Ben-DutkaI will freely admit that I don't complete most games before doing a review. I can't. It would be entirely and in all other ways impossible. It's just a fact.
Now, some can frown on this all they want but after many years of reviewing, I have very rarely done a review for a game, played it longer, and said to myself, "damn, that wasn't the right score." That doesn't happen because in truth, I knew everything I needed to know. I play until I reach that point – it could take only a few hours or it could take much longer – and then write the review.
For the record, I had the 360 version for our Skyrim review . Why? Bethesda tells me they didn't have any PS3 versions at the time review copies were being sent out. So I made that clear to our readers, added that I hoped the PS3 version would be similar, and even got a chance to see Sony's version a little before posting the review. But I wasn't able to play to the point where everyone started experiencing major problems; i.e., when the PS3 save file gets too big (between 6 and 10MB).
As I understand it, that takes 30-40 hours of play, which no critic ever needs to put in for a review. I'm also not the only critic who posted a review for this game without ever seeing that problem. Therefore, the question is- as amazing as Skyrim really is, and although I stick to my 9.7 provided everything is running correctly, should critics write new reviews with new scores? I mean, frankly, the game was kinda broken. Flat-out broken, right? It needed to be fixed after launch.
Heck, even the first patch didn't do the trick for everyone. So maybe it's just inaccurate to leave reviews that don't reflect these problems. Then again, think of it this way- the scores will always be there and these issues should be resolved by next week after the second patch (ideally). So if everything is hunky-dory and critics did re-review the game, taking the problems into account, wouldn't that be inaccurate for future consumers? I'm just at a loss…this is sort of a unique situation.
No game with that many problems deserve a 9.0+
Have you played it? It absolutely deserves a 9+. I never played Oblivion and could never get into the Fallouts but Skyrim has me hooked.
I don't care how good is if it's so troublesome.
It's not so troublesome, to many people are making a big deal about it. You cab certainly play the game especially after the patch. If dragons are flying around backwards, well I wish I could see that!
Some people are really having big problems, just because some of you are okay with it or the game hasn't failed big like others, doesn't make this game deserving of a 9.0+ review, Bethesda knows this.. no wonder they didn't let reviewers have the Ps3 version.
I'm not disagreeing with you about a game that has issues being of a lower score. I'm just saying if some are having issues and others are not there's a fine line. BTW I havnt had to the issues so I'd score it accordingly.
It's a pretty big deal, but imo, it shouldn't warrant a review. At least not yet. Imagine if a patch is made that fixes the major problems. The Re-Review would have to be Re-Reviewed back to the original score.
I think Bestheda (spelling?) should be given a month longer to fix this. If it hasn't been fixed by then, or if they haven't said anything about it, it needs to be re-reviewed, or at least edited to inform future consumers. It's inexcusable really after that long.
I say this because GT5 had a similar problem with the game saves. It freezes the game when the save file got too big at a certain point from viewing the news section and museum cards. However, they quickly fixed it after the problem was discovered. So far, this doesn't seem to be the case with Skyrim.
I don't own Skyrim or have even played it…but my opinion is that I don't think the score should be changed, assuming the problem can be fixed.
If the 2nd patch could fix it, then I'd view it more as a big inconvenience than anything.
This sounds like the kind of reasoning that led people to their 3rd, 4th or 5th replacement Xbox. The game is broken.
So Highlander, should they re-review the game then and when the 2nd patch fixes everything, re-re-review the game?
If you have a solution I'd love to hear it. Cus changing the score would be leading future customers (after the patch) to believe it's not what it Should be.
I get your 360 statement though. It's a very good analogy but in this case Skyrim is actually worthy of what it's getting.
Not the best analogy, I think. A broken 360 is another several hundred down the drain. A glitchy game is a one-time purchase that a patch can fix.
But that doesn't excuse Bethesda from making the console versions inferior to the PC version. Console gamers need to hold them accountable for their mistake. This has been the same story retold through the entire generation–the PS3 gets a poorly coded or glitchy version of an otherwise excellent game. It was understandable around launch. It's inexcusable 5+ years into the cycle.
Make no mistake, though. Skyrim is an amazing game, on the right system. My PC version has never glitched or crashed, and 63 hours into it I've seen maybe 20% of everything there is to see. I can honestly state that Skyrim is probably my favorite game of the generation. But it SUCKS that PS3 owners are getting screwed like this.
No I don't think that it should be re-reviewed. The game as a whole outweighs the issues. At least in my playthrough anyway.
I disagree, the game as it stands has show stopping issues that truly make it a broken game – until fixed. Review it as it is, not as it could be given the opportunity to be fixed. If you leave the reviews as they are you are effectively allowing this game to be reviewed on it's potential (assuming it's fixed) instead of what it is – a broken game. Imagine if all games could get the benefit of being reviewed on their potential instead of on what is delivered on disk…
But it's not broken. Broken means unplayable and it's far from it. You also can't call it broken when many others are not experiencing the issues. From what it seems the 360 and PC versions are fine as well.
I'm sitting here playing Skyrim right now, I don't consider this a broken game by any means. Especially if I'm playing it, and half of my friends list has Skyrim in also.
I'm with bigrailer on this. The only people I hear complaining about Skyrim being broken are the PS3 gamers. The PS3 version is, arguably, broken, but the game itself is sound.
Rather than re-review it, why not just add a caveat to the reviews, stating that the PS3 version is known to be catastrophically glitchy in long-running saves, and a patch is being implemented to try and fix the issues?
You know, I have a problem with this, and I think you will understand Ben. OK, the game, provided everything is working perfectly, with a tail wind, rolling down hill on a straight road in the middle of a sunny, dry, mild day gets a 9.7. OK. But given the truth of the situation, it doesn't work perfectly and it's not a mild, dry, sunny day on a long straight downhill road, and the wind isn't at out back either. So really 9.7 is a *potential* score if all the flaws, graphics, and operational are fixed.
Great.
So, how many other games could have 9.7 *potentially* if they had the benefit of 40+ hours of reviewer play and a full game patch? Hell, how many games would merit a 9.0+ if their major issues were fixed by patching the game after the fact, so are reviews potential scores or actual scores? If they are supposed to be reflective of the game delivered, then I don't see how you can leave the scores up for a game reviewed on an alternate platform prior to the patch which doesn't even resolve the issues and brings more.
Perhaps you could take the review and update it reflecting the situation and give is a score that is truthful about the game as delivered and say that if X, Y and Z are fixed it's a 9.5+ game, but like this it's broken and that means a big fat 2-4 out of 10 because the game is flat out broken. If the game had broken as it has, during your review, how would you score it?
We're talking about bug fixes here, that have the potential to be fixed (for free), not the potential of how great the game could be. There's a difference between being broken, and something that can be fixed through a patch. It's not like they're changing the game with new features or such. It's a temporary bug issue, and unfortunately, to be fair, there have been lots of games that require patches. If this games gets deducted because of having to have a patch, then lots of other games do too.
Now I don't support releases of a buggy game like this, because obviously not enough effort went into the development of the game, nor the testing. However, they should at least be given the chance like any other games to fix it.
Well, I think you need to be familiar with the situation.
When they say the game is "broken," it basically just means players could experience lag and texture drop-off after extended play. Sometimes, it does become unplayable as I understand it, but other times, it's only a minor annoyance.
It's not like the minute you start playing, everything is busted. Like I said, it can take 30-40 hours and even then, people say they don't have problems. I played for nearly 20 hours before writing the review and while I did come across a few very minor glitches (as I mentioned in the review), there was nothing so severe as to warrant an actual deduction from the score.
You ask what I would score it now, knowing what we I know. I honestly don't think it'd be too much lower, because the game is that amazing, and I would be lenient considering the size, scope, and ambition behind the game. We're talking about a single-player adventure (not a MMO) that technically never ends, given the radiant storytelling/quest style, and the world is absolutely mind-bogglingly massive.
So I say it has some leeway there. When you shoot for the moon, there should be more tolerance, I believe.
OK, see, I'm not getting this; You said this Ben;
"Sometimes, it does become unplayable as I understand it, but other times, it's only a minor annoyance."
If a game becomes unplayable because of a fault in the game that *needs* to be patched, what do we call it?
You say you played for 20 hrs but wasn't that review based off the 360 version? It's no secret the PS3 version has way more problems.
Excel-
He's admitting to that. Did you read what he said?
As usual, Excelsior, you're trying to make something PS3-related out to be a bigger tragedy than it is. People could play 20 hours of the PS3 version, too, and have no problem. The ONLY PS3-specific issue is the save file thing, which only occurs after playing for a good deal longer than 20 hours.
Highlander: I don't really know how widespread the "unplayable" complaints were. I know there were enough of them to cause serious backlash, but even a couple such complaints can incite a firestorm.
It definitely needed to be patched. But like I said, this is such a gargantuan ambition in many respects…it's like trying to build the space shuttle for the first time and realizing that a LOT needed to be fixed. It's not a Fiat, you know? 😉
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/3/2011 12:31:57 AM
Yes highlander, is a damn big game man… Look im 33 hours in, my save file is 7mb, im on a 320gb slim and I refused to update to version 1.02. My Skyrim is not updated yet I have not encountered anything mayor in the game. The only thing ive encountered are Dragons!! The graphics on this game are beautiful, to end my comment, its one of the very few RPGs ive ever played, and im loving it. Dont mean to be rude but, maybe you should play it.
Ben, the game is worse on the PS3. Some have even went as far to say it is broken. I don't think that is an exaggeration. It's pretty clear that PS3 users have had more issues. That's exactly why Bethesda just flat out refused to send the PS3 version out for review. They were afraid some reviewers might encounter the same problems other PS3 users have encountered. They knew the 360 version was more stable. Tragic? No. But it's slightly annoying.
This is not the first time Bethesda has had issues on the PS3. It's well known that Fall out 3 has more problems on the PS3. There are sections in the game that are almost unplayable such as Broken Steel. Runs like a champ on the 360. That I have seen with my own eyes becuase I watched my cousin play that part of the game on his 360.
Bethesda needs to do better on the PS3. What's wrong with wanting the PS3 version to run as good as its 360 counterpart? Have you even played the PS3 version of the game I wonder? Just asking.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 12/3/2011 2:34:06 AM
Excselsior, listen to me. The PS3 version's problems come about due to the save file issue. Period. Nobody I know or and nobody I've seen online have said the PS3 version is inferior up until that point.
You haven't played it. You're once again trying to make the PS3 out to be a piece of sh** due to SECOND-HAND information. With the save file issue fixed on the PS3 – which is what the patches are supposed to do – it will in no way be different than the 360 version.
It was the save file issue. It was no glitchier or buggier than the 360 version other than that. Just try to get that through your head, please.
Ben, you know I have not played it, huh? I most have certainly have played it. My PSN ID is jamiecolts if you have any doubts. How could I have the trophies for a game I have not played? Duh. Hell, I'm on my second playthrough. I said I have played it below so you are calling me a liar I guess. Well, thank God for PSN becuase I can prove I have played it.
Ben,I never said the PS3 is a piece of Sh!t. The blame lies with Bethesda. That's 3 games they have made that have had issues on the PS3. I suggest you get that through your head. It's like you are an honary member of the Sony defence force riding my a$$. Others have said they have had problems like World but you do not single them out. You just try to render my opinion invalid by saying I have not played the game. Which makes you wrong 2 twice.
The main point that should come of this is that Bethesda's bullsh!t is ridiculous. Fallout was the same way and it came out 4 years ago! I actually couldn't believe how much smoother it ran on the 360 when I picked it up for $15 a couple months ago after spending hours to platinum it many years ago. Aww nostalgia :')
Fall out 3 runs way better on the 360. Gamers know Bethesda's games perform better on the 360. It's been like that since Fall out 3. I was hoping the new engine would help Bethesda on the PS3 but that was expecting too much. Still getting framerate problems and freezes. I had 3 sompanions with me. Dalphine, Lydia, and that old man, I ran into a dragon and ofcourse that's when the framerate goes to hell. It was not a save file issue becuase I was only at 5300kb. That's the kind of thing our 360 friends don't have to put up with. Neither should we.
Nah, but it should be noted many scores would be different if reviewers had played it long enough.
I downloaded the broken patch today and wow it did make it run pretty smooth at least in the areas that shouldn't have ever been slowing down in the first place. But I don't want to see this frame rate chugging next gen on Sony's machine, it's pitiful.
For some reason I can never appease the guards in Markarth, so I have to keep killing them all. Even going to jail doesn't do it. I wound up fighting the Jarl today, but he's invincible.
The only frame rate issues I have are when it saves. Otherwise it runs really smooth.
It gets really bad when there are multiple humans doing battle, at least for me. The fact that I have a follower and a dog probably screws it up more.
No critic will play 40 hours to make a review. It would take weeks after release and several critics to keep up with the flow of games.
If I were a critic I'd put an editor's note or something to update the review but the review or the score shouldn't change.
On the other hand… if critics played most games extensively, some reviews MAY have been better… *cough* Final Fantasy XIII *cough* 😀
I think a reviewer should do what he/she feels is right, if they feel after further playing that their score should be changed then they should do that, and I would respect that.
Or perhaps with the current gen's ability to patch games after release reviewers should state which version they are reviewing, and if a new update provides a significant change or improvement then make an addendum at the bottom of the review if they feel it's necessary.
The only way this should be re-reviewed is if Bethesda publicly states they are leaving Skyrim the way it is and they are moving on to their next project. As long as they keep trying to fix the problems we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Otherwise it would need to be re-re-reviewed once they have fixed all the problems. We would come full circle back to the original score.
However, this has been very inconvenient to all gamers affected. It's a good question to each his own.
Last edited by CrusaderForever on 12/2/2011 10:57:26 PM
I'm just wondering what it would be like if developers these days had to work in the days of ps2, there weren't patches for games (or at least not easily available). If a game had a bug, then it was just there. No fixing or balancing, the game was just "as is".
The developers today were highly likely being developers also in the days of the ps2.
The game would be delayed until completion. People hate bugs, but they also hate delays. Pick your poison.
Last edited by fatelementality on 12/3/2011 9:50:55 PM
I definitely think the PS3 version should have been reviewed more. It's no secret that it is that version that has had the most problems. Ofcourse that is exactly why Bethesda refused to send it out for review. At one time when I looked at game rankings the number of 360 reviews for the game outnumbered the reviews for the PS3 version something like 40:5.
I have restarted my game. I'm about 8 hrs into a new game. I have had the game freeze on me multiple times. The audio dropped out one time and all I could hear is my horse breathing. A few minutes later my PS3 just decided to reset itself. Odd, becuase my first playthrough was not nearly as bad. That would explain why some people have had way more problems than others. It almost seems random. I have not applied Bethesda's broken patch.
I completely understand why people are upset. Playing a game that you feel can collapse on you at any point takes a lot of the fun out of it. The PS3 version should have definitely been scrutinized more.
I would not mind seeing Ben review the PS3 version. I don't think he would have rated it as highly. PS3 reviews really should not be based off the 360 disc anyways. In hindsight the fact that Bethesda sent the 360 version to a Playstation site should have raised a red flag. I was very suspicous when I heard Ben got the 360 version. Bethesda should get called out more for attempting to shape the review scores by only sending out the best version of the game.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 12/2/2011 11:22:46 PM
So your refusing to download the patch which will make your game run better (and maybe get the chancet o see a dragon fly backwards) but still complain that your game isn't running right. Hmmm…
Fair enough I suppose.
I don't want to loose my resistances plus I have read that the patch has actually cuased more freezing issues in the PS3 version. I would like to wait for the patch that actually gets some positive feed back, but I might decide to go ahead and roll the dice on this patch a day or two before the new one comes in if I'm feeling lucky.
If you started a new game what's it gonna hurt?
Like I said above, I wouldn't have scored it much lower, no.
Sir, i believe the preoblems you listed are pure bs.
@ Killa Tequilla
I don't post here often, but I have to come to Excelsior's defense on one item. I'm at 160 hours, and 12 MB save file. My game not only continues to lag badly in heavily populated areas, but in the last couple of days, now freezes with alarming regularity, most often when loading into a new area. I would say I need to do a hard reset on my PS3, within 15 minutes of loading a saved game.
Just to be certain that it wasn't my PS3 acting up on me, I threw in Uncharted 3 and ran through a few chapters, and White Knight Chronicles 2 and ran through Red Horn Isle without a single hitch.
If I can't play a game for more than 15 minutes without having to do a hard reset, or having to worry about my progress that I have to save my game every time I want to enter a new area, then I would have to say that the PS3 version is indeed broken.
Last edited by BorrowedTime on 12/3/2011 9:51:57 AM
"but I wasn't able to play to the point where everyone was experiencing major problems". I didn't experience those issues before or after the patch and I know many others, even here in the comments who havnt.
I don't think it should be re-reviewed at all. I understand the frustration some have experienced but my experience has been completely opposite and that of a 9.7 score. I can't say anything other than I must have eithe gotten lucky with the way my game plays. Also if this is the case for other people, and the 360 and PC versions run ok, the game as a whole still deserves the score of what it's potential is.
That's a fine line, if the game was running this way for "everyone" and every system absolutely it should be re-reviewed or scored as is, accordingly. But if as I said mine runs fine and if I were to do a review I'd base it off what I'm playing which is an unbroken game in that respect. So who's really to say. Not I, too much responsibility. I'd much rather just continue to play, I know the score it deserves.
Edit: I'd also like to add that I'm not to happy with this generation in regards to patches. I don think a game should be released and patched later. But I do love the fact that technology allows this to happen, being able to fix games that need it. But if it starts to get abused then its a little frustrating. I'd like to see what would happen to developers today without being able to patch games. Let's see how they would fair developing a game without the Internet. Like back in the days of the PS2.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 12/2/2011 11:11:15 PM
That is true that it is a fine line, but having said that I think if there had been more reviews for the PS3 version it might have shed more light on the issues people are having. You say you have read that some people on this site have said that they have had few problems, but I have also read a few that have said that they have. One went as far to say the game crashed more after the patch. It almost looks like it's 50/50. That's just not good enough in my humble opinion. 50% of gamers should not have to suffer.
They shouldn't I agree that's way to many. My point is if I was a reviewer and my game ran like it has I would give it a high 9 as opposed to say you who's had trouble with the game. What do we do then? Bethesda is working on that problem, but I don't think there should be any re-reviewing. My game runs fine as opposed to yours, there's not much else to say.
But would I be wrong for giving it a 9.7 per say, when I'm not experiencing those issues? No, of course not, so why change the score? Even if there were PS3 copies sent out we'd probably see a fluctuation in scores if the trend is the same as you said, about 50/50.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 12/3/2011 12:17:26 AM
@Excelsior1
How do you know if it's 50/50, when you are only getting info from a few people? I don't think that would hold much credibility on how bad it seems. Some will have issues and some will not, the one's that do have issues could be in the Minority, we really don't know how bad it is.
I'm not taking sides in this though, but we really don't know the scope of it.
Last edited by Clamedeus on 12/3/2011 7:23:35 AM
@clam
You are correct. Using a comments section as example for how many people are having problems is not accurate. I only mentioned it becuase bigrailer mentioned he saw several comments that said some people were not having problems. 50/50 is just what it looks in the comments section. For every comment that says its okay there seems to be another saying it isn't fine. If we were to go by IGNs poll it looks like 50/50 is low. In that poll 75% of PS3 users reported problems.
One thing is clear the. We know the PS3 version has a nasty bug in it that the other versions don't have. We also know Bethesda tried to hide the PS3 version from reviewers.
Thr PS3 version's reviews should be amended to reflect that. What about the 20% of PS3 users that don't have an internet connection? They should be warned about the PS3 version's issues. Unless one has been hiding under a rock they probably already know the PS3 version has problems though.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 12/3/2011 10:30:52 AM