I dont even know... this was a terrible review, I think I could... no, I know I could write better!

I stopped reading after I hit this:

"The Environments [in Oblivion] looked incredible but the characters all looked spectacularly brutal."

http://media.photobucket.com/image/oblivion%20bosmer/YamiArne/LPOblivionWoodElf.jpg

Whaaaaat a mroon!

True that. As a huge TES fan it's perfect to me.

lmao. 9/10? No Co-op?

Whatever, sure, I'll take that. Thats a great score, plenty of games prove far far worse. If thats all they could knock it for i'm okay with it...

EDIT:

As far as no co-op. I whole heartedly disagree with bethesda actually working on it. However, i do wish that they would kind of leave in a way for the mod community to put it in. Like, if it was just something they made possible, but didnt attempt to work on it or implement it in the final game, then the players could come in and finish their work.

No one here can honestly tell me that it wouldnt go untouched. Bethesda just doesnt want to take time/resources away to make it right. I'm 100% certain the modder community would gladly take the wheel. They've even tried before with out a legit way to do it.

Except that it will take away resources. The game on console seems already taxing as it is.

That statement alone at the end of the review could be a legit wish but penalizing the score for that implies the game is "lacking" in content or form which isn't the case.

How is the reviewer going to let the developers know what he disliked about the game without including it in his comments? Blowing daisies up the dev-team's rear all the time is great and all, but it doesn't help to steer future development in the direction you prefer.

Someone, of course, is going to make a ridiculously flawed comment like "I dislike that the game doesn't allow me to fly in a space ship that launches nuclear missiles out of gatling cannons. 2 points off! Hurr durr!". The difference is the developers obviously never take stupid requests like that seriously for the Elder Scroll series. They have, however, discussed the idea of co-op play in their games and do take it seriously. Yes, they decided against it because they're not happy with the tradeoffs they feel they'll have to make. So in the end it's up to the players to weigh in on just how important a feature like a co-op option is (or isn't) to them, and that is exactly what that reviewer is doing. He would be foolish not to.

They rated it down for no co-op? I don't know whether to laugh, or cry.

Co-op would svck. What happens if someone enters your world and kills everyone in a town and leaves? You're [censored]. And if they had specific maps for multilayer, whats the point? There would just be people running around naked, killing NPC's.

I do agree with you to a point. Helping to steer developers in the direction we the players would like to see is okay, but again downing the rating of the game for a non-existent function that we neither know that we would enjoy or detest does not seem fair in the long run. That is like saying the game is now horrible without crossbows, spears, and Mysticism, which are not in the game, but to a point at least those were in games in the past unlike co-op.

Again, it is okay to help budge the developers to see what we see with blogs and examples, but saying something like "I know this game would be great with co-op, and therefore I give this a negative score because it was not included" is asinine at best. We do not know if co-op for Skyrim will be great or bad, because it was never a part of the system. Reviews should be based on what is given now, and what the game is good at and not. Assumptions only water down the review, not spice it up.

The only thing svcking there is your logic.

First, if you're hosting the game and somehow allowed this to actually happen, you would simply reload your save game and undo the damage.

Second, why in the world would you bring someone like that into your game in the first place? Are your gaming friends just that juvenile like that? If so, don't invite them to play with you. And consider getting new friends.

Cripes, of all the stupid @#$ reasons..

Looks like someones getting a bit mad over someone else's personal opinions.

I know as games are developed there are frequently decisions being made that I may happen to disagree with. To me, those are strikes against the game that diminish its value, possibly to the point where I may not even purchase the product. If I were to then write a review on the game, I would certainly make sure to include those details in my review and adjust the reward a score accordingly. I would not say a game is perfect if it isn't in my eyes. Sure, it may be perfect in another player's eyes. And they can feel free to write their own review.


More like someone is thinking this thread would only be a page or two long if we removed all the ridiculously stupid comments like the one I was replying to at that particular point. It's called thinking before you post. You might want to try that advice out too. I'm fine with opinions. But that comment you're labeling "an opinion" is actually just a knee-jerk and ill-thought out response full of logic holes. It would be like somepone posting "Co-op would svck. What happens if someone taps into your connection and deletes your hard drive! You're [censored].".. Why waste everyone's time with such nonsense?

Opinions are fine. Stupidity isn't. And there's a lot of it taking up space in this thread.

Yup; definitely mad.

Cool that next 5 years there is no chance for a co- op/multiplayer ruined TES game.

Ok, troll.

I believe in giving a review based on what is given on the product, but you believe that other factors should come in such as "what if's". Two different views on the same side of the coin I guess. I respect your input, though again I do disagree with how some of it is handled. But that is not a bad thing I suppose, as this allows others to see from another's view point (the main reason of reviews) on how something is.

Perhaps some were a bit harsh on the review that this thread is based upon, including myself, but it's opinions based on an opinion. To each their own.

Dude, don't take this stuff so personally, there's no need for personal attacks. It's a forum about a video game. I just don't see how it would work, or the point to it. The rules and regulations to make it work so others wouldn't break peoples games would be tremendous and IMO not worth it. Assuming you played in someone elses world like Saints Row or Fable without a tether to the host character, there's all kinds of shenanigans your friend could get into without you knowing. They could kill people, piss characters off, and once they leave, if you had gotten a lot of progress done and saved more than once you WOULD be screwed. Would you get blamed? How would the radiant AI system react to it? Also, wouldn't having two independently leveled characters break the balance and the leveling of the game? You both would be completely God mode. There's too many variables in that regard to make it work. The way the game levels you up, the way the dungeons and quests are designed, it's not even remotely meant for multilayer, I don't see how that reviewer was under the impression the game was "screaming" for it.

And then going into the scenario of there being a universal multiplayer map that people can join like an MMO, how would that work? In that case, you would have absolutely no control over who is allowed in, and would of course run into trolls and griefers. And on top of that, again, the game isn't designed for that kind of play, to make it work they would need to make a completely different game to make it level and fair. How can you imagine Skyrim would work with people who are level 45 playing with people who are level 1? What level would the enemies be? Would they be on par with the level 1 character? Then it would be easy for a level 45 to exploit the system for his low level friends like in many MMO's. Would the monsters and dungeons then be scaled for a level 45 player? Then it would be impossible and not fun for a level 1 character. Would there be instances for different levels? Perhaps, but then that's way more work, way more time for animating custom dungeons for every level instance. Would there be PVP or not?

Do you see what I'm getting at here at least? You aren't asking yourself important questions, the kind of questions developers spend weeks having meetings about before they even start building the actual game. It's not fair to say Bethesda somehow dropped the ball by not including multiplayer. Not only is this classically a singleplayer franchise, but including multiplayer, in this particular instance, I think would completely ruin the singleplayer experience of the game. Development teams don't have infinite funds and they definitely don't have an infinite amount of time on their hands two build two games for the price of one. Be realistic.

I agree with his point on lack of co-op.Co-op is great for games like this.

However since this is Bethesda we are talking about we all know how that would end up with [censored] NPC AI, you could pretty much kill anything from level 1 even if they designed the game to work with 2 or even more players.

But that is certanly no reason to lower the grade when the game isn't designed to do that.

So not only did he get to play the game early but he also got paid to write that? Damn... I get that some people may want co-op in their TES games, but projecting your own longing onto a game and saying that it 'screams out' for a multiplayer component is just pretty bad writing in my opinion.

I, for one, don't believe that's a legitimate review. The author covered nothing that wasn't already available elsewhere. Additionally, how does one play for 30+ hours and not have at least one interesting or amusing anecdote to share with their audience? There are other clues as well, such as his wish for a different game engine technology yet no discussion of the actual game engine.

The author's lack of mastery of the English language also brings the review into question. It is filled with poor spelling, inappropriate capitalization, poor structure, and incomplete sentences. Ideas are not fleshed out and the entire piece reads as if it were a seventh grade English paper.

I'd like to believe that anyone provided an early copy for review was at least minimally vetted for writing skill and is not simply someone who tossed up a website and claimed to have an audience.

Geez, I wonder if the people reviewing this knows how hard it would be to add co-op, and if they did add co-op the single player would be extremely watered down.

Also the guy gave Homefront 8/10 and Deus Ex 6.5/10 he is a total [censored]

In my review of Skyrim, I'm deducting a point because there isn't any RTS gameplay.

i just had to comment on that article what a piece of crap!

if its gameplay /features/sound/gfx/ animations/ i can understand that but COOP! its never been about co-op and to use that a the ONE major con is just WRONG!

I'm gonna give it 7/10 because it's not a 13th sequel of a generic shooter which are totally worth 50 euros. Developers should really stop making unique and fun games without guns and make CoD clones.