IGN poses the question: Should 360/PC versions of Skyrim be penalized for GOTY?

Mods you can feel free to lock this if need be due to the other discussions on this, but I just read an IGN article which has me thinking and could generate some interesting discussion.

They are proposing that Skyrim, the lead candidate for GOTY, may be penalized because of the state they released the PS3 version in.

Whether you think the game is GOTY or not is beside the point (I personally think it is by far)

Should the PC and 360 versions of the game be penalized for the problems seen on the PS3 version?

Here is the article for those interested.

Skyrim Lag: How The Hell Did This Happen?

IGN OPINION: Bethesda must explain how and why the company shipped a game that is broken.

In the weeks since the PlayStation 3 version ofThe Elder Scrolls V: Skyrimwas released, it has become clear that something isbadly wrong. Now the game's publisher Bethesda faces some tough questions, which itmustface without delay, and with absolute clarity and frankness. Serious accusations from frustrated fans are growing in volume; that the company knew there was a problem before it released the game.

Trust in the Bethesda brand, one of the most beloved in the business, has been damaged by the company's release of a sub-par product. Doubts must now be raised as to Skyrim's status as the game most likely to scoop all those lucrative 'Game of the Year' awards. This erosion in trust can only be rectified by a full disclosure on what has happened, how it happened, and what plans the company has in place to correct the situation.

Here's what's been going on. PlayStation 3 players with larger save files of Skyrim - for example, those who have played the game in excess of 60 hours - have reportedsignificant slow-down, almost to the point of unplayability. Media sites have visually demonstrated the problem oflarge saved games set against much faster virgin games. Experts who understand the PlayStation 3's architecture haveweighed inon why the problem exists and why it may ultimately be unfixable in such a huge, open world. Players on Xbox 360 and PC versions have also experiencedsome problems, though not at the scale being reported for PS3.

Bethesda releasedPatch 1.2, which the company says "improves occasional performance issues resulting from long term play." More fixesare promised, but details are thin.

But the clue to the firm's nervousness about this crisis is in its official response. The word "occasionally" is in stark contrast to the ubiquity of complaints online, and variouspollsthat suggest problem-rates as high as 36 percent. Of course, we can't know how many people are experiencing problems, another opportunity for Bethesda to add clarity to a confused situation.

IGN has reached out to Bethesda for comment. We want to know how this happened, how it can be fixed and, most crucially, if the company knew about the problem before it released the game to a public eager to drop $60 on what was arguably the most eagerly anticipated title of 2011. As of Noon, Monday (Pacific) we have received no response.

We have also reached to out to Sony Computer Entertainment America. We want to know how long the Quality Assurance guys spent playing the game, if they came across the problem, and what correspondence they shared with Bethesda on any lag issues on large game saves. We have received no reply, as yet.

When IGN reviewed Skyrim, it's surely significant that we were given free access to the Xbox 360 and PC versions prior to launch, but had to buy a PS3 copy from retail after it was released to the world. We are currently playing large-save files across a variety of PlayStation 3 models and will be publishing a follow up story.

The most important issue for Bethesda's many fans is whether or not the company knew there might be a problem. We cannot say for sure, but it seems inconceivable to us that no-one at the company came across these problems while play-testing the PS3 version.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the pressure to release across all platforms at the same time would have been immense, and that a delay to fix specific problems with one version would have been extremely damaging to the game's retail performance. Therefore, for Bethesda, Sony and their powerful retailer partners, there was a clear and significant motive in getting the game out on November 11.

We all understand that big games like Skyrim, or Bethesda's own previous hits like Fallout 3 or Oblivion, can come with quirks and bugs. It's part of the reason why we find these worlds so charming. We also understand that the talent that goes into creating these worlds is immense. But there is a big difference between abackwards flying dragon, and a game that is running so slowly that it's just no fun to play.

And it's even more damaging that the very people who are most affected by this problem are those who have invested the most time into the game.

This is why Bethesda owes the world a full explanation, the sooner, the better.

Two videos in link.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1214016p1.html

Fascinating. And why, pray tell, did IGN then give the PS3 version a 9.5 just like the PC and 360 version? How long did THEY play the game? I wonder...

If the 360 and PC versions are fine, then they deserve the scores they received. if the PS3 version sucked, then they should call it as they see it. Give the PS3 version a low score and put the blame on Bethesda. Why should the other platforms be penalized when the problem is on a different platform? IGN should eat some crow too for giving the PS3 version high marks.

Fascinating. And why, pray tell, did IGN then give the PS3 version a 9.5 just like the PC and 360 version? How long did THEY play the game? I wonder...

UpInFlames

but you are correct, they should have NEVER scored a game they never played, esp given Bethesdas dubious history with the PS3

If the 360 and PC versions are fine, then they deserve the scores they received. if the PS3 version sucked, then they should call it as they see it. Give the PS3 version a low score and put the blame on Bethesda. Why should the other platforms be penalized when the problem is on a different platform? IGN should eat some crow too for not doing separate reviews.

jun_aka_pekto

It's a catch 22.

What Bethesda did was low,

but on the same token they still created one of the greatest games ever for the 360 and PC, and that cannot go unmentioned.

[QUOTE="abonsabo"]

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Fascinating. And why, pray tell, did IGN then give the PS3 version a 9.5 just like the PC and 360 version? How long did THEY play the game? I wonder...

dvader654

but you are correct, they should have NEVER scored a game they never played, esp given Bethesdas dubious history with the PS3

Only Playstation Magazine was given a Ps3 review copy.

None of the reviewers should have scored it until they played it because that act alone from Bethesda only giving out 360 and PC review copies was suspicious enough.

My game does slow down quite a bit at times (120-hours in), but this problem is typically remedied by turning my PS3 off for 10-minutes and restarting. Also, the 1.2 patch has decreased these slowdowns by about 50% since I downloaded it.

Fascinating. And why, pray tell, did IGN then give the PS3 version a 9.5 just like the PC and 360 version? How long did THEY play the game? I wonder...

UpInFlames

I'm just going to copy pasta my message from another topic because some of you seem to lack a decent amount of common sense.

To all the people saying IGN are idiots, Gamespot = Idiots, for giving a game a certain score before playing it, THEY DID PLAY IT, problem being is that they review these games as a career and mostof these issues do not show up until you are 60+ hours into the game, that being said, the employee who reviewed the game would have had to play it every day for over a week assuming they work 9-5...that's a lot of time and money lost from a business perspective. they played the game, and they reviewed it..and until I reached the lag I personally gave this game a 10 here on gamespot because it really is an amazing game when it works...now, it's no longer worth that score.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Fascinating. And why, pray tell, did IGN then give the PS3 version a 9.5 just like the PC and 360 version? How long did THEY play the game? I wonder...

23Jarek23

I'm just going to copy pasta my message from another topic because some of you seem to lack a decent amount of common sense.

To all the people saying IGN are idiots, Gamespot = Idiots, for giving a game a certain score before playing it, THEY DID PLAY IT, problem being is that they review these games as a career and mostof these issues do not show up until you are 60+ hours into the game, that being said, the employee who reviewed the game would have had to play it every day for over a week assuming they work 9-5...that's a lot of time and money lost from a business perspective. they played the game, and they reviewed it..and until I reached the lag I personally gave this game a 10 here on gamespot because it really is an amazing game when it works...now, it's no longer worth that score.

Actually, that's not common sense, that's just an excuse.

Is your stance that Bethesda and Sony should be excused as well because...well, testing the game takes time?

Certain genres demand time. If you're going to review an RPG like Skyrim, then 60 hours of play time is not a lot, it should be f***ing mandatory. If you're not gonna bother with all versions, then simply note which version you tested (Edge, Eurogamer) instead of copy/pasting your review.

At least GameSpot is keeping quiet, IGN is trying to portray integrity when: 1. They never had integrity. 2. They blindly gave the PS3 version a 9.5 when they obviously didn't test it properly (possibly not at all).

They reviewed a game that they did not play. Just lost some credibility. As for the PC version, it should be penalized. In my experience, games with nearly perfect scores don't have a lot of bugs.BranKetra

Fallout 3 and RDR say hello. Games with nearly perfect scores shouldn't have a lot of bugs, but they do.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]They reviewed a game that they did not play. Just lost some credibility. As for the PC version, it should be penalized. In my experience, games with nearly perfect scores don't have a lot of bugs.Gemini_Red

Fallout 3 and RDR say hello. Games with nearly perfect scores shouldn't have a lot of bugs, but they do.

They reviewed a game that they did not play. Just lost some credibility. As for the PC version, it should be penalized. In my experience, games with nearly perfect scores don't have a lot of bugs.BranKetra

When it comes to the console games, the 360 is almost always the one that the reviewer plays on. Gamespot does this all the time, as well as other numerous gaming sites. Is it right to do so? No, of course not.

Should IGN be criticized for doing what every other gaming site does for reviews? I think not.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]They reviewed a game that they did not play. Just lost some credibility. As for the PC version, it should be penalized. In my experience, games with nearly perfect scores don't have a lot of bugs.Vari3ty

When it comes to the console games, the 360 is almost always the one that the reviewer plays on. Gamespot does this all the time, as well as other numerous gaming sites. Is it right to do so? No, of course not.

Should IGN be criticized for doing what every other gaming site does for reviews? I think not.

I'm just going to copy pasta my message from another topic because some of you seem to lack a decent amount of common sense.

To all the people saying IGN are idiots, Gamespot = Idiots, for giving a game a certain score before playing it, THEY DID PLAY IT, 23Jarek23

NO THEY DID NOT.

If Bethesda didnt ship them pre-release copies and their reivew went up BEFORE release then they simply copied and pasted their review of the 360 version.

If the 360 and PC versions are fine, then they deserve the scores they received. if the PS3 version sucked, then they should call it as they see it. Give the PS3 version a low score and put the blame on Bethesda. Why should the other platforms be penalized when the problem is on a different platform? IGN should eat some crow too for giving the PS3 version high marks.

jun_aka_pekto

It should have never been in the running for GOTY, IMO.

Fascinating. And why, pray tell, did IGN then give the PS3 version a 9.5 just like the PC and 360 version? How long did THEY play the game? I wonder...

UpInFlames

I played Skyrim on my cousin's 360 the other night and I couldn't get into it. I think it's overhyped since it's an RPG that most people can take to, and that's rare.

I played Skyrim on my cousin's 360 the other night and I couldn't get into it. I think it's overhyped since it's an RPG that most people can take to, and that's rare.

nousername66

You can't expect to play it for such a short amount of time and instantly get into it...

[QUOTE="23Jarek23"]

I'm just going to copy pasta my message from another topic because some of you seem to lack a decent amount of common sense.

To all the people saying IGN are idiots, Gamespot = Idiots, for giving a game a certain score before playing it, THEY DID PLAY IT, S0lidSnake

NO THEY DID NOT.

If Bethesda didnt ship them pre-release copies and their reivew went up BEFORE release then they simply copied and pasted their review of the 360 version.

Actually, they did. I was following IGN when they reviewed Skyrim and for a while there they had an article on their PS3 home page entitled "Where the hell is the PS3 Skyrim review?"

It went up roughly a week after the 360/PC versions, and there was a video blog in which they talked with the reviewer in charge of Skyrim. He was clearly playing the PS3 version, and they asked how it held up. At the time, he said it was fine and gave it the go ahead it was on par with the 360 version.

I'm not defending IGN, exactly, but this is an odd situation. The problems for Skyrim didn't occur for me until far into the game, and the idea of a reviewer playing Skyrim 100+ hours on each console to find any sort of bugs or issues and still deliver it in a timely fashion seems ludicrious to me.

However, I have to give massive kudos to IGN for actually posting this article and putting Bethesda under the spotlight. This isn't good for Bethesda and it's good to keep companies working to deliver a solid product instead of letting them get away with releasing a buggy mess.

You can't expect to play it for such a short amount of time and instantly get into it...PhazonBlazer

Not at all...GOTY is Game Of The Year. Does the game deserve to be taken out of the running because it does not really work on X system? No, it doesn't. GOTY decides on the best game, the GAME aspect of Skyrim as told by many websites AND users is that it is one of the best at what it does. So because it falters on the PS3 we should take away its posistion? No, that's like saying Dark Souls no longer deserves to win because the Xbox-360 version is really WORSE than the PS3 counterpart? :? (Dark Souls-Xbox 360 User Score: 8.3/ Dark Souls-PS3 User Score: 9.0. WTF?)

Not at all...GOTY is Game Of The Year. Does the game deserve to be taken out of the running because it does not really work on X system? No, it doesn't. GOTY decides on the best game, the GAME aspect of Skyrim as told by many websites AND users is that it is one of the best at what it does. So because it falters on the PS3 we should take away its posistion? No, that's like saying Dark Souls no longer deserves to win because the Xbox-360 version is really WORSE than the PS3 counterpart? :? (Dark Souls-Xbox 360 User Score: 8.3/ Dark Souls-PS3 User Score: 9.0. WTF?)Goyoshi12

Perhaps not for the PS3 debacle, but what about the myriad glitches and other technical problems? Should those just be excused because of the game's supposed greatness? That the game is having to get patched regularly because of Bethesda's own incompetence should just be ignored? I don't know, man... doesn't sound like a good idea to be praising them for making a busted game. I mean, I know their previous games have gotten tons of praise also, but that was just as bad.

(For what it's worth, I don't doubt that the core game is great. Just seems ridiculous to give these guys a pass when we'd all usually be ripping them apart for getting away with releasing something so apparently broken.)

So you decided to spam both ofthese boards with your junk.

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]Not at all...GOTY is Game Of The Year. Does the game deserve to be taken out of the running because it does not really work on X system? No, it doesn't. GOTY decides on the best game, the GAME aspect of Skyrim as told by many websites AND users is that it is one of the best at what it does. So because it falters on the PS3 we should take away its posistion? No, that's like saying Dark Souls no longer deserves to win because the Xbox-360 version is really WORSE than the PS3 counterpart? :? (Dark Souls-Xbox 360 User Score: 8.3/ Dark Souls-PS3 User Score: 9.0. WTF?)c_rake

Perhaps not for the PS3 debacle, but what about the myriad glitches and other technical problems? Should those just be excused because of the game's supposed greatness? That the game is having to get patched regularly because of Bethesda's own incompetence should just be ignored? I don't know, man... doesn't sound like a good idea to be praising them for making a busted game. I mean, I know their previous games have gotten tons of praise also, but that was just as bad.

(For what it's worth, I don't doubt that the core game is great. Just seems ridiculous to give these guys a pass when we'd all usually be ripping them apart for getting away with releasing something so apparently broken.)

Performance issue like Framerate on the Ps3 is another bag of nuts entirely.

So you decided to spam both ofthese boards with your junk.super600

Okay, look -- I don't know what's going on between you System Wars folk and abonsabo, but keep your petty feud outta here. Capiche?

Considering the size and scope of the game. The glitches are acceptable, not that prolific and even charming in some way.

Performance issue like Framerate on the Ps3 is another bag of nuts entirely.

abonsabo

I can understand giving the wackier glitches a pass because they don't really break the game, but still: why let 'em keep rewarding them for releasing a busted product? IGN may publish a lot of schlock, but they raise a good point here.

[QUOTE="super600"]So you decided to spam both ofthese boards with your junk.c_rake

Okay, look -- I don't know what's going on between you System Wars folk and abonsabo, but keep your petty feud outta here. Capiche?

Okay!I will.

Bethesda games are always poorly made, this isn't new.

Skyrim was once in the running for GOTY like Gears of War 3, then it took an arrow to the knee.RandoIph

Íf Batman AC doesn't get it, i will cry, for about a month.

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

[QUOTE="super600"]So you decided to spam both ofthese boards with your junk.super600

Okay, look -- I don't know what's going on between you System Wars folk and abonsabo, but keep your petty feud outta here. Capiche?

Okay!I will.

Your sig is huge. That cant be allowed.

[QUOTE="RandoIph"]Skyrim was once in the running for GOTY like Gears of War 3, then it took an arrow to the knee.Ilovegames1992

Íf Batman AC doesn't get it, i will cry, for about a month.

Yes it should, because despite how much it is not being reported, the 360 version can and does suffer from the same show stopping problems with larger save files. Yet this is ignored. Both console versions were released far too early, in an unfinished state. Fact.RandoIph

It's technically an issue with each version of the game due to memory problems. The PS3 has the first issues because of the divided memory, then the 360, and the PC varies user to user although more RAM is more likely with modern PCs so that it won't be quite as big of an issue.

Still, it's an issue that shouldn't exist at all. Bethesda really dropped the ball with this one.

Bethesda, we are angry, upset, addicted to your beautiful game. But our patience is thin. We are giving you the chance to fix this problem. Your beloved fans are ready to forgive you for robbing them of $60. Just fix it.

[QUOTE="RandoIph"]Yes it should, because despite how much it is not being reported, the 360 version can and does suffer from the same show stopping problems with larger save files. Yet this is ignored. Both console versions were released far too early, in an unfinished state. Fact.IndianaPwns39

It's technically an issue with each version of the game due to memory problems. The PS3 has the first issues because of the divided memory, then the 360, and the PC varies user to user although more RAM is more likely with modern PCs so that it won't be quite as big of an issue.

Still, it's an issue that shouldn't exist at all. Bethesda really dropped the ball with this one.

I have a massive game running right now and it hasn't slowed down a hitch. So do millions of other 360 gamers whou bought it.

Show me some video evidence like I've seen with the PS3.

Fascinating. And why, pray tell, did IGN then give the PS3 version a 9.5 just like the PC and 360 version? How long did THEY play the game? I wonder...

UpInFlames

Haha, I was just going to post the same thing. How do they give the game a 9.5 despite the problems? I think I'm done with reviews at this point. They can't be trusted.

LOL!

This thread SUCKS. On so many levels.

This thread makes my head hurt. Anyone from system wars needs to go back there, wow. Anyway why is everyone shocked that a Bethesda game has bugs? Every game they make has them, the games are just too huge to completely test or they just suck at it, either way this is not new. All their games are still excellent, Skyrim is the same as the rest. dvader654

Bethesda dont have an amazing track record actually. And all their big titles tend to not be made well in terms of bugs.