Because quantity = quality, right? And again, "Better than Oblivion" isn't saying much. "100 times 0" is still 0.
And rather than refine or tweak the skill, they took the easy way out it and axed it altogether. The concept isn't inherently flawed, and it's a nice touch that compliments the setting. It adds tension and requires the player to plan and spend their gold carefully - Skyrim is the poorer for losing it entirely.
Spells are a big part of combat, so yeah, of course you can. Beyond that, whether or not hardware limitations required it, the variety in customization suffers for this decision. I understand that sacrifices are necessary in games like these, but you need to make the choices that are best for your game. I'd argue that flexible customization in a game like this outweighs filler NPC counts. (And don't even get me started again on that PS3 port... That's another can of worms entirely.)
As for the finishers and ragdoll effects... can't both be ill-fitting and jarring?
As far as Oblivion goes... Skyrim takes some steps forward, but I'd argue it also takes just as many (if not more) steps backward. (I've heard tons of people argue that Morrowind is by far the better game out of all three, but I haven't played so I can't judge one way or the other. Just thought it was interesting.) I was hoping for the best, but sadly, the novelty wore off as the game dragged along. It just feels kind of hollow and unsubstantial; it's the cotton candy of open world RPGs.
Meh.
