What if Skyrim is awful?

[DracoSuave]

You still seem to be confusing your imaginary perfect game award with the game of the year award. Lets see if you can get this into your skull:

If a gaming magazine or website had the most fun with a particular game that year, its their game of the year. If the game was buggy, and it was STILL the most fun, its still the game of the year. Just because you think polish is the most important thing in a game, does not mean its the same for everyone else. Can you get that concept into your head? Different strokes for different folks?

I'm not saying it's the most important detail of a game's quality. I'm saying it's a quality good games should have and bad games should not. It's a quality that detracts from a game's fun. It adds unnecessary frustration and it can cause a destruction of immersion.

It's an important measuring stick in the objective analysis of the quality of a game. An analysis that willfilly ignores technical prowess (by which I mean fundamental engine problems) in games that have fundamental technical problems is not, by definition, an objective review.

If something appears that detracts from the fun and fundamental playability of a game, it should deduct points, and we are both in agreement on that.

So yes, if a game has frequent bugs that cause playability issues on multiple platforms, yes, that's something that should deduct points. Yes?

I'm not saying a game should be rated below 5 for being flawed, but fun. Far from it, if a game is that good that it can overcome its flaws, then it deserves to be rated highly---in the 8.0-8.5 range is very fair for a game that is quite fun but suffers from technical problems that act as a barrier to playability. Your GOTY candidates, however, should be those rating in the 9.0-9.5 range, and games with technical barriers to playability should not be in this 'almost perfect' range. Why? Because they're NOT 'almost perfect.'

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Install mods.

 

[DracoSuave]

Should? So you decide what makes Gamespots GOTY then, even though you dont work with Gamespot and have no business in doing so?

Clearly not, that's preposterous. They decide their own criteria...

Im not saying you should start ignoring bugs, im saying you need to finally understand that different people have different criteria for different games.

Some people judge games entirely by the advertising, others critique a game based on how it presents their chosen political issues. However, neither of these merits are valid in the competant critique of a game.

Bugs, as long as the rest of the game is great and a patch is present, are considered a minor thing today, at least when compared to things like gameplay.

This is true if, and only if, the patch is available immediately upon release. Bethesda's game engine issues are unresolved through four games. This is not some minor issue. Nor is it beneficial to the consumer for reviewer to drop the ball on rushed development in general. If a game is rushed out the door without the gamebreaking bugs fixed, then the reviewer is doing a disservice to the consumer by ignoring or glossing over them. Rushed development hurts the consumer, and the reviewer's interest should be in the consumers' interest.

That doesnt mean you cant make them important, but Gamespot dont have to play by your rules either. (Gamespot is just a stupid example.)

No, but we, as logical thinking human beings, can judge one source's reviews as better and more cogent than another's. Of GamePro ignores issues that hamper gameplay in its reviews, it's a bad review. There's no logical counter argument to that... Their job is to measure how enjoyable a product is... game breaking bugs reduce the enjoyment of a product... therefore game breaking bugs should be taken into account in any cogent review.

It should be taken into account just like a movie review should take into account if half the audience was put into a seizure by a poor use of color and effects. It should be taken into account just like a car review should take into account whether the gas tank has a hole in it. Fundamental Functionality is an important part of ANY consumer review.

Oh, and good game journalism [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8241-Experienced-Points-Obsidian-Does-it-Again] covers it, and brings it to light. Bad game journalism says 'never happened to me so you crazy'.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Seriously, what if? What if it sucks? What if it's all been hype? WHAT WILL WE DO?

Seriously, it won't be. The only way it could suck is if Bethesda had done a Sqaure Enix and fired everyone who worked on the earlier games, and they haven't. I'm sure it will have niggles and disappointments, as Oblivion and Morrowind both did, but I'm completely sure it will be a great game, as Oblivion and Morrowind both were.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Should? So you decide what makes Gamespots GOTY then, even though you dont work with Gamespot and have no business in doing so?

Clearly not, that's preposterous. They decide their own criteria...

Im not saying you should start ignoring bugs, im saying you need to finally understand that different people have different criteria for different games.

Some people judge games entirely by the advertising, others critique a game based on how it presents their chosen political issues. However, neither of these merits are valid in the competant critique of a game.

Bugs, as long as the rest of the game is great and a patch is present, are considered a minor thing today, at least when compared to things like gameplay.

This is true if, and only if, the patch is available immediately upon release. Bethesda's game engine issues are unresolved through four games. This is not some minor issue. Nor is it beneficial to the consumer for reviewer to drop the ball on rushed development in general. If a game is rushed out the door without the gamebreaking bugs fixed, then the reviewer is doing a disservice to the consumer by ignoring or glossing over them. Rushed development hurts the consumer, and the reviewer's interest should be in the consumers' interest.

That doesnt mean you cant make them important, but Gamespot dont have to play by your rules either. (Gamespot is just a stupid example.)

No, but we, as logical thinking human beings, can judge one source's reviews as better and more cogent than another's. Of GamePro ignores issues that hamper gameplay in its reviews, it's a bad review. There's no logical counter argument to that... Their job is to measure how enjoyable a product is... game breaking bugs reduce the enjoyment of a product... therefore game breaking bugs should be taken into account in any cogent review.

It should be taken into account just like a movie review should take into account if half the audience was put into a seizure by a poor use of color and effects. It should be taken into account just like a car review should take into account whether the gas tank has a hole in it. Fundamental Functionality is an important part of ANY consumer review.

Oh, and good game journalism [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8241-Experienced-Points-Obsidian-Does-it-Again] covers it, and brings it to light. Bad game journalism says 'never happened to me so you crazy'.

You're talking a lot of sense here, but what exactly are these "game-breaking bugs" that remained unresolved throughout all TES games? I don't think I've ever encountered one.

 

[DracoSuave]

Oh, and good game journalism [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8241-Experienced-Points-Obsidian-Does-it-Again] covers it, and brings it to light. Bad game journalism says 'never happened to me so you crazy'.

You're talking a lot of sense here, but what exactly are these "game-breaking bugs" that remained unresolved throughout all TES games? I don't think I've ever encountered one.

Link to game save bug on 360 and PC in FONV is in link above.
The Elder Scrolls Wiki's got Oblivion covered [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivionroblematic_Glitches]. Notice the last one: If you buy all the spells from a magic vendor, game crash.

PSN notifications caused game stoppage [http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/15/fallout-3-patch-brings-trophies-stops-annoying-freezing-bug/] I remember having to turn a lot of things off just to make FO3 playable.

Just off the top of my head and a two second google search. I've witnessed constant freezing from texture loading in FONV, oh... and the comical instance where Bethesda warned people not to download the patch that permitted a piece of DLC because it needed a patch. [http://www.destructoid.com/psa-don-t-download-the-new-fallout-new-vegas-patch-yet--199984.phtml]

There's been multiple complaints in this thread about BEthesda quality control. It isn't an 'isolated incident' and many of the issues should have been caught before launch.

 

[Macrobstar]

Eh. Bethesda fans will forgive the game despite the bugs. They will make excuses for the game, say it is not meant to be perfect at launch, that it is the age we live in and it is your own damn fault for not allowing Bethesda to fix things.

Bonus points will come when the irony does not sink in if the same Bethesda fan boys ripped New Vegas for being buggy as hell.

The rest of us with a brain will laugh so hard that we will die from lack of air.

They are the only company attempting such huge games, how the fuck can you expect it to be bug free?

See, missing the point entirely. You are defending Skyrim for potentially being buggy as all hell simply because a company you like is making it. If it was a company that you hate, or is popular to hate, you would be ripping them a new one. That is a bunch of blind misplaced faith that is not deserved at all.

Maybe that is problem this current generation of Western developed games have. If they took the time and fixed all of the issues to begin with, then the games would be enjoyable from the get go. I am glad that you accept C- plus work as a grade, but I do not. I like a game that works straight from the box because I expect quality for thing pay for. I prefer B+ where the only things left to fix are so minor that the game does not break if you do not fix them.

Conversely, I can play any RPG from Japan and not have to worry about all of the bugs. Even something like a Final Fantasy 13, with a world simultaneous release was a playable game.

Final fantasy 13 was not open world, it was completely linear, scripted and shit, its not bethesda I like its huge open world RPGs I like, which as I said no one else is making. And they are fun from the get go you just have to not mind the occasional bug, how do you think bethesda has so many fans? Its because they make quality gamesThe reason bethesdas games are buggier than most is because they are so much bigger, ff13 was essentially an 80 hour movie with very little RPG, OF COURSE you wouldn't expect bugs

 

[Macrobstar]

Bethesda makes ambitiously expansive games that always have a few horrible bugs that have nothing to do with their expansiveness. Oblivion was their fourth Elder Scroll game. Yes, ambition counts for something, but ambition doesn't make your game Game of the Year. Polish does.

This is where we have to disagree, im willing to look past minor bugs in exchange for a massive open world for me to discover over hundreds of hours
But we'll see when the GOTYs get nominated, my moneys on skyrim

 

[CJ1145]

Then I will laugh.

It's a Bethesda game, so it might have a ton of bugs that cripple the game.

You've mistaken Bethesda for Obsidian, I fear.

Personally, I will just return the game. I have no illusions of trying to play a game I hate, so I'm going to get my money back if it's that terrible.

 

[kasperbbs]

Then ill return it and wait for mass effect to get my RPG fill, and if that sucks then there is no hope!

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Then I'll laugh in the face of every fanboy that tried convincing me that Dark Souls is a shitty game that tried to copy the all-mighty Skyrim, Holy Grail of all RPGs. Good games don't copy bad ones. It won't affect me either way, because I already have little to no hope for a Bethesda game, considering the fact that I haven't enjoyed any of Bethesda's recent games.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Oh, and good game journalism [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8241-Experienced-Points-Obsidian-Does-it-Again] covers it, and brings it to light. Bad game journalism says 'never happened to me so you crazy'.

You're talking a lot of sense here, but what exactly are these "game-breaking bugs" that remained unresolved throughout all TES games? I don't think I've ever encountered one.

Link to game save bug on 360 and PC in FONV is in link above.
The Elder Scrolls Wiki's got Oblivion covered [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivionroblematic_Glitches]. Notice the last one: If you buy all the spells from a magic vendor, game crash.

PSN notifications caused game stoppage [http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/15/fallout-3-patch-brings-trophies-stops-annoying-freezing-bug/] I remember having to turn a lot of things off just to make FO3 playable.

Just off the top of my head and a two second google search. I've witnessed constant freezing from texture loading in FONV, oh... and the comical instance where Bethesda warned people not to download the patch that permitted a piece of DLC because it needed a patch. [http://www.destructoid.com/psa-don-t-download-the-new-fallout-new-vegas-patch-yet--199984.phtml]

There's been multiple complaints in this thread about BEthesda quality control. It isn't an 'isolated incident' and many of the issues should have been caught before launch.

Well, I agree with what you say, that critics and reviewers should not let a developer off for releasing a bug-ridden game, but I can't honestly say that bugs had any effect on my own enjoyment of Morrowind or Oblivion. I also think there is something to the argument that Bethesda's games are so big, open-ended and detailed that some bugs may be unavoidable. That's not making excuses, it's just a fact (potentially; I don't know enough about the technology to be sure of it but it seems sensible).

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Then I'll laugh in the face of every fanboy that tried convincing me that Dark Souls is a shitty game that tried to copy the all-mighty Skyrim, Holy Grail of all RPGs. Good games don't copy bad ones. It won't affect me either way, because I already have little to no hope for a Bethesda game, considering the fact that I haven't enjoyed any of Bethesda's recent games.

I really don't understand this level of hatred for Bethesda.

 

[DracoSuave]

I also think there is something to the argument that Bethesda's games are so big, open-ended and detailed that some bugs may be unavoidable.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt there. With a game that large, some stuff is going to sneak by. Yes.

But I'm not mentioning THAT kind of bug. 'The game is big' is not a carte blanche.

Some bugs make a game better, and when you have complex AIs they'll sometimes interact in strange, unintended, but halarious ways. I'm cool with that. That, to me, is part of the charm and fun of a game of this scope. I LOVED messing around with townsfolk AI with rage and charm and speechcraft in Oblivion.

I don't love my save files being erased, or the game crashing from commonly replicatble scenarios, or an inability to change a flag in the game code leading to an unwinnable scenario. These sorts of bugs are NOT acceptable in any game of any scope.

 

[DracoSuave]

I really don't understand this level of hatred for Bethesda.

How is it not understandable that if a person dislikes all of a company's work that they've tried, that they have no intention of trying further works?

Seems to me that's expected behavior.

 

[the infected (teamkiers)]

Then the dream will collapse, we all shall suffer, so the holy book thing goes.
Seriously, if it sucks, it sucks. No biggie, there's tonnes of other games coming out soon, some of them have to be good.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

I also think there is something to the argument that Bethesda's games are so big, open-ended and detailed that some bugs may be unavoidable.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt there. With a game that large, some stuff is going to sneak by. Yes.

But I'm not mentioning THAT kind of bug. 'The game is big' is not a carte blanche.

Some bugs make a game better, and when you have complex AIs they'll sometimes interact in strange, unintended, but halarious ways. I'm cool with that. That, to me, is part of the charm and fun of a game of this scope. I LOVED messing around with townsfolk AI with rage and charm and speechcraft in Oblivion.

I don't love my save files being erased, or the game crashing from commonly replicatble scenarios, or an inability to change a flag in the game code leading to an unwinnable scenario. These sorts of bugs are NOT acceptable in any game of any scope.

Agreed. But again, I never encountered any of that kind of bug in a LONG time of playing both Morrowind and Oblivion. Also, even if Skyrim does have such bugs, they still wouldn't stop me getting it. Because TES games are that far beyond most other games, in my opinion.

I really don't understand this level of hatred for Bethesda.

How is it not understandable that if a person dislikes all of a company's work that they've tried, that they have no intention of trying further works?

Seems to me that's expected behavior.

Yes, but read that person's post again. It doesn't just say "I won't be buying the game since I didn't like any of the others".

"Laugh in the face of all the fanboys blah blah"... that's pure vitriol :-/

 

[QPCloudy]

What if really seems a moot discussion here. There's no way Skyrin will not be good.