No, there's one game here: Skyrim. Across three platforms. A third of the game's user-base has been F'd in the B by an extraordinarily subpar product. The game doesn't deserve to be denied Game of the Year out of petty revenge, it deserves to be denied Game of the Year because a subpar product doesn't deserve it.

They want to give the Xbox and PC versions Game of the Year? Fine. But it doesn't deserve an award for the overall product.



It is in no way subjective to ignore the game's issues on the PS3 while handing out an award. It's willfully ignoring a major issue that's affecting a significant chunk of the game's players. It's great you're fine with that, but I'm not. To do so displays a massive lack of integrity on the part of those who put the award in Bethesda's hands. It's definitely not giving the company any incentive to properly fix their title (of course considering they never fixed Fallout 3 or New Vegas, I'm not sure such incentive actually exists).

Listen, I love Skyrim. When it's working as intended, it's a brilliant game. It was well on its way to being my choice for Game of the Year before it started to unwind. When the problems began to present themselves, it became apparent that this isn't GOTY material. There are a number of games on the market right now that do absolutely everything right (in terms of technology) that also do story and gameplay mechanics really well too. And yet Skyrim beats them? That's mind blowing. Particularly considering how much heat the title's taken in the last couple of weeks.

The problem is that we don't know that they will. If they posted on here the exact details of what's gone wrong and what their doing about it, then most people would stop complaining. Either they don't want to tell us what the problem is, or they don't know what the problem is, both of those are good reasons for the fans to be angry.

Do you have the scoring criteria for their awards? If you do and it includes scoring for different versions of the game then I'd be happy to change my statement. Especially if it is weighted in such a way that would have made a difference.

If it isn't included, and it probably isn't, then your complaint is merely that it doesn't account for all versions on all systems. I disagree with that philosophy. This is art. We're seeing three different pictures, two of them amazing and somewhat identical, one isn't even finished.

I agree, to let the PS3 slip through the cracks isn't a good move. We do make up a large number of the sales I'm sure. The fact people have trouble returning them is the only reason Bethesda didn't get hit where it counted. One factor that Bethesda doesn't seem to worry about, but they should. Future sales will likely reflect this. It would have been nice for Bethesda to compensate players by allowing them to return a defective game as a gesture of good will even if they can't release more information on what went wrong, etc.

In final anolysis, this will eventually be the game of the year for many, especially RPG fans, but my own experience of it makes me hesitate. For a AAA game that has had the benefit of years of development time, the bugginess of the final product is unbelievably high. Doubtless there are patches in the works and then it may be the game it was destined to be, which, on the Xbox 360 and PC would likely be a 93 score from me, but not for my review of the PS3 version. If you have the choice, this is a worthy addition to your collection if you own either an Xbox 360 or a PC. If you only have a PS3, you, as a consumer, will simply have to accept that Bethesda does not like you very much, but is hoping for your money anyway on a product that is clearly far more broken than it is for other customers.

The bbc didn't put this article up until exactly a month and one day after the launch date. Anyone think that's a bit suspect? Given that the return window is 30 days? Seems a bit funny to me.

Just a thought...

The bbc didn't put this article up until exactly a month and one day after the launch date. Anyone think that's a bit suspect? Given that the return window is 30 days? Seems a bit funny to me.

Just a thought...

you do realize that bethesda didn't allow anyone to review the ps3 version before release right? anyone reviewing the ps3 version had to wait until the the game was released and buy a copy. bethesda knew what a mess the ps3 version was and they didn't care, they just lied about it so we would buy it.

Well, they still had a MONTH to play it, and they didn't reveal the crippling stuff till 12/12/11. Like I said I'll keep an OPEN mind rather than a closed one.

Well, they still had a MONTH to play it, and they didn't reveal the crippling stuff till 12/12/11. Like I said I'll keep an OPEN mind rather than a closed one.

So you are saying - since november11/ 2011 they have had only two hours to play the game? What! - not much of a review then is it. They definately won't suffer any bugs if they only played it for 2 hours over a one month period. This is starting to get a bit farcical. Within a month you can play a good portion of the game, being as their wages are paid by taxpayers then I would expect them to review properly. Especially with the tv tax,which as I already said was ￡145 a year.

You misunderstand me. For game of the year, games on different systems are each individual games because they each contain different code. There is no ubiquitous "game". There is the pc version, the 360 version, and the ps3 version. All different unless the code is identical. Three seperately painted masterpieces. One not being finished doesn't change the beauty of the other two.

So you are saying - since november11/ 2011 they have had only two hours to play the game? What! - not much of a review then is it. They definately won't suffer any bugs if they only played it for 2 hours over a one month period. This is starting to get a bit farcical. Within a month you can play a good portion of the game, being as their wages are paid by taxpayers then I would expect them to review properly. Especially with the tv tax,which as I already said was ￡145 a year.

Not sure where they get their info from.. "saved games with 20-50 hours are suffereing lag" umm that is BS, most people who are reporting problems have clocked up close to 100 hours or more! I myself have logged 90 hours and still haven't run into this dibilitating lag that apparently '1 third' of the population are getting, I would also like to see where they got this figure from, very interesting! My MC is level 32, 90 hours in, haven't even started the MQ yet, only one hard crash and a couple of graphic glitches which dissapear when you enter the area next time, no lag issues yet either.

Strange that everyone is using the same hardware yet everyones experience varies! I could understand if it was on PC because of the hundreds of different configurations hardware and software wise but its strange to see on a PS3 tittle!

gamebryo at its finest!!!!