How do they get away with releasing games like Skyrim on consoles?

[Warped_Ghost]

These are the same arguments I hear every time I discuss this with people, usually boiling down to 'no game is perfect,' and I agree with that: no one has ever made a game that didn't have bugs, it would be impossible to do it without pushing the release date back by about ten years.

But here's the thing: Literally almost every game I play these days has a significant bug, loading issue or will black screen at least once during the course of my playthrough. I've had the same issues across two PS3's and two 360's so it's not a case of bad luck with software or hardware, it's because developers are:

a)becoming lazy now that they know they can just patch it six months down the line
b)pushing the hardware well beyond it's limits

Back in the day, when you released a game it had to work because you couldn't just put out a patch, and as a result of the fifty or sixty games I owned for the PS2 only two had any actual issues (Gitaroo Man's sound disappeared occasionally; Onimusha 3 was just completely fucked.)

In fact, before this generation of consoles the only major problem I had ever had in a game was one corrupt save in FFIX. I had an N64, Dreamcast, X-Box, PSX, PS2 & Gamecube with at least fifteen games for each console and I never ran across problems like I have with today's tech so you cannot try and tell me with a straight face that the current state of affairs is same as it ever was.

And honestly, don't give me that 'it doesn't happen to everyone so it's not a problem' bullshit. Do a search and see how many people report Fallout crashing constantly; it's not an isolated incident. The real problem here is that because it's never happened to you, you don't think it's an issue.

At some point you have to accept that there's bad luck and then there's just piss poor quality in products from developer's that don't give a shit because --yeah you're right-- we'll still buy that shit up.

But here's the thing it hasn't happened to me.
I have had fallout crash on me once and skyrim freeze on the frame rate once.

Also a factor you didn't mention in making games today compared to the past is the budget. Games today take more money and more effort than they did in the past. There is more physics, audio, and image factors that take time to perfect which means that more people have to be hired. For example Star Craft 1 and Star Craft 2 have video credit lengths of about 7 minutes. Star Craft 1 shows about 6 names every 10 seconds while Star Craft 2 shows about 50 name every 10 seconds (I counted). This is just an example of how many more money needs to be invested into a product to get it done. Delaying a game another year means there is another year of salaries being paid without any profit from the game yet. There are more people to pay so investors are not as likely to wait when they got a workable product on their hands.

Blaming the developers of being lazy is just ignorant and uncalled for. The men and women who make these huge games have put years of their life into them. It might surprise you to know almost all of developers do the job for the love of gaming not for the pressure of making a multi million dollar title that is going to be criticized on every single aspect of it. The greater complexity of the games and the greater investments required are what push the developers to release games with issues. It is not a lack of dedication or work ethic on the developers part.

 

[Darh Abdomino]

What did you do to your Xbox? I've been playing Skyrim on the 360, and not only do I NOT see a huge difference in the graphics (I have a really nice tv), the only thing I really feel I'm missing from the game is the command prompt, which means no epic custom battles for me. But the only thing I can think of is that YOU'VE managed to somehow damage your poor console so it doesn't run optimally.

 

[zehydra]

Every game made by Bethesda is bugged up the ass. Doesn't matter if its on a console or a computer. They just have a nasty habit of releasing games that are for various reasons heavily bugged. Console does not present itself as a separate or special argument here. As for why there company hasn't gone int he red a million times over, people see the good in the games as outweighing the bugs, which speaks highly of them.

I've almost never had bug-related problems to the degree that everyone complains about with my PC versions. The only exception being Morrowind, of course.

 

[I.N.producer]

For me, Skyrim was terrible without the large address aware mod or the LAA patch. Before the first patch, the game ran without any noticeable bugs. After that there was a hurricane of crashes. Aside from those times, I've had the game run fine for almost 300 hours, even with 30 different mods installed.

Considering I paid 60 dollars for that much entertainment, that's part of how Bethesda gets away with it. That's a dollar for every five hours of gameplay, and three quarters of that time was entirely free of game-breaking bugs. Even if I was still getting bugs it would be worth more than the $60 I paid.

 

[rob_simple]

Okay, so at this point everyone in defense of games and consoles being better than ever seems to be of the opinion that we dissenters need to shut our mouths; that we have no right to complain.

Here's my right: I paid money for a game, you damn well better believe I want it to work. I've made my peace with games being three or four times more expensive than any other media, but to justify that significant price gulf I'd like it if the games I bought actually freaking ran without crashing or needing to be tweaked.

QED: One solution I found to the long loading times in Skyrim was to turn off auto-saving, and it totally worked. But here's the thing: I was playing on the PS3, not a PC. I shouldn't be having to turn off features to get a game to perform to the maximum.

I'm going to try deleting some saves as someone suggested and doing the 30 day wait and see if that improves things but even if it does, the entire benefit of a console over a PC is that I'm not supposed to have to perform my own debugging.

What the hell ever happened to plug in and play?

 

[MysticToast]

What the hell ever happened to plug in and play?

Games got bigger and more complicated. In the days of NES and the early consoles, there wasn't a whole lot to some of those games. As technology evolved it allowed for bigger games and more features. Unfortunately, that also means a larger chance for glitches and such.

 

[Deadyawn]

Because money.
Bethesda knows people will buy this regardless and it's easier and less expensive to not have to screw around with this stuff.
I watched the credits for new vegas and I saw THREE QA testers. Three. Seriously. (yes I know that was developed by obsidian but shut up)

 

[rob_simple]

What the hell ever happened to plug in and play?

Games got bigger and more complicated. In the days of NES and the early consoles, there wasn't a whole lot to some of those games. As technology evolved it allowed for bigger games and more features. Unfortunately, that also means a larger chance for glitches and such.

I would agree completely, but I feel that developers are going all Icarus up in this *****; they're pushing the hardware too hard trying to make games that aren't ready to exist yet.

I should make it clear at this point that the size of Skyrim is absolutely incredible and that if I hadn't experienced the same bugs in all of Bethesda's games then I would have just written off my current problems as being because the game is so huge.

 

[MysticToast]

What the hell ever happened to plug in and play?

Games got bigger and more complicated. In the days of NES and the early consoles, there wasn't a whole lot to some of those games. As technology evolved it allowed for bigger games and more features. Unfortunately, that also means a larger chance for glitches and such.

I would agree completely, but I feel that developers are going all Icarus up in this *****; they're pushing the hardware too hard trying to make games that aren't ready to exist yet.

I should make it clear at this point that the size of Skyrim is absolutely incredible and that if I hadn't experienced the same bugs in all of Bethesda's games then I would have just written off my current problems as being because the game is so huge.

You bring up a good point, but I didn't view it that way. While they may be pushing the consoles to their limit, I see that as a good thing. Look at the results that have come from pushing the 360 and the PS3. Gives me hope for their lifespan.

 

[David VanDusen]

We challenged a friend of ours not to long ago who prides himself on being a CS Major. He likes to argue the same way most of the people here do with the comment of "No game is perfect."

We asked the question.... "How many glitches, crashes, or failures have you had with Angry Birds?" He responded with "Zero, but it's only $.99 and a much smaller game."

We followed with... "So what you're saying is that it is ok for a large game to have problems with a $60 price tag because it's hard to make a solid game, but yet you seem to equally dismiss games which have no reported problem because they are 'cheap' or 'less extensive.' So it isn't that no game is perfect just that no game a major publisher makes is expected to work."

 

[themind]

How?

Bethesda announced a November 11 release date, and by fuck they were gonna stick to it.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

A few things...

It's not the disc.

Just because YOU didn't have the problem doesn't meant that it ISN'T a problem. Most people agree that Bethesda games are especially buggy, and to sit back and say that someone is "doing it wrong", or that they shouldn't complain is kind of ridiculous.

Not all games crash.

And you totally missed my point.

I said games crash. Halo: Reach has froze on me before, Pokemon Diamond crashed on me once (No loss of save data, thank god) Skyrim has crashed on me once. Gears of war 2 crashed on me once.

Programs can crash, no exceptions.

I said no game is perfect, deal with it. You on the other hand seem to feel that I am some Butthurt fanboy. Honestly, it doesn't matter, I suggested just turn it off then turn it back on like a normal person should do.

Shit happens.

Of course shit happens, but it happens WAYYY too much in Bethesda games... Not only does it happen a lot, but Skyrim is the type of game where not saving frequently leads to ~10 min of lost time, and that's unacceptable.

Isn't it neat how console gamers will talk about the uniformity of their hardware as an advantage over PC's and then tell other console owners that experience problems that they're "doing it wrong"?

It's funny, but I'd hate to turn this into a console vs pc argument when it's really just about bethesda being lazy as fuck.

 

[El Dwarfio]

This is the exact experience I've had with every Bethesda game I've played, although I must admit Skyrim has ran considerably better than either of the Fallout games, so I have to ask: How do Bethesda get away with repeatedly releasing these games on consoles when the hardware is barely capable of supporting them?

Well there's your answer right there, because you keep buying them. Why do people find this so hard to understand?

Also PS3s are shit, just saying - they only stay afloat on the legacy of the PS2 and the convenience of blu-ray.

It's funny, but I'd hate to turn this into a console vs pc argument when it's really just about bethesda being lazy as fuck.

Says the guy who's developed dozens of huge, expansive, flawless, triple a RPGs in his lifetime. Seriously mate your a fucking hero.

 

[Vuljatar]

A few things...

It's not the disc.

Just because YOU didn't have the problem doesn't meant that it ISN'T a problem. Most people agree that Bethesda games are especially buggy, and to sit back and say that someone is "doing it wrong", or that they shouldn't complain is kind of ridiculous.

Not all games crash.

To justify the game crashing is total bull. This isn't an attack on consoles as much as it is an attack on lackadaisical debugging.

Taken together, the responses you quoted provide an answer to the OP's question.

Q: How do they get away with releasing games like Skyrim on consoles?

A: Because the great majority of people don't have anywhere near as many technical problems as you are having.

 

[kouriichi]

Ive only had one real "Glitch" and it was during a daedric quest. Havent gotten around to doing it on an alt char, but thats the extent of the problems ive had.

Not to bash the PS3 or anything, but i ONLY hear about real problems related to Skyrim coming from the PS3. I own all the consoles, but i know well ahead of time to get almost all releases i get on the 360, because they are almost always more stable, get earlier support and generally run better. (faster loading, less texture pop in, etc.)

And most of the problems with Skyrim have nothing to do with graphics. Its almost all related to saved game bloating.

Not to come off as a fanboy or anything ((because im more of a PC gamer then console anyway)), but the PS3 is just..... worse then the 360. Everything about it other then graphics is just.... slower. " My game looks slightly better to the trained eye! And you can really only tell when the two are side by side" is all i hear when people talk about the PS3. Its like a car with a 1,000$ paint job and shiny chrome rims, but the engine is rusted and the steering wheel is uncomfortable to use.

But this is coming from a guy who can run SC2 on max graphics, but chooses to run it on minimum because i prefer the highest FPS possible in Custom games.

TL,DR: The PS3 suffers these problems more then the other systems ((pc and 360)).

 

[EHKOS]

This never would have flown in the NES era, hell even the PS2 era. Sure, there were some little drops in FPS in Jak III, and Marvel UA 2 sucked dick on the PS2, but now. Ha, now it's just shit. Makes me wanna just hang back, play my relics, let the industry destroy itself. Fall asleep in the warm bosom of Ratchet and Clank.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Sometimes (Oh, 360 by the way) I get a screen freeze while using the Arcane Enchanter.

Every once in a while my game'll crash. I just save really often.

 

[Joccaren]

Says the guy who's developed dozens of huge, expansive, flawless, triple a RPGs in his lifetime. Seriously mate your a fucking hero.

WoW. Does it have as many bugs as Skyrim? No.
The Mass Effect Trilogy combined doesn't have as many bugs as Skyrim.
Gothic doesn't have as many bugs.
Hell, very few non Bethesda games actually have as many bugs as Bethesda's least buggy game. You can say 'But its a massive open world, so it should have bugs', but some of these have nothing to do with that, and more to do with laziness on Bethesda's part.

Example: There are quests where if you complete an objective before you gain the quest (Clear out a cave of bandits, collect some book, ect.) - you will be unable to progress beyond that objective's point in the quest. A similar problem could have occurred with the Dragon Stone quest early on. I went to that tomb place before going to Whiterun, and had the stone beforehand. The difference? I was able to resolve that quest as there was an option for 'I've already done this'. The same sort of thing could have been put to use for those various other quests. Sadly, however, it wasn't.

The whole "You've never developed a AAA game" argument is rather moot considering other companies manage to create games without anywhere near as many bugs, and Bethesda themselves have shown they can fix such bugs - they just haven't gotten round to it yet.

 

[Astoria]

Did you miss the many threads about this? It's a problem with PS3s not the game. Bethesda did what they could to help it.

 

[rob_simple]

This is the exact experience I've had with every Bethesda game I've played, although I must admit Skyrim has ran considerably better than either of the Fallout games, so I have to ask: How do Bethesda get away with repeatedly releasing these games on consoles when the hardware is barely capable of supporting them?

Well there's your answer right there, because you keep buying them. Why do people find this so hard to understand?

Also PS3s are shit, just saying - they only stay afloat on the legacy of the PS2 and the convenience of blu-ray.

I see your point, but I never buy the games expecting them to be broken they just usually turn out to be in some way. I suppose the solution would be to check it out online beforehand but I don't see why quality testing should be my job.

The PS3 is pretty shitty I'd agree, but I just think it has the best controller (except for those tarded marshmallow shoulder buttons) and I'm a shameless trophy-whore so I'd lose all of them if I moved all my gaming over to 360.

This never would have flown in the NES era, hell even the PS2 era. Sure, there were some little drops in FPS in Jak III, and Marvel UA 2 sucked dick on the PS2, but now. Ha, now it's just shit. Makes me wanna just hang back, play my relics, let the industry destroy itself. Fall asleep in the warm bosom of Ratchet and Clank.

Amen, brother; I still replay the old Ratchet & Clank games every year. And Timesplitters....ah, remember when shooters were allowed to be fun?