Jimquisition: How Skyrim Proves The Industry Wrong

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Skyrim is, out of the box, more stable than the fully patched versions of Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas.

I've put in 160+ hours, and it's crashed to desktop only 6 times. There is one cave that will lock you up, and you have to put it in window mode to make it through. Took me a minute on the Wiki to figure it out. Sometimes dragons won't land and engage in combat, and I'm still not sure if this is a bug or intentional. Once a quest item (Fine-Cut Void Salts) in my inventory prevented my from upgrading an armor at a workbench (Nightengale armor, the only armor that requires regular Void Salts). Some of the weapons you can't improve, and probably an oversight (some Daedric artifacts, Wuuthrad, Skyforge Steel Daggers, etc.) Sometimes your followers will block a door, it's as simple as talking to them, opening up their command menu, and ordering them to move to another spot.

That's about it. I have yet to get a broken quest. I've completed the College, Companions, Thieves Guild, and Dark Brotherhood quests lines without any problems. And my quest journal is still full (at least 4 dozen) of active quests to complete, and I've barely touched the main quest. Level 57 and going strong.

Jove:
-snip-

you realize it's 3.5 million IN TWO DAYS right? It's probably a crap-load more now.

If you want to find me an accurate sales figure please be my guest xD
Still I was being realistic - most people who guy a game do within pre-order and the first few days, after that it's going to slow down a bit.

GonzoGamer:

Really? If it's a slow day I might get through quite a few of these pages but I didn't think anyone would read the whole thing. Sometimes there are some real gems though aren't there.
That's the funny thing, I kind of consider CTDs a pretty big issue (even though they are much more common in my PC games and if that's the only problem you're having with a Bethesda title, you're probably lucky) and was one of the most annoying things about the last couple of Fallout games. What bothers me is that people have been saying "I haven't had any problems with Skyrim except CTDs," which is bad enough "oh and freezing... and maybe some stuttering in areas....and there was that locked quest." To me, those ARE major issues.
After installing a few mods (correctly; a pain in the ass but worth it) in Fallout 3, I didn't have any more crashing problems.
Have no doubt that I will eventually get Skyrim but I'll probably just rent the ps3 version, send it back when it starts freezing, then wait for goty pc when all the modding is at it's prime.

I was hoping (though based on their record, not in the least optimistic I'll admit) that the ps3 version wouldn't be the usual botched port of a broken game. Hell, if that miracle struck, I would've even gotten the ps3 CE...and then goty for the PC when that comes out. And while most ps3 ports are a mess, Bethesda's can be unplayable at times. I'll admit, if I only played on the PC, I would probably be more forgiving. Sometimes I wonder why I bothered getting a console this generation.

Yeah, I've never owned a Bethesda game on the PS3. I've always been more partial to first-person on PCs in general, shooter or not (though Skyrim actually works remarkably well in third-person), and I like being able to attempt to do more than "Get angry and rage and then wait until there's a patch" if something goes wrong with a game.

Again, I can really only speak for myself, but my only problems with Skyrim have been a total of four CTDs. Over two weeks and 70 hours of play-time. I mean, yes, it is a big thing and it certainly annoyed me when it happened, but you can make the auto-save save at almost any interval you like and for me at the very least, each CTD was completely random (which is a bad thing) and didn't happen again for the rest of the day when I booted up again (which can be questionably good or bad depending on your view). I have heard from many people that the PS3 has significant issues, so there's that, but I don't like to recommend or speak against anything if I haven't researched it heavily or know from personal experience.

My own personal experience is just CTDs. If that's bad enough, then fair enough, everyone has their own set of rules for what puts a game on or off of their "To Buy" list. I haven't had any locked quests (unless you count a quest not being removed from the "Misc" tab after I completed it), I haven't had any freezes, and the only stuttering I get is the normal frame-rate drop I get in towns because I'm running the game at almost full settings and I have a two-year old graphics card.

Though I do think it's interesting that the consoles have much larger issues than the PC version (360 downscaling textures and not re-scaling them, PS3 having the same "large save = no FPS" bug both Fallouts had) considering Bethesda went on the record as saying that developing for the PC was a major headache compared to the consoles.

I suppose waiting for it to be patched up a bit just to be safe isn't a bad idea, but just remember that if nobody buys it first hand, it's never going to get a GOTY release. Eh, I don't really have a purpose with that large wall of text. I know people always seem to experience many varied bugs related to Bethesda games that other people have never even seen, and it is pretty wide-spread knowledge that the console versions are (as per usual) pretty buggy. Just figured I'd throw in my personal experience on the PC version.

Cyfu:
OH HELL FUCKING YEA!!
i could not agree more, everything you said in this episode was pure awesomeness.

..except for the whole pointless braggadocio, yes. Once again Jim makes an excellent point and I'm quite frankly getting tired of trying to ignoring his fat-man-swagger to state something I've been trying to say for a while.

[quote="Tin Man" post="6.327507.13365236[/quote] Skyrim isn't even a fair comparison to most games on this front, because it is the fifth game in a franchise, and that's not even including the very popular Fallout 3 & F:NV. If Skyrim was an original IP it wouldn't be able to be anywhere near as big because the vast investment needed simply wouldn't have been there, and they would have had to agree DLC deals with the publisher to ensure post release income generation, because gamers really do turn cheapskate and straight up steal at any given opportunity. So, just because Skyrim can do it doesn't mean most games even can.[/quote]

It's a pretty far comparison to other big releases, which is what most of the posters here. as well as Jim, are comparing it to. No-one is trying to compare it to smaller games or companies, most are aiming at the bigger compaines, such as EA and such. If those companies backed off a little with the DLC and selling parts of the game which COULD just be sold as part of the main game, there'd be a little less anger there.

Most gamers aren't 'cheapskates'. I for one am the try who normally doesn't buy new for a game I have no interest in. I think that's far, since I wouldn't want to shell over 40 for a game I might not like. The majority of gamers don't pirate or steal their games at 'any given opportunity', most of us buy the games honestly. It would do you will to not make the same old assumations that the industry make, because it makes you look just as much of a jerk.

batman arkham city shipped 4.6 million unnits world wide.

not bad for a games with online pass, proving jim wrong.

Lost In The Void:

Rack:

Lost In The Void:

Oh look someone saying something negative about something factually without having any argument in his post to back it up. Shine on.

Do you really need me to point out that adding multiplayer to some games isn't the same as saying all games need multiplayer? Or that saying online passes can extend the profitibility of some games isn't the same as saying no game can survive without them?

Or put simply that no-one was saying Skyrim couldn't succeed without multiplayer, weak DLC and online passes?

See there's a answer worth responding to because yes, you do need to say things like that to avoid coming off as ignorant and ill informed.

To answer the question though, no, no one was saying that Skyrim couldn't survive without weak DLC, Multiplayer and online passes; that wasn't the point that the video was trying to give off. Rather, what the video was saying is that despite the industry saying that games in general aren't profitable unless they protect from piracy with online passes, flood the game with weak DLC and tack Multiplayer on to avoid trade ins. Skyrim bucked the trend on all counts, giving the exception to this rule that the publishers were trying to portray to the masses, it proved that games don't need those things to remain profitable.

It wasn't that people thought that Skyrim couldn't do it without the things mentioned above, but instead it was about showing that the publishers of other companies are perhaps being a little too melodramatic.

I'm not sure how you got that vibe from the video, since the recurring theme and indeed the title was "Skyrim proves that games don't need multiplayer, DLC or online passes" which is just an offensively ignorant claim to make. But if you want to read it as "Skyrim is a welcome antidote to tacked on multiplayer, content lockouts and horse armor DLC" then that's right it's just a very generous interpretation of the malodious rant. If you want to make a comment that games companies are being melodramatic I'd say that's really just journalism. The Escapist in particular is guilty of this.

Lost In The Void:

Rack:

Lost In The Void:

Oh look someone saying something negative about something factually without having any argument in his post to back it up. Shine on.

Do you really need me to point out that adding multiplayer to some games isn't the same as saying all games need multiplayer? Or that saying online passes can extend the profitibility of some games isn't the same as saying no game can survive without them?

Or put simply that no-one was saying Skyrim couldn't succeed without multiplayer, weak DLC and online passes?

See there's a answer worth responding to because yes, you do need to say things like that to avoid coming off as ignorant and ill informed.

To answer the question though, no, no one was saying that Skyrim couldn't survive without weak DLC, Multiplayer and online passes; that wasn't the point that the video was trying to give off. Rather, what the video was saying is that despite the industry saying that games in general aren't profitable unless they protect from piracy with online passes, flood the game with weak DLC and tack Multiplayer on to avoid trade ins. Skyrim bucked the trend on all counts, giving the exception to this rule that the publishers were trying to portray to the masses, it proved that games don't need those things to remain profitable.

It wasn't that people thought that Skyrim couldn't do it without the things mentioned above, but instead it was about showing that the publishers of other companies are perhaps being a little too melodramatic.

shrekfan246:

GonzoGamer:

Really? If it's a slow day I might get through quite a few of these pages but I didn't think anyone would read the whole thing. Sometimes there are some real gems though aren't there.
That's the funny thing, I kind of consider CTDs a pretty big issue (even though they are much more common in my PC games and if that's the only problem you're having with a Bethesda title, you're probably lucky) and was one of the most annoying things about the last couple of Fallout games. What bothers me is that people have been saying "I haven't had any problems with Skyrim except CTDs," which is bad enough "oh and freezing... and maybe some stuttering in areas....and there was that locked quest." To me, those ARE major issues.
After installing a few mods (correctly; a pain in the ass but worth it) in Fallout 3, I didn't have any more crashing problems.
Have no doubt that I will eventually get Skyrim but I'll probably just rent the ps3 version, send it back when it starts freezing, then wait for goty pc when all the modding is at it's prime.

I was hoping (though based on their record, not in the least optimistic I'll admit) that the ps3 version wouldn't be the usual botched port of a broken game. Hell, if that miracle struck, I would've even gotten the ps3 CE...and then goty for the PC when that comes out. And while most ps3 ports are a mess, Bethesda's can be unplayable at times. I'll admit, if I only played on the PC, I would probably be more forgiving. Sometimes I wonder why I bothered getting a console this generation.

Yeah, I've never owned a Bethesda game on the PS3. I've always been more partial to first-person on PCs in general, shooter or not (though Skyrim actually works remarkably well in third-person), and I like being able to attempt to do more than "Get angry and rage and then wait until there's a patch" if something goes wrong with a game.

Again, I can really only speak for myself, but my only problems with Skyrim have been a total of four CTDs. Over two weeks and 70 hours of play-time. I mean, yes, it is a big thing and it certainly annoyed me when it happened, but you can make the auto-save save at almost any interval you like and for me at the very least, each CTD was completely random (which is a bad thing) and didn't happen again for the rest of the day when I booted up again (which can be questionably good or bad depending on your view). I have heard from many people that the PS3 has significant issues, so there's that, but I don't like to recommend or speak against anything if I haven't researched it heavily or know from personal experience.

My own personal experience is just CTDs. If that's bad enough, then fair enough, everyone has their own set of rules for what puts a game on or off of their "To Buy" list. I haven't had any locked quests (unless you count a quest not being removed from the "Misc" tab after I completed it), I haven't had any freezes, and the only stuttering I get is the normal frame-rate drop I get in towns because I'm running the game at almost full settings and I have a two-year old graphics card.

Though I do think it's interesting that the consoles have much larger issues than the PC version (360 downscaling textures and not re-scaling them, PS3 having the same "large save = no FPS" bug both Fallouts had) considering Bethesda went on the record as saying that developing for the PC was a major headache compared to the consoles.

I suppose waiting for it to be patched up a bit just to be safe isn't a bad idea, but just remember that if nobody buys it first hand, it's never going to get a GOTY release. Eh, I don't really have a purpose with that large wall of text. I know people always seem to experience many varied bugs related to Bethesda games that other people have never even seen, and it is pretty wide-spread knowledge that the console versions are (as per usual) pretty buggy. Just figured I'd throw in my personal experience on the PC version.

I've left some pretty significant (or insignificant I guess, depending on perspective) text walls too. Nobody minds.
My wife is actually the reason we have first person games on the console. I prefer the mouse too but she's gotten me used to the gamepad even with something like a cod game; never thought I would get used to that. I also appreciate the other point that you made: that with the PC version, there's a chance that you (the user) can tweak, mod, or otherwise fix the problem. With a console version, you're pretty much at the mercy of the publisher who (in this case) is usually pretty negligent with patching after the launch...especially such a successful one. They never fixed New Vegas; the only other game I've played that almost crashed as much was Final Liberation -PC title from like 15 years ago.
However, I'm pretty positive that Skyrim sold enough on hype alone to justify a goty. Plus the gaming press certainly did the whole kneel & bob for them too so it's sure to win plenty of awards. That high dude on Xplay said it's the best game ever made.
I haven't "researched" Skyrim very much I'll admit; just played & watched a little while at a friends house over the weekend. However my experience with Bethesda games in general I think justifies my position.
I'm of the opinion that Bethesda will never release a smooth running game if everyone just runs out to pre-order it every time. And also what incentive do they have to patch the game properly if everyone is just going to run out and pre-order the next one too. I've been sending a complaint with every game I buy from them but I think the only way they'll do something about it is if people just didn't buy their games at launch. I know everyone isn't going to follow my lead but at least I get to save myself the frustration: re-loading a crashed game on the ps3/360 (hard shut down, restart the machine, restart the game) is a hell of a lot more annoying than restarting it on the pc where you just restart the game from the desktop.

Actually, remembering New Vegas, I'm a bit hard pressed to decide what I find more annoying: games that freeze & crash a lot like titles from Bethesda or games that are butchered to pieces so half of it can be sold as DLC like those from THQ (Saints Row 3). Both really annoy me and sometimes it seems like almost any game released on the ps3 will have one of those issues.

Tin Man:

dfphetteplace:
I completely agree. I wish video game developers would make games because they love to make games, not to just make money.

There are loads that do that. On XBLA. Seriously, pretty much every popular game on there is popular becasue it's really good, and has been made by a dedicated, small and loving team.

I completely agree. Steam has that as well. I was more talking about the large companies.

5:47 to 6:10

He's like a professiong wrestler :D

Odd, I still don't actually like him, but here he has a point! A point many of us already figured out but a point that is nevertheless correct and should be applauded, well done Jim you cancersplat who I dislike vigorously!

I was with you right up until you knocked battlefield for trying to be call of duty.

The Diabolical Biz:

What? You completely missed the point of what I was trying to say...if someone states their opinion as fact and is vastly reductional it is pretty bizarre.

But hey, man, that's just my opinion...

Apparently, I didn't completely miss your point since I addressed that.

Huh.

Zachary Amaranth:

The Diabolical Biz:

What? You completely missed the point of what I was trying to say...if someone states their opinion as fact and is vastly reductional it is pretty bizarre.

But hey, man, that's just my opinion...

Apparently, I didn't completely miss your point since I addressed that.

Huh.

You know what, you're completely right - I'm sorry I tried to adress the difference between treating an opinion as an opinion and an opinion as a fact.

Rookie error there on my part, thanks for catching me out on it.

Juventus:
batman arkham city shipped 4.6 million unnits world wide.

not bad for a games with online pass, proving jim wrong.

Arkham City doing well doesn't necessarily disprove his thesis. He never said that methods such as online passes were universally unsuccesful. What he claims is that they are not the only way for a big-budget game to be commercially succesful. Since Skyrim doesn't utilize those methods and was succesful on a similar scale to Arkham City, a game that does have an online pass, it supports his thesis, hence the episode and the hat.

Fus Ro dah Fus Ro Dah

What is it with you people and your unrelenting force

Give Su Grah Dun a chance!

dfphetteplace:

Tin Man:

dfphetteplace:
I completely agree. I wish video game developers would make games because they love to make games, not to just make money.

There are loads that do that. On XBLA. Seriously, pretty much every popular game on there is popular becasue it's really good, and has been made by a dedicated, small and loving team.

I completely agree. Steam has that as well. I was more talking about the large companies.

Problem there, is that large companies pretty much need to make large games, and large games require huge teams, and huge investment. Large teams mean that loads of people are working on loads of bits, which obviously cancels out much possibility of any one part of a game getting those special touches which just make a game feel right. And huge investments mean that business types need to get involved, and they don't give a fuck how cool your pitch sounds in your head, they want proof that they aren't just throwing their hard earned money into a pit.

I think expecting large companies to perform labours of love(in all but quite rare, but noteworthy, examples - Skyrim and Arkham games spring to mind as some very well treated IP), is a very long ask indeed. The best we can do is support our smaller devs where we can.

Are you at all familiar with the project that Extra Creditz were talking about setting up? Thats the kind of thing we'd need, but on a massive scale.

BrotherRool:
So Skyrim has no multiplayer and no online pass and this proves the people claiming that running multiplayer on online servers costs money wrong? So not being able to pay for something that doesn't exist means anything?

Everything else was fair enough. Skyrim was is just another place and another type of game though. It does cool things but it's not always the sort of game I want to play.

What Jim is saying is that you can make a game with very little planned DLC, no multiplayer or any sort of online features BUT still manages to sell millions and millions of copies

Biggest problem with your argument is how much time got put into that game. Is it selling well? yes. Is it a great game. From reviews I suppose so, I don't have it currently. But to make a game like that is a rare gem given how many people need to be paid over many hours of work to make it all come together properly. Devs are not cheap.

Many companies make just as much by pumping out half done junk without pushing boundaries of anything. Is it right for them to do that, probably not, but it can be effective businesswise sadly.

This guy annoys me so fucking much, but he always has something valuable to say. Nice.

Well 'someone' watches the Regular Show, lol!

Vamast:
you can't fly dragons. why?

Because they haven't released the mod tools yet. Once they do, I plan on making a "You can use Odahviing like a flying horse" mod.

theriddlen:
I don't get Skyrim.
It has no atmosphere. It has no interesting characters. It has no important overarching goals (well, there are dragons, but you kinda lose belief that they can actually cause damage after slaughtering dozen of them without any effort). It is ugly and lacks any color besides grey. It's buggy to the point of not being able to finish some quests. And despite all of that I've been playing it for 55 hours and want more.

To be fair, Paarthurnax and Odahviing are rather awesome characters. Those two + the Jarl of Whiterun were the only characters in the whole game I actually sympathized with.

This was a terrible example game to prove his point. Skyrim is a great game but most games aren't meant to last 50-infinite hours nor do we want them to. When he made the point that skyrim was great because it was true to itself, it's important to remember that for most games to be true to themselves aiming at 60+ hours detracts from a quality game. The reason for DLC and online passes is because the company made a great game but don't want to lose money because of the used game market. I don't like forced multiplayer, online passes, or demanded DLC but this argument holds no water for the game industry.

This only makes me sad because, Skyrim, although massively successful, is but one giant in a field of many that are pulling the shit that Jim (and many other members of the industy) have condemned. I just hope the others follow suit that Witcher 2 and Skyrim have set.

And I'm getting fucking sick of this online pass shit, I don't care about Catwoman, and I don't give a shit about redeeming codes for Dirt 3, my Xbox isn't even online, so can you stop putting that shit in my face every DAMN TIME I turn my machine on? I mean really, pulling that bullshit is bad enough, but putting it up there before I even get to the game menu is a real pain in the ass, seriously.

to play devil's advocate. Skyrim had the legacy and pedigree of its predecessors to fall back on. Kinda like how the Final Fantasy franchise always does well, even when later version start to suck ass.

For every skyrim out there are probably dozens of games that are great single player games that get shafted because they have no name recognition, i.e. Psychonauts, Black&White, etc.

Also helps the game released on Steam. Had EA been smart and kept BF3 on Steam, its sales would be greater than what it is right now. I dare say equal that of MW3 or greater.

just saying, one exception does not break the rule

I think it's worth mentioning that none of my favorite games have multiplayer components to them. (Outside of Burnout Paradise... but yeah). Just finished inFamous 2, and that game was balls-awesome. The only multiplayer in it was User-Generated Content, which I have yet to even touch.

Also, getting Skyrim, Skyward Sword, Arkham City, and the ICO Collection for Christmas. Lolgoodbyelife.

NOTE: ALL OF THOSE ARE SINGLE PLAYER.

Burst6:
Fus Ro dah Fus Ro Dah

What is it with you people and your unrelenting force

Give Su Grah Dun a chance!

Troof. Dual-wielding 300+ damage Daedric Swords with Berserker Rage and Su Grah Dun, there is literally nothing that lives more than 3 seconds.

So basically... spend some time making the damn thing!

I believe we all mostly agree that shoving out a new game every year is a bad idea because it allows less time for experimentation and new ideas, something that in turn makes the game feel rushed and DLC-ish.

And yeah... with Nathan Drake being posterboy for Subway you'd think Naughty Dog would at least have the decency to sell their whole game on the flippin' disk (something i recall them doing with the first 2 games, and it worked out just fine).

Weren't we already fellating Skyrim all over the internet? Eh, who am I to play devil's advocate; proceed.

I don't like this guy.
However... he made some excellent points and the ending was pure epicness.
Maybe.. just maybe he has gained a viewer back.

I know the podium and the stupid hat and so on are intentionally stupid as a joke, etc, but for the love of god could you invest in a microphone that cost more than half a buck if you're going to put up a video on a big boy website? Or, alternately, save all our ears and make a youtube channel or something? Good lord.

Also, I'm not really sure what the argument is supposed to be. There's a strong niche market for long-form RPGs and therefore FPS games and short-form games should adopt solitary aspects of long-form RPGs that may or may not hold up independently completely at random? That's... kind of dumb.

No one claims that single-player games can't succeed, there's no shortage of people making and marketing the damned things. It's just a retarded idea for a pure FPS or a 2d fighter or any other game designed for people without a massive amount of free time, which is basically every genre aside from the one that Dragon Age/Skyrim/Fallout/Final Fantasy fall under. Likewise, no one claims that you can't make a game without DLC, plenty of people can and do-- they just claim you can make more money using DLC, which... well, is true. Bethesda is the originator of Horse Armor, they don't really disagree with the idea either.

Way to blast the hell out of those zero people making the argument you're rebutting, though. Mind the straw dust, it can get in your eyes.

G-Force:

BrotherRool:
So Skyrim has no multiplayer and no online pass and this proves the people claiming that running multiplayer on online servers costs money wrong? So not being able to pay for something that doesn't exist means anything?

Everything else was fair enough. Skyrim was is just another place and another type of game though. It does cool things but it's not always the sort of game I want to play.

What Jim is saying is that you can make a game with very little planned DLC, no multiplayer or any sort of online features BUT still manages to sell millions and millions of copies

I'm afraid you've interpreted what I said wrong and made it sound a little funny. I agree that Skyrim shows that no multiplayer is needed to sell a game. As for DLC, well they have said they're probably going to do some and it's going to be huge by what they do, but yeah that's fair enough (although I don't think the point of DLC is a selling feature but rather a way of making money, I've never met anyone whose advised me to buy a game because it's got great DLC)

No what I was saying was, since it's got no multiplayer how the heck can it have an online pass? Jim was saying it proves Naughty Dog wrong when Naughty Dog said online multiplayer is expensive and they need to charge people for it who didn't buy the game.

But if you don't provide multiplayer then not providing multiplayer isn't expensive and you don't need to charge for it? Proof about online passes would be a game that doesn't have online passes where the developer doesn't lose much money supporting online features. Naughty Dog aren't saying it's a feature 'check it, you have to pay for second hand multiplayer!' and the fact that Skyrim didn't charge people money to play a multiplayer it doesn't have ad yet people still bought the game!!, doesn't prove the idea that online passes don't work and are stupid.

I hope you can see the logical flaw with me

I would probably agree with this episode more if this was a new IP, but being part of a significantly popular franchise, just like Modern Warfare and Battlefield are, it is not as significant. The points about multiplayer/online passes do carry more weight, though to be fair a purely single player game and a (effectively) purely multiplayer game have somewhat different positions in this matter.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here