I agree. Your post reminds me of a story my Grandfather told me many years ago. Granted, its a bit fuzzy now as he died when I was 4 and I'm now 43, but I think he said it came from or was based on a story the Bible. More or less it went like this.

The oldest, wisest man in a village was at the end of his days. Someone decided it would be a good idea to ask him what was the wisest, most profound and most important thing he had learned about life. His response was. "The race is not always to the swift, nor riches to the wise, nor victory to the strong, for time and chance happeneth to us all".

Why did you buy it at full price in the first place if it was mainly because of the CS?

It would have been much better if you had waited til the price came down first...Hell, it cost you $60 in order to get disappointed in a game that hasn't even released the SDK yet....It's the same logic as plunking down $60 on a brand new game, and then NOT play it until the SDK is released! You could've saved sixty bucks and just bought the game 6 months from now instead!...

It is indeed silly. Not only for the reasons you stated but simply because even if someone had the chance to make the game, they would most likely be the ones who enjoy it the most.

It's common sense that you can't make a game perfect for everyone. des forums...ugh.

That`s ignorance supreme talking there.

That makes no sense. The only thing remotely silly is the fact that you believe you have to choose between praise and criticism.

Well said. 99% of people on the forums hate this game while 1% percent like it, and as a whole, it's the other way around. As a whole, I AM THE 99%!!

Skyrim isn't universally hated. Maybe on the internet, but I cannot express to you how much that really, really, really doesn't matter. I know around 20 people who have it and not one of them hates it, they all love it. Even my friends, who called me a nerd beforehand and said it looks "really really nerdy and stupid" have all told me they were hypocrits and now they own the game.

You may think that Skyrim has a lot of hate, but that is just a few hundred forum goers. Guess where everyoen else is? Skyrimming, yup.
Fear not, Skyrim has infinitely more positive reviews than negative ones

this x 100.

first off i wouldnt have had a silly deadline just because it sounded cool. i would have made it PC first then scaled back for consoles, just like DICE did and BF3 is selling like hotcakes right now......as did witcher 2.

i would have actually had the playtesters play the game on both the PC and the PS3 for extended periods of time and not just 360s like they apparently did.

i would have actually played other similar games like fallout 3 and fallout NV and recognized their strengths and adopted them. its amazing to me that they were smart enough to get ideas from bioshock and dark messiah but they couldnt grasp the brilliance of fallout NV faction system and branching questlines?

i would have left spellmaking and armor degredation in and improved them instead of just getting rid of them. i would not have forced third person views with horses and werewolves just to show off "neato" animations.

and so on.

oh and definitely there would have been spears and crossbows in my game as well.

And the question is, how many would be upset if Skyrim featured Spears or Crossbows?? I mean really?? I know we say folks will complain bout anything but would a crossbow be one of them??? How many would be upset if many of the features removed from previous games were molded into what we already have with Skyrim?? Probably not too many, and sales wouldn't have taken much of a hit either.



But profits would have. And that's why there always seems to be something left out. New animations for Spears and Crossbows cost money. Feature X costs Y dollars which will eat into Z profit because while you won't see many forgo purchasing the game because they aren't there, you also won't likely gain sales because they are. But having these features will make for a better game. I mean, it was in before and the game was just fine.

The quality of the game has nothing to do with any of this as demonstrated by any pop singer or terrible movie in the last two decades that's sold well.

By myself? of course I couldnt make a better game then a multi-million dollar business.

Same as I couldn't build a better car then Ford......but if my car doesn't work very I still have the right to complain that its bad.



And thats the reason why Skyrim is very mainstream and boring....it is a mutli-million dollar business. They can't take a chance, they spend big on a flop and hundreds of people are out of the job. Skyrim in it's current state was risky if you look how different it is to the rest of the market....small steps people, and we will get our good games back, but I fewr it'll take decades until there is enough trust for another epic RPG to be made.

This sums up all the complaints and grievances people have with this game (bugs and technical problems aside). Bethesda was unwilling to take a risk and build something truly great. What we have isn't bad, its just not something special anymore. Minecraft, Terraria, the X-series, Deus Ex and a whole slew of other games are starting to emerge that sate peoples appetite for sandbox games, the elder scrolls isn't the biggest kid on the block anymore.

Could I do as well working alone? Of course not.

But working with a full development crew with the same sort of resources as Bethesda? Its possible that I could do better (and moreover, its highly likely I'd make a game with much stronger RPG elements that isn't as mainstream and doesn't sell as well).

Also remember that a lot of people here have done modding work before (not everyone who does modding work necessarily hates the game either). We are more than capable of changing elements of the game to our liking and will actively do so when the CK becomes available. Which is where I add in Nehrim as a rider, as its the closest thing the community has ever produced to a whole new game and was noticeably better that the game it was based off (Oblivion).

The biggest problem for the game was just the fact that it was the "Fifth" in a series... and also the "Third" in its class. (The third game, in the series, to be truly 3D.)

The best thing they did for the game, was stop to make Fallout-3. That gave them a great boost to make this game. However, it has still fallen short.

The game plays OK, for people who can get it to run. The story is heavily "forced" on you, not in any way being "open", or having any real "choices". Decisions you make have almost no impact on the game-state, which was not what was "hyped" in advertisemants and interviews. The game, NPC's, are mostly mono-tone, bad-acting, delayed reactions, unbelievable to the story, and fail to ever seem acknowledge your MANY, MANY good or bad deeds. Good deeds get rewarded by assassinations being made against you, over and over, and over... Not sure what happens if you are bad, they send you fruit-baskets?

They seem to have just run out of ideas. So they forced you to follow one path, no matter how many twists it has, it always ends-up at the same destination... Ug, scripted "Fate". Obviously, they were setting-us up for "Game VI", and could not risk us having any other possible outcomes. Because that would destroy the story... The story that few even know, or care about... since 75% of the players are completely new to the whole game. (For them, they can not understand half the over-explained back-stories, and don't get half the ill-fitting comments about the eight, the nine, or any other reference that is spewed into the ears of the deaf.)

Could "I" do better... I wouldn't have tried... They lost me in Oblivion, and pulled me back-in with Fallout-3, then completely lost me with this "kings-quest" game.

Could they have done better... Sure, if they had a reason to... But they don't, they have our money, and they knew how to get more... Make it pretty, lie about the games ability, and ensure that refunds were not actually possible for most people tricked into purchasing it... (Once the 30-day, 300-hour warranty expires, and the games all head south.)

As it stands now... The MODDERS have rescued more than half the PC users who would have left. Making the game play as advertised, as expected, making it stable, fixing the horrible GUI, and offering assistance to those in need, that Bethesda has failed to offer its top-paying paying customers.

They, the MODDERS, have.. and will... do it better. Within the restricted limitations they have. With no budget, less time, more effort, and better results than the ones who took your money.

They should have just released it as a free game-engine... No story... lol... They would have made more money.

I like the game, for as much of it as I can't stand, and it is absolutely one of those, "Got to have in your collections" games of the year...

A shining example of non-constructive criticism. You claim you were "tricked" into buying it? Amazing....

smh

If I had the resources, could I make a better game as far as what *I* wanted to see? Absolutely. Your argument is pretty silly.

Well, it's always easy to make something better when the foundation has already been erected. To start from scratch with no precise direction and, above all, with limited time to finish is a daunting task.

I never said "I was tricked"... I knew I was getting a Bethesda game, and all that it entails... However, if I followed the hype... as others have complained about, they feel "tricked"... The game obviously runs for you, so you have nothing to contest those who purchased a "dead" game, or one that "fails to deliver", what was advertised. But anywho... your "opinion" of what is constructive, is as useless as your reply.

Apparently, you got what you paid for. Don't belittle those who didn't, and can't get refunds, by suggesting that their issues are nonconstructive. If Bethesda can use it, it is constructive. If they don't... well, it is just a loss for both of them.

Sorry if you have issues with me not liking the nerf-world I purchased. I am not alone, but you can keep pretending I am. The thousands and thousands of similar posts are all wrong, an nonconstructive, because we don't take MORE time out of our day to play construction-set with our criticism... they have not earned more than we offer, constructed or not.

I am still waiting for the "Creation Kit", which was promised at release... and again after release... and again in January... Which I now don't expect, running, until February... (It might be here in January, but I doubt it will run, like the game failed to run on release, and needed a critical instant update, and still needs to be fixed after more critical updates. The game will be complete, and fully functional in another three months... I am sure... Or not... Unless that is another trick. lol.)

That's a matter of opinion really. Sure, you could make a game of equal scale, but whether or not your game would be better is for the players to decide. Things you would like in a game may not fit my interests and vice versa.

Bethesda made the game they wanted as best as they could given their limitations and resources.

Nope, maybe some day though...

And there is one of the major problems. Skyrim is getting postive reviews from gaming publications kissing Bethesda's butt for future exclusives. These people wouldn't give a TES game a bad review if it were changed from an RPG to an FPS.

Instead of just reading postive reviews maybe Bethesda should actually read the critisim and understand that their core fan base isn't supporting the game fully.

I suspect you've never actually worked with computer systems, or you would not have put in the word "easily".

You might well make a better game, but given those resources, you can't make ANY similarly complex game "easily". MAKING BIG GAMES IS HARD, even with massive resources. In fact, the more resources you have, the harder it gets, because its more to manage and more to go wrong.

No ONE person can make a better game. Not in a decade. The man hours involved would insure that the game, upon release, was already outdated severely. That said, different people have different talents, throughout life. I code, yeah. Could I do NPC/enemy AI a little better? Maybe, maybe not, and definitely not pathing, but reaction systems, etc. But, ask me to paint the world, create the models, etc. Forget it. No way in heck could I ever come up with a single frostbite spider, much less an entire world. Storyboarding? Yeah, that I can do. Write the story paths, chains, etc.? Yup, yup, and yup. But no one's going to sit and play a text adventure. Seriously. Not when Skyrim's (and games like it) are out there. So... short answer... no way, there's not a single person on this board who could make a better game, or even a mass market game. Now, add in resources, man power, etc. Well, see, now there's a reason the general YOU is not working for a major gaming company right now. You can SAY you've got the chops all you want, but until you're employed and churning product, you're full of it.

I can not make a better game. I can't even mod. But after experiencing the product I can think of ways they could've made it better (at least for me and, as it seems, some other folks here and elsewhere).