Chadonraz

That's the whole point of modding any game, but "better" is largely subjective. Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Skyrim gets modded so much because it is highly moddable and because it is a popular game, not because it's a terrible game. If it were a terrible game, it wouldn't have sold as much as it has and the modding scene wouldn't be what it is. Again, nobody has claimed the game is perfect or flawless -- it certainly isn't, and neither is any other game -- but the point is that this matter, like most other things in life, is not black and white. Skyrim is firmly in shades of grey, though whether it is closer to black (full of flaws) or white (flawless) is a matter of opinion. People mod Skyrim for the same reasons they mod any moddable game: to change, add, or remove things that they personally think could be better. Skyrim has a lot of combat, but is not a war or fighting game and thus doesn't come with a huge variety of gear or particularly great combat --> a lot of armour and combat mods. Skyrim has a lot of different enemies, but is not a monster-hunting game and thus doesn't come with a huge variety of creatures --> a lot of creature mods. And so on. In a nutshell, Skyrim itself is pretty much a jack of all trades, master of none. Which is why there are a lot of mods of all kinds. Skyrim is an RPG, so why on earth should people (be able to) mod it into something completely different? That doesn't make any sense as an argument. One doesn't buy a racing game and then complain one can't play it as a life sim, or a real-time strategy game and then complain one can't play it as a sports game, because that would be utterly nonsensical.

Any sort of negative reaction button, be it thumbs down, downvote, or something else, is bound to be abused all the time. By trolls, less than friendly individuals, and a whole lot of other kinds of people. They would also inevitably cause "reaction farming", similar to what anyone who uses Steam forums is bound to have come across in the form of award farming. There is absolutely zero reason or need for any sort of negative reaction mechanics. They are a downgrade to any forum or social media place that has them, because of people who abuse them. There's a reason they're not around or at least displayed publicly on many sites, including giant ones. There is also absolutely nothing to be gained from them; if someone disagrees with a post or finds it amusing, they can post a reply saying so (and get moderated if they fail to abide by the rules). In my opinion, if someone really wants to publicly have a negative reaction to something someone else has posted, they deserve to have to actually type it out so that they have to express themselves in a civil manner. Because we all know what the internet is often like when it comes to negative comments.

Nobody said the game is perfect. It's not, it has its issues. Your post is a rant, not debate. I doubt anyone plays Skyrim for the story, at least the main quest. But, then again, Skyrim is hardly a story-driven game anyway; it is much more of an open-world sandbox that encourages exploration over following quests all the time. The civil war is what it is (= boring) due to massive amounts of cut content. A normal part of game development, to an extent. Your long list of issues the game has is your opinion, which others may not share. I certainly don't agree on many points. For example: - There is no reason for every fantasy game to have lots of monsters. Skyrim isn't Witcher or Monster Hunter. Dragons are Skyrim's main selling point in that regard, and they certainly are around in large numbers. - While any character can use any skill, you can simply decide not to use skills that wouldn't fit your character; just because something is possible doesn't mean you have to use it. That one's on you. The same goes for what factions to (not) join. I have over 4000 hours on Oldrim, over 400 hours on Special Edition, and at least 1000+ hours on Xbox 360 (= vanilla Oldrim). I doubt I'll go back to Oldrim anymore, because SE is much better in terms of both stability and visuals, and has all of the mods I could possibly want to install or try.

No. Vanilla Skyrim is a great game (I played 1000+ hours on vanilla, so I have experience), mods simply make it even greater.

I sometimes look at that forum, too, just out of curiosity. Some of the reasons for the bans and warnings really are amusing -- as in, it's something utterly dumb, like those oh-so-clever usernames containing racial slurs or other such niceties. As I read through this thread, I saw some discussion regarding users who tag, quote, or even PM moderators with something action-worthy. Those are my personal favourites, as a moderator myself on a few other forums. Literally sending a mod a notification about one's rule violation is just... beyond understanding. Like, you're asking to get caught. All in all, the list of obviously inappropriate or even illegal things people think they can post and get away with is staggeringly long. And those "NexusModsWorstSite" type usernames are just plain childish. PS. I guess many of these champs have very thin skin themselves, and assume others are the same. Which, of course, is not true in many cases, especially when it comes to mods or admins. Someone who deals with rule-breakers on a regular basis is bound to have thick skin, and be beyond the reach of insults and even threats.

10 years, plus one day short of 4 months. I joined on December 27th, 2013 -- a day after I bought Skyrim on Steam (I have the email receipt). I had been playing the game on my Xbox 360, but that December bought my first gaming PC. It was time for modded goodness after countless hours of vanilla.

I can't easily find an update available one, but the downloaded one definitely is miles better now. Thanks.

I agree regarding the 'Downloaded' indicator. If colour or other highlighting isn't possible, the icon should at least be larger. I didn't even spot it until I looked at the "classic" version screenshots to check where it's located on those. (I don't mind the 'updated' or 'uploaded' indicators; I find them clear and sufficient.)

I know how to see the number. That is not what I, or the OP for that matter, asked.

If there is a way, I can't find it. In classic or beta view. I also wonder when (and from whom) I got mine.

I agree, too. Forums are not some silly competition. Besides, that yellow is way too bright, especially when the background is so dark. (This despite yellow being my favourite colour.)

Frankly, I believe having an option to display one's gender on one's profile would cause more problems than it would be worth, because, unfortunately, there are far too many people on the internet who would turn it into an issue, misuse it (mainly in the case of a custom field), harass others based on what the field says, and so on. If there were the binary options male/female, some people would take issue with it because it's not inclusive enough. If there were more than those two options, some people would take issue with it because it's too inclusive. If there were three options, male/female/prefer not to say, those choosing the last option would get targeted by malicious people. A custom field would cause mixed issues. It's just not worth it, in my opinion. It's easy enough to simply refer to people as 'they' when you don't know what the person's gender or preferred pronoun is.

Looks a lot better now. Less bright colour is better when the base colour is black or grey. Thanks!

Must have been "The Rear Window". An Alfred Hitchcock thriller/mystery from 1954, and a classic, for those unfamiliar with the title. And, yes, it was a VHS.

32. My 33rd birthday is coming later this year.