The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is an amazing experience. Skyrim is huge and beautiful province filled with interesting people who'd love to share their story with you. Skyrim is also a place where different races tend to build the same house, with the same roles in them. I love Skyrim, but the fact that this new engine (which very often looks incredibly good) got a lot of troubles that we saw in this games prequel is, to say at least, worrying. I don't really care for bugs and glitches in open world games. I saw a comment earlier today--"bugs and glitches in open world games are accepted, it's tradition". While I see the point, the fact the water glitch is there among many others is a little big... you know, "come on, really?".

Again, I don't really care, but reviewers should. Tons of games are getting bad scores because of the technical aspect and while this game is not really broken - there our bugs and glitches that has been there for years and years. In my world, that should be in the review. It's certainly in Brads review (which is good) and a couple of other reviews, but not all. My point is that - people seems afraid to mention the games "bad" sides so they can put the 90% + on their review. Because to say that a Elder Scrolls game is a 7/10 game would be mad. Right? I guess the question is about sites having a score on their reviews at all, at the end of the day, but hey! What do you think, is Skyrim a 100 % game? It's an amazing game that is fun to play. But do you really think that it's pure perfection?

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is an amazing experience. Skyrim is huge and beautiful province filled with interesting people who'd love to share their story with you. Skyrim is also a place where different races tend to build the same house, with the same roles in them. I love Skyrim, but the fact that this new engine (which very often looks incredibly good) got a lot of troubles that we saw in this games prequel is, to say at least, worrying. I don't really care for bugs and glitches in open world games. I saw a comment earlier today--"bugs and glitches in open world games are accepted, it's tradition". While I see the point, the fact the water glitch is there among many others is a little big... you know, "come on, really?".

Again, I don't really care, but reviewers should. Tons of games are getting bad scores because of the technical aspect and while this game is not really broken - there our bugs and glitches that has been there for years and years. In my world, that should be in the review. It's certainly in Brads review (which is good) and a couple of other reviews, but not all. My point is that - people seems afraid to mention the games "bad" sides so they can put the 90% + on their review. Because to say that a Elder Scrolls game is a 7/10 game would be mad. Right? I guess the question is about sites having a score on their reviews at all, at the end of the day, but hey! What do you think, is Skyrim a 100 % game? It's an amazing game that is fun to play. But do you really think that it's pure perfection?

The trick to enjoying games is not expecting perfection.

It's most certainly not perfect, at least not in my opinion, I found the main quest to be extremely underwhelming, the NPC's can sometimes act really weird, and the combat is a bit to simple and barebones in my opinion which could just be from the way I play it.

However that being said Skyrim is my game of the year.

Considering that some of the reported glitches are nearly unforgiveable- dying while undergoing a certain transformation, for instance, can apparently cause the loss of all save files, and on the PS3 the game accumulates lag along with the size of the save files, to the point that the game literally becomes unplayable- There should definitely be some hard looks at Bethesda and the way they release their games.

They certainly need more thought put into npc interactions with players and among themselves. Or else, yes, it'd be perfect to me.

@Prodstep said:

It's most certainly not perfect, at least not in my opinion, I found the main quest to be extremely underwhelming, the NPC's can sometimes act really weird, and the combat is a bit to simple and barebones in my opinion which could just be from the way I play it.

However that being said Skyrim is my game of the year.

Of course! And dude, YNWA!

@Make_Me_Mad said:

Considering that some of the reported glitches are nearly unforgiveable- dying while undergoing a certain transformation, for instance, can apparently cause the loss of all save files, and on the PS3 the game accumulates lag along with the size of the save files, to the point that the game literally becomes unplayable- There should definitely be some hard looks at Bethesda and the way they release their games.

This is kind of what I am talking about. Again, I love Skyrim and I am enjoying it, I've played 30 hours and the game locked up one time. The only glitch I got was a dialog rolling by at the bottom of the screen over and over again. The fact that some people are enjoying those glitches is unacceptable.

There is no such thing as a perfect game. So far the glitches or bugs I've run into i Skyrim are minor and I got far too much going on in-game to care about such small things. 

I have no issues with technical issues, all I've had is a little muddy graphics and a single lock up over the course of 30 to 40 hours. Relatively speaking that's not much at all, especially when the 40 hours have been fantastic. The reviewers should probably mention bugs, sure, but they should also say how much they think those bugs impact their enjoyment of the game, and for Skyrim, the answer to that question is "not much at all."

The game is occasionally buggy and glitchy and yet it still deserves the five stars GB gave it. And nearly every review that I've read has mentioned the glitches are similar to past games in the series, so I'm not quite seeing this grand silence on bugs that some people are suggesting is out there in reviews.

Fix the inventory UI, and offer deep and expansive DLC add-ons and we'll have pure perfection on our hands. It's already up there for me as one of the greatest games I've ever played. It's an experience.

The Elder Scrolls games could have fewer minor glitches if they didn't try as hard for immersion and freedom.

What they achieve is worthy of a 10/10.

Giving a game your highest score does not mean absolute perfection, any more than giving a movie 5 stars on a 5 star scale means there is not a single small bad performance in it.

I had a texture pop-in once and that seems to be it. For me it was disappointing to see, but it didn't kill the experience for me. No the game is not perfect, and we can all expect to see patches released over the life of the game which will make the experience better. All I can say is that Skyrim is much better than Oblivion and I am enjoying it. And because of that, it was worth my $60 + tax.

Unless something is a game breaker (like crashing and inability to finish quests) picking on technical issues is just...well, dumb. It's like saying a movie is bad because the boom mic could be seen in a mirror in that one scene. You're missing out on a lot of good stuff if you let minor crap like that diminish your experience. I'll take a buggy ass game with soul over a bland, polished to perfection turd any day.

Absolutely not.  It's a fun game and a huge improvement over Oblivion, but there's still quite a few problems (beyond the technical) and certain elements have been dumbed down even further.  If it were a Bioware game, it'd be getting hell, but because it's an open world Bethesda game..  People seem to be willing to overlook these things. 
 
It's definitely deserving of the 5/5 GiantBomb review though.

Everyone talks about how minor glitches shouldn't subtract from the score, but losing upwards of 15 hours of play time is not even close to a minor problem. Having your game become slow and unresponsive to the point that NPCs stop reacting and the game crashes isn't the kind of thing you fail to mention. How about, before each review of a Bethesda game, every major site posts a list of the things wrong with it so people know what exactly they're getting?

I agree with you all. I'm not that into video game making... well, I am, but not in a technical way. For me it was disappointing to see loading screens into towns and houses. To ride into a town in Red Dead Redemption was one of my favourite parts. That's not possible in Skyrim... On the other hand, tons of other awesome things are possible.

An amazing game, a great game. It's now one of my favorites. But perfect? *points and laughs at OP*

Is this a joke thread?

not

Nothing is perfect, and a review score is not based on math. It's not "Oh this game has 10 glitches so that's 3 points off the final score." It's supposed to tell you if a game is worth your time. It's about fun, it's about how well it hits that pleasure center of your brain. It tells you if this is the kind of game that reminds you why you play video games in the first place. To me, Skyrim is that game: glitches be damned.

Why do we still get hung up on scores like this? Just fucking play the games and get over it. You want Skyrim to get the score you think it deserves? Then write your own fuckin' review!

Tons of games are getting bad scores because of the technical aspect and while this game is not really broken - there our bugs and glitches that has been there for years and years.

Nothing is perfect. However, It's definitely my game of the year.

HA! God No, I would give the game 5/5 but that is overlooking a lot of bugs and broken npc's I have run in to.  It is nowhere near perfection.

@Ares42: You mean like having a full set of chameleon armor in oblivion? Or the ridiculous enchants and spells you could make in morrowind? Do you just hate all fun things, or is it exclusive to skyrim?

Nothing is perfect, but this game is legitimately amazing.

@Ares42 said:

@Fruitcocoa said:

Tons of games are getting bad scores because of the technical aspect and while this game is not really broken - there our bugs and glitches that has been there for years and years.

To say this game is not broken is not exactly accurate :P Sure, it's not broken by glitches or bugs, but the amount of actual design flaws that completely breaks the game is staggering. Things like how enchanting boosts alchemy and alchemy boosts enchanting, creating an infinite loop that could be exploited into creating some non-sensical enchants, or the fact that you can make your spells cost 0 mana opening for plenty of absurd opportunities. Not to mention the fact that it's possible to make armor with so high armor values you barely take any damage while also having 100% resist to fire, frost and spark. The list just goes on and on and it's not like it's from mods or anything, this is intentional design. Sure, it's a single-player game so it's not like your ruining anyone else's experience, but if you want to you can easily just straight up break the game.

The fact that it's intentional means it's not a bug.

It's a design decision you disagree with.

If you go out of your way to break the game's combat, Skyrim, like Oblivion and Morrowind before it, allows you to do so, I guess on the assumption that you'll have fun because you *wanted* to break the game.

@Ares42: You mean like having a full set of chameleon armor in oblivion? Or the ridiculous enchants and spells you could make in morrowind? Do you just hate all fun things, or is it exclusive to skyrim?

Skyrim is not a perfect game; in fact, no game is perfect. Even with its imperfections, I think that it is an amazing game. I don't believe that the acceptance of glitches/bugs is tradition; I've never heard anyone say that, but it's ridiculous. We can't sweep issues under the rug just because of how epic a game is. I have yet to run into any major issues that have been listed on the forums; therefore, Skyrim is the best RPG experience that I have had. I wasn't too happy when New Vegas was released; I had so many corrupted save files that I gave up playing and never turned back. No game is without their flaws, and I'm sure that it's incredibly difficult to release a game with as much scale as Skyrim and not have a few bugs.

while i see you point i don't think people are taking it lightly. I would also add that most 10 or 100% scores don't mean perfect. That being said i have not seen many 100% rolling around most are scoring it 90%. Which i think is fair, its a great game that tries to do a lot and in turn it has bugs. I have not played it yet so i can't judge the game but i hope it not as bad as FO new vegas which was pretty buggy.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Does it have lots of kinda broken things? Sure does. That doesn't matter when it's as amazing as it is. Now excuse me while I go shoot more heroi... err... play more Skyrim.

Nothing is perfect, and a review score is not based on math. It's not "Oh this game has 10 glitches so that's 3 points off the final score." It's supposed to tell you if a game is worth your time. It's about fun, it's about how well it hits that pleasure center of your brain. It tells you if this is the kind of game that reminds you why you play video games in the first place. To me, Skyrim is that game: glitches be damned.

I feel bad that other people are experiencing some crazy stuff in the game but I am now approaching 30 hours in this game and I have only had it crash to the desktop twice and I fixed that issue with the sound hz tweak but it never caused me an issue thanks to the Auto Save system *STARES AT SILENT HILL SHATTERED MEMORIES*, and the little bit of texture weirdness that would happen far in the distance on mountains is gone now that 285.79 beta drivers are out but besides that I have not had a single issue with this game, no script errors, no corrupted saves, nothing I would normally expect, it's quickly becoming my favorite game ever made I don't know if it could take down Half Life for me but it is doing a damn good job. And though the mods are light right now some of the Ini tweaks have produced amazing results, if you can handle it I HIGHLY recommend turning on self shadowing for Trees/Rocks it makes a world of difference and I didn't see my performance take a hit at all (It actually seems to run faster most likely not but hey)

A perfect score doesn't mean a game is perfect, it means that the reviewer can't recommend it enough.

/Thread.

@XII_Sniper said:

A perfect score doesn't mean a game is perfect, it means that the reviewer can't recommend it enough.

/Thread.

Well, yes. But why even have scores at that point?

Honestly, the game has really amazed me. I've encountered some bugs, glitches and minor technical hitches, but none of it has been enough to detract from how ridiculously impressive I've found this game to be. That doesn't mean the game is perfect, but I've found it to be tremendous and if asked to write a review I daresay I'd find myself forgetting to mention the few problems I've run into. Obviously the importance of these issues is going to vary from person to person, but that's exactly why you see the inconsistencies across reviews that you mentioned. Reviews aren't always going to be objective appraisals, typically they're subjective recommendations. Reviewers are paid to provide their opinion, not provide a list of features and every possible bug and glitch - if they haven't found these problems detract significantly from their experience they're unlikely to mention them in anything more than passing. Perhaps Bethesda's reputation for bugs means many approach the game even subconsciously might be more forgiving, however I think it's much more a case of Skyrim soaring above its problems overall where other games may be hampered by them
 
If you find that you are concerned about these sort of problems yourself I recommend you try and find reviews from writers that are of a similar mindset. There are bound to be some out there even if you've found that reviews from larger outlets aren't thorough enough for your taste.

@Fruitcocoa: because you cannot aggregate opinion posts into neat little websites like metacritic for all the fanboys to wave around, or alternatively for people to be incensed that someone liked it enough to give it a high score and make posts on the internet.

@Ares42: Again, this is pretty well elder scrolls/RPG in general common practice at this point. Nearly any RPG you can find a way to break the system and become overpowered. Some people love doing exactly that. Back to P&P RPGs, it's a tradition. I could rattle off dozens of things that "break" a game in the sense you're referring to, and none of those games are any worse off for it. I enjoy the fact that I can, if i so choose, become so good at sneaking as to be damn near invincible, and so good with a bow as to kill most enemies in a single shot. IMO, that is exactly how it should be, if im 100 in a Skyrim skill, I am as good as a human can possibly become at said skill. Most people will never break the game this way, but for those who do it's a bit of a challenge, and fun in its own right.

It's better than perfect.

@Fruitcocoa said:

@XII_Sniper said:

A perfect score doesn't mean a game is perfect, it means that the reviewer can't recommend it enough.

/Thread.

Well, yes. But why even have scores at that point?

Purchasing advice, of course. Look at giantbomb's 5 star scale explanation:

While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation.

Still very good and easy to recommend, though it doesn't quite live up to its full potential.

The halfway point. An inherent appreciation of this game's specific gameplay style, characters, subject matter, and so on may play as big a role in your enjoyment as the actual quality of the game.

This game's problems outweigh its good qualities.

This game will make you wish you had died in a fire moments before turning it on.

@Fruitcocoa said:

This is kind of what I am talking about. Again, I love Skyrim and I am enjoying it, I've played 30 hours and the game locked up one time. The only glitch I got was a dialog rolling by at the bottom of the screen over and over again. The fact that some people are enjoying those glitches is unacceptable.

Then don't play Skyrim. I'd rather play a game that offers 500hrs of gameplay that has issues than play MW3.

The game is great when it works properly. Honestly I could not care less about some pop-in or a slightly longer load time, but when the game lags and drops frames when just riding a horse in the world or even fighting more than 2 enemies at one time, it's just not worth it. It's like trying to run a game that your computer just can't handle. I'm on PS3 currently, btw.

Show me a perfect game and I will probably crap myself out of sheer shock. 

@Fruitcocoa said:

@XII_Sniper said:

A perfect score doesn't mean a game is perfect, it means that the reviewer can't recommend it enough.

/Thread.

Well, yes. But why even have scores at that point?

Because it's short hand for a review? You're not a very smart person.

5 stars, glowing review means he can't recommend it anymore. If you have any interest in it you should buy it.

4 stars, it's great but a few small flaws get in the way

3 stars, it's just okay

2 stars, only if you already know you'll like it

1 star, don't play it

Skyrim is a 5 star game for Brad, because regardless of the flaws, they don't get in the way of the overall picture. It transcends those problems and shouldn't be miss. Skyrim is a gigantic ass world. No developer can do a gigantic ass world without some problems. Red Dead had it's fair share of glitches as well.

not perfection but relative to other games it's great, easily 5 stars on the fun scale and that's all that matters.

I completely agree with OP. Skyrim is a fantastic game, it's definitely among the best I've played this year, but people too easily overlook some ridiculous problems with the game, especially when some of the problems have existed in Bethesda games for such a long time now. Because of this I can't grant it game of the year, since I believe nearly complete technical proficiency is a must for a game to be considered for that honour. I think a game like Portal 2, which was also a masterpiece and just as much of an experience as Skryim, if not more so, deserves game of the year far more since it was completely technically proficient on top of it's more qualitative merits.

No game is perfect so to expect it is foolish.

Games arent perfect and this game might be filled with more glitches than most but Im willing to tolerate that and have a great experience with this game

Streamline your post man!