Another skyrim review

http://feedyourconsole.com/2011/11/review-elder-scrolls-skyrim/

There are spoilers in that review. Minor ones, but still there.

Cons: No co-op
So no reason for it not to have a 10 then?

That was a terrible review. He claims to have played for 30 hours but offers no insight into gameplay and just recycles info that we've known from previews for weeks. Can't wait for the reviews from the big websites!

It comes tomorrow. All the major reveiws.

Thats one of the lamest reviews i've read. Not just for this game, i mean as reviews go in general.

LOL agreed. Recycled information with a rating at the end is not a review. Why would he want co-op?

Wowww.... no co-op... seriously?

"Just a quick note to say that I have not yet finished the game and have only managed to get in about 30hrs of gameplay. I know I’ll get alot of haters on this but seriously, the game really is that freaking big".


Hmm is this a joke?

Big websites can easely get bribes, to make a higher review result.

I only care for IGN, Gamespot and PC Gamer reviews.

No co op?? Thats not con in Elder Scrolls...

I regret reading that... I was a little curious about how the game started, now since it was mentioned, i'd rather just wait to play and experience it better than reading what happens....
i can only blame meself.
bloody hell ! lol

I'm not reading it, sounds like the sort of guff churned out by a guy on YouTube, last seen rating himself as a Burnout Paradise god.........err he wasn't

you may want to add Gametrailers to that list.

Really? Didn't know about that. Thx for the tip.

Also GameInformer.

And Eurogamer.

^^ And Destructoid

Gamerinformer.com Destuctoid.com Both people doing the reviews on Skyrim for those websites are trustworthy.

Maybe, but in the end they are fairly accurate. At least they talk about the game. Not list all the racial bonuses to fill space, as this review did.

There's nothing wrong giving a strike against the game for not offering the option to play it cooperatively with friends. How else are reviewers going to let a developer know what's important to them in a game?

You don't have to want to make use of a particular feature to appreciate that the option is there and understand that it adds something to the game. I have zero interest in playing a vampire, but development time was spent on it and I can see how some people will get a kick out of that, so more power to them.

For the record, my interest in Skyrim would increase by a magnitude of ridiculousness if it could be played cooperatively with my buddies.

"I know I’ll get a lot of haters on this but seriously, the game really is that freaking big."

What does that even MEAN? I stopped there. I'd like to read a review written by a writer with a little bit of intellectual capacity.

With regards to co-op, this review says, "This game screams for it." I mean...no. Just completely no. The entire point of the game....ugh. No. I don't even want to have to get into it. It's like saying that this bowl of Honey Nut Cheerios really needs some cilantro and tomato sauce on the side.

And honestly, IGN is an awful site that does nothing but try to create conflict where it otherwise wouldn't exist. Like their whole Skyrim vs. Dark Souls thing was so forced, not to mention they completely declared Dark Souls the winner based on nothing but speculation. And they treat the Modern Warfare franchise as though it's the single greatest gift to the world of video games. They've had articles the past few weeks that literally feel like it's just Activision paying them to say nonsensical misinformation about what CoD's done, like the list of Modern Warfare "innovations" that turned out to have all been done in non-CoD games that came out earlier.

Gamespot is usually good. Some of their reviewers are bad but Kevin VanOrd is really, really good and fair. He also loves RPG's so his opinion is one I value highly. My favorite reviewer for PC games though is Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

The entire point of the game is what? To have fun? Many players are social gamers and prefer to have friends along with them, and they don't really enjoy games that much otherwise.

You look at the Skyrim trailers and see an epic adventure to undertake alone. Others look at the same trailer and see an epic adventure to be experienced with friends. Neither point of view is wrong, although in Skyrim's case the latter is left disappointed because the option doesn't exist. And that is, by the way, the entire point of an "option". Nobody is suggesting that Skyrim should be impossible to play single-player. They are only expressing their interest in having the option to play it cooperatively with friends should the mood strike them.

It's very likely that I won't look twice at most of the races available for play in Skyrim. It's still nice that the option is there to play them.