All Bethesda gaming experiences are so good/immersive that there have arised two different generalized positions in the userbase on what they expect for Skyrim. Bethesda has probably already faced and discussed this matter in the pre-production phase, even if they are conditioned to decide what is the best approach to reach a commercially successful product and will be headed that way.

The 2 sides:
Some want more out of it being a deeper experience with better fledged-out mechanisms but anyway sticking to what could be called "a traditional RPG game" with the usual TES richness,

while others go further and are already claiming for simulation features for during the campaign and with eyes also on the gameplay after it, like shops to own, houses, love and family, and other life simulating activities and more complex AI features that may draw from Fable, Sims, Second Life for example, while facing the rebuttal that The Elder Scrolls may not be the kind of game/saga from which to expect this kind of gameplay.
It is to be considered though that the newly included professions expand the horizons a bit to cater this audience, maybe incorporating what may be new current paradigms on what an RPG features these days.

So:
1) What is your choice, and why it is not the other?
2) What balance do you suggest to satisfy both poles, if even possible?

Make it a great discussion. Greets.

I don't want a sim for life - I live it and it is great. When playing games I want to do things I can't do in life such as weild a sword and kill mythical beasts, cast spells, command armies, drive numerous expensive cars with abandon ect........................

Loaded question is loaded.

I guess I'll go with #3...

Most polls should have an other option, yet most on here don't.

Loaded question is massively loaded.

I'll just not touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Guess I'll go with 3.

This poll makes me feel violated and dirty.

why loaded or massively loaded?...

Hmmm I just want Skyrim, does not matter what style it is.
If it focuses on writting and a beautiful story with an engine based on that, great as that's what I play rpgs for.
However if more akin to Oblivion, no worries as I loved playing the big O.
To me if you don't like an rpg but there's enough stuff to play around within it, just start making your own story up.
Not a perfect solution, but if you've got an imagination a TeS game gives you the means to see it up on screen.

I'm not sure what to think anymore.

On the one hand, WoW, Dragon Age, Dungeon Seige, and Diablo are symbolic of deep role playing experiences?

On the other, Fable, Sims, and Second Life...

Nothing makes sense anymore :ahhh:

I really don't get the two-sides case that you present. You seem to be saying that the people who want more sim-like features -- such as jobs, houses, marriage, etc.. don't also want a traditional RPG game as well? I don't understand where you are coming with that logic. Seems like some people want the sim features, and some don't, but everyone wants RPG.

You have a very interesting definition of "simulator." Personally, I have always seen TES as a one of a kind specimen. It's not your typical cookie cutter RPG, but at the same time it does have simulation qualities to it, and that's a very general explanation of what TES really is. Obviously most are going to pick the TES option, so this poll really is null and void.

Read again fellas...

i want Bethesda to keep doing what they feel would be a good thing to do.

Classic TES with slight "sim" which I don't take it as a life sim when the NPCs are more alive because they have jobs and their own economy and you can have your own job and affect their lives and economy. The only real "life sim" I could think of is that you get a family, which I don't think should be in TES. However, all the NPCs in the game having jobs and you being able to own your own shop isn't really a life sim, I don't see why you would think so. I mean, we have owned houses in the past, that's not a life sim either.

We already know Skyrim is on track because it is the RPG in the classic TES tradition with a truly realistic citizen base.

The issue is that each Elder Scrolls game does become progressively deeper in interactivity, but more with respect to the world than the player. I've used this example before and I shall again. Arena and Daggerfall, in many ways, are just pen-and-paper RPGs with graphics to help you visualize your actions. This is evident through things like ordering food in the taverns which possesses no impact on your character (aside from dying of liver failure of course - woo!). The "depth" came not from the believability of the world, but from how wide and open your options for defining yourself and the world around you (Interactive Fiction Approach) were.

With Redguard we saw a change in design philosophy to smaller, hand-crafted worlds. Quality over quantity (though we've seen from Morrowind that both are certainly attainable to a degree). For the most part, this is an improvement. But over time, this has downplayed the player's purpose somewhat. Don't get me wrong - Radiant AI and other developments can make the world more reactive and malleable to the player's actions. In Daggerfall, we had snide Thieves Guild rumors commenting on your last botched robbery attempt. Now with Skyrim, we have entire quests unfurling based on your relations with other NPCs/factions and your character's skill.

Yet really, from press coverage it seems as if Bethesda is more interested in this world than the player. Skyrim will still have plenty to do, but unlike Daggerfall, you will find the majority of the freedom coming from things to do in the world and application for your skills within it (Virtual World Approach). Chopping wood, for example. Crafting is something we all want and have long awaited proper implementation into a TES game by Bethesda themselves, but really - going to a mine and chipping out ore has little to do with the imagination or your character's abilities and identity. It's just an activator with a script tied to it, to help provide a distraction.

That's my tirade, at least. Though I oft refer to Morrowind as the Elder Scrolls paragon of interesting world design and the right level of gameplay complexity, I feel as if the developers behind Daggerfall still had the best notions at heart.

The point was that you clearly have no idea what defines "traditional and deep" RPGs when your list of supposed deep RPG experiences included an MMO, and two hack-and-slash dungeon crawlers. Games that play nothing at all like TES.

Then you go ahead and put heavy bias into your poll by saying things like "Some want more out of it being a deeper experience," condemning anyone who takes the opposing viewpoint as not wanting "the usual TES richness." And immediately slamming anyone who wants "sim-like" (anything non-combat is what it sounds like) gameplay by saying "confronting the rebuttal that The Elder Scrolls may not be the kind of game/saga from which to expect this kind of gameplay." If you want to do point and counter-point, you do so fairly. This poll is unfair from the get go. It's a loaded question.

The game world can define and shape your character just as much as your character can define and shape the world. Your character still has plenty of depth and even more customization than before but the world feeling more real allows for more immersion in the game than before. You have to realize that how the world works and how your character fits (or doesn't fit) within it gives you more RP value than full character oriented version or the full world oriented version. It seems like Skyrim has finally found the right mix of world and character.

I like doing different things every once in a while. Being able to pursue friendships (and/or romantic relationships), having a part-time job, doing, you know...stuff...outside the main quest should be fun.

That being said, anything and everything in this category absolutely must be entirely optional. Myself, I'd likely turn on the options for "hardcoe Mode," what with eating and drinking and resting, but I also firmly believe that this should be a choice, nothing forced upon the player.

Side questing and other hijinx can be fun for some people (I voted yes!), but at the same time aren't for everyone, and shouldn't be forced on people who don't want them.

If you want crap like that then play fable, i like my TES classic.

1) I chose the last option because its a role playing game and not a life simulation.
2) that those people go and play fable and leave us "real" RPG players to enjoy a proper RPG without the holding of many hands.

Playing a role is playing a role no matter how you slice it. It may be more fun playing a role under a set of conditions to some and is no less role-playing because of that.

I fear TES might turn into a medieval simulator one day.

I went with option 3.

You got it wrong fella. I asked if you wanted a traditional but deeper TES as it is, or a TES deeper + life simulation, that's all. No bias. But watchu' gonna do, haters gonna hate.
Edit: i edited the article a bit so hopefully it won't make room to be interpreted like a biased blah blah and makes the point clear.

I went for bit of both - I'm not into the idea of marriage/romance etc. but I love the idea of a hardcoe/survival mode (necessitating eating, drinking, sleep, possibly weather effects etc.), which is very sim-ish.