Essentially to the game world you're playing the same character and nothing you do will change that as it was built that way. I always get a good laugh when people explain how they play as some kind of badass necromancers in Skyrim, when the game world never acknowledges that. It's a death sentence for an RPG. You could theoretically roleplay in Quake. Never shoot anyone and pretend that you are some kind of pacifist (and then die eventually). Should be a reward on its own I guess. Is Quake a good RPG?
Not making a stellar case here. Your major point is that the game must 'acknowledge' your behavior in order for it to be meaningful, stick to that.
We're more in agreement than you seem to think. Quake is not built to let you play it in a ton of different ways. Skyrim is. You could TRY to play Quake as a pacifist but you wouldn't last 10 seconds. Yet in Skyrim I played as a pacifist for 50+ hours, finished tons of quests, and generally had a great time. Again, that's the point and it's the answer to the original question "Why do you find Bethesda games appealing?" which started this whole conversation.
Let's face it, becoming the Archmage when not even being really a mage is nonsense.
Of course it is. The game gives you the agency to do nonsense if you want - I have never denied this. But the point isn't whether nonsense is possible; it's whether you have the agency to do things that make sense to you and are fun for you. The diverse ways I chose to play made sense to me and were fun for me, and would not have been possible in most RPGs.
The design flaw becomes more apparent when you take into consideration that you literally cannot access the College of Winterhold without passing the "magic test". Even if all you want is to pick up a book or something. So you can become the leader of the guild while having very low magical skills (and just about enough mana to cast a required spell), but you can't get into the building if you have no magic at all. It's that stupid.
Oh, 100% agreed that was primo grade bullshit. A lot of the quests were idiotic and the game often blocked progress like this, forcing you to do idiotic things. I never said the game was perfect and I will absolutely go on record saying it was never perfect. That doesn't change the fact that it offered a level of behavioral freedom unmatched in most RPGs.
While I can agree that a free-form RPG can be LARPing to a degree, it still ought to have some systems in place to support player's playstyle(s).
Of course, and I'd love to see more systems that support a multitude of playstyles.
Lack of a system doesn't mean you can put all the blame on "people with no imagination" who... play the game.
I absolutely can. So many Codexers choose to play games in unenjoyable ways because "that's how you're supposed to play", when they could so easily be having fun instead. It's a very common theme here. We can go as deep as you want into this but I warn you, you may never dig your way back out.
Okay, not ALL the blame
Thing is - it's easier to not do any this and pretend it's all part of "the plan", thereby avoiding all the extra work required.
Not sure I know what you mean here. Easier for the developers to not build systems, you mean? If so, I agree. Not a perfect game and they could have done a lot more to support more playstyles - to give out cookies to Latelistener for example for playing different ways, or better yet develop deeper systems for noncombat skills, which were all even more undercooked than the combat. Nevertheless, the game does give space for different playstyles to work and be enjoyable, and enough content that you don't have to be the Archmage unless you choose to.
I may be misunderstanding your intent there - if so, please rephrase.
It's not that "stats are meaningless" but if you can do everything, then you don't have to make another character.
That's the thing about giving agency - the player doesn't really "have to" do anything. I didn't "have to" make 4 different characters, but I had the agency to and it was very rewarding for me to do so. (Whereas in Fallout 4, there seemed to be absolutely no point in making more than one character because there's no way to complete any missions except to walk forward clicking on things.)
In my opinion having limits is an important aspect of differentiating between characters and giving them, well... a character. It can also support multiple playthroughs, because if playing as warrior is going to feel different from playing as a rogue or mage, then it is work for that experience alone. But if you can't play as warrior-rogue-mage, then there is no real motivation to do so.
Yeah, I agree that limits give decisions a lot more "oomph". Skyrim's basic design is "every time you skill up, the
next skill up becomes harder", but the curve is way, way too flat for my tastes. Shit should slow down a lot harder a lot quicker.
