Should Critics Re-Review Skyrim?

Oxvial
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:23:53 PM
Reply

No game with that many problems deserve a 9.0+

25 up, 9 down

PasteNuggs
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:29:06 PM

Have you played it? It absolutely deserves a 9+. I never played Oblivion and could never get into the Fallouts but Skyrim has me hooked.

8 up, 6 down

Oxvial
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:41:22 PM

I don't care how good is if it's so troublesome.

17 up, 4 down

bigrailer19
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:45:09 PM

It's not so troublesome, to many people are making a big deal about it. You cab certainly play the game especially after the patch. If dragons are flying around backwards, well I wish I could see that!

12 up, 5 down

Oxvial
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:49:19 PM

Some people are really having big problems, just because some of you are okay with it or the game hasn't failed big like others, doesn't make this game deserving of a 9.0+ review, Bethesda knows this.. no wonder they didn't let reviewers have the Ps3 version.

15 up, 4 down

bigrailer19
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:14:30 PM

I'm not disagreeing with you about a game that has issues being of a lower score. I'm just saying if some are having issues and others are not there's a fine line. BTW I havnt had to the issues so I'd score it accordingly.

8 up, 1 down

daus26
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:26:02 PM
Reply

It's a pretty big deal, but imo, it shouldn't warrant a review. At least not yet. Imagine if a patch is made that fixes the major problems. The Re-Review would have to be Re-Reviewed back to the original score.

I think Bestheda (spelling?) should be given a month longer to fix this. If it hasn't been fixed by then, or if they haven't said anything about it, it needs to be re-reviewed, or at least edited to inform future consumers. It's inexcusable really after that long.

I say this because GT5 had a similar problem with the game saves. It freezes the game when the save file got too big at a certain point from viewing the news section and museum cards. However, they quickly fixed it after the problem was discovered. So far, this doesn't seem to be the case with Skyrim.

3 up, 0 down

jimmyhandsome
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:29:20 PM
Reply

I don't own Skyrim or have even played it...but my opinion is that I don't think the score should be changed, assuming the problem can be fixed.

If the 2nd patch could fix it, then I'd view it more as a big inconvenience than anything.

2 up, 2 down

Highlander
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:33:56 PM

This sounds like the kind of reasoning that led people to their 3rd, 4th or 5th replacement Xbox. The game is broken.

22 up, 13 down

bigrailer19
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:52:01 PM

So Highlander, should they re-review the game then and when the 2nd patch fixes everything, re-re-review the game?

If you have a solution I'd love to hear it. Cus changing the score would be leading future customers (after the patch) to believe it's not what it Should be.

I get your 360 statement though. It's a very good analogy but in this case Skyrim is actually worthy of what it's getting.

4 up, 1 down

TheAgingHipster
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 8:17:57 AM

Not the best analogy, I think. A broken 360 is another several hundred down the drain. A glitchy game is a one-time purchase that a patch can fix.

But that doesn't excuse Bethesda from making the console versions inferior to the PC version. Console gamers need to hold them accountable for their mistake. This has been the same story retold through the entire generation--the PS3 gets a poorly coded or glitchy version of an otherwise excellent game. It was understandable around launch. It's inexcusable 5+ years into the cycle.

Make no mistake, though. Skyrim is an amazing game, on the right system. My PC version has never glitched or crashed, and 63 hours into it I've seen maybe 20% of everything there is to see. I can honestly state that Skyrim is probably my favorite game of the generation. But it SUCKS that PS3 owners are getting screwed like this.

7 up, 0 down

PasteNuggs
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:30:24 PM
Reply

No I don't think that it should be re-reviewed. The game as a whole outweighs the issues. At least in my playthrough anyway.

5 up, 4 down

Highlander
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:32:54 PM

I disagree, the game as it stands has show stopping issues that truly make it a broken game - until fixed. Review it as it is, not as it could be given the opportunity to be fixed. If you leave the reviews as they are you are effectively allowing this game to be reviewed on it's potential (assuming it's fixed) instead of what it is - a broken game. Imagine if all games could get the benefit of being reviewed on their potential instead of on what is delivered on disk...

14 up, 11 down

bigrailer19
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:54:48 PM

But it's not broken. Broken means unplayable and it's far from it. You also can't call it broken when many others are not experiencing the issues. From what it seems the 360 and PC versions are fine as well.

I'm sitting here playing Skyrim right now, I don't consider this a broken game by any means. Especially if I'm playing it, and half of my friends list has Skyrim in also.

9 up, 4 down

TheAgingHipster
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 8:25:22 AM

I'm with bigrailer on this. The only people I hear complaining about Skyrim being broken are the PS3 gamers. The PS3 version is, arguably, broken, but the game itself is sound.

Rather than re-review it, why not just add a caveat to the reviews, stating that the PS3 version is known to be catastrophically glitchy in long-running saves, and a patch is being implemented to try and fix the issues?

3 up, 1 down

Highlander
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:30:35 PM
Reply

You know, I have a problem with this, and I think you will understand Ben. OK, the game, provided everything is working perfectly, with a tail wind, rolling down hill on a straight road in the middle of a sunny, dry, mild day gets a 9.7. OK. But given the truth of the situation, it doesn't work perfectly and it's not a mild, dry, sunny day on a long straight downhill road, and the wind isn't at out back either. So really 9.7 is a *potential* score if all the flaws, graphics, and operational are fixed.

Great.

So, how many other games could have 9.7 *potentially* if they had the benefit of 40+ hours of reviewer play and a full game patch? Hell, how many games would merit a 9.0+ if their major issues were fixed by patching the game after the fact, so are reviews potential scores or actual scores? If they are supposed to be reflective of the game delivered, then I don't see how you can leave the scores up for a game reviewed on an alternate platform prior to the patch which doesn't even resolve the issues and brings more.

Perhaps you could take the review and update it reflecting the situation and give is a score that is truthful about the game as delivered and say that if X, Y and Z are fixed it's a 9.5+ game, but like this it's broken and that means a big fat 2-4 out of 10 because the game is flat out broken. If the game had broken as it has, during your review, how would you score it?

11 up, 14 down

daus26
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:02:49 PM

We're talking about bug fixes here, that have the potential to be fixed (for free), not the potential of how great the game could be. There's a difference between being broken, and something that can be fixed through a patch. It's not like they're changing the game with new features or such. It's a temporary bug issue, and unfortunately, to be fair, there have been lots of games that require patches. If this games gets deducted because of having to have a patch, then lots of other games do too.

Now I don't support releases of a buggy game like this, because obviously not enough effort went into the development of the game, nor the testing. However, they should at least be given the chance like any other games to fix it.

5 up, 2 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:43:57 PM

Well, I think you need to be familiar with the situation.

When they say the game is "broken," it basically just means players could experience lag and texture drop-off after extended play. Sometimes, it does become unplayable as I understand it, but other times, it's only a minor annoyance.

It's not like the minute you start playing, everything is busted. Like I said, it can take 30-40 hours and even then, people say they don't have problems. I played for nearly 20 hours before writing the review and while I did come across a few very minor glitches (as I mentioned in the review), there was nothing so severe as to warrant an actual deduction from the score.

You ask what I would score it now, knowing what we I know. I honestly don't think it'd be too much lower, because the game is that amazing, and I would be lenient considering the size, scope, and ambition behind the game. We're talking about a single-player adventure (not a MMO) that technically never ends, given the radiant storytelling/quest style, and the world is absolutely mind-bogglingly massive.

So I say it has some leeway there. When you shoot for the moon, there should be more tolerance, I believe.

14 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:46:51 PM

OK, see, I'm not getting this; You said this Ben;

"Sometimes, it does become unplayable as I understand it, but other times, it's only a minor annoyance."

If a game becomes unplayable because of a fault in the game that *needs* to be patched, what do we call it?

6 up, 6 down

Excelsior1
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:07:00 AM

You say you played for 20 hrs but wasn't that review based off the 360 version? It's no secret the PS3 version has way more problems.

5 up, 4 down

bigrailer19
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:09:08 AM

Excel-

He's admitting to that. Did you read what he said?

1 up, 1 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:31:47 AM

As usual, Excelsior, you're trying to make something PS3-related out to be a bigger tragedy than it is. People could play 20 hours of the PS3 version, too, and have no problem. The ONLY PS3-specific issue is the save file thing, which only occurs after playing for a good deal longer than 20 hours.

Highlander: I don't really know how widespread the "unplayable" complaints were. I know there were enough of them to cause serious backlash, but even a couple such complaints can incite a firestorm.

It definitely needed to be patched. But like I said, this is such a gargantuan ambition in many respects...it's like trying to build the space shuttle for the first time and realizing that a LOT needed to be fixed. It's not a Fiat, you know? ;)

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/3/2011 12:31:57 AM

5 up, 2 down

Killa Tequilla
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:04:30 AM

Yes highlander, is a damn big game man... Look im 33 hours in, my save file is 7mb, im on a 320gb slim and I refused to update to version 1.02. My Skyrim is not updated yet I have not encountered anything mayor in the game. The only thing ive encountered are Dragons!! The graphics on this game are beautiful, to end my comment, its one of the very few RPGs ive ever played, and im loving it. Dont mean to be rude but, maybe you should play it.

4 up, 0 down

Excelsior1
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 2:28:35 AM

Ben, the game is worse on the PS3. Some have even went as far to say it is broken. I don't think that is an exaggeration. It's pretty clear that PS3 users have had more issues. That's exactly why Bethesda just flat out refused to send the PS3 version out for review. They were afraid some reviewers might encounter the same problems other PS3 users have encountered. They knew the 360 version was more stable. Tragic? No. But it's slightly annoying.

This is not the first time Bethesda has had issues on the PS3. It's well known that Fall out 3 has more problems on the PS3. There are sections in the game that are almost unplayable such as Broken Steel. Runs like a champ on the 360. That I have seen with my own eyes becuase I watched my cousin play that part of the game on his 360.

Bethesda needs to do better on the PS3. What's wrong with wanting the PS3 version to run as good as its 360 counterpart? Have you even played the PS3 version of the game I wonder? Just asking.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 12/3/2011 2:34:06 AM

5 up, 5 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 10:37:23 AM

Excselsior, listen to me. The PS3 version's problems come about due to the save file issue. Period. Nobody I know or and nobody I've seen online have said the PS3 version is inferior up until that point.

You haven't played it. You're once again trying to make the PS3 out to be a piece of sh** due to SECOND-HAND information. With the save file issue fixed on the PS3 - which is what the patches are supposed to do - it will in no way be different than the 360 version.

It was the save file issue. It was no glitchier or buggier than the 360 version other than that. Just try to get that through your head, please.

4 up, 5 down

Excelsior1
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 11:52:26 AM

Ben, you know I have not played it, huh? I most have certainly have played it. My PSN ID is jamiecolts if you have any doubts. How could I have the trophies for a game I have not played? Duh. Hell, I'm on my second playthrough. I said I have played it below so you are calling me a liar I guess. Well, thank God for PSN becuase I can prove I have played it.

5 up, 2 down

Excelsior1
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:55:50 PM

Ben,I never said the PS3 is a piece of Sh!t. The blame lies with Bethesda. That's 3 games they have made that have had issues on the PS3. I suggest you get that through your head. It's like you are an honary member of the Sony defence force riding my a$$. Others have said they have had problems like World but you do not single them out. You just try to render my opinion invalid by saying I have not played the game. Which makes you wrong 2 twice.

7 up, 2 down

packersfan66
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 1:25:46 AM

The main point that should come of this is that Bethesda's bullsh!t is ridiculous. Fallout was the same way and it came out 4 years ago! I actually couldn't believe how much smoother it ran on the 360 when I picked it up for $15 a couple months ago after spending hours to platinum it many years ago. Aww nostalgia :')

1 up, 1 down

Excelsior1
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 1:07:27 PM

Fall out 3 runs way better on the 360. Gamers know Bethesda's games perform better on the 360. It's been like that since Fall out 3. I was hoping the new engine would help Bethesda on the PS3 but that was expecting too much. Still getting framerate problems and freezes. I had 3 sompanions with me. Dalphine, Lydia, and that old man, I ran into a dragon and ofcourse that's when the framerate goes to hell. It was not a save file issue becuase I was only at 5300kb. That's the kind of thing our 360 friends don't have to put up with. Neither should we.

0 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:31:41 PM
Reply

Nah, but it should be noted many scores would be different if reviewers had played it long enough.

I downloaded the broken patch today and wow it did make it run pretty smooth at least in the areas that shouldn't have ever been slowing down in the first place. But I don't want to see this frame rate chugging next gen on Sony's machine, it's pitiful.

For some reason I can never appease the guards in Markarth, so I have to keep killing them all. Even going to jail doesn't do it. I wound up fighting the Jarl today, but he's invincible.

3 up, 0 down

PasteNuggs
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:35:27 PM

The only frame rate issues I have are when it saves. Otherwise it runs really smooth.

0 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:03:11 PM

It gets really bad when there are multiple humans doing battle, at least for me. The fact that I have a follower and a dog probably screws it up more.

0 up, 0 down

Yukian
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:35:48 PM
Reply

No critic will play 40 hours to make a review. It would take weeks after release and several critics to keep up with the flow of games.

If I were a critic I'd put an editor's note or something to update the review but the review or the score shouldn't change.

On the other hand... if critics played most games extensively, some reviews MAY have been better... *cough* Final Fantasy XIII *cough* :D

4 up, 0 down

matt99
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:40:24 PM
Reply

I think a reviewer should do what he/she feels is right, if they feel after further playing that their score should be changed then they should do that, and I would respect that.

Or perhaps with the current gen's ability to patch games after release reviewers should state which version they are reviewing, and if a new update provides a significant change or improvement then make an addendum at the bottom of the review if they feel it's necessary.

2 up, 0 down

CrusaderForever
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 10:54:35 PM
Reply

The only way this should be re-reviewed is if Bethesda publicly states they are leaving Skyrim the way it is and they are moving on to their next project. As long as they keep trying to fix the problems we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Otherwise it would need to be re-re-reviewed once they have fixed all the problems. We would come full circle back to the original score.
However, this has been very inconvenient to all gamers affected. It's a good question to each his own.

Last edited by CrusaderForever on 12/2/2011 10:57:26 PM

3 up, 0 down

ekauq
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:00:05 PM
Reply

I'm just wondering what it would be like if developers these days had to work in the days of ps2, there weren't patches for games (or at least not easily available). If a game had a bug, then it was just there. No fixing or balancing, the game was just "as is".

0 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:33:10 AM

The developers today were highly likely being developers also in the days of the ps2.

1 up, 0 down

fatelementality
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:50:24 PM

The game would be delayed until completion. People hate bugs, but they also hate delays. Pick your poison.

Last edited by fatelementality on 12/3/2011 9:50:55 PM

2 up, 0 down

Excelsior1
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:03:32 PM
Reply

I definitely think the PS3 version should have been reviewed more. It's no secret that it is that version that has had the most problems. Ofcourse that is exactly why Bethesda refused to send it out for review. At one time when I looked at game rankings the number of 360 reviews for the game outnumbered the reviews for the PS3 version something like 40:5.

I have restarted my game. I'm about 8 hrs into a new game. I have had the game freeze on me multiple times. The audio dropped out one time and all I could hear is my horse breathing. A few minutes later my PS3 just decided to reset itself. Odd, becuase my first playthrough was not nearly as bad. That would explain why some people have had way more problems than others. It almost seems random. I have not applied Bethesda's broken patch.

I completely understand why people are upset. Playing a game that you feel can collapse on you at any point takes a lot of the fun out of it. The PS3 version should have definitely been scrutinized more.

I would not mind seeing Ben review the PS3 version. I don't think he would have rated it as highly. PS3 reviews really should not be based off the 360 disc anyways. In hindsight the fact that Bethesda sent the 360 version to a Playstation site should have raised a red flag. I was very suspicous when I heard Ben got the 360 version. Bethesda should get called out more for attempting to shape the review scores by only sending out the best version of the game.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 12/2/2011 11:22:46 PM

6 up, 2 down

bigrailer19
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:06:58 PM

So your refusing to download the patch which will make your game run better (and maybe get the chancet o see a dragon fly backwards) but still complain that your game isn't running right. Hmmm...

Fair enough I suppose.

4 up, 2 down

Excelsior1
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:31:52 PM

I don't want to loose my resistances plus I have read that the patch has actually cuased more freezing issues in the PS3 version. I would like to wait for the patch that actually gets some positive feed back, but I might decide to go ahead and roll the dice on this patch a day or two before the new one comes in if I'm feeling lucky.

4 up, 3 down

bigrailer19
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:44:25 PM

If you started a new game what's it gonna hurt?

4 up, 2 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:45:30 PM

Like I said above, I wouldn't have scored it much lower, no.

3 up, 1 down

Killa Tequilla
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:08:34 AM

Sir, i believe the preoblems you listed are pure bs.

1 up, 3 down

BorrowedTime
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:50:41 AM

@ Killa Tequilla

I don't post here often, but I have to come to Excelsior's defense on one item. I'm at 160 hours, and 12 MB save file. My game not only continues to lag badly in heavily populated areas, but in the last couple of days, now freezes with alarming regularity, most often when loading into a new area. I would say I need to do a hard reset on my PS3, within 15 minutes of loading a saved game.

Just to be certain that it wasn't my PS3 acting up on me, I threw in Uncharted 3 and ran through a few chapters, and White Knight Chronicles 2 and ran through Red Horn Isle without a single hitch.

If I can't play a game for more than 15 minutes without having to do a hard reset, or having to worry about my progress that I have to save my game every time I want to enter a new area, then I would have to say that the PS3 version is indeed broken.

Last edited by BorrowedTime on 12/3/2011 9:51:57 AM

7 up, 0 down

bigrailer19
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:03:48 PM
Reply

"but I wasn't able to play to the point where everyone was experiencing major problems". I didn't experience those issues before or after the patch and I know many others, even here in the comments who havnt.

I don't think it should be re-reviewed at all. I understand the frustration some have experienced but my experience has been completely opposite and that of a 9.7 score. I can't say anything other than I must have eithe gotten lucky with the way my game plays. Also if this is the case for other people, and the 360 and PC versions run ok, the game as a whole still deserves the score of what it's potential is.

That's a fine line, if the game was running this way for "everyone" and every system absolutely it should be re-reviewed or scored as is, accordingly. But if as I said mine runs fine and if I were to do a review I'd base it off what I'm playing which is an unbroken game in that respect. So who's really to say. Not I, too much responsibility. I'd much rather just continue to play, I know the score it deserves.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I'm not to happy with this generation in regards to patches. I don think a game should be released and patched later. But I do love the fact that technology allows this to happen, being able to fix games that need it. But if it starts to get abused then its a little frustrating. I'd like to see what would happen to developers today without being able to patch games. Let's see how they would fair developing a game without the Internet. Like back in the days of the PS2.

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 12/2/2011 11:11:15 PM

2 up, 3 down

Excelsior1
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:46:16 PM

That is true that it is a fine line, but having said that I think if there had been more reviews for the PS3 version it might have shed more light on the issues people are having. You say you have read that some people on this site have said that they have had few problems, but I have also read a few that have said that they have. One went as far to say the game crashed more after the patch. It almost looks like it's 50/50. That's just not good enough in my humble opinion. 50% of gamers should not have to suffer.

3 up, 1 down

bigrailer19
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:11:48 AM

They shouldn't I agree that's way to many. My point is if I was a reviewer and my game ran like it has I would give it a high 9 as opposed to say you who's had trouble with the game. What do we do then? Bethesda is working on that problem, but I don't think there should be any re-reviewing. My game runs fine as opposed to yours, there's not much else to say.

But would I be wrong for giving it a 9.7 per say, when I'm not experiencing those issues? No, of course not, so why change the score? Even if there were PS3 copies sent out we'd probably see a fluctuation in scores if the trend is the same as you said, about 50/50.

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 12/3/2011 12:17:26 AM

2 up, 2 down

Clamedeus
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 7:22:17 AM

@Excelsior1

How do you know if it's 50/50, when you are only getting info from a few people? I don't think that would hold much credibility on how bad it seems. Some will have issues and some will not, the one's that do have issues could be in the Minority, we really don't know how bad it is.

I'm not taking sides in this though, but we really don't know the scope of it.

Last edited by Clamedeus on 12/3/2011 7:23:35 AM

2 up, 2 down

Excelsior1
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 10:25:27 AM

@clam

You are correct. Using a comments section as example for how many people are having problems is not accurate. I only mentioned it becuase bigrailer mentioned he saw several comments that said some people were not having problems. 50/50 is just what it looks in the comments section. For every comment that says its okay there seems to be another saying it isn't fine. If we were to go by IGNs poll it looks like 50/50 is low. In that poll 75% of PS3 users reported problems.

One thing is clear the. We know the PS3 version has a nasty bug in it that the other versions don't have. We also know Bethesda tried to hide the PS3 version from reviewers.

Thr PS3 version's reviews should be amended to reflect that. What about the 20% of PS3 users that don't have an internet connection? They should be warned about the PS3 version's issues. Unless one has been hiding under a rock they probably already know the PS3 version has problems though.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 12/3/2011 10:30:52 AM

4 up, 2 down

Fane1024
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 5:55:16 AM

It *appears* that Bethesda tried to hide the PS3 version. It could also have taken longer to go gold or pass certification by Sony or something else.

I think it is that sort of unjustified certainty that pushes Ben's buttons. You draw conclusions (which in this case may be correct) and then state those beliefs as facts.

0 up, 0 down

daus26
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:08:57 PM
Reply

The only gripe I have now is it seems they're not focusing on PS3 patches as they should, but patches for all the consoles in general. Can they fix the PS3's major problems with a general patch?

2 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:43:15 AM

The codebase for the different versions must remain as identical as possible, or later patching and other updates will become a nightmare. Therefore, if something is changed due to a problem on one platform, these same changes must be applied also on the versions for the other platforms.

I work as a developer myself, and I got a good real life example of this: We have build a platform independent tool for use in radio studios. The users of this software has discovered an issue on one of the operating systems the tool can run on; Windows. This problem is due to the file system and therefore is platform specific.

But the patch for this must not break the platform independence, therefore we can't write a specific fix only for the windows users. That would be by far the easiest solution but would branch out the software to a Windows specific version.
This fix needs to be part of a general update and for all practical purposes it will be included with other fixes that are less severe even though this bug were pretty serious.

0 up, 0 down

Norrin Radd
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:20:33 PM
Reply

Re-review? Hmmm.... I think it should come off more like a PSA (like what the gaming media is already doing). Alter review scores? That's just silly, IMO. Reviews are ALWAYS subjective and each one should be viewed in the proper light - as one person's opinion. Now, that's usually an insightful and professionally well founded opinion - which is why consumers should use them as guides - not as bibles.

Who cares what the number after the decimal point is? Let me, oh I don't know, actually READ some reviews to see what the game is about and how it plays! Re-review a score? Come on. Give me a break.

Last edited by Norrin Radd on 12/2/2011 11:21:51 PM

6 up, 0 down

bigrailer19
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:45:30 PM

I like the way you think.

2 up, 0 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:47:30 PM

No, not every aspect of a review is subjective. That's my biggest pet peeve.

It just implies that absolutely anyone on earth can do it, because everyone can have an opinion. There are objective, qualitative aspects of any entertainment based review (ranging from graphics to sound quality to writing to acting to control) that should be and are analyzed without personal opinion.

"All opinion" is just a giant insult to all critics, IMO.

6 up, 1 down

Clamedeus
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 7:45:56 AM

@Ben

Agreed.

@Norrin Rad

Some reviews can be opinion, but I think that depends on the person who Is doing the review, If they aren't letting any self emotion leak into the review or selfishness, Bias, what have you, his/her review shouldn't be just labeled as opinion when it was professionally done, and written without any bias or ill intention.

0 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 7:14:58 PM

There's a reason 99% of user reviews out there are pieces of sh!t. This site seems to have accrued some excellent ones.... but that's an exception due to the setup.

1 up, 1 down

packersfan66
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 1:46:14 AM

.. Doesn't the fact that people are able to argue your "objective analysis" render it not objective at all? It's not like someone is able to come up with an absolute way to calculate graphics or sound quality. Hence all of the differing opinions on how good it is and how it effects the playing experience of the game. You know video games a lot better than me, but doesn't that allow you generate a more educated opinion ?

4 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Monday, December 05, 2011 @ 9:16:32 AM

@Packersfan
That reasoning doesn't dictate what is subjective and what is objective. The fact that you can argue something doesn't make it subjective. It only seems that way because one's experience can be shifted one way or another. But experience can be misleading as well as helpful.

Don't forget... another benefit that a reviewer has is that they have created an objective view point. They have a history of reviewing that, when consistent, constantly gives them a position of being able to be comparative. They have standards already established and on record. They also have reputations for being more knowledgeable in some areas over others.

Your argument could be applied to movies or music as well. But at the end of the day, there's a reason review scores are usually fairly similar, and there's a reason why movies like Forrest Gump will always be considered better than Hot Tub Time Machine or Final Fantasy VII will always be better than Naughty Bears. You might have enjoyed Hot Tub Time Machine better than Forrest Gump, but there is still an obvious objective evaluation that says your subjective opinion cannot affect the objectivity of the situation.

You can disagree with a review from behind the guise of "subjectivity"... but that doesn't detract from the objectivity of the review.

0 up, 0 down

packersfan66
Monday, December 05, 2011 @ 10:02:49 PM

@underdog
The minute a movie critic takes the "facts" he sees with his own eyes and translates it into a score out of 4 is when it becomes his own opinion. He can analyze them as much as he wants, apply whatever method he uses every time he reviews a film; but this method is thought up of by this specific critic, based on what he believes makes a movie great. No one person is alike, everyone has something that makes them tick more than another.

0 up, 0 down

LegendaryWolfeh
Friday, December 02, 2011 @ 11:46:13 PM
Reply

Well, hate to say it, but I never once experienced a ground breaking, game stopping glitch. Then again I am playing on the pc version.

3 up, 0 down

TheAgingHipster
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:16:31 PM

The way it's meant to be. :)

1 up, 0 down

dbyzforce
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:07:44 AM
Reply

All this glitching talk has put me off getting a copy of Skyrim. I dont have or plan to get a 360 and not sure my laptop can handle it despite the graphics card, and cant afford to get a gaming pc now. I guess I'll wait later to get it once they have the GOTY version the game, hopefully those issues will be resolved...

Last edited by dbyzforce on 12/3/2011 12:11:26 AM

1 up, 0 down

bigrailer19
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:14:18 AM

They will have it resolved by then. If your tight on cash I'd suggest waiting just because of the lunacy of the situation. But otherwise theres been plenty of evidence, first hand as well, that you may not experience any of the issues.

0 up, 1 down

dbyzforce
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:28:03 AM

@bigrailer19 I know but am thinking getting for PC when cheaper, since can get mods and seems less issues overall. Hopefully saved enough for a cheap gaming rig ($500 +)...

Last edited by dbyzforce on 12/3/2011 12:30:07 AM

1 up, 0 down

bigrailer19
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:48:42 AM

That's probably not a bad idea!

0 up, 0 down

Xbox_Killer
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:58:04 AM

@bigrailer19 "They will have it resolved by then."

Oh really? Then why am I still stuck as a vampire in oblivion goty?

Last edited by Xbox_Killer on 12/3/2011 12:58:53 AM

4 up, 1 down

Fane1024
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 2:46:24 AM

You didn't make enough saves?

0 up, 2 down

bigrailer19
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:41:06 AM

Xboxkiller-

Because you didn't play as the redguard race!

3 up, 0 down

Clamedeus
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 7:54:11 AM

I've never had any problems with the Vampire disease, there is a scroll that can cure all of the ailments including Vampirism, I forget where to get it though, I also believe you can go to one of the churches in Oblivion and they can cure you of being a vampire, but you have to catch it early.

^ A friend told me, I had a save for outside every dungeon/cave so I didn't need to do it that way, I was very careful how I played, because I did encounter it before and became a vampire and didn't like it so I started over not knowing you had those options, but when I encountered it I was very cautious afterwards.

0 up, 0 down

Xbox_Killer
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:23:45 AM
Reply

I think you should just update the review with this at the top (The game is full of bugs, glitches and many other issues. If you buy this game just know they will never fully fix it. If you must have it, buy it for pc).

3 up, 5 down

Coffeya
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:39:00 AM
Reply

Sure why not, people opinions of a game can change over time especially when you have patches. Just how I'm sure if you played each game start to finish or/and the hardcore 100% complete that your views would change.

It can just be considered a review update or review 2.0.

1 up, 0 down

DemonNeno
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:40:03 AM
Reply

I don't own the game, never seen said glitches or have compared texture detail reduction by the original patch. Now that this has been made clear, let us move on to the question.

Reviewing a "glitching" game serves little purpose. At this point, it's too late for a review to forewarn consumers who purchased the game already. Everyone else, myself included, couldn't have missed this news about the games issues.

Now I've read a bit here and there regarding the PS3 version of the game having it's texture quality reduced to decrease the bugs... Along with the other glitches the patch brought on.

In all fairness, I think you should simply wait for the patch, see what it's supposed to address and go from there. Now, as you stated, you don't have 30-40hrs to spend solely on this game. Even if you did, it would take you at least 4-5 days to patch it, play it and write something about it.

Depending on how serious they take the situation should reflect on whether or not reviewing it again is worth your while. Personally, I think it's ridiculous that they would take a "cheap" shortcut to patch the PS3 version and render the overall experience "inferior" to what it initially launched as. I would have to say I stand by this statment regardless of whether gameplay becomes smoother. Patches should improve gaming quality. If they're that obnoxiously incapable of scripting for the PS3, perhaps they need a better team.

So my answer is Yes and No. If they go out of their way and rectify the situation, updating their band-aid patch with one that retains best graphical quality along with correcting the other bugs we're focusing on, then re-reviewing isn't necessary.

If they release another patch which keeps the PS3 visually crippled in any way, shape or form, then I would have to say you should not only re-review, but perhaps do an PS3-specific review.

That's if you can. Or want to.

Regardless, I won't lose any sleep. :)

Last edited by DemonNeno on 12/3/2011 1:42:22 AM

4 up, 0 down

___________
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:49:36 AM
Reply

no, they should of reviewed it properly in the first place!

2 up, 4 down

BigBoss4ever
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 2:11:17 AM
Reply

not my thing wutsoever. can't stand first person RPG or first person anything in gaming...

Last edited by BigBoss4ever on 12/3/2011 2:12:47 AM

0 up, 3 down

Fane1024
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 2:53:41 AM

You don't have to play it in first-person. I also dislike first-person, so I played Oblivion almost entirely in third-person. By every account I've seen, Skyrim plays much better in third-person than Oblivion.

3 up, 0 down

bigrailer19
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:46:49 AM

True the third person is really good in this game actually compared to Oblivion.

3 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:47:39 AM

I too play it almost exclusively in 3rd person. To switch view is as easy as pressing a button.
But I think 3rd person view worked well in the Fallout games too, never had any issues with it.

Last edited by Beamboom on 12/3/2011 3:48:41 AM

1 up, 1 down

nogoat23
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 2:41:28 AM
Reply

Reviews help me determine purchase intent. I don't think a new review would change my mind about wanting to get this game. Just keep me updated on if the patches work.

1 up, 1 down

iwillbetheone
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 2:54:03 AM
Reply

I don't know why they even bothered to release the PS3 version if it was so buggy. They could have easily delayed it about a month, and released a perfect game, rather than a broken one.

3 up, 2 down

bigrailer19
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:42:58 AM

Everyone is acting like you can't even play the game. That's not the case! Not even close!

4 up, 4 down

Beamboom
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:55:00 AM

Big is totally right. This is blown totally out of proportions.
When games are of this magnitude, this scope, offering a world of these dimensions both in content, level of detail and pure square meters, well then the concept of having to restart the game every tenth or twentieth hour simply is just a minor inconvenience.

There are few, if *any* other games out there as ambitious as Skyrim. That *must* be taken into account!

Last edited by Beamboom on 12/3/2011 3:57:49 AM

4 up, 3 down

NoSmokingBandit
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:53:14 AM

So its ok to release a buggy game as long as its ok 90% of the time? Thats just stupid. What if your tv spontaneously turned itself off once every 10 hours or so? That would be a pretty shitty tv. Why are we, as consumers, ok with being sold junk? Consumers used to demand quality, now most people just want something that kind of works part of the time because they'd rather have the game now than wait a month for something much better quality. Its absurd.

4 up, 1 down

bigrailer19
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:38:09 PM

Bandit-

Man, listen. Nobody is ok with buying "junk", nobody even said that. My game before and after the patch is running just fine, for the scope of this game, I expect a few little hiccups as most open world games have them. This glitch or flaw or what have you about The save file is inexcuseable though, it should not have gone gold like this. But to act like the game is broken and you can't play it is not right. That's all I'm saying. You absolutely can play the game.

I'm happy with my $60 purchase of Skyrim but, if somebody else who is experiencing the issue, isn't happy I completely understand.

4 up, 1 down

dillonthebunny
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 4:09:04 AM
Reply

its all been blown out of proportion, these glitches are no worse than we had in Fallout 3 and NV.

maybe people expect more? maybe they think with a new game engine it should be super perfect?

coming from an era where we had to wait up to ten mins for a game to load, then have to turn the tape over.. and then it NOT loading, now THATS broken. yet we had no choice. there was no patches, no second chance for devs to fix problems, you played what was released, and that was that.. and usually in only two or three colours.

I say, man up.. stop winging! the glitches for BOTH consoles are being fixed (in bold there, just in case some of you think this is a PS3 specific thing, because its not).

I swear most complaints are from kids who cry over the slightest things, people who have never played Fallout 3 or NV and those who dont even own the game!

anyway, in sick to death of this winging, thumbs me down, I cont care.. I just think the constant winging over what is imo such a fine fine game is pathetic.

8 up, 3 down

Excelsior1
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 4:32:20 AM
Reply

IGN Poll Results 36,000+ PS3 users response

what type of problems are you having in the PS3 version of Skyrim?

Severe framerate drops 13,301 votes (36%)
Textures fail to load 7,026 votes (19%)
Excessive game freezes 7,509 votes (20%)
None of the above 9,086 votes (24%)

I know this is a unscientific poll, but it goes aganst Bethesda's claim that most PS3 users were not having any problems. Only 24% make that claim in this poll.

I had a pretty clean(clean for a bethesda game) run through the first time, but not so much the second time. Weird. That would explain why some here have stated they have had no problems. It looks like they are lucky. Either way, Bethesda better be more careful about the way they handle their PS3 games in the future. They are really getting hammered on this. Another thing is they should make the PS3 versions of their games available for reviews. I don't think that is too much to ask. I also think Bethesda refusing to send out the PS3 version is very damning in itself.

6 up, 4 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 10:39:51 AM

Read the poll again. It was designed ONLY for people who were having problems. Look at the question.

Anybody who didn't experience problems wouldn't vote. There's no option for, "I don't have any issues." You have to be more careful when posting statistics.

I got the PS3 version. All my friends have the PS3 version. Up until the save file problem kicks in, the game compares quite favorably (even looks better in some spots) compared to the 360 version.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/3/2011 10:54:10 AM

3 up, 2 down

Excelsior1
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 11:59:01 AM

None of the above equals no issues. So that's 24% of PS3 players that reported no issues in that poll. The poll even says that 24% of PS3 players have reported no issues in the text below the poll.

If the PS3 version compares so favorably then I wonder why Bethesda only sent out the 360 version for review.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 12/3/2011 12:06:11 PM

1 up, 2 down

Beamboom
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:10:01 PM

No, sorry Excel, it doesn't equal to no issues. I even remember when they published the poll they called out for the ps3 owners that experienced problems with Skyrim. I didn't participate in that poll for that reason.

Notice the question: "what type of problems". This is a poll for those who has experienced problems with Skyrim on ps3, IGN wanted to know what kind of problem is most common. If your problem with Skyrim is not listed, you select the "none of the above" option. You still would have a problem (since you participated in the poll), but you'd describe it differently than the listed alternatives.

Like for instance, if you experienced backwards flying dragons. That qualifies for the "none of the above" alternative.

Last edited by Beamboom on 12/3/2011 12:18:15 PM

2 up, 1 down

Excelsior1
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:00:47 PM

@beamboom

Maybe should have particapated and voted none of the above. This would make a great poll at PSXE. Maybe Ben could make a more fair poll. Ofcourse I should not vote becuase I have not even played the game according to him. Your on my friends list. You can at least confirm I've played it. How does one get trophies without playing a game?

Just blah on the PS3 version comparing fabvorably. The longplay bug it shipped with disquaifies that in itself. He'd probably say the same thing about Fall out 3 as well. Oh well.

2 up, 2 down

raib314
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 3:10:38 PM

I've dealt with a few glitch issues. Mostly not out of the ordinary for the magnitude of the game. You can't make a game this big and have it be perfect right out of the gate. As big as a QA group testing everything can be, it will never compare to the public. I did run into one game breaking glitch, where the storyline quest would not let me progress, which effectively killed the main quest for me. Of course it made me angry, I had put 20+ hours into that particular character. I believe when I realized I would never progress with that character, I restrained myself from throwing the controller and walked away from the system. But that game is so utterly amazing, enthralling and great that I picked it back up the next day, started a new character and completely forgot about it. They need to work out bugs, but I will not stop playing while they do. Its too good. Review should stand.

1 up, 1 down

Underdog15
Monday, December 05, 2011 @ 9:19:44 AM

Sorry Excel.... not this one. :(

0 up, 0 down

Wunengzi
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 4:41:53 AM
Reply

We are talking about two different things here: technical competence and artistic vision.

As storytellers, Bethesda has always been second to none. I presume most of the people here agree on that. The same goes for visual design and so on and so forth.

But their games are buggy and they are lazy about patching/fixing them. Bugs persist for YEARS in their games that other companies would have fixed in a month. If they do bother to release a patch, even money that it breaks the game in a whole new way.

And if there is anything dumber than saying "don't complain about the technical execution of the game because its story is so great and it looks so wonderful" then I don't know what it is. Those facts make the situation worse, not better. We are talking about two separate things here, a wonderful story being hindered by an incompetent delivery mechanism.

And you know... no one gives a damn how hard games used to be to play. That's the lamest excuse I have ever seen, and I'm well on the wrong side of 50 years old. The PS3 bug described here screams of one simple fact: NO ONE BOTHERED TO PLAYTEST MORE THAN A FEW HOURS. In a game that because of its superb design and writing will get a HELL of a lot more than a few hours playing from most people, that's criminal negligence. (I have about 800 hours in Fallout 3, for instance, and still haven't beaten the thing to death.)

So be careful when you start whining about whiners. It isn't whining to scream bloody murder when you get cheated on the technical side by a game company that has a history of screwing over its clients in that very same way from its first games onward.

7 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 6:09:27 AM

What you forget here is the level of complexity. This game is miles, miles more complex than your standard game. It simply is. And that is both from an artistic *and* technical perspective. Their artistic ambitions are tightly knit with the technical challenges. So there is a relevance in what we who whine about the whiners are saying.

You want a bug free game? Go play a PSN game. They are small and simple, therefore free from bugs. Or choose linear games where everything are much more under control, or stick to games built on a proven and stable - but old - engine like the Unreal engine. They are usually quite stable.

Either that, or appreciate companies that are pushing the envelope like they have here.

It is my understanding that these problems are related to the limited amount of ram available on the consoles (512mb!). If asked off the record I would not be surprised if they would have said that the consoles are not built to handle a game of this magnitude.

And the ps3 architecture is made so that the ram is split between the gpus and cpus, while the balacing can be done in the software on the 360. This *might* be the easy explanation why we experience a bit more problems than the 360 guys.

Now I am not defending bugs per say. And sure, they could have worked more on the ps3 version. Yes sir. But there are always different point of views at a given situation. And I stand by my claim that the problems experienced here are blown totally out of proportion. I for one am very thankful not every developer are pushing out safe products built on simple frameworks.
And Fallout 3 is *still* one of my absolute favourite games on the ps3, while at the same time being my clearly most buggy experience too.

Last edited by Beamboom on 12/3/2011 6:39:02 AM

3 up, 1 down

Ludicrous_Liam
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 6:45:15 AM

800 hours, holy f*cking sh*t lol!!!

I've played Uncharted 2 like 7 days on multiplayer (25 x 7 = ...umn..175 -7 = 168 hours) PLUS 160 hours on singeplayer = 328 hours, and I thought I literally played the game to death (I honestly could play it with my eyes closed). But YOU...wow...you could probably play fallout 3 upside down blind-folded and if you get stuck (because your blind) you fall into a pit of crocidiles, without even making a sweat! :P

3 up, 0 down

dillonthebunny
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 7:58:09 AM

LiamDaniels.. aye, if you believe a man over 50 has put in 800 hours in to Fallout 3.

im not saying he hasnt, ive put in 400 hours in to NV and about 300 in to F3, so I know the level of playing it must take for 800, and all I can say is that Im doubting it.

Last edited by dillonthebunny on 12/3/2011 7:58:42 AM

1 up, 0 down

Clamedeus
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 8:17:59 AM

I've never played Fallout, it's not my type of game, but Oblivion didn't feel like it had a story at all, I did beat Oblivion had a lot of fun playing it, the game for me almost ran flawlessly only a few lag spikes in certain areas of the maps but that wasn't any big deal for me.

@Beamboom

That could be one reason, but I still think it's because Bethesda still doesn't have the PS3's architecture down perfectly just yet, not many multiplatform developers do honestly.

1 up, 0 down

Clamedeus
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 8:22:21 AM

@dillonthebunny

It could be possible he has 800 hours, we don't know exactly what he does etc, but then again we don't know. lol

1 up, 0 down

CanadianGuy420
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 10:07:42 AM

800!! Sweet jesus.. most i've played one game is GTA san andreas. over 400 hours.

0 up, 0 down

Oxvial
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 12:42:08 PM

I'm more impressed with playing San Andreas 400 hours.

1 up, 1 down

BikerSaint
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:15:37 PM

Wunengzi,

<<<<I'm well on the wrong side of 50 years old.>>>

Well, I certainly hope that you mean you're around 49 or just a bit under that, because at 59, I know I've been on the absolute "right" side of 50 for the last 9 years......plus a month, LOL

2 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:46:39 PM

dillonthebunny,

Er, why would you doubt anyone over 50 could play for that long. Hell, I don't do RPG's so I doubt I'll ever put 800 into a game, but I'll still run rings around a lot of you young'uns with the hours that I AM willing to put into a non-RPG or non-RTS game.

FYI, in GTA4 alone, I've got at least 130+ hours just based on the main SP mode & side quests(so far) & I'm not still NOT done with it yet and I expect I'll have at least another 100 or so by the time I finish with it(and I'm not even counting the Gay Tony or LOTD packs either, which I plan to play later).

I'm 59 & as recently as last year, I've posted that I've done many 36+ hour marathon gaming sessions, with both GTA4 on my bot-box, & in KZ3's Warzone MP mode on my PS3.

And ONLY because I believe that those non-stop marathons actually caused my old 60 GB Phat Princesses to get it's red blinking light burn-out way too prematurely(I always babied my baby, but the post office still murdered her anyway), and is now the Only reason I've started breaking down those 36+ hour marathon sessions into a bunch of 5 hours sessions when I want to marathon, and only paused between each 5 HR session with a shorty 1/2 hour shut-off now.

And all I'll need when I'm still doing marathon at a spry 117, is some more refills of my marathon gaming medical kit....
some sugar-shock Twinkies, energy bars, Orange Juice, plenty of coffee, & No=Doze....oh yeah, with plenty of side-order bowls of Gummy Bears & Jelly Belly jellybeans too, LOL.

Last edited by BikerSaint on 12/3/2011 1:56:42 PM

2 up, 0 down

Ludicrous_Liam
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:51:12 PM

^^ my retirement in a nutshell :P

2 up, 0 down

CanadianGuy420
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 2:32:13 PM

@ Oxvial 400 hours isn't really that much considering that its been out over 7 years now. i bought it the day it came out and didn't play anything else for like a year. plus i constantly replay it i actually replayed it this past summer so there was another 35 hours. my 100% completion file is 92 hours.
hmm all this talk making me wanna bust out my PS2 and play sum more :D

1 up, 0 down

Oxvial
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:49:05 PM

Oh I see, thought it was like Wunengzi said ''I have about 800 hours in Fallout 3, for instance, and still haven't beaten the thing to death.'' , you just replay it a lot that's different.

1 up, 0 down

CanadianGuy420
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 5:58:38 PM

yeah i guess but i will say even though i've finished it several times i still find things in it i never saw/played before even after all this time. theres just so much in there. even with all the next gen open world games san andreas is still the pinnacle of open world games. in my opinion anyway.

1 up, 0 down

dillonthebunny
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 6:37:20 AM

Bikersaint:

I could be wrong, but if you look at his post and read between the lines, it seems a little tit for tat.

I apologize to him if he really has spent this amount of time on Fallout 3, whether he just spent 800 hours on one play through or multiple play throughs, because that's ridiculous in my eyes. F3 was not only a shorter game than NV but massively more glitchy than NV. Even with backward flying dragons Skyrim will never be that glitchy.

so yeah, I call doubt on it. also I know some of you from the forums, I know that you all could pump 200, 300, 400+ in to a game, so maybe its because I dont know this fella.. but I also know that 800 hours is not just a long time to play a game, its like a LONG time.

I put over 300 hours in to F3, I drained that puppy, could I put over twice as much in? would I play it nearly three times to the same amount of depth? no.

so I accuse colonel Mustard in the kitchen with the lead Fallout 3 claim.

1 up, 1 down

dillonthebunny
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 4:49:22 AM
Reply

lol

1 up, 1 down

dillonthebunny
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 7:59:22 AM

I should really reply rather than just post random comments, this was originally to the 800 hour post.

1 up, 1 down

fatelementality
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 6:55:15 AM
Reply

Here's the bottom line people. If you anyone thinks that making a game this huge is a simple task, then try it yourselves. These people were probably forced to push this out by a deadline and most likely worked their asses off in doing so. In my experience, the game is nowhere near broken. It has frozen about 3 times during 90+ hrs of play. It's also not like they aren't working around the clock to take care of as many bugs as they can either. I've not seen a backwards dragon, I haven't had a quest affected, and I only couldn't absorb 1 dragon's soul after killing it (I was about 50 ft away from it when it died). I almost think that a lot of people don't take care of their systems (either that or their just old consoles) and that's where some or most of the problems come from. When I bought GT3 for my PS2, it crashed like crazy. I never read about this anywhere, yet I experienced it. When I bought a new PS2 it worked just fine. Demon's Soul's also destroyed my 1st PS3 after about 10 min of gameplay. I didn't abuse my systems, but I never cleaned them either. Skyrim works for me and I think it's a fantastic game. When something has THIS many factors, it's just hard to please everyone. People are complainers. When was the last time you were praised for doing something right at your job? Now, when was the last time you were yelled at for doing something wrong. Bet you remember the latter don't ya?

3 up, 4 down

NoSmokingBandit
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:49:16 AM

It doesnt matter how big the game is. If its broken it is broken. If they can't make a game that size and have it come out playable they shouldnt have made the game that size. I appreciate their ambition, but if they can't pull it off they should set their sights a little lower and make a game that effin' works!

5 up, 3 down

fatelementality
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 8:17:19 PM

The game WORKS! I'm playing it! I don't understand. Everyone is nitpicking. I've put more than 90 hrs into it now and am doing just fine. Don't tell me that it is broken or doesn't work. I'm sitting here with proof that it does. Where is your proof that it doesn't?

3 up, 2 down

NoSmokingBandit
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:11:37 PM

Everyone else must be wrong. *You* havent found any issues so everyone else who has had problems must be lying or playing the game incorrectly right? Your one experience means more than hundreds of thousands of other players.

3 up, 2 down

Teddie9
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:26:28 PM

have you played the game bandit? I'm just curious because I believe your use of the word broken is misplaced.

0 up, 0 down

fatelementality
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 10:08:58 PM

So do their experiences. Some people go looking for bugs, trying their best to pull off something in order to glitch the game. I have 6 other friends that own this game. 2 for ps3 and 4 for 360. They have encountered NOTHING that has kept them from progressing through a wonderful, vast, artistic, structurally sound game. How many people do you know (including you) that are playing this game & having problems that are hindering progression? I know of none. These people posting in the forums are true complainers that don't see the good. It's called being a pessimist. Don't forget that there are many good things being said about this game as well. It's kind of like watching the 11 o' clock news. It's horrible how many bad stories you hear. You put it all together & still have a great game that you can fully conquer the main quest on & do 98% of everything else. End of story man. The ones having problems are most likely a much smaller percentage than the ones that are. If you're having such issues yourself, then wait till they fully patch it. You'll still have a great game with lots to do afterwards and is a fantastic value for what it costs.

2 up, 1 down

zork
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 8:07:23 AM
Reply

There are gamers then there is?

0 up, 1 down

fatelementality
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 10:53:53 AM

Is that in dragon tongue?

0 up, 0 down

TheAgingHipster
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 8:29:28 AM
Reply

I mentioned this in an earlier response to one of Highlander's comments, but why not just edit the original reviews to state that the PS3 version is known to have horrible issues in long-running save games, and that a patch is on the way? This doesn't lie to the consumer trying to make an educated purchase, and it doesn't require a re-review of what is, otherwise, an amazing title.

5 up, 0 down

NoSmokingBandit
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:47:57 AM
Reply

Hold on.

So Skyrim's save file actually increases in size over time? That is the official wrong way to make a save file. Fragmentation is the enemy. A save file should always be created at the maximum possible size and filled with zeros where data isnt needed yet.

6 up, 0 down

bigrailer19
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:09:26 PM

After the patch it doesn't seem to get larger with each save.

0 up, 1 down

TheAgingHipster
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 3:20:36 PM

Did the same thing in Fallout 3 and Oblivion. That's just the way they do it, I guess...

0 up, 0 down

Fane1024
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 6:15:50 AM

Heavy Rain also has a growing save file and it became unplayable for me (and some others) apparently because of that feature.

0 up, 1 down

RICHIECOQUI
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 11:28:02 AM
Reply

i put of buying this game because of i'm getting the other big ones uncharted & creed i hope by the time i get it the patches are already on the disc! Does anybody know when those come out?

1 up, 0 down

Fane1024
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 6:20:26 AM

They won't be. They don't create new versions of the gold disc for the presses. Even a GOTY edition might not contain "patched" code. You'll likely have to download all the patches.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 12/4/2011 6:21:35 AM

0 up, 0 down

jlch777
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 1:52:34 PM
Reply

Clearly the game is broken check this out:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ps3-skyrim-lag

1 up, 2 down

Excelsior1
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 8:39:07 PM

Nope the PS3 version compares very favorably to 360 version according to the expert. :/ Well outside of that game breaking bug. I checked the DF face off as well. So much for the PS3 version looking better in some places. Maybe Lens crafters is having a sale.

3 up, 1 down

Underdog15
Monday, December 05, 2011 @ 9:21:06 AM

I'm not sure why you are arguing Excelsior. You clearly agree with Ben. You both say that the save file issue is a big issue.

All Ben is saying, that UP UNTIL THAT POINT, the PS3 seems to perform favorably.

It's very weird to see you try and argue against him when you aren't even contradicting him....

0 up, 0 down

Xzer0
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 4:35:39 PM
Reply

All elder scrolls series were full of bugs (I played almost all series with addons) and it will never change, because open world rpgs with complex quests are very hard to make and to do it flawless you need 5+ years for making a game and 2+ years to find all bugs and fix them.

Last edited by Xzer0 on 12/3/2011 4:36:53 PM

4 up, 1 down

Teddie9
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 5:49:17 PM
Reply

No. Was what Bethesda did more than a little shady yes, but a handful of friends and I (atleast 4) bought the ps3 version on release day or soon after. None of us have encountered anything game breaking...and nearly all of us have played past the 30 hour mark,some up to 60-70h. Yes there has been some frame rate drops and I personally have had 2 (two) freezes after approx 35 hours of play. It should also be noted that any frame rate issues my friends and I have encountered occur after atleast 4-5 hours of play. I know that isn't optimal, but were blowing things out of proportion by loosely using this term "broken". If anything I've had less technical hiccups since the latest patch.

Would the score have been lower if you had played longer Ben, yes, but I could only see it drop by 2, maybe 3 tenths of a full point.

3 up, 3 down

Temjin001
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 5:55:52 PM
Reply

Spike would be my heroes if during their GoTY shenanigans they put together this little bit:

"And 2011's goty goes to ... drum roll... Skyrim!.. *we are the champions theme kicks in* ... ... "WAIT! cut the music.. wait.. sorry, that was a bug ... the actual goty winner is (insert would-be goty winner here)=p

hehe that'd be good.
I'd be satisfied too if they just had the design team walk up to the stage backwards to claim their award.. that be good too =p
They did win it for a Oblivion ;)

8 up, 1 down

GuardianMode
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:42:24 PM

That would make my year. :)

1 up, 0 down

Geobaldi
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:35:27 PM
Reply

Over 100 hours and I have yet to experience any game breaking bugs with my two separate playthroughs, so the high scores it has pulled in thus far should stick.

2 up, 3 down

GuardianMode
Saturday, December 03, 2011 @ 9:39:56 PM
Reply

These two articles tell it better then I ever could.

"Skyrim is NO Game of the Year." VGChartz.com
"Digtial Foundry vs PS3 Skyrim Lag." Eurogamer.com

1 up, 2 down

Robochic
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 9:34:04 AM
Reply

Honestly you can't re-review whats the point we all know what's going on for the PS3 version, i understand where people who have this are ticked you pay 69.99 for a game you expect it to work 100 % i think they should of held back the ps3 version cause u know they knew that it was having issues. This happened with Oblivion on the xbox 360 i remember getting calls on what to do and even the fix i knew about didn't clear it 100%.
I bought this for my hubby but only for the PC as I knew this would happen with the console version. Will they get it 100% fixed I doubt it.

2 up, 0 down

fatelementality
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 12:13:11 PM
Reply

A game this big will never be truly 100% fixed. Someone will find a way to complain about it no matter what. As for me, I'm having fun. That is what gaming is truly about. If you don't like it or can't handle a few minor issues, then don't play it. My save is 15mb and yes I have had a little lag in overpopulated areas. Has that hindered my progression? Nope. I remember Goldeneye for N64 lagging like hell in some areas. Where were all the complaints about that? Oh yeah, people didn't have a fork of horripilation up their asses then.

Last edited by fatelementality on 12/4/2011 12:15:13 PM

5 up, 3 down

Jotun
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 2:34:49 PM
Reply

To people saying no, how is it fair that games like Fallout: New Vegas, Alpha Protocol, or Dead Island get trounced in reviews but this game doesn't? Just because the overall *design* of the game is great and worthy of 9.0+ doesn't mean it should get one if the game has technical flaws. Reviewers are obligated to reference controls, graphical, and all other technical aspects in their reviews. This falls under that catagory.

To me, if what you're saying about the PS3 version not being available is true Ben(for the reasons they gave you guys doing reviews), then they knew, if they gave out the PS3 version, this might happen and they elected to give only a version they knew worked well.

Developing games on the 360 is very much like a pc. While a pc is much more powerful, Microsoft's system is designed with pc integration in mind. PS3 is more of its own thing when it comes to engines and developmental processes. Bethesda, a company I've come to lose all respect for over the years, still doesn't know how to develop different ports for different systems to spec. But of course they'll continue to get buy on sheer merit and because people have been on their b@**s for years. Just because they make huge, great games doesn't mean we should just be happy with a second-rate game when it comes to playablility for *everyone*. I'm glad some of you don't have these problems, but that doesn't make it ok to dismiss those of us who do.

If a Final Fantasy game came out buggy, or an MGS game, everyone would be so up in arms it would seem like the apocalypse. This company needs to take the time they need to make a game 100% playable out of the gate and stop. You're a fool if you think it's ok to release a product as buggy as this. You keep giving them your money on day one, you're the ones making it ok.

I prefer Amazons system of reviews in thie case. You could rate this game 5/5 for fun, but the game, as produced for the PS3, deserves no higher than 2/5 or 3/5, considering that's about the percentage of it you can play before it breaks.

Last edited by Jotun on 12/4/2011 2:42:46 PM

1 up, 3 down

Lairfan
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 4:51:42 PM
Reply

Regardless of how ambitious this game is, if it wasn't working on the technical side of things, they should have either curbed their ambition or just waited for the next gen to start.

Releasing a buggy as hell and most-times unplayable game for a certain console is bad no matter how you try to spruce it up or how you slice it. Yeah, its a big game. That doesn't justify not being able to make it work though.

"Oh my goodness, I can climb to the top of those mountains I see!!!11!! I can go anywhere I want!!!.111!!! The game's perfect because its so open, and everyone who had a problem is an idiot!!!1" That's basically the argument everyone who's coming to the defense of Bethesda is making. Yeah, its great that its big, but once again, if it DOESN'T WORK, its not fun and its not good. Regardless of how many hundreds of thousands of hours you can put in.

Oh, and I also don't care if it works on 360 or PC too. If its not working properly on my console of choice, its still not good.

1 up, 2 down

Lairfan
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 4:53:31 PM
Reply

As for re-reviewing it, what's the point? Its already shipped 7 million copies and everyone who wants to get it has either already gotten it or is gonna get it very soon.

Besides, I think the hundreds of millions of articles about this subject already speak enough of the problems as is.

0 up, 1 down

MrAnonymity
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 9:49:59 PM
Reply

The game is amazing. Flawed? Absolutely. I have had it freeze more times than I care for, have lost a character due to an overwrite I didn't do, saw an old lady fly across the screen sitting down only to land on a bench... this game has issues. However, for me, these issues do not detract from the massive scale of the game and how excellent it is. It obviously still needs a little polish, but these are correctable issues. If people want to complain the answer is simple - trade the damn game in for a copy of Two Worlds.

0 up, 0 down

Caanimal
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 10:12:00 PM
Reply

I always feel left out in cases like this, after about 64 hours of game play and a file size of about 9.4mb I have had no major issues what so ever.

I think what is actually happening is that many aspects are being blown WAY out of proportion to what is actually happening, some minor hick-ups that are actually few and far between when it comes to how many people are actually experiencing them. As the saying goes "The squeeky wheel gets heard and greased...".

As for this "broken" thing, there has been only 1 game in my nearly 20 years of playing video games (I'm 33 now) that I have actually had "break" on me, a main story key person glitched to an extent where I couldn't continue the main story in the second half of Far Cry 2, THAT is the ONLY time I will call a game broken, when I can no longer play the game or further the main story line.

I am w/ others though, I'm getting really tired of games being released w/ a slew of problems then being "fixed" later w/ patches that really shouldn't be needed.

0 up, 0 down

Gravelight
Sunday, December 04, 2011 @ 10:46:00 PM
Reply

Going on 80 hours, no glitches or freezes. Best game i've ever played in my life so far. I play on my 120 gb PS3 and never experienced any problems. Oh yeah, the 2.0 patch has been out for like a week and a half now and still no problems. I'm playing in central america btw, i dunno if that makes a difference, but the patch is already out here. By the time and experience with this title....this game deserves a 9.9. Graphically inclined as well as the main story, with this game i'd say it's possible to spend at least 400+ hours just doing side quests. It's almost non-parishable and/or never ending.

0 up, 0 down

Gabriel013
Monday, December 05, 2011 @ 7:24:13 AM
Reply

I think the review and subsequent score should be made on the basis of the out of the box product. The game that 100% of purchasing customers will be playing. It shouldn't be reviewed on the post-patch version as there are many gamers out there who aren't online and will never receive the reviewed patched product.

If games receive lower than expected scores because they have glitches to be patched after release then this may make the developers and publishers more careful when deciding a product is ready to ship.

0 up, 0 down

B_RAN_DO
Monday, December 05, 2011 @ 8:04:02 AM
Reply

I've got the PS3 version with almost 130 hrs logged. It has frozen a few times but nothing to get bent out of shape about. Especially if the problem can still be rectified with another patch. Oblivion was the same requiring a few patches before everything fell into place. That being said, I will wade through the bugs and just reset when I need to, because I don't care how buggy it is, I love Skyrim.

1 up, 0 down

ulsterscot
Monday, December 05, 2011 @ 8:49:02 PM
Reply

I think its pretty clear - UC3 is he game of the year - Skyrim flattered to deceive.

Maybe people can trade it in for MW3 - it seems to run just fine lol

0 up, 1 down

saintaqua
Tuesday, December 06, 2011 @ 12:34:14 PM
Reply

Since I'm 70 plus hours in with no freezing or lag, I'd say personally it deserves the high scores. But I know that's not the case with others.

0 up, 0 down

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas cheats	PS2
Vandal Hearts cheats	PS1
Capcom Classics Collection cheats	PS2
XGRA cheats	PS2
Mortal Kombat cheats	PS3
Sly 2: Band of Thieves cheats	PS2
Xena: Warrior Princess cheats	PS1
Need For Speed: Most Wanted cheats	PS2
Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire cheats	PS3

Playstation 3

Playstation 4

PSP

Playstation Vita

Playstation 2

Playstation

Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

Should Critics Re-Review Skyrim?

Comments (146 posts)

Leave a Comment

Latest Updates

Popular Cheats

Recent Reviews

Recent Previews

Popular Sections

Extras

Grid 2 review	PS3
The Last Of Us review	PS3
Remember Me review	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger review	PS3
Fuse review	PS3
Resident Evil: Revelations review	PS3
Metro: Last Light review	PS3
Zombie Tycoon II: Brainhov's Revenge review	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon review	PS3
Star Trek: The Video Game review	PS3

South Park: The Stick of Truth preview	PS3
Murdered: Soul Suspect preview	PS3
The Bureau: XCOM Declassified preview	PS3
Time and Eternity preview	PS3
Ride to Hell: Retribution preview	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger preview	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon preview	PS3
Spartacus Legends preview	PS3
Payday 2 preview	PS3
DUST 514 preview	PS3