I just uninstalled Skyrim

[T8B95]

That game was The Last Remnant.

I also think the excuse that Skyrim is big, so it's ok if it runs like shit is ridiculous. That's just bias plain and simple.

Uhh...from what I understand, The Last Remnant was panned because it was awful, on top of being a technical mess.

I can't argue that Skyrim does experience issues. I just think that the size of the game, and the time that they put into making it, excuses it to a point. If Bethesda were to test and iron out every single issue, they wouldn't have got the game out on this console generation, and then there would be tons of glitches and deficiencies that would come from the game being designed for obsolete systems.

 

[Epona]

That game was The Last Remnant.

I also think the excuse that Skyrim is big, so it's ok if it runs like shit is ridiculous. That's just bias plain and simple.

Uhh...from what I understand, The Last Remnant was panned because it was awful, on top of being a technical mess.

I can't argue that Skyrim does experience issues. I just think that the size of the game, and the time that they put into making it, excuses it to a point. If Bethesda were to test and iron out every single issue, they wouldn't have got the game out on this console generation, and then there would be tons of glitches and deficiencies that would come from the game being designed for obsolete systems.

Well, my point is that reviewers didn't say "Oh, it has framerate issues but that's ok." Most people thought The Last Remnant was pretty good, just that it ran poorly. It's one of my favorite games (on the PC where the framerate problems were fixed).

So, if you make a big game (even though the whole thing fits on one DVD) and you spend years making it, it's ok to have bugs out the ass? The Last Remnant was on two DVD's and it took years to make too.

Maybe this is it, buggy games are fine when it's Bethesda but people expect a more polished game from Square Enix?

 

[targren]

5. I like grinding to an extent. Unlike oblivion where the game becomes harder as you level up due to level scaling, Skyrim had a better balance between doing what you want without caring about levels, and getting an advantage through leveling up.

This I have to disagree with. At least in oblivion, I could grind my "Mercantile" skill or something and not have to worry about the fact that I'd gained 13 levels from a non-combat skill, so that the next time I left the safe confines of the town, the first wolf I came across ate my face. (Admittedly, I did create a 'custom' class in Oblivion to game that aspect by making only combat skills "major").

After ten hours, I had to restart Skyrim from scratch for just that reason.

 

[Epona]

That's nice. More harddrive space I guess. Personally I'm 100% indifferent to skyrim. I just don't like games like it. I don't care about that fantasy middle earth shit. I tried Oblivion and got bored, not because of the engine(Same engine powers my top two favorite games of all time Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas), I just couldn't get into the game. Didn't sell me on the series, never bought Skyrim.

Now, buy yourself Dark Souls and immerse yourself in a world of enjoyable pain.

What's enjoyable about a game that's so hard you have to play each level hundreds of times?

Maybe this is it, buggy games are fine when it's Bethesda but people expect a more polished game from Square Enix?

This is actually the only flaw I want fixed with their stuff. I love the 3D Fallout games but the bugs piss me off to no end. It's like Bethesda's QA department is staffed entirely by underpaid howler monkeys.

...and reviewers don't serve the consumer very well when they turn the other cheek.

Why am I getting hit with captcha for every damn post??

 

[Epona]

5. I like grinding to an extent. Unlike oblivion where the game becomes harder as you level up due to level scaling, Skyrim had a better balance between doing what you want without caring about levels, and getting an advantage through leveling up.

This I have to disagree with. At least in oblivion, I could grind my "Mercantile" skill or something and not have to worry about the fact that I'd gained 13 levels from a non-combat skill, so that the next time I left the safe confines of the town, the first wolf I came across ate my face. (Admittedly, I did create a 'custom' class in Oblivion to game that aspect by making only combat skills "major").

After ten hours, I had to restart Skyrim from scratch for just that reason.

Yes, this is true, in Oblivion you could also put all your most used skill as minor and never level up to avoid the scaling. You can't do this in Skyrim.

So while the scaling in Oblivion was worse, there were ways around it. In Skyrim, the scaling is not as bad but it's still there are there isn't a workaround that I am aware of.

 

[T8B95]

Well, my point is that reviewers didn't say "Oh, it has framerate issues but that's ok." Most people thought The Last Remnant was pretty good, just that it ran poorly. It's one of my favorite games (on the PC where the framerate problems were fixed).

So, if you make a big game (even though the whole thing fits on one DVD) and you spend years making it, it's ok to have bugs out the ass? The Last Remnant was on two DVD's and it took years to make too.

Maybe this is it, buggy games are fine when it's Bethesda but people expect a more polished game from Square Enix?

Define "most people". From the IGN review that I'm looking at, the game was also panned for having irritating gameplay and a bland story.

Also, why is the fact that TLR is on two discs considered a selling point? Because Skyrim is still bigger, and I don't need to get up every ten minutes to switch the disc.

Like I said, I haven't experienced many of Skyrim's so-called legions of glitches (it's slowed down twice, both when entering the minor cities in the peak hours), so maybe I'm not qualified to speak on that count. I personally don't think bugs should be counted against any game unless they a) occur consistently (almost every single person who plays), and b) make the game truly unplayable.

 

[Epona]

Well, my point is that reviewers didn't say "Oh, it has framerate issues but that's ok." Most people thought The Last Remnant was pretty good, just that it ran poorly. It's one of my favorite games (on the PC where the framerate problems were fixed).

So, if you make a big game (even though the whole thing fits on one DVD) and you spend years making it, it's ok to have bugs out the ass? The Last Remnant was on two DVD's and it took years to make too.

Maybe this is it, buggy games are fine when it's Bethesda but people expect a more polished game from Square Enix?

Define "most people". From the IGN review that I'm looking at, the game was also panned for having irritating gameplay and a bland story.

Also, why is the fact that TLR is on two discs considered a selling point? Because Skyrim is still bigger, and I don't need to get up every ten minutes to switch the disc.

Like I said, I haven't experienced many of Skyrim's so-called legions of glitches (it's slowed down twice, both when entering the minor cities in the peak hours), so maybe I'm not qualified to speak on that count. I personally don't think bugs should be counted against any game unless they a) occur consistently (almost every single person who plays), and b) make the game truly unplayable.

I take back the "most people" because I can't really define it. I don't care about all the other criticism of the game, those come down to opinion. The framerate issues were a fact and the reviewers didn't ignore them like they did with Skyrim.

Ok, if you don't think the number of DVD's matter then how long do you think Skyrim is? I'll tell you this, Steam says that I have put 79 hours into The Last Remnant. 79 hours and I never came close to finishing it. Like Skyrim, The Last Remnant has alot of quests and to do them all would take many many hours. The Last Remnant is a huge game too but it doesn't get a pass for framerate issues, nor should it. Skyrim shouldn't get a pass either. To make things even worse, this is the same problem that Fallout 3 and New Vegas had on the PS3. Bethesda knew about the problem and shipped it anyway. They withheld PS3 copies from reviewers thus making them look even worse and reviewers STILL FUCKIN LET IT GO! It's ok though right, there's no way they could have tested a game that takes 79 hours or more, right?


Oh wait, you don't think bugs should count against a game??? WOW!

 

[Darkmantle]

compared to DF, skyrim is a much better GAME

I would not agree with that. Far from it. from a purely mechanical perspective DF is superior GAME. And I'm not talking about petty dressing over game mecahnics like story, visuals, etc. What are Skyrims mecahnics? spamming mouse one in front of a monster until it falls down.

Yes,that's all you do in skyrim, just spamming left-click in front of one monster. no dodging, no blocking, no power attacks, no group battles, no spells, no archery, no changing weapons, no dual wielding, no sneaking, no using consumables, no positioning, no funnelling, no moving, nothing. just you, one monster, and the basic attack.

clearly, all you need is the left mouse button for skyrim because NONE of those other things ever happen. Clearly DF the masochist micro-manager's wet dream, where every thing has to be accounted for by you because the AI is literally suicidal, is a better game mechanically.

it's also convenient where you left out at minimum 3 categories where skyrim wins, story, visuals, playability. What's your next category? clearly DF is better if you only take into account the number of dwarves?

EDIT: oh shit, I forgot, no shouts or other powers.

 

[kasperbbs]

'I just uninstalled Skyrim' And i just reinstalled it, the world is in balance again.. All i can say is too bad. I perosonally like the game, i enjoy building up my character and i even enjoy the side quests. I don't know if im just that lucky or the number of 'game breaking bugs' is greatly exaggerated, the only 'wtf' bug i encountered during my 60 hours of gameplay was during a 'serious' conversation when o bowl started acting like it was possessed and fruit started flying everywhere, but that was more on the funny side.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

I miss the days when the Escapist had a fun and happy community.

 

[Darkmantle]

5. I like grinding to an extent. Unlike oblivion where the game becomes harder as you level up due to level scaling, Skyrim had a better balance between doing what you want without caring about levels, and getting an advantage through leveling up.

This I have to disagree with. At least in oblivion, I could grind my "Mercantile" skill or something and not have to worry about the fact that I'd gained 13 levels from a non-combat skill, so that the next time I left the safe confines of the town, the first wolf I came across ate my face. (Admittedly, I did create a 'custom' class in Oblivion to game that aspect by making only combat skills "major").

After ten hours, I had to restart Skyrim from scratch for just that reason.

As sad as it is, I think they did it because of people like you.

people who would exploit the system by putting skills they use in minor so they never level up, so they can grind sneak or block or whatever to 100 and be invincible because alchemy and mysticism are their majors.

maybe Bethesda doesn't like it when you game the system like that and give yourself an unfair advantage. maybe you shouldn't grind your skills like that.

 

[Mythrignoc]

It's the media hype that leads people to believe it's either going to be the best damn game in the world, or a horrifying disappointment.

However, if people were to try and take Skyrim for what it is, it's a pretty damn good game with a solid, even if cliched story.

Skyrim to me is a major improvement over oblivion on every area. The combat is much more intense and interactive (simply moving back and forth while striking isn't the end all tactic like it was in Morrowind and Oblivion), spells are far more dynamic and balanced (no powerleveling the shit out of alteration just by casting it while destruction is left behind), the NPC's while redundant, at least have far more interesting things to say (I'd TOTALLY fucking take the Arrow to the Knee comments over "I saw a mudcrab the other day, disgusting things. Bye."), and there are countless other things that work so well in this.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Does it have flaws, more than enough to occasionally break a game. But, if you can look past some of the inconsistencies, flaws and bugs, it can be a great gaming experience.

That said, if you can't look past the bugs/flaws in a game as massive as this then no, you won't enjoy the game and you're also kind of an idiot to think that this game would be perfect.


Bethesda isn't about perfection; their forte lies in scale and epicness. Bit by bit, they're improving their formula for combining that with the "Be whatever you want to be, and do whatever you want to do" sort of gameplay and while I don't imagine the next game will be the golden ticket either, personally, I'm patient enough to give them a chance.

After the catastrofuck that was oblivion, this game fixed about 90% of my issues with oblivion and gave me a really wonderful experience, and while I hated bethesda before for what they did with oblivion, I can't overlook how much they've improved and I think they deserve some credence.

It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.

Umm....you realize you just contradictd yourself in an amazingly stupid fashion right?

Let me break it down to you.

My comment is about how much skyrim is an improvement over oblivion and so your case is that this is Bethesda selling out to fans.

Yet in the exact same paragraph, you say that our ("our" meaning TES fans) expectations were strayed from in the release of skyrim, i.e. we didn't get what WE want.

Furthermore, Bethesda is owned by bethsoft, and bethsoft is part of bethesda, so basically it's "bethesda presents a bethesda game."

This basically means that bethesda created a fantastic game of their own design and choosing, pandered to NO one, and yet some how they're selling out to people who didn't get what they want?


Do you see the logic in that because I sure don't.

Your post makes no sense. I can't respond to it.

Let me clarify what I was saying.

There are alot of people who say "I hated Oblivion but loved Skyrim". Well, that is evidence that Skyrim is VERY different from Oblivion.

Okay...yeah, that's a totally different thing you just said.

Yes, I do agree with you that Skyrim is an incredibly different game than oblivion, even if it uses the same engine and has the same 'feel' of oblivion.

However, what you originally said was that bethesda sold out which is a VERY different sentiment.

And no, my post doesn't make any sense mainly because I was trying to make sense of your oxymoron. Bethesda sold out to its fans but its fans didn't get what they wanted. I'm not sure how that's selling out, but even if it is, then how do you sell out to your fans without giving them what they want?

 

[Hal10k]

I miss the days when the Escapist had a fun and happy community.

Yeah, those were a great five minutes.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

[image/]http://stinger.mysbrforum.com/photos/l/37423L1f.jpg[/IMG]
Not really sure why you posted this. Wasn't a review by any means.

If you wanted to vent, do it in another Skyrim thread. You need to discussion value.

And by the way, our bitching about your post DOES have a point, since if enough of us say it, maybe next time you will do better and make a less inflammatory thread.

 

[brodie21]

cool. would you like a medal or a chest to pin it on?

 

[T8B95]

I take back the "most people" because I can't really define it. I don't care about all the other criticism of the game, those come down to opinion. The framerate issues were a fact and the reviewers didn't ignore them like they did with Skyrim.

Ok, if you don't think the number of DVD's matter then how long do you think Skyrim is? I'll tell you this, Steam says that I have put 79 hours into The Last Remnant. 79 hours and I never came close to finishing it. Like Skyrim, The Last Remnant has alot of quests and to do them all would take many many hours. The Last Remnant is a huge game too but it doesn't get a pass for framerate issues, nor should it. Skyrim shouldn't get a pass either. To make things even worse, this is the same problem that Fallout 3 and New Vegas had on the PS3. Bethesda knew about the problem and shipped it anyway. They withheld PS3 copies from reviewers thus making them look even worse and reviewers STILL FUCKIN LET IT GO! It's ok though right, there's no way they could have tested a game that takes 79 hours or more, right?


Oh wait, you don't think bugs should count against a game??? WOW!

Whoa, chill the fuck out.

At the end of the day, people have to choose what they judge a game based on. I choose not to let bugs get in the way of my enjoyment until they legitimately ruin the experience. Not playing Skyrim on a PS3, I can't say how bad or how consistent the bugs are there, but out of all of my friends that have played Skyrim, we've encountered relatively few bugs in relation to the cumulative hundreds of hours we've spent playing. If people choose to throw away their copy of Skyrim because it slowed down a few times, that's their call. I think that they're missing out on one of the best RPG experiences ever, but it's still their call. In mine and many other people's opinions, the game's experience makes up for its quite existent flaws.

Also, Bethesda have been constantly working on the game since release. In the two months since release, they've released three patches with a fourth on the way. To call them lazy or incompetent is an insult to all the time that was spent making this game.

 

[Epona]

It's the media hype that leads people to believe it's either going to be the best damn game in the world, or a horrifying disappointment.

However, if people were to try and take Skyrim for what it is, it's a pretty damn good game with a solid, even if cliched story.

Skyrim to me is a major improvement over oblivion on every area. The combat is much more intense and interactive (simply moving back and forth while striking isn't the end all tactic like it was in Morrowind and Oblivion), spells are far more dynamic and balanced (no powerleveling the shit out of alteration just by casting it while destruction is left behind), the NPC's while redundant, at least have far more interesting things to say (I'd TOTALLY fucking take the Arrow to the Knee comments over "I saw a mudcrab the other day, disgusting things. Bye."), and there are countless other things that work so well in this.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Does it have flaws, more than enough to occasionally break a game. But, if you can look past some of the inconsistencies, flaws and bugs, it can be a great gaming experience.

That said, if you can't look past the bugs/flaws in a game as massive as this then no, you won't enjoy the game and you're also kind of an idiot to think that this game would be perfect.


Bethesda isn't about perfection; their forte lies in scale and epicness. Bit by bit, they're improving their formula for combining that with the "Be whatever you want to be, and do whatever you want to do" sort of gameplay and while I don't imagine the next game will be the golden ticket either, personally, I'm patient enough to give them a chance.

After the catastrofuck that was oblivion, this game fixed about 90% of my issues with oblivion and gave me a really wonderful experience, and while I hated bethesda before for what they did with oblivion, I can't overlook how much they've improved and I think they deserve some credence.

It seems to me that comments like yours (and there are many) are really saying that those who hate Oblivion will be the most likely to love Skyrim. To me, that is evidence enough of how far Skyrim has strayed from the expectations of TES fans. In short, Bethesda sold out TES fans.

Umm....you realize you just contradictd yourself in an amazingly stupid fashion right?

Let me break it down to you.

My comment is about how much skyrim is an improvement over oblivion and so your case is that this is Bethesda selling out to fans.

Yet in the exact same paragraph, you say that our ("our" meaning TES fans) expectations were strayed from in the release of skyrim, i.e. we didn't get what WE want.

Furthermore, Bethesda is owned by bethsoft, and bethsoft is part of bethesda, so basically it's "bethesda presents a bethesda game."

This basically means that bethesda created a fantastic game of their own design and choosing, pandered to NO one, and yet some how they're selling out to people who didn't get what they want?


Do you see the logic in that because I sure don't.

Your post makes no sense. I can't respond to it.

Let me clarify what I was saying.

There are alot of people who say "I hated Oblivion but loved Skyrim". Well, that is evidence that Skyrim is VERY different from Oblivion.

Okay...yeah, that's a totally different thing you just said.

Yes, I do agree with you that Skyrim is an incredibly different game than oblivion, even if it uses the same engine and has the same 'feel' of oblivion.

However, what you originally said was that bethesda sold out which is a VERY different sentiment.

And no, my post doesn't make any sense mainly because I was trying to make sense of your oxymoron. Bethesda sold out to its fans but its fans didn't get what they wanted. I'm not sure how that's selling out, but even if it is, then how do you sell out to your fans without giving them what they want?

Oh wow,

Skyrim is extremely different from Oblivion and so the fans of Oblivion (the last TES games) were sold out to a more mainstream (let's bring cinematic kills in and take out attributes) audience. This is why there are so many who hate Oblivion but love Skyrim.

Look, if this isn't clear enough then just drop it.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

Yeah, those were a great five minutes.

I rest my case.

 

[Epona]

I take back the "most people" because I can't really define it. I don't care about all the other criticism of the game, those come down to opinion. The framerate issues were a fact and the reviewers didn't ignore them like they did with Skyrim.

Ok, if you don't think the number of DVD's matter then how long do you think Skyrim is? I'll tell you this, Steam says that I have put 79 hours into The Last Remnant. 79 hours and I never came close to finishing it. Like Skyrim, The Last Remnant has alot of quests and to do them all would take many many hours. The Last Remnant is a huge game too but it doesn't get a pass for framerate issues, nor should it. Skyrim shouldn't get a pass either. To make things even worse, this is the same problem that Fallout 3 and New Vegas had on the PS3. Bethesda knew about the problem and shipped it anyway. They withheld PS3 copies from reviewers thus making them look even worse and reviewers STILL FUCKIN LET IT GO! It's ok though right, there's no way they could have tested a game that takes 79 hours or more, right?


Oh wait, you don't think bugs should count against a game??? WOW!

Whoa, chill the fuck out.

At the end of the day, people have to choose what they judge a game based on. I choose not to let bugs get in the way of my enjoyment until they legitimately ruin the experience. Not playing Skyrim on a PS3, I can't say how bad or how consistent the bugs are there, but out of all of my friends that have played Skyrim, we've encountered relatively few bugs in relation to the cumulative hundreds of hours we've spent playing. If people choose to throw away their copy of Skyrim because it slowed down a few times, that's their call. I think that they're missing out on one of the best RPG experiences ever, but it's still their call. In mine and many other people's opinions, the game's experience makes up for its quite existent flaws.

Also, Bethesda have been constantly working on the game since release. In the two months since release, they've released three patches with a fourth on the way. To call them lazy or incompetent is an insult to all the time that was spent making this game.

1) I am chilled. You can't determine my tone from text.

2) We aren't talking game players here, we are talking about game reviewers. They are supposed to be objective.

3) You've heard of YouTube? You don't need the PS3 version to see how bad the lag is. YOu could look it up, here's an example to get you started. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH_2Oq87TAQ

4) I had the PS3 version, traded it in for the PC version, it really is that bad and my PS3 was less than a month old at the time.

5) I never called them lazy or incompetent but are you saying it's ok not to mention the bugs in reviews because Bethesda will patch it? Every company patches their games so if framerate issues aren't ok for SE, they aren't ok for Bethesda either.