I just uninstalled Skyrim

[Skin]

In my opinion, you have very low standards if you think Skyrim is a good game. Yes it is big, but so are MMORPG's...

Within three paragraphs you get from "I accept that everyone has an opinion" into this "No True Scotsman" crap. For a guy yammering about cognitive dissonance, you have an astonishing blind spot for your own biases.

You seemed to have missed the "In my opinion" part... Good job.

 

[Epona]

2) Ok, reviewers should ATTEMPT to be objective. Framerate issues that are very noticeable are a bad thing and a reviewer who wasn't blinded by hype would NOT have turned the other cheek for Skyrim.

3) I provide a YouTube video and you could have found your own instead of/in addition to that and you still can't develop an opinion. I guess you think I am lying to you and the videos are doctored.

5) No, bugs don't have to be taken in context. It's like saying "Well since this deep freeze is so big, you can't expect it to reach freezing temps".

2) I believe that they still would have turned the other cheek. In the Youtube video you so generously provided, the guy says that it's still their game of the year even with all the issues. This just proves my point.

3) I never said that I thought you were lying, nor was it implied.

5) This seems to be the meat of our disagreement. I think that Skyrim's otherwise astounding quality makes up for its bugs. You obviously don't.

2) Yes, just another reviewer who was willing to look the other way for "this one game". That still doesn't make it right.

3) You saw the lag yourself, there are many more videos and people to back it up. Not having an opinion about it at this point doesn't make sense.

5) No I don't and like all their past games, they WON'T fix the bugs, they will leave it to modders to clean up the mess.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

GOD DAMN IT!

Why. The hell. Do these threads always appear?!

"I just uninstalled Skyrim"

"I hate Half Life 2"

"I *SOMETHING* *A GAME THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE* *Pause so everyone can gasp*

Yes. This is a gaming forum. But why do you have to make ANOTHER repeat thread?
And before you say, "Well why do you join in threads like this?"
I don't. This is my first ever thread of this type that I have joined in.

I made this post because I was sick of threads like this.

Posting this has made me feel better.

 

[Savagezion]

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.

Just mentioning mileage may vary on this. I run on PS3 fatboy from PS3's launch date. I don't have really any problems with slow down. I see non game breaking bugs. A floating horse, bugged bookshelves, and maybe a freeze-up every 20-30 hours on average. I have clocked in practically 200 hours somehow and only have had to do a reset 6-8 times? Give or take, I don't know the exact number. Framerate only happens when I am running and I think I outrun what it can render. If I just stop running and wait literally 1 second I can sprint my ass off again no problem. This happens if I sprint for 200-300 meters game distance. I rarely get to run longer than 2-300 meters without checking something out though, even on horseback.

I am hearing all kinds of stuff about how PS3 release is the worst one, but seriously I ain't seeing it. If they can fix the freeze ups, I'll be happy. I have spoke with others on PS3 that say they don't have the issues either. Just figured I would mention not everyone is experiencing these issues on a drastic scale. It is bad that some are, but I assure you there are decent copies out there in great number.

 

[T8B95]

3) You saw the lag yourself, there are many more videos and people to back it up. Not having an opinion about it at this point doesn't make sense.

5) No I don't and like all their past games, they WON'T fix the bugs, they will leave it to modders to clean up the mess.

3) Fine, I'll give an opinion. Lag hasn't affected me too severely, so I'm not going to get worked up about it.

5) But they ARE fixing the bugs. The third patch cleaned up most of the PS3 lag, and the fourth one is going to do even more. You can also argue a cause and effect thing there; because Bethesda knows that they have an active modding community, they can leave certain things to them. I don't think that this is right or good, but it is possible.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Personally, I really, really like Skyrim, but it does have a lot of flaws- and fanboys will attack you for pointing out even one.

It's worth noting that I actually got so bored playing one character that I actually started over with a new one, and a different quest line and skill trees.*

I think it has to do with the standard WRPG problem that when every quest is treated as important, none of them feel important.


*While I did get too bored to finish the main quest, I had played through many of the other radiant quests, and in a way that was a full game in itself.

 

[Darkmantle]

You've been sarcastic in your post and I have been over-exaggerating. DF's problem is accessibility while Skyrim's problem is shallowness.

Thing is skyrim's shallowness problems are nothing compared to DFs accessibility problems. hell, skyrim's more deep than most games lately.

Yes, I am inclined to agree on that one. Still, saying that it's deeper than most modern games is not a high criteria when it's possible to find old games and play them. Yet Skyrim still gets unreal praise.

part of that is due to the marketing honestly, those older games never had the marketing power behind them like skyrim. But when people have been saturated by super shallow crap for too long, they may not be able to handle being thrown into a game like say E.Y.E. right away, skyrim is a good entry level complex game it's a gentle push,

 

[Epona]

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.

Just mentioning mileage may vary on this. I run on PS3 fatboy from PS3's launch date. I don't have really any problems with slow down. I see non game breaking bugs. A floating horse, bugged bookshelves, and maybe a freeze-up every 20-30 hours on average. I have clocked in practically 200 hours somehow and only have had to do a reset 6-8 times? Give or take, I don't know the exact number. Framerate only happens when I am running and I think I outrun what it can render. If I just stop running and wait literally 1 second I can sprint my ass off again no problem. This happens if I sprint for 200-300 meters game distance. I rarely get to run longer than 2-300 meters without checking something out though, even on horseback.

I am hearing all kinds of stuff about how PS3 release is the worst one, but seriously I ain't seeing it. If they can fix the freeze ups, I'll be happy. I have spoke with others on PS3 that say they don't have the issues either. Just figured I would mention not everyone is experiencing these issues on a drastic scale. It is bad that some are, but I assure you there are decent copies out there in great number.

Yeah but not everyone has to experience a bug before it can be confirmed to exist. Have you played the game on the PC and 360 so you can really make a comparison?

 

[Yopaz]

It's like people are somehow afraid to come out and admit that the games just not very good.

Has there ever been anyone in the history of the world that has ever been affraid to say they don't like a video game?

This guy got a point going on...

OT: I'm not too keen on Skyrim simply because it's not my kind of game. I have a problem with games that are too open where the side quests make up for more content than the main quest. From my point of view it's a great game, but it's not for me.

 

[Epona]

3) You saw the lag yourself, there are many more videos and people to back it up. Not having an opinion about it at this point doesn't make sense.

5) No I don't and like all their past games, they WON'T fix the bugs, they will leave it to modders to clean up the mess.

3) Fine, I'll give an opinion. Lag hasn't affected me too severely, so I'm not going to get worked up about it.

5) But they ARE fixing the bugs. The third patch cleaned up most of the PS3 lag, and the fourth one is going to do even more. You can also argue a cause and effect thing there; because Bethesda knows that they have an active modding community, they can leave certain things to them. I don't think that this is right or good, but it is possible.

3) Just like the podcast guys. Not my problem so I don't care!

5) First of all, this lag bug on the PS3 has been in the last 3 Bethesda games and they couldn't fix it before. I doubt they can fix it now. I believe that a New Vegas dev even came out and said that he didn't think the lag was fixable. Who says the third patch fixed most of the lag? Bethesda WILL leave most of the bugs to the modding community to fix, it's what they always do.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

Didn't you make a thread right after/before it came out and complained about it being bad then too? I agree that it has its shortcomings and even if it is a bad game, it doesn't deserve multiple threads made by the same person telling everyone how bad it is.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

>Now, some people play an Elder Scrolls game as some kind of playground.
Er... THAT'S THE POINT.
Seriously. DON'T play a free-roaming game if you want a choice and action thing that influences everything. There's Mass Effect and Dragon Age for that.
It's like hating a greyhound for being a greyhound and saying "WHY THE FUCK AREN'T YOU A GOLDEN RETRIEVER YET?!"

 

[Skin]

But...what about us to genuinely like the game? I would hardly call it a peice of shit, because it's fun for me! I enjoy killing dragons, firing arrows poisoned with Fury into a crowd, walking across the land and arriving in town with a pile of wolf furs. Sometimes it's funny when I play a character one way, only to get a message from a friend saying they have to meet me an hour early. I decided to finish the mission, but is there time for a sneaky attack on that bandit fort? Nope, time to charge and see what happens!

Like I said before, you could have the most fun in your life smudging your feces all over the living room wall. I can't say "no, you did not have fun" because you did.

The game is lacking from a technical and comparative stand point. All the people who brought up the pro's of this game did so comparing it to Oblivion and Morrowind. I find that quite amusing.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

So what you're basically saying (reading your critical points) is that you like the formula the game is based on. This is also what I've been saying about Skyrim from the start: The game is a world class recipe. It just could do with a better cook.

Not quite the same thing, no. I like what bethesda has done, despite it's flaws. I don't play it and think "it's good but not great", because it is great at what it does. Could it be refined? Definitely. I also doubt there are, as you say, better cooks since there is an obvious market for Sandbox games and RPGs, yet very few merge the 2 as well as is seen in TES games. I credit Bethesda for making a good game, that no one else will supply to me.

If an alternative did appear, then maybe my stance would change. But Bethesda set's the standard of something that really doesn't exist beyond itself and it's something I want. Even if one did, I doubt it would surpass what Bethesda offers, as bethesda has been refining it for nearly 20 years and still isn't to a the standard they want (else they would have stopped fiddling with the core mechanics of it). I said what it is that sets it apart and how it does it in another post so I'll quote it here:

I find the Freedom argument for Skyrim is probably a little misleading. I would say skyrim creates a LOT of freedom within set boundaries. The boundaries don't confine you or restrict you like cage or a trap, but rather helps to define your presence in the world, giving it more weight.

As a comparison, look at minecraft: Virtually endless and offers an immense amount of freedom, yet has no actual structure to give your actions meaning.

Where games like Half Life are Roller-coasters, Mass Effect are interactive films and minecraft are playing blocks, TES are true worlds beyond our own, free (well, not really) to explore and discover, to shape yourself in a fictional setting.

Do not dismiss it as some sort of psychological affliction... I find that notion grossly offensive, it's also a massive cop out in any topic as you would like keeping picking on the flipside of any point made and imply that it's all in our heads.

Which funnily enough, it all is...

There is a difference between your opinion being "worth less" and your opinion being in the "appropriate place". The worth of your opinion depends entirely on who wants it. If the person asking is a game that has the same fetish for Open World games as you, then your opinion is worth 10 times mine to him. That still doesn't mean that your opinion, if it's based on emotional attachment, is appropriate in every place (in this case game critique). It's the same reason that the justice system doesn't appoint family members of someone who was murdered to judge the murderer. Some fields requires emotional detachment (and some require emotional attachment).

If your going to argue semantics here, then I will have to weigh in on this:
In this paragraph alone you make several points that carry negative connotations. First of all, you use the word "fetish" to describe a trait of mine, which is almost always used in a derogatory fashion from one person describing anothers trait (usually in the context of being sordid or unhealthy). This is an underhanded tactic in debating, where one party attempts to imply a negative trait or characteristic in another, avoiding a direct inflammatory remark so to not degrade there own statement.

You then make an analogy using a grave subject (murder) to push home your point. While this analogy isn't inflammatory, it sets a negative frame of mind for the reader.

Whether you meant to do this or not it doesn't matter, I just wanted you to know.

As for the point your making. Yes I agree that an opinion resonates positively to someone who shares it against someone who doesn't. However It's not a "fetish" of mine. I have broad appreciation towards games with no allegiance to any particular developer or genre. The only reason skyrim seems to be more to me then other games, is because it is the subject being discussed. I assure you, my opinion arrives through critical analyses of the game itself.

Your not a special person.

I don't need to be special to be more knowledgable about a subject than someone else.

The trick, of course, is convincing people that you're more knowledgeable. Failing to convince people of that can be fatal, but it doesn't mean you weren't right/more knowledgable. Case in point: The first people who claimed that earth was round, not flat (and who was executed for being heathens on that count).

The statement wasn't a declaration of your competence. It's a presumed fact (unless you really are an exceptional individual, which I have no basis to believe).

Critical analyses is very easily attained. The difficulty is tempering your critical eye as to not detract from the overall piece. A fair judgement is made on all it's merits against it's deficiencies.

And this is where you are so so wrong. The job of a critic is NOT to review something. It's to point out flaws.

If two people (a reviewer and a critic) were served at soup which happens to be a bit to salty, the reviewer might say something like "It was overall a great soup with a lot of attractive flavors and a nice consistency, which unfortunately was let down by it being a bit too salty. But i otherwise enjoyed it at a nice price". The job of the critic, on the other hand, is to point out one single thing: "This soup is a bit too salty". That's it.

It's a reviewers job to temper their critical eye and make sure that their overall review of a product takes everything into account. A true critic, however, only has one job: Pointing out mistakes and bad design decisions/practices so they can be corrected.

True, and false.

Critic: Noun,
1. A person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something.
2. A person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works, esp. one who does so professionally.

Synonyms: Reviewer - Censor.

criticism: Noun,
1.The expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes
2The analysis and judgment of a literary or artistic work.

While you do fit the bill of a critic, it is not the only one. Taking all the flaws but omitting the merits is definitely being critical, but then one who analyses a subject in its totality is also being critical.

You also comment on the differences between Reviewers and Critics. While you are right partially, there is no distinction between a reviewer or a critic in a professional scene beyond the label. Reviewers ARE critics and vice versa.

Having a grudge against deficiencies that inhibits your ability to see it's merits makes you unfit to judge.

And as i said, it's not a critics job to judge.

It's not a critics job to have a grudge either. Like i said, i enjoyed Skyrim, and i can see why other people like it (and even why they might like things that i despited about it). But when you put on your critic glasses, grudges and affinities have to disappear, and you need to remember that the things that made you love Skyrim despite its flaws (your nice little list earlier) might not make someone else love Skyrim despite the flaws, so the only thing you can objectively stick to in that case is, well, the flaws.

Grudge was a poor choice of words, so I'll give you that. I probably should have explained it like "seeing the flaws only inhibits your ability to encompass the overall work". Though the point above still stands.

A critic, as you put it, just addresses a games flaws as it is the most objective information available? Eh, no. Flaws are also subjective. Beyond it been broken or universally shoddy, most flaws ARE subjective. Crap melee? Maybe, but others disagree, even people who still don't like it. Crap graphics? Maybe, though many will disagree with you in one form or another. Crap Narrative? Maybe, but others think it's gripping and immersive.

Likewise, Merits are also subjective. Unless you count sales, reviews and otherwise, in which case it IS objectively good.

If your calling these alternative opinions wrong, or dismissing them as biased, then you yourself, are too biased to be a decent critic. You cannot have an objective take on a subject if you're only looking at half the picture.

"High standards" means you hold something to a standard that is above average or, more often then not, your idea of perfection. othing will ever meet an individuals view on perfection, let alone the masses, so again that makes you unfit to judge. Not to mention the "average" is also entirely subjective (unless you can pull out statistics and documented facts), meaning it's just as unreliable in making a fair judgement on something as it would be if you judged it against perfection.

Not really. You are confusing the word "Standards" with judging if something is below/above average. That's not the same. Standards are common requirements, and there are many kinds of standards, like technical standards, educational standards, architectural standards (like my example with the house below), engineering standards. "High standards" mean that you look at something and ask yourself "How is this piece of work done compared to similar products". Emphasis here on "work", because the work done doesn't say much about how the result turned out to be. Modern Warfare 3 being the best selling game ever doesn't mean (from a critical standpoint) that it was the best piece of work done ever.

You can't describe perfection. But you can describe when something is terrible work.

Let me give you an example: I can't describe the perfect house, but i can still (as a critic) say that a house which has terrible insulation against cold (meaning it leaks heat through holes or walls made of a bad material) is a terrible piece of work. That doesn't mean that the fault can't be ignored. If you have a lot of body fat, or a lot of money and don't mind a high heat bill, then it's perfectly possible to live in the house comfrtably. That still doesn't change that it's still a terrible piece of house-design from a critical standpoint, and therefore low standards work (at least in that regard).

I don't judge the house. I just point out that something about the building of the house wasn't planned or executed very well by architectural standards, and similarly I'm just pointing out how some things about Skyrim aren't planned or executed very well compared to gaming standards (not at least the terrible amount of glitches and crashes).

I'll be straight with you. I'm not a dictionary, so I can't just recite definitions whenever I spot a contradiction. But that's the benefit of google.

Standard:
Adjective, Used or accepted as normal or average

A higher standard would means your standard, the bare minimum one must reach to be average in your view, is higher then the standards (and averages) of others. If your a perfectionist, then this standard would be very high, if not unrealistically high. So stating you have a "higher standard" without offering a comparison to scale it to makes it difficult for others to comprehend your meaning.

You only described one aspect of criticism, that is, the deconstruction of a subjects faults. But omitting the merits, again, only offers the person, who you're selling your criticism to, a portion of the overall image in the game... specifically a bad image (which is all they will see). Unless your trying to crush the game (which implies bias), the lack of merits will only seek to skew the opinion of the piece negatively, without giving it a chance.

The purpose of the merits is to balance and gauge the negativity... that is if you want people to know how bad it is against the things it did right (or even other pieces did right). Without it, it's just destructive (and pointless). Professional Criticism should be Constructive. Even if you find the melee impotent, you should remark on how impressed you are with the animations/effects or the way it works mechanically (did that sword take a satisfying amount of HP out of the enemy? If it did then thats a merit), if you were inclined to think that way. Through this the person receiving the criticism get's an idea of what to expect (or if they are the creators, an idea of where to work on it).

 

[Vault101]

I'm not to keen on Skyrim either. The strange thing is that almost everyone who talks about Skyrim can go into deep essay style discussions of the games failings, then end it all by saying "but I still like the game" without giving a real reason why. I think the Extra Credits review of the intro is a good example of this (don't think I can post a link, just google it). They essentially go on for half an hour about how Bethesda's dev team must be 80% chimpasee, then end on a "now I'm going to go play more Skyrim" note. It's like people are somehow afraid to come out and admit that the games just not very good.

I dont think skyrim is that great.....oh wait somones knocking on my door- OH GOD ITS THE THOURGHT POLICE!! NO! NOT ROOM 101 IM SORRY!!!!

haha anyway

they didnt like how skyrim did the intro? I tried to watch before but it was loading too slow..anyway Im glad skyrim exists because of how it goes againts industry trends...we need games like that

other than that.."meh" I find it annoying skyrim is going on BEST EVA!! lists....best game of 2011? no..not by a longshot

but then again thats just my opinion

 

[brainslurper]

You didn't like skyrim. That is great. I have a friend who doesn't like chocolate.

 

[Brian Hendershot]

Cool story bro I'm going to go back to playing Skyrim..

 

[Bomberman4000]

I don't get why people who don't like Skyrim go out of their way to try to convert people who do. What it sounds like to me is that people who don't like Skyrim can't accept that they're in the minority so they ***** and complain about it to try and get more people on their side, OR they ***** and moan because they feel it's cooler to be on the outside of the majority on an issue.

It's been said before that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just because you're the most stubborn about arguing about it doesn't make you right. "Good" is a relative term. "Perfect" is a relative term. "Quality" is a relative term. Reviews and everything that goes in them are all subjective. It's fine to disagree, but with what I've been reading so far it just sounds like a lot of complaining because something is popular that you don't think should be.

It's more the opposite. It sounds to me like the people who like Skyrim are shouting down those who don't. Don't let me shatter your illusions though.

I'm just saying I've seen more posts around the internet with titles akin to "why you shouldn't like Skyrim" with details picking it apart from non-reviewers and such, than I have "why you should like Skyrim" from those same non-reviewer types.

But I don't claim to know everything on the internet so I may be wrong. I'm honestly just surprised someone actually read my post 7 pages in. I guess that means deep down we all care what each other think

OT: I don't see how anyone can expect a game this huge to not have flaws. As people have said, there are THOUSANDS of things to do in Skyrim. There is no possible way ANY amount of QA testing would catch all of the potential problems with the game. It's all about scope. If the same problems existed in a much more limited game, I'd be more likely to agree that it was a badly made game. But in my experiences with the game for all it does wrong it does so much more right. I've only sunk about 20 hours or so into it since Christmas, and have only come across it freezing twice. Other than that everything has worked smoothly, my interactions with the NPC's haven't been game-breaking in any way, and I've had a good time with it.

I kinda feel bad if the guy got it for the PC though and can't return it. Wait, can you return PC games? You can't right? Fuck, I don't know, I've never bought a PC game before.

 

[Savagezion]

Yeah but not everyone has to experience a bug before it can be confirmed to exist. Have you played the game on the PC and 360 so you can really make a comparison?

I have played it on 360 and it had the same issues. I watched my friend run his guy for probably about 20 hours now. It didn't play differently. It wasn't faster, it wasn't anything. His bookshelves and Mannequins were bugged, he outran the render once upon request... to be honest, it seemed like he outran the render faster than the PS3 but I didn't tell him. Other than that its the same. He said it froze up on him too a few times but it never did when I was there. He watched me play and ran around on PS3 all day for 15 hours at my place and that whole day, it never froze up. (Usually, if it freezes up its because I have crested the 10 hour mark) I once had it freeze up like 20 minutes after I turned the system on.

I don't see a difference in the PS3 and 360 version. I have never experienced these issues people have been complaining about. I am actually a little pissed that I didn't have slowdown and when the patch came out to fix this "non-existant" problem, they broke my functional bookshelves. I was pretty pissed about that for a week. I got pissed again for a day when I got my first Mannequins in Windhelm and the damn things bugged out on my first time dealing with them.
I have been playing/experiencing Skyrim since release night mostly on PS3. I don't see the issues everyone else are claiming. That is not to say they aren't there. But I don't know anyone who is experiencing them either. (To be fair there are only 2 people possible) If it weren't for those videos, I would be hard pressed to believe it. I don't think my file sizes have never exceed 5-6MB though despite being 200 hours in.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

*snip*

Like I said before, you could have the most fun in your life smudging your feces all over the living room wall. I can't say "no, you did not have fun" because you did.

The game is lacking from a technical and comparative stand point. All the people who brought up the pro's of this game did so comparing it to Oblivion and Morrowind. I find that quite amusing.

Not... quite. Look, the reasons I like this game are varied, and I didn't once bring up Morrowind or Oblivion.

Didn't go over the technical stuff too much, because I felt that others have already tried on that point in this thread. But feel free to click that linky if you want to see some other reasons that people like this game.

*snip*

For me, I pointed out the smaller stuff that others may have missed. I'll even be fine with you thinking that the stuff I pointed out shouldn't be considered. But hey, I know quite a few people who also like the game for the details, so, just saying... ^_^