Skyrim should be released in 2012... 11.11.12

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:03 am

Maybe it wouldnt be so bugged, and definitely steam wouldnt need to keep downloading countless patches. Player were actually happy, and didnt face a nervous breakdown problem.

What is happening today? Why games cant be like in the old times...? Tested, working, not needing a lot of patching. Why (nearly) everyone rushes with publishing the game nowadays? Why (hardly) anyone bother to test their product? Why players are more like beta testers, than players?

Im sure 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9.. etc. wont fix this game.

Bethesda didnt fix Morrowind, didnt fix Oblivion. I dont expect much.

There are still people working on Morrowind mods, have you known it?

The only hope of fixing this game, are modders. It shouldnt be like that. That someone is fixing something, wich should already be fixed by the producer/developer/owner.
User avatar
Sarah Evason
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:47 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:52 am

Did you actually play games in "the old times"? Plenty of games were just as buggy back then, and often they didn't get patches because people didn't have internet connections.

Also there would still be tons of bugs if it was released a year later. Many bugs require very specific circumstances and don't show up until you've got thousands of people playing the game.
User avatar
Celestine Stardust
 
Posts: 3390
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:22 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:37 pm

I was thinking that given another year, Skyrim could have been released on 12/12/12, and had an extra year of QA and polishing.

It's not like each Elder Scrolls game isn't a hit, while winning various Game of the Year honors, so there was no need to rush the game out before the holiday season.

Until people start speaking with their wallets, why should anything change?
User avatar
NeverStopThe
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:25 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:24 am

Simple answer: We allow it at best. At worst well in a few min hour tops you'll have a "fan" here to tell you that not only are you wrong Beth is the bestest game company ever with the best products and you are just a whiner.
User avatar
carley moss
 
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:05 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:37 pm

nope with an extra year they would have tried to add more things in and still done the same amount of QA and would still have the same bugs.
User avatar
Allison Sizemore
 
Posts: 3492
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:09 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:24 am

11-11-12 would be 12th november 2011, I don't really see how one extra day would help much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
User avatar
Phoenix Draven
 
Posts: 3443
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:50 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:07 pm

People were already upset because some of us had to wait an extra day to play it. Delaying it by more than 1 year would have caused riots.
User avatar
Enny Labinjo
 
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:04 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:25 pm

People were already upset because some of us had to wait an extra day to play it. Delaying it by more than 1 year would have caused riots.

They could have put it out in 2096 and not be delayed a day if they had said it will be ready in 2096. It was only delayed because they said 11-11-11. Some companies don't announce until QA is done I remember Borderlands we knew the game was there knew it was coming they used the time after announcing to do things like cover art we didn't see that till almost the day.
User avatar
Kerri Lee
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:37 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:55 am

Why take extra time and pay people to fix the game when people will fix it for free,i guess that is what their current mind set is.It is morally wrong that these companies get away with this they are selling broken products.[censored] if the car manufactures release a faulty product they recall it.
User avatar
vicki kitterman
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:58 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:38 pm

11-11-12 would be 12th november 2011, I don't really see how one extra day would help much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

Where do you see 1 day?

11 - day, 11 - month, 12 - year.
User avatar
flora
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:48 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:57 am

Actually:

11 - month, 11 - day, 12 - year
User avatar
Barbequtie
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:46 pm

Depending on where you are, 11-11-12 = Novemer 11, 2012. Other places, the year comes first and so it means November 12, 2011.
User avatar
Krystina Proietti
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:02 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:28 am

'Old times' games: Buy game, find bug, wait months for patch to be released on disc provided in gaming magazine.

'Countless patches': Four, including one on or around release day.

When there was a limited number of platforms available, with somewhat less complex operating systems, games were simpler to put together...as games become larger and more complex, so does the problem of quality control.

Personally, I dislike the fact that games are released with obvious bugs and problems, some of which are unforgiveable, but that is an industry wide problem...except perhaps for the Indie developers who seem to have a far better grasp of quality control and consumer expectations than the larger developers and distributors.
User avatar
Dean Ashcroft
 
Posts: 3566
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:20 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:11 am

Folks just be glad that Bethesda released the game before the world ends this year. If they released on 12/12/12, we would get only a few days to play it. Though strangely, that would mean less time complaining about bugs.
User avatar
Phillip Hamilton
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:07 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:21 pm

In case you don't know, faster cash in hand is beneficial to business. They can use it to start other projects or repay loans. That is why business models with pre-order or cash before delivery is favored.

In the past, without online capabilities, console game must be released in fully tested. Now that the software developers know they can patch it later, the test period is shorten in favor of faster release to secure their cash-flow.

The complexity of modern games are also a factor. When the size of a piece of software is doubled, the effort is more than doubled. This is due to the need for additional resource management layers.

Sufficient to say, the "good old days" are never coming back because business demands it.
User avatar
Izzy Coleman
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:34 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:46 pm

Why games cant be like in the old times...? Tested, working, not needing a lot of patching.

You apparently did not play the bug-fest that was Daggerfall.
User avatar
Becky Palmer
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:43 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:25 pm

'Old times' games: Buy game, find bug, wait months for patch to be released on disc provided in gaming magazine.

'Countless patches': Four, including one on or around release day.

When there was a limited number of platforms available, with somewhat less complex operating systems, games were simpler to put together...as games become larger and more complex, so does the problem of quality control.

Personally, I dislike the fact that games are released with obvious bugs and problems, some of which are unforgiveable, but that is an industry wide problem...except perhaps for the Indie developers who seem to have a far better grasp of quality control and consumer expectations than the larger developers and distributors.
Daggerfall is the most bugged game Bethesda have ever made, it was actually one of the most bugged games released ironically one of the most serious bugs was save game bloat, other bugs made it very hard to actually finish the main quest.

If you go back to NES times it was few bugs in games as they was very simple, comparable with modern flash games who also have few bugs.
User avatar
Casey
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:38 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:19 am

Someone hasn't played Daggerfall.

Regardless, Skyrim really needed a few more months of development because a lot of the game content is clearly rushed and I think this hurts the game experience more than the bugs.
User avatar
ShOrty
 
Posts: 3392
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:15 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:12 am

People were already upset because some of us had to wait an extra day to play it. Delaying it by more than 1 year would have caused riots.

Hehe I was one of those as the post did not deliver it on time.

I have been very fortunate that I have not encountered many bugs, and when I have I have been able to find a solution.
User avatar
Paul Rice
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:51 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:14 pm

People would have waited an extra year. they always do, no matter how mad they say they`ll get. they never do and they never riot for a game.

The reason the game is rushed is due to the Publisher who puts them on a strict time limit then says `That`s IT! release! release! we`ll patch it later or let modders fix it!`

It`s interesting to note they made more of an attempt to complete the Xbox version then the PC or PS3.
User avatar
OTTO
 
Posts: 3367
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 6:22 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:51 pm

Bah, so many people are playing this game for 100's of hours despite the bugs. There ARE bugs, and they are annoying, but very few people are like yourself and would have foregone the experience because of it.

What I demand to see from Bethesda (like I matter, right?) is that they spend the billion #@$@$ dollars they have made on this product and work some overtime to fix the quest bugs. Hire some people for god's sake...and make some DLC while you are at it! This is the Bethesda Cash Cow for at least the next 18 months if not more.

R
User avatar
Farrah Barry
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:00 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:45 pm

nope with an extra year they would have tried to add more things in and still done the same amount of QA and would still have the same bugs.
this

a game with no bugs is a mathmatical impossiblity
User avatar
Ricky Rayner
 
Posts: 3339
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:13 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:44 pm

'Old times' games: Buy game, find bug, wait months for patch to be released on disc provided in gaming magazine.

'Countless patches': Four, including one on or around release day.

When there was a limited number of platforms available, with somewhat less complex operating systems, games were simpler to put together...as games become larger and more complex, so does the problem of quality control.

Personally, I dislike the fact that games are released with obvious bugs and problems, some of which are unforgiveable, but that is an industry wide problem...except perhaps for the Indie developers who seem to have a far better grasp of quality control and consumer expectations than the larger developers and distributors.

Let's not forget that some developers/companies - like Blizzard - had a reputation for releasing games that required minimum patching.

Now that Blizzard has been gobbled up by other companies, they're not as good as they used to be, but looking at Bethesda and EA (Yeah I'm looking at the Sims 1/2/3), Blizzard is still by far the better of those 3. id used to have a great reputation for the same reason, although I heard their latest release needed some patching up after release. Don't know if that's true or not, I didn't play it.

But when you start talking about the large amounts of money required to make a game - and of the possible payback (Skyrim somewhere around 400-600 million depending on how many copies they sold at $60.00 each) - things change, and not always for the better.
User avatar
lolly13
 
Posts: 3349
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:36 am

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:42 pm

What is happening today? Why games cant be like in the old times...?
Trying playing the old Fallout series or the older TES games unpatched and come back to us.

To this day I don't know which was buggier, Daggerfall or FO2. Then there were the Troika titles...

The hallmark of any RPG is that it's bugged. Well, Bioware's RPGs were relatively bug-free, but just look at the huge amount of (fan made) adjustments made to the BG series and even those games are "broken" by comparison.

Yeah I've had a few CTDs but honestly it's NOTHING like Daggerfall. Falling through the "3-D" map every other dungeon certainly livened things up.
User avatar
Lilit Ager
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:06 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:21 pm

I loved this game on PS3. Then I got the PC version and installed several mods. This game is amazing, and I can only imagine what is coming.

If you don't like the game, too bad for you.
User avatar
Nicholas
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:05 am

Next

Return to V - Skyrim