Escapist Editorials: A Bug By Any Other Name

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

A Bug By Any Other Name

We forgive some buggy games while shunning others. Why?

Read Full Article

I wont deny there's undoubtedly some subjectiveness to the issue, though I think there's some shreds of objectivity to be considered too.

As was pointed out, Skyrim is a sprawling, massive game that's not only huge in size, but in the scope of its ambition. Certainly, Bethesda could've done better with its bug testing, but any reasonable person knows too that even linear corridor shooters made by top-notch development studios will have inevitable issues (even Valve does the occasional patching of problems with Half-Life 2, years after its launch).

And of course, if we're being reasonable, we realize: Bethesda could make their game more polished. (Heck, apparently even Obsidian managed a game that's relatively smooth running with Dungeon Siege 3). But there'd be a sacrifice for that. The game would have to be smaller, less ambitious and more focused.

Some people would jump at that and say "Yes! Do that!" Then others would shake our heads and go, "No. Dream big, we'll deal with it. It's worth the price."

I will forgive Skyrim for everything the day someone makes a mod where I can marry dragons. I want to see Odavhiing in a top-hat, in front of an altar, and have a priest marry us. I don't even care about how the mechanics of the relationship would work. All I know is that I would rather wake up to him chewing on my housecarl, than waking up to one of my many housecarls watching me and chewing my bread. And they have the deepest voices <3

Also, a dragon spouse would give me home-roasted cows, instead of those crappy home-cooked meals.

But I digress.

I am very forgiving of any bug, so long as there is no lag or freezing.

It seems unrealistic to expect something with as many moving parts as the fifth Elder Scrolls, with thousands of NPCs, monsters, locations, and bits of environmental detritus to be absolutely perfect out of the gate.

It doesn't seem unrealistic to expect them to fix bugs that have existed for multiple iterations and been known as long, however.

It depends on the bug I suppose.

If the bug is just something like an NPC walking through a wall or a chair just hangs out in mid air for forever, then I'm not to bothered by it, if anything I'm amused. If it's a small bug that I know will not wreck the experience for me, then I won't mind. I was finishing up some side missions in AC: Revelations and I misjudged a jump and went straight towards a palm tree and over the ledge I was aiming for, and Ezio was stuck in between the tree and the ledge for like 15 seconds slowly falling. Eventually he landed, but I was more relieved my game didn't break and/or froze after that.

I think the only time I will ever not forgive a game is if there's a big bug that will break the game and constantly kill my immersion in it. I don't care if I love the story or the character, that game will be gone, and I don't care if they fix it in a patch because all I will be doing is doing everything all over again and complain the entire time. However, I will be slightly more forgiving if I know the developer will release a patch and fix it quickly.

If the game is bug filled then most likely I will still play it and finish it, but I guess it all just depends if it's still fun to play.

Because some review sites have incentive to give certain games or publishers/developers a pass. Post Morrowind ES games are not held to the same scrutiny as Divinity 2 or Risen, two buggy games that were said to be largely inferior to Oblivion and Fable 2, but no review made a convincing case for why that was.

I believe a lot of sites had their 9s and 10s ready for Skyrim, before it even hit their desks.

I forgave Skyrim and Vampire the Masqurade Bloodlines of any bugs/issues I found but Alpha Protocol only got forgiveness to a point. I got it in a steam sale and it is fun, but the issues I found tend to break the game flow.

I think it comes down to what bugs annoy you most. Camera and broken missions piss me off the most. Don't even think of screwing up controls or your game is dead to me. Otherwise the chickens preventing my fast travel or stairs making a wall see through (VTMB) was just odd.

Machocruz:
Because some review sites have incentive to give certain games or publishers/developers a pass. Post Morrowind ES games are not held to the same scrutiny as Divinity 2 or Risen, two buggy games that were said to be largely inferior to Oblivion and Fable 2, but no review made a convincing case for why that was.

I believe a lot of sites had their 9s and 10s ready for Skyrim, before it even hit their desks.

This isn't about reviews. This is about personal experiences. Do you give bugs a pass because some site gave a game a certain score? I'm guessing not.

You know, having just replayed Alpha Protocol only a week or two ago I didn't find it buggy at all. Horribly broken in several fundamental ways and with some terrible design decisions and atrocious balancing issues, but not actually buggy. In fact I don't think I experienced a single genuine bug my entire playthrough. The game crashed on me once, but that was it.

There's a difference between frustrating and stupid but nevertheless deliberate choices on the developers part and bugs.

Fortunately I have a high tolerance for these things. Games like Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (Which was genuinely and truly bugged to hell and back on release!) and the Neverwinter Nights series (Which even under Biowares care was pretty damned bad in terms of bugs.) counted among my favourites.

Haven't picked up Skyrim yet since if it's anything like Oblivion there's a good chance I'll end up bored with it pretty quickly and I haven't the money to be spending on full priced games I might or might not enjoy.

Considering the PS3 version of Skyrim becomes damn near unplayable, no, I won't give a game, even one I love, a pass.

All games have glitches, all games, to varying degrees of harm or amusement.

Sometimes they get adopted as "features" (Red Dead Redemption's "Donkey Woman"), but then other games get 9s and 10s and they're barely functioning.

I mean, have you SEEN how long the list of known bugs and glitches is for New Vegas?
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_bugs

Such is the case with Skyrim. Granted, Skyrim SHOULD be a game I love. I want to love it more than I do. I love many parts of it. But the damn game does not WORK after a certain point.

An unplayable game is a worthless game and it hurts to say that Skyrim, for me, is a worthless game I cannot play.

My opinion is no game, no matter the size, no matter the hype, no matter the budget, should get a "pass" from critics because they're okay with the glitches. No game that crashes so frequently and is so poor technically should receive universal acclaim, perfect 10s, and recommendations that everyone should buy it and support these business practices.

I can't ethically go through it... and as a game developer myself, I'm going to dedicate as long as I possibly can on testing the game to ensure I don't release a product as broken as Skyrim to my paying customers.

Also, Skyrim affords an opportunity to address [quest] bugs via console commands on the PC, so a reason at least to give it a pass on that platform.

I realize that the devs said that they would leave in some of the more hilarious, less game breaking bugs. I assume the whole dying by giants thing is one such bug. Here's the thing though, a lot of the more complained about problems are obviously ones that are easily encountered so if they can be found on a normal playthrough, there's no way they could've been missed in testing, so those types of bugs should've been fixed at least, and yet the game is littered with them.

For once totally agree was shouted at because some random person said that games that are so huge like Skyrim should not have bugs in them.It took 4 years for Bethesda to make Skyrim if you could not release a game with bugs we would still be playing snes games.

So if someone wants to push the boundaries they will run into a few bugs as long as they are not gameplay breaking i would recommend turning a blind eye to it.As complaining about minor bugs are just going to make developers stay in their "safe zone".

Honestly? Brand loyalty.

The Elder Scrolls is a long running series, with an established fanbase. It doesn't matter, therefore, that every game since Morrowind has had huge amounts of game-breaking bugs. People want to play the newest TES game, and will happily ignore even the most obnoxious of bugs if it means they get their latest Skyrim fix. You can see it even on this website- unless they're getting negatively affected themselves, many Skyrim players simply don't care about the broken PS3 release.

Compare this to something like Alpha Protocol- being an original game, no-one really knows what to expect when they first play, so they approach it with a far more suspicious mindset. A playthrough of Skyrim can have dragons flying backwards and quest items disappear from the player's inventory, and they won't mind too much, but if the protaganist does so much as move funny while he's crouching, and all of a sudden that same player is willing to call foul bloody murder.

It's simple psychology: the familiar versus the stranger. Game franchises we're familiar with, we're more willing to forgive for their flaws, for the same reason we can easily forgive a close friend for a faux pas they may make. Whereas untried games and franchises are new, unfamiliar territory for us, and any mistake they make is the same as having some stranger walk up and sneeze in your face.

It's part of the reason why the industry is so geared towards sequels and reboots. Gamers simply have different standards for existing games than they do new games, and that includes bugs. No publisher wants to release a new property if there's even the slightest chance gamers will tear it to pieces over some glitch in the final level, not when they can release another installment of Gears Of God Of Battlewarfare 6, and gamers will happily accept any glitches as part of the experience.

Susan Arendt:

This isn't about reviews. This is about personal experiences. Do you give bugs a pass because some site gave a game a certain score? I'm guessing not.

It is about reviews. It's the catalyst for this topic. It's a response to the chatter all over the net about Skyrim (and "AAA" games in general) getting a pass for things "lesser" games are docked several points for. Are we supposed to believe recent controversy did not inspirethe creation of this editorial? What exquisite timing then!

Trishbot:

I mean, have you SEEN how long the list of known bugs and glitches is for New Vegas?
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_bugs

I never once had a problem with New Vegas till patch 2 came out, then bugs ahoy!

I think it is simply the balance of gameplay enjoyment against bug annoyance.

If the game is super awesome, it will offset a lot of bugs (so long as they don't get in the way of the awesome). Also, a pretty good game with a few bugs gets a pass, whereas a pretty good game with a ton of bugs won't. A "meh" game with any bugs tends to get the nix.

Heh, I was able to forgive Alpha Protocol. How the dialog would actually alter the story won me over. And I'm not talking about any stupid ME2 email business, I mean things actually change, alter, and people react to it. I haven't seen something like that since The Witcher.

The fact that I'm an Obsidian fanboy also probably helped. The goodwill I have for them thanks to Fallout 2 and Planescape Torment is still pretty strong. Kotor 2's story also pushed that up. Brilliant way to interpret Star Wars and the force in a different and interesting way. Not to mention its deconstruction of general RPG tropes.

Better stop now, getting a bit fanboy-y.

Anyway, what I look for in a game is one that works. I will give a pass for smaller issues, but a game-breaking glitch that halts all progress? Yeah, I don't care who you are, that is just in-excusable. It means you're asking full price for a broken product. And while I fully realize that this sounds INSANELY hypocritical coming from someone who loves Obsidian, I am still able to actually finish their games.

Unlike Oblivion, which is the very reason why I NEVER buy Bethesda games at launch anymore.

Fallout 3 was actually more stable. Main quest and characters were still pretty crappy, but less buggy. Though the lack of bugs in the main game was made up for in spades by the game's DLC. All of which were screwed in some way. Whether it be from the game itself or Games For Windows Live.

I guess for me, random, small bugs I will forgive. Yeah they're annoying, but ultimately harmless. Main quest(s) hampering bugs that completely halt everything? I will bitch about it forever. These are the bugs that should have been caught and fixed. They're not some small bugs that are harmless. They're game-breaking and should have been caught. I know it's hard, but when I'm paying $60 for the product, it should work. Otherwise you're selling me a broken product for full price. And that's just bullshit.

Of course, I realize all this is based on personal experience. You're mileage may vary and all that. I give Obsidian games a pass because generally they do story in a very interesting way that's barely seen in the industry. And if Dungeon Siege 3 is any indication, they've fixed their bugs problem.

I don't hold games up as perfect. I enjoy them until I don't anymore. Bethesda makes games that I enjoy for YEARS... not hours, or months. but YEARS. For that I can forgive a few minor problems with the coding. I havn't had another game give me that in a long time. Not even DA: Origins, but it was really good too, just not as much replay value as ES games. Point is, Yes, I can forgive glitches or bugs or whatever you want to call them. But just because something doesn't work the way you want, or think it should does it mean that your game is broken. I never once saw a problem with red dead like the videos showed, or new vegas. So is it that wided spread or just a few videos going around that make people laugh.

Machocruz:

Susan Arendt:

This isn't about reviews. This is about personal experiences. Do you give bugs a pass because some site gave a game a certain score? I'm guessing not.

It is about reviews. It's the catalyst for this topic. It's a response to the chatter all over the net about Skyrim (and "AAA" games in general) getting a pass for things "lesser" games are docked several points for. Are we supposed to believe recent controversy did not inspirethe creation of this editorial? What exquisite timing then!

It's not a response to anything but my own personal gaming experiences. I've been thinking about this since I played Dead Island. Why was I ok laughing off that game's bugs, but not others? It's not like the game is *that* remarkable, so why wasn't I more angry about e fact that it was broken? The release of Skyrim made me revisit the subject and think about it some more. I was wondering if others felt the same, and were more generous toward some bugs than others. So that's why I wrote it.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Honestly? Brand loyalty.

The Elder Scrolls is a long running series, with an established fanbase. It doesn't matter, therefore, that every game since Morrowind has had huge amounts of game-breaking bugs. People want to play the newest TES game, and will happily ignore even the most obnoxious of bugs if it means they get their latest Skyrim fix. You can see it even on this website- unless they're getting negatively affected themselves, many Skyrim players simply don't care about the broken PS3 release.

Compare this to something like Alpha Protocol- being an original game, no-one really knows what to expect when they first play, so they approach it with a far more suspicious mindset. A playthrough of Skyrim can have dragons flying backwards and quest items disappear from the player's inventory, and they won't mind too much, but if the protaganist does so much as move funny while he's crouching, and all of a sudden that same player is willing to call foul bloody murder.

It's simple psychology: the familiar versus the stranger. Game franchises we're familiar with, we're more willing to forgive for their flaws, for the same reason we can easily forgive a close friend for a faux pas they may make. Whereas untried games and franchises are new, unfamiliar territory for us, and any mistake they make is the same as having some stranger walk up and sneeze in your face.

It's part of the reason why the industry is so geared towards sequels and reboots. Gamers simply have different standards for existing games than they do new games, and that includes bugs. No publisher wants to release a new property if there's even the slightest chance gamers will tear it to pieces over some glitch in the final level, not when they can release another installment of Gears Of God Of Battlewarfare 6, and gamers will happily accept any glitches as part of the experience.

Great answer, very well thought out and on point.

My issue with Bethesda isn't that they have all these awful bugs in Skyrim. It's that they consistently have all these awful bugs in their games. They are not learning. Hell, comparing Oblivion to Fallout 3 to Skyrim, it's getting worse.

I know it's not a big deal for most as much as it is for me, but when I see reports that the PS3 version can become unplayable just by playing the damn game, and that's just the worst of the lot, not counting the various bugs on all platforms, I do seriously wonder "why don't more people care about this"?

rod_hynes:
I don't hold games up as perfect. I enjoy them until I don't anymore. Bethesda makes games that I enjoy for YEARS... not hours, or months. but YEARS. For that I can forgive a few minor problems with the coding. I havn't had another game give me that in a long time. Not even DA: Origins, but it was really good too, just not as much replay value as ES games. Point is, Yes, I can forgive glitches or bugs or whatever you want to call them. But just because something doesn't work the way you want, or think it should does it mean that your game is broken. I never once saw a problem with red dead like the videos showed, or new vegas. So is it that wided spread or just a few videos going around that make people laugh.

Reports, so far, are that nearly all PS3 owners that play around 50-60 hours of Skyrim will encounter unplayable lag, like "ZERO frames per second" levels.

360 users are starting to report the same game-breaking lag around 120-140 hours into the game.

Apparently the problem is very wide-spread and, according to someone who worked on New Vegas, may not be possible to fully fix.

Trishbot:

rod_hynes:
I don't hold games up as perfect. I enjoy them until I don't anymore. Bethesda makes games that I enjoy for YEARS... not hours, or months. but YEARS. For that I can forgive a few minor problems with the coding. I havn't had another game give me that in a long time. Not even DA: Origins, but it was really good too, just not as much replay value as ES games. Point is, Yes, I can forgive glitches or bugs or whatever you want to call them. But just because something doesn't work the way you want, or think it should does it mean that your game is broken. I never once saw a problem with red dead like the videos showed, or new vegas. So is it that wided spread or just a few videos going around that make people laugh.

Reports, so far, are that nearly all PS3 owners that play around 50-60 hours of Skyrim will encounter unplayable lag, like "ZERO frames per second" levels.

360 users are starting to report the same game-breaking lag around 120-140 hours into the game.

Apparently the problem is very wide-spread and, according to someone who worked on New Vegas, may not be possible to fully fix.

...And according to Bethesda, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

rod_hynes:

Trishbot:

rod_hynes:
I don't hold games up as perfect. I enjoy them until I don't anymore. Bethesda makes games that I enjoy for YEARS... not hours, or months. but YEARS. For that I can forgive a few minor problems with the coding. I havn't had another game give me that in a long time. Not even DA: Origins, but it was really good too, just not as much replay value as ES games. Point is, Yes, I can forgive glitches or bugs or whatever you want to call them. But just because something doesn't work the way you want, or think it should does it mean that your game is broken. I never once saw a problem with red dead like the videos showed, or new vegas. So is it that wided spread or just a few videos going around that make people laugh.

Reports, so far, are that nearly all PS3 owners that play around 50-60 hours of Skyrim will encounter unplayable lag, like "ZERO frames per second" levels.

360 users are starting to report the same game-breaking lag around 120-140 hours into the game.

Apparently the problem is very wide-spread and, according to someone who worked on New Vegas, may not be possible to fully fix.

...And according to Bethesda, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Probably. But Bethesda also said they fixed the issue. Which is funny, considering they haven't.

My friend asked my once why I hate Skyrim. Why I simply don't ignore it.

I couldn't explain it to him, but the last paragraph explains it for me. I had to restart a new character 4 times until I quit the game because of some random bugs with main quests where I couldn't finish them. 2 times I couldn't kill dragons. Seriously?

But that's not the point. My point is, I really really really like the whole idea behind Skyrim, but I had some bad luck with bugs and it simply disappointed me. Maybe I will start a new game soon, who knows. But for now I'm just not in the mood to give it a try.

As you said, if you like something and that something does something really bad, the disappointment is 2 times bigger.

(PC version here)

Susan Arendt:

We forgive some buggy games while shunning others. Why?

If game A is a unambitious uninspired genre clone with a 10 hour campaign, and game B pushes the all-time boundaries of game development, I'm willing to tolerate more bugs / flaws in game B.

Also it's not like anyone is recording statistics related to bugs, it's all anecdotal and there is a lot of information bias. Like how unimportant and rare Skyrim bugs get more media attention than competition-breaking bugs in Battlefield and Modern Warfare.

BiH-Kira:
My friend asked my once why I hate Skyrim. Why I simply don't ignore it.

I couldn't explain it to him, but the last paragraph explains it for me. I had to restart a new character 4 times until I quit the game because of some random bugs with main quests where I couldn't finish them. 2 times I couldn't kill dragons. Seriously?

But that's not the point. My point is, I really really really like the whole idea behind Skyrim, but I had some bad luck with bugs and it simply disappointed me. Maybe I will start a new game soon, who knows. But for now I'm just not in the mood to give it a try.

As you said, if you like something and that something does something really bad, the disappointment is 2 times bigger.

(PC version here)

Hate and love are made of the same thing: passion.

Since you're on the PC version you can just use console commands to advance any quest that gets stuck. It won't even effect your steam achievements.

For an example, here is the page on the Bleak Falls Barrow quest, read the bottom section on Quest Stages.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Bleak_Falls_Barrow_(quest)

Susan Arendt:

Machocruz:

Susan Arendt:

This isn't about reviews. This is about personal experiences. Do you give bugs a pass because some site gave a game a certain score? I'm guessing not.

It is about reviews. It's the catalyst for this topic. It's a response to the chatter all over the net about Skyrim (and "AAA" games in general) getting a pass for things "lesser" games are docked several points for. Are we supposed to believe recent controversy did not inspirethe creation of this editorial? What exquisite timing then!

It's not a response to anything but my own personal gaming experiences. I've been thinking about this since I played Dead Island. Why was I ok laughing off that game's bugs, but not others? It's not like the game is *that* remarkable, so why wasn't I more angry about e fact that it was broken? The release of Skyrim made me revisit the subject and think about it some more. I was wondering if others felt the same, and were more generous toward some bugs than others. So that's why I wrote it.

Fair enough.

My personal experience is that I judge things by the standards set by things similar to the thing in question.

While I can overlook bugs in a game/genre that have been traditionally janky (CRPGs, Arma series, PC games in general), I am not pleased with the recent trend of console games being shipped with bugs. First of all, most of these games don't have the (useful) complexity to warrant these bugs, but console games are just not supposed to be buggy. That's not the standard that console gaming set for itself. Bugs were there, but few and far between, and never game breaking, never preventing you from completing a goal or finishing the game. And NEVER in a Nintendo game, of all things.

Bugs have never stopped me from playing a game, but no game gets a pass with me giving it an A or 10, like so many reviewers seem to have no shame about doing. If western developers are going to dominate the console scene, they need to get with the standards for craftsmanship and leave the ambitious messes behind on PC. If that means only having 6 sq. miles of world instead of 13, so be it.

isometry:

Susan Arendt:

We forgive some buggy games while shunning others. Why?

If game A is a unambitious uninspired genre clone with a 10 hour campaign, and game B pushes the all-time boundaries of game development, I'm willing to tolerate more bugs / flaws in game B.

Also it's not like anyone is recording statistics related to bugs, it's all anecdotal and there is a lot of information bias. Like how unimportant and rare Skyrim bugs get more media attention than competition-breaking bugs in Battlefield and Modern Warfare.

I really hope you're not suggesting Skyrim is pushing all-time boundaries of anything. Unless you just started gaming this year or something.

isometry:

Susan Arendt:

We forgive some buggy games while shunning others. Why?

If game A is a unambitious uninspired genre clone with a 10 hour campaign, and game B pushes the all-time boundaries of game development, I'm willing to tolerate more bugs / flaws in game B.

Also it's not like anyone is recording statistics related to bugs, it's all anecdotal and there is a lot of information bias. Like how unimportant and rare Skyrim bugs get more media attention than competition-breaking bugs in Battlefield and Modern Warfare.

Not necessarily. On Bethesda's forums and their databases, they ARE recording the statistics of as many bugs as they can. The documented list of bugs and glitches in Oblivion, Fallout 3, and New Vegas are literally hundreds of pages long.

Websites ranging from IGN to 1up to Eurogamer have CONFIRMED the existence of many of these game-breaking bugs in Skyrim. It's not anecdotal or all information bias; there is a difference between an exploit in Battlefied or Modern Warfare and a wide-spread, game-ending glitch that supposedly every PS3 owner, and potentially 360 owner, will run into.

I also don't think Elder Scrolls pushed any boundaries. I mean, what has it done to push boundaries? Granted, I think the game (when it works) is fantastic, but it's no more groundbreaking than Oblivion was, or for that matter Morrowind. It's a prettier, more versatile version of prior games...

I really think it has a lot to do with brand-loyalty. I can deny that Skyward Sword has a game-ending glitch discovered too, though it's very hard to encounter, but that doesn't mean I should let that pass. Skyrim is broken; it needs fixing.

So let's http://fixskyrim.com/.

My disappointment with Alpha Protocol(and the disappointment does not outweigh my enjoyment of the game) is not that it is buggy, but rather that no patch is coming, ever. I know that it's popular for Obsidian fans to blame the publisher for the developer's failings, but Sega really makes it easy for us when they won't let Obsidian fix the game.

Machocruz:

I really hope you're not suggesting Skyrim is pushing all-time boundaries of anything. Unless you just started gaming this year or something.

I really hope you don't mean you can't see how Skyrim is an ambitious boundary-breaking game. Unless you just started gaming this year or something.

Trishbot:

NWebsites ranging from IGN to 1up to Eurogamer have CONFIRMED the existence of many of these game-breaking bugs in Skyrim. It's not anecdotal or all information bias; there is a difference between an exploit in Battlefied or Modern Warfare and a wide-spread, game-ending glitch that supposedly every PS3 owner, and potentially 360 owner, will run into.

I really think it has a lot to do with brand-loyalty. I can deny that Skyward Sword has a game-ending glitch discovered too, though it's very hard to encounter, but that doesn't mean I should let that pass. Skyrim is broken; it needs fixing.

This is what I mean about information bias. "game ending glitch that supposedly every PS3 owner and potentially 360 owner, will run into." See how that's exaggerated as much as possible to fit the popular story that Skyrim is buggy? There is no statistical evidence by that statement, and I've seen plenty of posts from console players not having problems, but that gets swiftly ignored in favor of telling the popular story.

Sites like IGN and 1up know that "bugs in skyrim" is a popular story that people like, so they give it more attention that game-breaking bugs in BF3/MW3/Skyward Sword. "Bethesda makes buggy games" is an overused meme. It gets repeated constantly with exaggerations, and the posters defend their wild statements with an "everybody knows."

But who knows, I'm 100 hours into Skyrim and haven't faced any major bugs. I'm on PC so pretty much any problem I've heard about can be easily fixed using console commands, and even then I'm not running into problems. Then again, I'm a PC gamer who has plenty of experience fixing any issue I have with a game myself. What I worry is that the next Elder Scrolls game will have to cut features and simplify everything so that Joe Average doesn't get hurt when he tries to play it.

When I encounter a few bugs you know what I do? Do you? I HAVE AN UNCONTROLABLE RA-- Actually, I make the best of it and play around with it. Maybe I'll get my hero to start moonwalking.

If it's a sequence breaker or rather excessive kind of bug then there's an issue. I don't mind so much when some dude starts dancing on the table while trying to hit something.

isometry:

Machocruz:

I really hope you're not suggesting Skyrim is pushing all-time boundaries of anything. Unless you just started gaming this year or something.

I really hope you don't mean you can't see how Skyrim is an ambitious boundary-breaking game. Unless you just started gaming this year or something.

It doesn't break any boundaries at all. There is nothing in the game I haven't seen in Oblivion, Morrowind, Ultima 7, Gothic, Divine Divinity, etc.

Maybe this is why people give some buggy games a pass. They see shit that isn't there, and don't see shit that is there.

Mr. Omega:
My issue with Bethesda isn't that they have all these awful bugs in Skyrim. It's that they consistently have all these awful bugs in their games. They are not learning. Hell, comparing Oblivion to Fallout 3 to Skyrim, it's getting worse.

I know it's not a big deal for most as much as it is for me, but when I see reports that the PS3 version can become unplayable just by playing the damn game, and that's just the worst of the lot, not counting the various bugs on all platforms, I do seriously wonder "why don't more people care about this"?

Because it really is a losing battle when their PR guy constantly downplays the issue or calls another dev who worked on the engine a liar. They aren't fixing the PS3 version of Skyrim. Bethesda had a lot of loyalty from me and the broken PS3 port of Skyrim destroyed it.
OP: We give our favorite developers more rope than ones we don't know/are iffy on. Bethesda happened to take that rope and hang me with it this time. Luckily, I hate them less now because that copy of Skyrm netted me two awesome games at GameStop.

 Pages 1 2 3 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