall and thrive with depending on the skills of the game director leading them.