From the article:

"We understand how frustrating it can be when your game is having issues, and we thank all of you for your continued feedback and patience. Rest assured we take your gameplay experience seriously and will continue working on this until it's resolved," it said.


Why couldn't this attitude be prevalent during development and not after release? I'd like an answer but don't expect one.

Seriously, how can you test a game properly and have such horrible issues as the ps3 is suffering be overlooked?


I agree with a poster on that page. Having patching available on consoles has made developers lazy. If developers knew they could not patch games on consoles after release I feel they would try harder to ensure their games were as completely bug free as possible. Now that they can throw patches at us, developers feel free to release games in a buggy but "good enough" state to meet deadlines and save money. Oh we'll patch the game later once we get our money.

Why try so hard to catch bugs during development when we can dump patches on our fans later?

I spoke with the technology editor at the BBC and he indicated they may be opening the story up for comments later today. If you want to let the rest of the world know what your experience playing Skyrim on the PS3 has been so far, that's probably going to be your best shot.

Comments are already open

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16136691

Skyrim isn't the Game of the Year, simple as that... money money and more money.

Not according to the people whose vote counted. I know it svcks for us ps3 users, but for computer and 360 users, this game is everything it promised.

Its only spikes VGA's anyway, so who cares? i mean, they havent really been reliable with their picks in the past... GTA4 got GOTY over Fallout 3... Madden 2k4 got GOTY in 2003 when KOTOR didnt even make it into the running for GOTY, even tho it was up for other awards... this is spike tv... they do w/e it takes to make money and keep rednex watching.... its not the be-all-end-all of games lol.

I like how the article is mostly about the PS3 and the comments are all like I have it on PC and it runs great durr hurr hurr I'm [censored].

Heres to hoping the PC version gives all those snoobs a virus!

I understand that your frustrations are making you angry, but the world simply doesn't revolve around you or us as ps3 users. The reason why so many of us are livid is because the game is so amazing for other people but not us. We wouldn't really care that much (aside from wanting our money back) if it was a crappy game.

We have to remember then that the game that we thought we were purchasing does exist for other systems (primarily pc). The freezing and the texture issues didn't ship with the game, for example, they're the result of patch 1.2 which was designed to help the problem we initially faced (though it only slowed down the problem). The ps3 isn't the only version of the game though. It's like we bought the spanish translation of a popular book and they left out the last chapter. It doesn't mean that the English versions aren't amazing, just that we got cheated (and make no mistake, until they fix this stuff we have been cheated).

You can either take my coherent statements as a valid line or rational thought or you can consider it the ramblings of a really devoted fan. I do really enjoy their games and I've loved playing Skyrim with all it's flaws (I've already gotten more than 70 hours of gameplay fun which puts the cost at less than a dollar per hour, far cheaper than I pay for other forms of entertainment and far more gameplay than I've gotten out of other games this year). So you could legitimately call me a "really devoted fan". But I also recognise their problems and have explained them on here consistently (to my knowledge, I was one of the first to point out and test the memory consumption, after verifying the problem I then proceeded to play the game by avoiding the trouble areas). I say that to say I am a fan of Bethesda in the same way I follow certain authors. Even if I love someone's work, I'm not going to say their work is good if I hate a book they put out. I'm going to advocate the other books they've written and point out I didn't like this particular one. Here it's not true though, this game is great. But I also haven't had the lagging problems others have on my ps3.

If we can't have what we won't then no one should? Aren't we beginning to sound a bit bond villain-ish, or am I the only one who's beginning to make the association?

Be nice. You obviously understand what it's like to have a problem with your game, so don't wish that it happens to other people as well.

Sorry Lightknight, but the only coherent statement I can take is when you buy a product and works as it should. The rest is not more than simple rhetoric or conformity and resignation, which is very dangerous for our interests as users. Think about it.

So, your argument is not to think about things rationally because doing so may not be in my best interest as a consumer? I don't think my frothing about the mouth will make any bit of difference. There is a problem, it needs to be fixed. It's already in the public stage, major players are already aware. If they do not fix this problem then this will be a danger in the back of our minds (or at the foremost of our minds) every time they put out a new game. I mean, I'm already not going buy future games at launch. That translates into revenue loss for them, so it makes sense to fix it.

Here is a new trailor for a ps3 exclusive from naughty dog:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1214496p1.html



Naughty dog can handle the ps3. What is bethesdas excuse?


I predict bethesda will accept an offer from m$oft for exclusive rights to all of their games. Its obvious bethesda prefers the adbox so why not and all of their games sell more copies on the adbox.

Agreed and damn that game looks awesome.

Naughty Dog actually seem to care about the quality of their games, while Bethesda only care about the bottom line. Have you watched the extras for Uncharted 3? Now THAT is a passionate development team. The fact that Bethesda won a best developer award over Naughty Dog is a slap in the face to video games.

Their (Naughty Dog) games are incredible. But don't forget the disparity of complexity between the game types. I mean, as users complexity doesn't matter but understand that the likelihood of huge bugs like Skyrim has increases with complexity. It has nothing necessarily to do with "passion" of developers.

Actually, it does. Complexity is not an excuse for shoddy programming. If Bethesda had any passion for their product, they would not have released it in such a buggy state. ALL of these issues could have been and SHOULD have been fixed in QA.

Yeah, thanks BBC, and thanks for the post here, I never would have seen it otherwise.

Bethesda still doesnt give a [censored] though.

they have our money - and now the [censored] up gaming industry writers (who are basically on the game publishers payroll) are cowing to them and lauding them with awards.

I can actually see how some might say Skyrim merited goty consideration. When its working it can be a really impressive game, but unfortunately for there are a ton of bugs. The allowance on any platform for all the broken quests, containers and the pixelated shadows would imo preclude its goty status.

However, how can you pick bethesda for developers of the year? Personally, I would be embarrassed to work in a place that published something so broken. A developer award should (among other things) represent integrity, quality and interactions with the customer.

IMHO Bethesda is really lacking in all three of those attributes. Maybe that is why they removed attributes from skyrim...

In their eyes everything is perk based now and so they just maxed out their speechcraft to sell off some games.. and heavy armor + block to deflect us until the press cools off.

Is irrational to think that a consumer pays for the quality of a product and that the product responds to the promise??? if this argument is irrational then yours is so irrational as a cow argument...

Jumping in a little late on the recent part of this argument, but all I'll say is this: PS3 owners have all the right in the world to raise hell over this game. If the PS3 version wasn't ready, then it shouldn't have been released; if the system simply can't run the game, then we never should have been told that it can.

THAT is why many of us feel cheated and deceived.

I can forgive the quest glitches because of the game's complexity. There are so many variables it would be impossible for QA to test them all. The lag issue, however, can't be hand waved away like that. This should have been caught and fixed before release, and the evidence suggests they did know about it and tried to hide it pre-release by not sending out PS3 review copies.

Agree 100 % with this. As a consumer, you can provide coherent criticism to the people that will listen (which we've done) and choose not to buy future products. If Bethesda doesn't fix this, I know many people who won't be buying TES VI, or Fallout 4, or whatever else they have up their sleeves.

I'd buy their new games but not for the ps3 or ps4.


I don't doubt the ps3 is difficult to develop games for (and I've read the ps4 will use similar architecture) but that is no excuse for shoddy development.

Spike Awards is just a popularity contest is all. No one there cared the PS3 version was bugged to Oblivion and back

Ok so how come Rockstar's sandbox games run great on the ps3? Never experienced crap that Skyrim offers on games like GTA4 and Red Dead Redemption. I guess if you don't think passion is important, I guess skill is a better word. Bethesda programmers need to get back into school and learn learn their $^%$# right.