PC's have had some great RPGs (and I've played a good deal of them), but the two that you mention are not PC RPGs. They are console ports on the PC, and their base games are dummied-down RPGs for the masses. They are also, sadly, play more like an FPS. (Am I bitter? You bet! I'm a big FO fan.)
They're not
really dumbed-down though - do note that New Vegas retains the entirety of the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system - everything is
still a matter of chance and stats. Thing is, it's done in a way that isn't offensive to the overall experience - you spend your time
playing the role of The Courier and stats management takes a secondary role. Moreover, the complex system is presented in an approachable way - it's clarity of design. New Vegas is probably the closest we could possibly get to the original Fallout's, yet in real time - the presentation of the game world is top-notch and humorous and the mechanics
"just work" - even the engine didn't show all that many signs of aging. Just because a game was made
"approachable" doesn't mean that it was dumbed-down in any way - you can
still play New Vegas the same way you played Fallout 1/2.
As far as Skyrim is concerned, I actually didn't play it
a lot but I enjoyed the parts I did play through - it applied the same principles, simply in the Elder Scrolls world and it worked.
As you get older, you find that everything repeats. It's not just games, but books, music, movies. The human race isn't a very creative lot. You end up looking for the new play experiences more and more. That's why I think Xenoblade resonated with me so much. It was a new battle system that was novel compared to other games of the genre. It had a good storyline and music.
As I get older, my tastes become more refined and I'm not as easily pleased as I used to. It's true, I'm an
"older" gamer, but that doesn't somehow invalidate my opinion - if anything, it gives me points of comparison.
I expect a sense of freshness from the games I play - I want them to be inventive and well-designed. It's, of course, highly dependant on tastes but my experience with Xenoblade was... turbulent. I enjoyed the heck out of the intro, really liked the beginning stages of the game propper... and then Shulk happened. I
"tolerated" him for a while but in the end just dropped the game, not because I didn't like the combat mechanics or the visuals or the story - it was because the game had absolutely no direction. There's open world and then there's lack of direction and I sincerely think it was introduced to artificially inflate gameplay time. Exploration should be fun and in Xenoblade not only I didn't know where I was going in some portions, I actually didn't have
fun, and fun is the principle of gaming to begin with.
But I digress, each man to his taste - it's very, very individual and subjective.
Duly noted. I think I avoided that game because it looked like I would need a FAQ to milk out all the missable content. Because I only play a game once, I hate missables. Was I misinformed about missibles?
It's literally impossible to
"miss" something in this game, even without a guide. The in-game book contains everything you need to track down the events you're
"missing" with relative ease.