So PC users made Bethesda millions of dollars, and they are going to act like they don't matter? This kind of snobbery really ticks me off. I have a PC fully capable of Skyrim but purchased for the PS3. IMHO, this is the buggiest Bethesda gamer ever released. I don't like be told that they don't care about me cause the device I used to play the game is the least profitable.

I think they've handled this blunder poorly, and I'm hoping someone files a class action lawsuit. I think it's about time. The PS3 is a dysfunctional product in the long run. It works decently well at first, but eventually everyone runs into unplayable lag. That's unacceptable.

Ah, but soon you'll be attacked by people claiming how 'complex' Skyrim is, the likes of which has never been witnessed! It's very physically, mentally and emotionally demanding to make this game work, writing all that code is like trying to figure out chaos theory while hanging upside down from a plane flying under water.

While on fire. No, really, every other sandbox game, including the great titles from Rockstar are fine examples of what Skyrim could have been. But instead they choose to use the old buggy engine with the same flaws and hope for the best.

The magnitude of complexity greatly increases the occurance of bugs and can easily mask the ability to catch bugs and/or understand the severity of a bug. If they knew about the bug (they had to) and it's severity (not necessarily), then that would be Bethesda doing something quite bad. But, and this is important, the decision to release it isn't in the hand of the developers. In fact, the dev team could have said, "Dude, you've got to delay the ps3 launch because of x, y, and z" but the project management team may have made a calculated choice to release it (probably thinking their dev team could solve the problem fast enough). The caliber of this game really points towards incredibly passionate developers. I mean, the scale and complexity is incredible. I'd be angry with project management here though.

It is irrational to not accept that only our version of the game is widely experiencing these game ending problems. The pc version, by contrast, is what they (Bethesda) promised. You can be pissed as Hell that your product doesn't live up to it, but it is irrational to say that the pc version is somehow worse because of our version. I mean, it does make us (as ps3 users) even angrier, but our troubles aren't reasonably projected onto others here. The statement made earlier seemed to indicate that acting nothing but pissed somehow harms me as a consumer, I don't think that's true. Rational thoughts will be accepted (I like the game but these bugs are unnaceptable because I can't continue to play), rants just get tossed away (everything svcks)

Yep, I agree. There are a couple of possibilities that Bethesda can claim to lessen the degree of potential portayal (1. they didn't realize the scope of the problem. 2. they thought it could be fixed much sooner. 3. something along those lines). But in the end, it was probably just a decision to make more revenue but I doubt they thought they couldn't fix it or that everything would hit the fan this soon. This is serious damage to their reputation and will likely hurt future revenue and customer apprehension.

Yes, I won't be buying things at release again, regardless. I figure 1 or 2 weeks will be enough time to see because of some of the real diehards who play non-stop.

I do think passion is important, I just don't think developers are the decision makers in a company anymore.

As for Rockstar, they have amazing games that are already complex in their own right. They compromise in small areas to help with game stability. It isn't bad to limit (compromise on) some things (like less graphical intensity, for example) if it means significantly improving performance. Bethesda overshot a little this time around, not compromising on anything. That hurt on the ps3's, a system that divides its 512mbs of RAM into two components. But on the pc and 360 version (though the 360 should be hurting by now), we see that they didn't overshoot, they hit just the right mark. In all honesty, the ps3 version should have been downscaled until this problem was solved.

It's funny, we say we want people to never compromise on anything, but when someone does that and fails we like to kick them. What we really want is incremental improvement that is reliable. That's what Rockstar offers and that's actually pretty smart. But as with Oblivion, Bethesda decided to start making the game before the proper technology to play it existed. You've got to expect something like this crap to happen at some point with such far reaching. It doesn't make it ok, but it shouldn't be a surprise.

It's really beyond belief that Bethesda didn't pick up such issues and a delay of the game from the 11.11.11 would have been a marketing nightmare for them. The marketing department won over game quality. If this was an issue for the Xbox360 then heads would have rolled but Bethesda made Skyrim work good on their favoured Microsoft box.

A broken game won GOTY, that's why I never watch the Video Game Awards. I personally think they rushed it on PlayStation and didn't fix the bugs because they wanted it to make GOTY.

Personally it doesn't even deserve goty even not broken. There are at least 5 other games that came out this year that were more thoughtout, exciting, and produced by more talente individuals. Trust me after 40 hours in this game has thrown everything it's got and now it's just boringly repatative.

The only reason a game like this wins is cuz it's the ultimate escapist fantasy. People hate their lives so they are attracted to game the offer a long term solution to the problem.

Also don't post the magnificent naughty dog on this filthy companies boards. It's blasphemy.

They must have paid off who ever was giving out this award,
Its the only way Bethesda could have won best studio they are notoriously
shoddy with the quality of their work. They are disgrace and nothing but
a studio with no ethic and shame on them for releasing and selling this
pathetic mess.

As much as I enjoy what I've played of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, there's no way I'd hand it a Game of the Year award. The unintelligible dialog used during conversation events is inexcusable. Why does the rest of the game dialog sound fine, but the conversation dialog sounds like it was recorded in a bathroom?

The big picture? The way I see it, the fact that hundreds of thousands of PS3 users payed between $60 and $150 for a game that barely functions damn well better be factored in to the big picture.


I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. If a third of the game's user base can barely play the game once their save data gets to be a certain size, then that ought to be a significant blow to the game's GOTY qualifications. What you're suggesting sounds like the opposite: that the problem shouldn't be considered at all because it's a console-specific issue. That's absurd. The performance of all three versions should be taken into account, and the 360 version is starting to run into the save data sized-lag issue, too.

I'm glad to see this issue getting attention in the mainstream press. There are a lot of people out there who buy games but don't visit gaming sites. The more the issue is reported by large news media the more Bethesda's pocketbook is likely to suffer.

While I didn't read this entire thread I agree with those who feel the game shouldn't have won GOTY and there's NO WAY Bethesda should have won dev of the year. As far as I'm concerned it should be a prereq that if your game, assuming it is multi-platform, should actually work on all platforms before it is even nominated. It certainly shouldn't win. Games with minor glitches I can even understand, but games that some can't play at all when they paid for it? I never held much faith in awards before and now I hold none. Even lost some faith in the gaming press and community for that matter.

A couple of posts have gone away. Discussion of moderator action...gone, posts made to flame other members with whom they disagree...gone. Posts with autocensor bypasses...gone.

Most artsy fartsy game of the year? Maybe. Best game design? Possibly. Developer game of the year? No way! There was an interview with Pete Hines on gamespot where he was talking about how no single developer knew more than 30% of the game. So, they had a big get-together, where some/all of the developers played the game in one little outing, to get to know the game better. If this is all they did to test the game, they should be ashamed.

Spike VGA awards are a sham, Skyrim does not deserve GOTY given the current state of it and no chance does Bethesda deserve dev of the year. The way they treat their community and fans is appalling and it looks like they got away with it.

You sound surprised?

thank you for bringing this to my attention i will not be buying this game and i will advise my friends to do the same. it seems recently that this game is getting a fair amount of bad press about the ps3 version. and since that is the only system i own and my computer cannot run the game i cannot justify spending money on a game that wont work or could possibly harm my ps3. and since it looks like they are dodging the subject by not letting us know if something will be done or what is causing the problem the customer service of this company isnt very good.

Been out of the loop the past week, but Skyrim won GotY at Spike?
AND Bethesda won dev of the year?

That's disappointing...

My PS3 copy has been gathering dust for a couple of weeks now, and judging by what I'm reading about potential fixes, it'll be there next year too.

I posted this in the main forum and it got deleted, so expect this one to get deleted too. Now that it's hit the BBC [censored] really going to hit the fan.

Screw the BBC, where is CNN on the matter
@mordhaus Summer didn't delete it.

I own a whole lotta Bethesda titles for my PS3, the only one not working very well is Skyrim. I have yet to get to the point of the FPS issues, but I get the worst freezing of all of the other titles combined. I'm going to show patience, let them work it out. If there is no improvement by the end of February, I'm trading in every single Bethesda title, and will boycott the company for the rest of my life. I also tell every single person I know to never buy another Bethesda title again, and make sure whenever I'm in a video game store, to let anyone who is ever interested in a Bethesda game know just what they will get if they decide to spend money on it.

I will not act on this until the end of February, that's the deadline they have from me until I start. I would suggest to the rest of you that you do the same. I'll even get on twitter and try and get others to do this exact thing.

There is no real reason to start now, because for all we know, there could be something they are working on to fix the issues, so that is why I'm going to wait until the date that I stated, February 28th 2012. That is more than enough time to get at least 3 patches out (not including 1.3) so they have ample time to get this worked out.

I'm dead serious about it, too. I'm even going to tweet this in a few minutes just so it's out there.

Hmm, it seems the post this quoted was deleted. Mods, please let me know if I'm not meant to follow this up. I didn't think my response to that individual was particularly inflammatory but I guess his post was and mine wouldn't make sense if his was deleted. Please let me know if I'm ever out of line (not sure who I was supposed to PM about this since the posts were gone and not just edited, feel free to delete this part of the message when read and then this post too if I wasn't meant to follow it up). You're right that we've been wronged. But again, it wouldn't be honest to demand that the individuals (who are supposed to be unbiased columnists/judges) choose anything other than the game they felt was the best just for some symbolic form of revenge. If they feel that any game is the best then it is their job to do it. If the game they played on a pc or 360 is that game, then why should we demand they consider the ps3 when they're considering games that aren't even found on all systems.

You're completely entitled to your opinion, so please don't think I'm trying to dismiss it. But all the qualifications are is the game itself. The thing is, there are actually three games here. PC-Skyrim, 360-Skyrim, PS3-Skyrim. Now, any one of those are capable of winning the award, but no single version affects the other two. The same is true of a game that was only created on one system or two.

The thing is, a lot of people here are treating this as a business transaction or a some sort of reward for a big named company putting something out. That may be but if so, someone is breaking with journalistic integrity and probably breaking the law. What this is supposed to be is actually a subjective award regarding a work of art. If someone played the pc game and loved it more than any other game they played this year, then it is their duty to rank the game at the top. Agreed or still unconvinced?

I understand you. However, I believe we should start "yelling" from now even if they have a fix that they are going to release in January. My patience lasts only up to a point. And Bethesda has far exceeded it. We shouldn't hesitate in harshly critisizing the company.

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.

Zelda should have won.

This is where I differ. Oddly enough, I can actually see a software/hardware issue which occurs after 80+ hours of play being something potentially harder to find than some of the quest bugs that have been reported. While not necessarily forgivable due to the nature of the game being one where they should have known most players would be edging to 100 hours before really getting clost to "completion" - but I would expect there might be a lot of QA runs where the tester isn't relying on a 80 hour save to perform testing.

The quest bugs - I just don't see how some of these possibly passed QA. I've done QA testing, I've written user scenario and scripts, I've worked with QA people and I've seen what good QA is and what bad QA is. The fact that in two out of my three run throughs the Blood on the Ice quest is utterly unplayable - not even startable ... that's just laughable in the face of good QA. The scripts they use to test these must have been ridiculous simplistic not to have caught things like "White Phial quest unfinishable if player already has quest item". A good QA manager would have sniffed that one out their second day on the job.

And all of the Elder Scroll games, despite whatever lag/freeze bugs they might have to whatever degrees - have generally been plagued by this kind of thing. The most ridiculous I think being where you couldn't enter The Strip in New Vegas if you killed the wrong person. Not like an NPC required to open the strip - just an NPC in a completely unrelated quest.

You could fix that bug by .... wearing the right ingame hat. Again, not like the hat from the dead guy. The hat from some other place. How whatever condition which apparently caused the game to crash upon entering the most important area in the entire game could go undetected is mind boggling, and shows a clear communication issue between development and QA.

The Elder Scrolls and Fallout franchises only get away with this by sheer force of numbers. If the game didn't offer such a vast amount of quests which do generally work then the pain would be unbearable for users. As it is, it's obviously already for specific users of nearly every title in the franchise.

When I first started playing Skyrim I really thought they had left their technical issues behind them. But now that there's so much evidence of people being able to reproduce the PS3 performance bugs, and honestly the more I play the game the more I run into bizarre quest issues ... Skyrim might actually be their buggiest game to date.

And if Bethesda wants to keep making games this complex and vast for the next generation of consoles, maybe they should consider using a file scheme and quest design which wasn't developed in 2002.

I don't know about Skyrim being GOTY. Haven't played Zelda. Glad it wasn't Modern Warfare 3. If I had to guess, I probably would have voted for Uncharted 3.

But developer of the year? I dunno. That doesn't feel right. I'm not saying they're bad people or even bad coders. But as a studio, they have a pretty lousy technical track record.