Casual Gamer View: Skyrim










10 comments:

  1. I want Skyrim only for the FUS-RO-DAH thingy, but I enjoyed Oblivion, so I think I´ll enjoy Skyrim as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Skyrim on PS3 is the most broken game I have played in years.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's more acceptable/doable to release a buggy game nowadays because the ease in which devs can just patch things

    ReplyDelete
  4. To comment about your ending question, I am wiling to endure bugs due to the way we are able to distribute game fixes. And as an additional comment in regards to Bethesda with their Daggerfall (released in 1996, free now, check it out) it had many bugs. So it is a bit wrong to say that games used to be released without bugs before as many many games was released with bugs, but not so often with gamebreaking bugs, or at least that is my experience over the past 20 years of gaming.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WHen I said about "flawless" game I was thiking more of the cartdrige era,like nes,super nes,megadrive and such.

    I should have clarified,also it was more than 15 years ago,my memory failed me again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't mind a game being released with a couple of bugs as long as it doesn't interrupt the gameplay enough to destroy the experience. Skyrim on PC has worked very well for me, though I wouldn't mind waiting another 6 months or a year so they could fix the inventory (closes very easily, sometimes have to use the keyboard because mouse doesn't work) etc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ok, so I realize this comment is 2 weeks late probably but Skyrim is to blame for that since it took last 6 weeks of my life. Anyway - the answer to your question, no I don't think releasing the 100% bug free game in 3 years would be good, but also, releasing it now, completely bugged was also a bad idea. You mentioned one almost gamebreaking bug, with the no voice actor. That's just one of many I encountered, and actually one of the rare ones that you can fix on your own, using some hack that was made for oblivion years ago. Many others are not fixable at all and completely ruined my game. Anyway, to wrap this too long comment up - I would have been happy if the game was released when the number of bugs and glitches in it was smaller than the number of MB it took on my hard drive, and content if they at least managed to get rid of all gamebrekaing ones :S

    ReplyDelete
  8. "3 years" was a hypothetical period.I realize it everytime I read a comment lol
    But to be more fair would people be able to wait 1 year MAX?

    ReplyDelete
  9. In case of skyrim, yes, I believe they would be able to wait a bit more. I don't know about other games, certainly not games that have a new version every year, but for an elder scroll game, it's acceptable. Personally, I really wouldn't mind if the game came out in november 2012 if I could play it without having to use hacks made in 2006 just to get through the main quest. But, with that said, I'm not a die hard fan of elder scroll games, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to wait a day longer for it to come out.

    So I guess my conclusion is, fans of the game (any game) are probably happier with their game being released earlier, despite the bugs and glitches, but other people are more likely to be happier if game gets released later, when it's done properly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would be willing to wait longer for games to be released if it meant getting a finished game. As someone who can't buy games often anyway I'm used to not having new games constantly. Plus with DLC the-for lack of a better term-'lifespan' of a game is longer. So playing old games while waiting for the new ones to be perfected really shouldn't be a problem in this day and age.

    -DuosAngel

    ReplyDelete