The job Bethesda has done with Skyrim as a whole is great, it's an awesome game in content and scope; however there appears to be gaps -- okay, holes in the quality in some aspects.

The software/platform glitches in Hearthfire (gladly I've had very few and nothing major) seem unacceptable compared to what should be a "complete" product or add-on. It would be like purchasing a car and finding the break or gas pedal sticks or is twichie and then hearing from the dealership, "yeah it does that, we don't have a fix for it yet." This is where the QA of gaming companies is greatly lacking, obvious in the likes of Mass-Effect. I'm a developer myself, and when I finish the code, I test it (thoroughly) and then have second, third persons test it to find issues and work on fixes prior to release, it just something that should be done. I would think after the development of Hearthfire someone would have played it through and found, "Oh wait, this isn't right, or this is glitchie" and then reported it as a bug and had it fixed. Of course I suspect the problem maybe that when or if tested it is done on fresh or new Skyrim instances or low level play through -- meaning there hasn't been someone playing and building a high level character with tons of quests completed, Dawnguard installed and played through to which a normal consumer player would be doing -- which would possibly reveal the issues once this add in was added, but this is just speculation.

In another perspective: you don't want your customers (consumers) that's us -- the gamers, having to report on bugs and issues on a product that is suppose to be "released" -- it's our job and our time to enjoy and play it; not beta test it.

Mass effect 3 was released, buggy rending players the inability to import their Shepard, the series' paradigm. Bugs are to be expected, compact games like Mass Effect are easy to test, there isn't that many variables to be dealt with.

However I can understand where you're coming from, there are existing bugs in the game yet they keep throwing more and more dlc out there, the list just keeps increasing.

As I have said before, the list of bugs found by the players is available on the wikis and many of them have already been fixed in the unofficial PC patch. Therefore, I think that Beth is just lazy on this aspect.

Anyway, TES is still #1 for me

They're definitely my favourite open world games, they just need Rockstar to write them a coherent story

Blasphemy!!!! Where's my pitchfork????

You know you want it really, there's a few sidequests (Guilds) that have stood out in previous games, but that's about it.

The main story however...sheeesh.

Bugs are to be expected? That's not acceptable, as a gamer would be rather be on the forums writing your list of bugs or playing the game and coming here to share stories of related quests/questions? The xbox/ps3 are a set of non-changing hardware and software; with maybe some slight changes in revs between versions of the systems but none the less its not like the every changing world of PC specs, so no- if the mod was tested then there should be no bugs. As far as Mass Effect -- less variables and easier to test? What? Not really -- the bugs with mass effect are story based, not game play, anyway, that aside, you would think (provided there is actual QA) they would be on top of issues.

Also, some of the bugs reports are just because players don't know how to unlock/play the game through making them non-bugs. Bugs are where the dialog to hire a Bard just doesn't show up, bugs are where I ask the steward to furnish a room and charge gold but then told you don't have enough coin when you do, bugs are where the work bench lists everything already in the room but the room has already been setup, minus a few things.

In all, I'm very pleased with the DLC, there's just some hrm (Microsoft) aftertaste of not getting the job done to finish and leaving it 1/2 ass'd or 1/4 ass'd -- take your pick

I lost my face in Mass Effect 3, a character I had invested time in since ME1 had lost his face, which was corrected in a patch. That is a gameplay (not story) bug.

And you'd think that Mass Effect 3 (A game set in corridors with dialogue that's about as limiting as Skyrim) is as hard to program for?

Oh you jest!

The bugs are mostly in the game engine, it's the same reason it doesn't work so well on the PS3, it's ancient tech now along with the Xbox but the bugs you're mentioning are indeed from poor testing (But how do you test a game this big so often?).

Answer: Playerbase, Microsoft got their paid 30 day exclusivity at the cost of the playerbase ironing out the bugs.

They are to be expected, look at the bugs in RDR, or hell any open world game, they're gamebreaking/immersion breaking, because of the amount that the game has to deal with.

I actually disagree to an extent - namely because of the interaction between characters, like Niko and his cousin towards the beginning. I tried picking up the game a year and a half ago, just as something to do while waiting for something (I can't remember what), and that alone left me laughing at how horrible the interaction was.

Again, opinions, everyone has them.

I liked Roman, he reminded me of friends and family members, I thought the interaction was really relatable despite the circumstances established. Maybe it's because I've met people like him (and know) is the reason why I took a shine to him.

"NIKO MA COUSIN!!!"

Well sorry to hear your issues with ME, actually I never had any, so -- um, no I can't say or report on any game-play bugs -- how do you like that story?

Its a sad day in gaming and games if you believe "They are to be expected" -- now, a Microsoft O/S -- Okay, Yes As far as platform vs. platform issues, I wouldn't totally agree its in the game engine: its called being lazy and trying to "port" the same game and binaries into a system where it may not work 100% and just releasing it as finished, collect the $$$ from consumers, and oh -- later on relay on the err, playerbase on issue to then fix them? -- that's laughable, because in the business world, trying something like that usually means your doors are closed the next day.

I suppose it boils down to standards; having some and enforcing them = good response and praise, middle ground = endless threads on bugs, none = bad game reputation (EA).

Bethesda, is "having some and enforcing them" however you add Microsoft and that drags them down a few notches, you know pretty much like any (EA) game; great potentials, flopped end-end product (Star Wars).

Of course, you have to take into account that there is NO game that does what TES does, on the scale that it does. Beth are blazing a trail, they really are, and ambitiousness doesn't go hand in hand with perfection; this is an unfortunate facet of life. If everyone played it safe, things would be a lot duller, there would almost certainly be no TES.

There is no way you can level 'laziness' at Beth, anyone who does so has no clue about videogame design.

He must be fairly new to the concept, because a simple mass effect 3 glitches search on google will show results in a relatively simple game.

Dark Souls for instance, a big ambitious world missing the level of detail that Skyrim has, also has it's share of bugs (Plaguetown, how I hate thee!) and yet that game was critically acclaimed.

Notice all of the reviews mention that the bugs are some of the only letdowns?

Indeed, as games are getting more and more complex, bugs are going to be a regular fixture. Annoying I know, but hey, even Sonic 1 used to hard-freeze on me every so often

I've studied game design briefly (very very briefly) but I learned enough to have a grasp of exactly how much work goes into a game a fraction of the size of TES. This is why Beth are probably my top dev house in terms of what they do. It must be a bitter pill to swallow, pouring blood, sweat, tears and years of your life into this project, only to get called 'lazy' at the end of it all.

Negative. I'm quite familiar with the concept and have been gaming for years; through out I've seen the decline in QA in console games -- where they were once solid and not prone to buginess as PC games are. If you don't see that then, frankly, you haven't been around the block long enough Also, as being a web/dba/coder my self, perhaps my perspective is different but I do know that gaming/business coding lies mostly in the quality of the coders you have and if they are "challenged" by QA or simply passed off as "OK," -- if there's issues we'll sort them out later. So I know that no -- it doesn't have to, nor should it be released "bugged" -- do what's right and iron out issues, then release a solid product.

If you lived through the generation of the changing landscape of gaming; you'd see prior to "cross-platform games" -- meaning, same game, different platforms there wasn't as much buginess. Yes Beth has/and does a great job, but they're not flawless, but they could be. Get new to that concept.

Also, what do I care about the goggle search on ME's issues? When I played it there weren't any -- but then again I picked up on ME much later so by the time I played it, perhaps the "bugs" were all cleaned up. Got that concept?

Good day.

Game development is a large group effort; I highly doubt the the graphic artist (one of many) that is now on a new game/movie is losing any sleep over the fact a game they worked on got trashed, hey they got their check right?. Same for a lead coder, voice actor, et al. What counts for the publishers and producers is the outcome -- and if not successful, they won't be getting funding for the sequel; they can go ahead and cry.

Ignorance is bliss,

You need a relative game to compare the QA testing, ME isn't relative at all.

And if you were a decent coder, you'd know that Software doesn't come under the same scrutinies as other business domains, I studied Software Development for two years and then moved onto Computer Science, so while trying to paint a picture of me as some "kid that hasn't been around the block enough" you need to get your facts straight about the problems with gaming/games as a whole.

Otherwise you're doing the opposite, you're making yourself look like the fool.

Laugh. what are you talking about?

But you are right about ignorance -- do you know what QA is? It starts with quality, and you seem side tracked with ME. QA can be applied to any game, or industry or process; and yes, code can and does come under the domain of quality -- two coders can be asked to do the same project, person A may do a bad job -- meaning the performance of the project is poor and/or users don't welcome it, compared to person B who's project is performing well and user are accepting it. If you've taken CS then the simplicity of "my query of 100,000 data records took 2 minutes" compared to someone's "100, 000 records took 10 seconds" should be self evident -- it's not right/wrong it's the QA of code, database design resulting in efficient output, and not "bugs" and crap.

The facts of the problems with gaming/games presents it self by the mere fact there's forums discussing the issues and where the fixes are, when if there WAS QUALITY to govern the output, all would be good. Also, your rebuttal doesn't really answer the history of gaming where (1) there were less problems to (2) now there are more now does it -- those my friend are FACTS, and if you knew and lived through that history then you might realize the problem.

But whatever.

O tempora o mores!!! The kids these days really forget (or don't know) that back in the day all games also had bugs (and some of them were really nasty as well) and back then we didn't have patches or forums where we could rant endlessly. Games will always have bugs and the sooner you realize that the better.

My earliest encounter with a bug was in a game called Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (one of my all time favorites BTW) for the 8-bit NES, back in the early 90s. Sometimes a pink stripe would appear on the right of the screen and any enemy who would cross it would insta-die and (obviously) I quickly learned to use it to my advantage This clearly ruined my game experience and no matter what, it could not be patched.

So, listen to an old-timer like me and learn to be grateful that the people at Beth (I want to believe) work their asses off to patch the game.

There were less problems back in the day? With your more basic titles from back in the day, of course you will get less bugs - there is less to go wrong. Older TES games were still very buggy compared to other titles of the day, but then, as now, they were far and away more complex beasts than their contemporaries. To say size and complexity don't matter is totally illogical.

Combine the open world, options and branching storyline of TES...with Red Dead Redemption.

I'm throwing my money at the screen, why is nothing happening?!

Folks are batting around and calling "ignorance" and accusing one another of it enough to have this thread go up in a fireball of goo.

So much for this mess.