I mean, the real bigness of the place sort of factors into that, and I'm not saying that every Dragonborn needs a team like Shepard or the Grey Warden, but even the Lone Wanderer and the Courier had characters with interesting backstories and character-central quests. I don't really feel that in Skyrim, and I think they could have done better on that angle.
Yeah, you have a point there. I think the main difference between Skyrim (and Oblivion) and Fallout is that in Fallout, everything is much more condensed. There's way less NPCs in Fallout (and quests) which all have bigger roles, which makes that difference.
Gotta say BF3 has kinda taken over my gaming time these days also :/
To address the question seriously, I don't think the writers handled the rebellion thing the way they thought they would. Ulfric and the Stormcloaks really came across as a bunch of idealist jerks. The motives? Okay, but at the same time when Ulfric's right-hand man handwaves away the common people who just support the Empire because it supplies them with their decent way of life (saying something about how they can die with their false gods), the whole thing smacks of fanaticism.
So yeah. Their whole Stormcloak rebellion thing doesn't come off to me as noble as I think it was supposed to be. Their ideals and goals are fine and all, but at the same time I haven't come across any hint of compromise or structured plan beyond "Get Ulfric into position of High King, kill Thalmor everywhere and make Skyrim the Nordiest Nord Place for Nords".
Also, in my playthrough I recently met Jarl Elisif and did her obligatory fetch quest. How do you sympathise with a guy who barges into Solitude and gibs a husband to death just to make a symbolic point? (Add to the fact that Elisif lets on that Torygg actually respected Ulfric for his opinion, and the whole rebellion just looks like a dickfest)
An idealistic crusade is great and all up until they start ignoring the people they're trying to 'liberate'.
So, question time to rejuvenate the thread - who did you side with, Empire or Stormcloaks?
I sided with the Empire most prominently due to the racism of the Stormcloaks, and the attitude that "Skyrim is OUR land, filthy elves ruined it". However, the deeper I went into the game the more I got the sense Ulfric was more interested in personal power and glory than the good of Skyrim and the Nords. The Empire let the Nords worship Talos secretly while holding off the Dominion, then Ulfric began his rebellion, weakening the region for when the Dominion invades again and giving them pretense to investigate the region and pressure Talos worshipers.
If Ulfric really cared about the Nords, starting a civil war with the Empire that is protecting the region from invasion was not a smart move. Not to mention the incident with the Forsworn shows how self-righteous they truly are. And even if Ulfric truly does fight in the name of true Nord beliefs, he's still doing more harm than good and goes from power-hungry tyrant to hot-headed moron who doesn't realize the long-term consequences of his actions.
In the end, a band of Nords believing that other races have tainted their home and religion and start a war to take over the land, and are lead by a charismatic war hero who champions the beliefs but is only interested in personal power and is a self-righteous hypocrite? Struck too close to real life for me to side with them. By contrast, the Empire may have not been a particularly admirable bunch, but they agreed to the treaty for the safety of their citizens including the Nords.