Sorry if this is old but I just wanted to show my opinion

[Goofiestchief]

WARNING: TEXT WALL AHEAD!

This has been irking me for a while(probably cause I have OCD) so I just wanted to let it all out. I apologize if you've heard this before but I'm new here and I just wanted to say my opinion on this.

Skyrim is a game that is near and dear to my heart.
Bethesda has become one of my most favorite companies ever.

So what Irks me is this: Bug haters.

I realize Bethesda has a bug reputation.

The problem I have is how far people have taken it.

Here's the thing with most of the bugs. Not a lot of them are actually that bad and people seem to think that Bethesda is the ONLY one with the bug reputation. People seem to think that it's SO easy to make a bug free game.

I played Skyrim on xbox expecting the bugfest of the ages. I heard ps3 was worse but that it was patched later anyway.

Here's my experience.

One month of nonstop playing and it finally crashed. If you did that in fallout, it would have crashed at least 5 times. Red dead crashed 3 times.

Between that was very few smaller bugs.

Twice I was launched to the sky by a giant.

Once I got stuck. I got stuck in fallout at least 10 times in one month.

MW3 and BF3 had more bugs and glitches than this.

Red dead redemption has a matchmaking problem. When I go into it, it can never find a match, but because the game has no lobby, it HAS to load a map that I can get in. The problem is that it can't even do that. So I'm stuck in an endless loop. I can't even leave to past the time because every 5 minutes, it stops searching and it tells me to return to the lobby(MAP) and I have to restart it, but since it can't even load the lobby map, it just keeps searching in vain. After 4 restarts, the game crashed. This isn't even a random bug for me. THIS IS A GUARANTEED BUG. I've tested it 10 times. Rockstar in my opinion has a HUGE BUG PROBLEM but no one seems to pint that out. GTA4 was buggy. RDR was buggy. And even the recent Max payne 3 is buggy. I like rockstar don't get me wrong, but a bug in rdr that literally stops me from playing the entire other half of a game is ridiculous.

Not to mention all the hilarious glitches of gta and rdr.

Uncharted 2 had a huge bug when I couldn't even load the main menu and it just kept showing the loading icon forever.

Another culprit of this would have to be Uncharted 3. You've probably heard this in some reviews of it like the xplay review but this game is buggy from my experience. Drake twitches and just does the weirdest things and the animations freak out all the time. Plus the MP is pretty laggy for me. I don't know about others but like I said, this is my opinion.

Most of the people that I've heard complain about Skyrims bugs didn't actually encounter those bugs THEMSELVES. Most of them just say that they heard it from somebody else. It's like when they say IT'S THE BUGGIEST GAME EVER, then you ask them how and they're like BECAUSE IT IS. Most of my friends that actually played the game only encountered a few if any at all.

The bugs are far from GAMEBREAKING.

Most of the reported glitches seem to be ones that are visual glitches rather than gamebreaking ones that actually affect the player.

I have yet to see dragons flying backwards or fallen through the floor.

Skyrim is an astounding achievement in engineering. To make a world like that with little to no bugs is near impossible. Cod is a linear small game. It has no excuse and neither does uncharted.

That's my opinion. I don't know what your experience is of skyrim but I have a feeling that it was a lot better than what the trolls are saying.

 

[Medea]

I agree with your assessment. But many of the worst bugs have already been patched on the consoles, and the rest will hopefully be fixed in the future. I did play Skyrim early on and saw backwards flying dragons and had a few QUESTBREAKING glitches, but no real "gamebreakers". Since then I've started over, and other than a couple books I can't drop or get rid of, the game plays pretty smooth, especially for a game that has so much information written into it.

 

[Halkin]

i must have been lucky so far, only had one quest glitch and that fixed itself (companion quest, i'd already killed the target and after relog it completed). apart from the odd gfx glitch its been peachy

 

[SGT_Sky]

WARNING: TEXT WALL AHEAD!

This has been irking me for a while(probably cause I have OCD) so I just wanted to let it all out. I apologize if you've heard this before but I'm new here and I just wanted to say my opinion on this.

Skyrim is a game that is near and dear to my heart.
Bethesda has become one of my most favorite companies ever.

So what Irks me is this: Bug haters.

I realize Bethesda has a bug reputation.

The problem I have is how far people have taken it.

Here's the thing with most of the bugs. Not a lot of them are actually that bad and people seem to think that Bethesda is the ONLY one with the bug reputation. People seem to think that it's SO easy to make a bug free game.

I played Skyrim on xbox expecting the bugfest of the ages. I heard ps3 was worse but that it was patched later anyway.

Here's my experience.

One month of nonstop playing and it finally crashed. If you did that in fallout, it would have crashed at least 5 times. Red dead crashed 3 times.

Between that was very few smaller bugs.

Twice I was launched to the sky by a giant.

Once I got stuck. I got stuck in fallout at least 10 times in one month.

MW3 and BF3 had more bugs and glitches than this.

Red dead redemption has a matchmaking problem. When I go into it, it can never find a match, but because the game has no lobby, it HAS to load a map that I can get in. The problem is that it can't even do that. So I'm stuck in an endless loop. I can't even leave to past the time because every 5 minutes, it stops searching and it tells me to return to the lobby(MAP) and I have to restart it, but since it can't even load the lobby map, it just keeps searching in vain. After 4 restarts, the game crashed. This isn't even a random bug for me. THIS IS A GUARANTEED BUG. I've tested it 10 times. Rockstar in my opinion has a HUGE BUG PROBLEM but no one seems to pint that out. GTA4 was buggy. RDR was buggy. And even the recent Max payne 3 is buggy. I like rockstar don't get me wrong, but a bug in rdr that literally stops me from playing the entire other half of a game is ridiculous.

Not to mention all the hilarious glitches of gta and rdr.

Uncharted 2 had a huge bug when I couldn't even load the main menu and it just kept showing the loading icon forever.

Another culprit of this would have to be Uncharted 3. You've probably heard this in some reviews of it like the xplay review but this game is buggy from my experience. Drake twitches and just does the weirdest things and the animations freak out all the time. Plus the MP is pretty laggy for me. I don't know about others but like I said, this is my opinion.

Most of the people that I've heard complain about Skyrims bugs didn't actually encounter those bugs THEMSELVES. Most of them just say that they heard it from somebody else. It's like when they say IT'S THE BUGGIEST GAME EVER, then you ask them how and they're like BECAUSE IT IS. Most of my friends that actually played the game only encountered a few if any at all.

The bugs are far from GAMEBREAKING.

Most of the reported glitches seem to be ones that are visual glitches rather than gamebreaking ones that actually affect the player.

I have yet to see dragons flying backwards or fallen through the floor.

Skyrim is an astounding achievement in engineering. To make a world like that with little to no bugs is near impossible. Cod is a linear small game. It has no excuse and neither does uncharted.

That's my opinion. I don't know what your experience is of skyrim but I have a feeling that it was a lot better than what the trolls are saying.

this is the stuff great opinions are made of, good job bro.

I concur with your opinion to the fullest extent. It's easy to find something wrong with any game (as far as bugs/glitches). and I think people have designated Bethesda as an easy target just for the sheer SIZE of their games. I mean, come on, all of their games I have played are pretty damn big, nobody is perfect etc.

 

[Adam Warlock]

On my Xbox , freezes were cut drastically after I downloaded the latest patch.
I`ve got a few minor quests(kill dragon, kill giant , kill bandit leader, Shalidor`s Insights) blocked because of non-respawning sights but I can live with that.

 

[Skullrattla]

Nope, it is buggy as hell.

The LIE that "the rest will be fixed in future patches" is getting old.... Bethesda sold you that lie and you gobbled it up because you really want them to deliver. Instead, the next big game will make most people forget about the bugs that couldn't be patched.

The game engine needs to be replaced, patches are just that, patches that try to patch up a boat made of cardboard. . .

If you need convincing take a look at the "Strangest thing that happened to you" thread. This plops can't be fixed, which is why it hasn't been fixed after half a dozen patches.

 

[Jersey Dagmar]

Nope, it is buggy as hell.

The LIE that "the rest will be fixed in future patches" is getting old.... Bethesda sold you that lie and you gobbled it up because you really want them to deliver. Instead, the next big game will make most people forget about the bugs that couldn't be patched.

The game engine needs to be replaced, patches are just that, patches that try to patch up a boat made of cardboard. . .

If you need convincing take a look at the "Strangest thing that happened to you" thread. This pl*** can't be fixed, which is why it hasn't been fixed after half a dozen patches.

Coming from someone who downloaded the game illegally. Your opinion is worth plops.

 

[perkecet]

i must be lucky or something because out of the three bethesda games i own, the only problems i've ever had are a couple game freezes in skyrim. maybe 4 or 5 times, most of which were shortly after release. i haven't had any issues at all since 1.5.

 

[Dagmar]

Skyrim may be a great game in its overall design, but on launch it was buggy as hell and, regardless of how one felt about the state of the game at launch, it was fairly obvious to all but the most sycophantic of fanboys and girls that Bethesda compromised it's quality control and beta testing to meet the ultra hyped 11-11-11 release date which was not only important because of the hype but also to release it at the onset of peak holiday gift shopping and to qualify it for GOTY for 2011 to bolster its marketing appeal.

Aside from the hundreds of minor game bugs which were inconvenient but manageable at launch, there were a significant number of game-breaking bugs which made it literally impossible for players to progress and complete the main quest line. These are not subjects for debate. They are matters of indisputable fact. Some of them still have not been patched to date. There were also several faction quest breaking bugs, and several of those also exist today. On top of that was the early patch that made it impossible for many PS3 players with certain models of PS3 consoles to play the game at all.

While it's impossible to catch all bugs for a game as broad as Skyrim, Bethesda's sloppiness was pretty clear in instances where the problems were universal. A perfect example of this was the game breaking conflict between the Civil War quest line and the main quest line (now patched). There is no way to explain the launching of the game with that kind of obvious conflict between quest lines other than poor quality control testing.

Bugs and glitches are generally not universal. It's in their nature to be triggered by specific series of actions under specific conditions which is why it's impossible for game developers to catch all of them in a game like Skyrim where so many different actions can be taken in so many ways and orders by players. However, it's narrow minded and insensitive for someone to dismiss one player's experiences simply because they're not reflective of their own. It's also ignorant to claim that the bugs are trivial and inconsequential when you've never had to deal with them yourself, especially when it's evident that you haven't got the slightest clue about what the more major bugs are in the game.

That being said, if you understand game design and coding, even merely in a very general sense, you have to realize that in any game as broad as Skyrim it's going to be a given that there will be lots of bugs. If you find that unacceptable then, simply put, you shouldn't buy the game or should at least wait several months for the more serious bugs to be patched.

 

[Uther Pundragon]

Deadlines cause bugs.

 

[Goofiestchief]

Nope, it is buggy as hell.

The LIE that "the rest will be fixed in future patches" is getting old.... Bethesda sold you that lie and you gobbled it up because you really want them to deliver. Instead, the next big game will make most people forget about the bugs that couldn't be patched.

The game engine needs to be replaced, patches are just that, patches that try to patch up a boat made of cardboard. . .

If you need convincing take a look at the "Strangest thing that happened to you" thread. This pl*** can't be fixed, which is why it hasn't been fixed after half a dozen patches.

Uh Wow. You sound just like one of those trolls.Like I said. You're just proving my point when I say that most bug haters only response is BECAUSE IT IS. Your entire blathering comment was just the same old hate rather than actually giving me reasons why it's buggy.

Telling me to go look at the "strangest thing" thread proves my point even more when I said that most haters just say that they heard the game was buggy from OTHER PEOPLE rather than going to see if it is actually buggy THEMSELVES.

Forget what bugs? I'M NOT SAYING IT'S BUG FREE. I just said that it did have bugs.

Actually. I could have cared less if Bethesda "delivered".

I didn't like oblivion or new vegas.

Fallout 3 is the only Bethesda game that I loved.

I was actually more excited for ME3 than skyrim at the time.

Oh and if that guy is right and you did buy it illegally, then your opinion is flawed cause all illegal games are buggy no matter what.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. As if Bethesda is out to get you.

 

[Goofiestchief]

Skyrim may be a great game in its overall design, but on launch it was buggy as hell and, regardless of how one felt about the state of the game at launch, it was fairly obvious to all but the most sycophantic of fanboys and girls that Bethesda compromised it's quality control and beta testing to meet the ultra hyped 11-11-11 release date which was not only important because of the hype but also to release it at the onset of peak holiday gift shopping and to qualify it for GOTY for 2011 to bolster its marketing appeal.

Aside from the hundreds of minor game bugs which were inconvenient but manageable at launch, there were a significant number of game-breaking bugs which made it literally impossible for players to progress and complete the main quest line. These are not subjects for debate. They are matters of indisputable fact. Some of them still have not been patched to date. There were also several faction quest breaking bugs, and several of those also exist today. On top of that was the early patch that made it impossible for many PS3 players with certain models of PS3 consoles to play the game at all.

While it's impossible to catch all bugs for a game as broad as Skyrim, Bethesda's sloppiness was pretty clear in instances where the problems were universal. A perfect example of this was the game breaking conflict between the Civil War quest line and the main quest line (now patched). There is no way to explain the launching of the game with that kind of obvious conflict between quest lines other than poor quality control testing.

Bugs and glitches are generally not universal. It's in their nature to be triggered by specific series of actions under specific conditions which is why it's impossible for game developers to catch all of them in a game like Skyrim where so many different actions can be taken in so many ways and orders by players. However, it's narrow minded and insensitive for someone to dismiss one player's experiences simply because they're not reflective of their own. It's also ignorant to claim that the bugs are trivial and inconsequential when you've never had to deal with them yourself, especially when it's evident that you haven't got the slightest clue about what the more major bugs are in the game.

That being said, if you understand game design and coding, even merely in a very general sense, you have to realize that in any game as broad as Skyrim it's going to be a given that there will be lots of bugs. If you find that unacceptable then, simply put, you shouldn't buy the game or should at least wait several months for the more serious bugs to be patched.

That's funny because I got skyrim just a day after it came out.

My friend got it on 11-11-11 and he never encountered these MAJOR MAIN QUEST bugs or civil war bugs and neither did I.

I'm not sure if these bugs were universal. I know many people who got this on the release date and beat the main quest and civil war a week later. No problems at all with the quests. I myself have yet to find any bugs that affect the quests themselves.

I wouldn't call it sloppiness. Bugs are VERY different from glitches. Bugs can depend on the person playing. What's perfect for someone could be hell for someone else. You normally know when a glitch shows up. Not a bug.

But sloppy just seems way too harsh a word. Especially when this game was in development for 5 years. Nobody else makes open world games like this except Bethesda. Nobody else loads the ENTIRE MAP all at once. Bethesda has nobody to learn from.

At least it's not getting as much hate as diablo 3 is right now. People can't even GET ON THAT game.

Perhaps Bethesda hasn't patched some bugs yet because, like I said , "it depends on the player". Bethesda could be trying to find this bug but they can't because perhaps it's a bug exclusive to some people or it's a bug that can happen once and then never happen again.

Fallout new vegas was the buggiest piece of junk I've ever played(And it still isn't patched). Skyrim on my first try on 11-12-11= it was flawless. And my friends(who actually got the game 11-11-11) said the same thing.

 

[Goofiestchief]

Skyrim may be a great game in its overall design, but on launch it was buggy as hell and, regardless of how one felt about the state of the game at launch, it was fairly obvious to all but the most sycophantic of fanboys and girls that Bethesda compromised it's quality control and beta testing to meet the ultra hyped 11-11-11 release date which was not only important because of the hype but also to release it at the onset of peak holiday gift shopping and to qualify it for GOTY for 2011 to bolster its marketing appeal.

Aside from the hundreds of minor game bugs which were inconvenient but manageable at launch, there were a significant number of game-breaking bugs which made it literally impossible for players to progress and complete the main quest line. These are not subjects for debate. They are matters of indisputable fact. Some of them still have not been patched to date. There were also several faction quest breaking bugs, and several of those also exist today. On top of that was the early patch that made it impossible for many PS3 players with certain models of PS3 consoles to play the game at all.

While it's impossible to catch all bugs for a game as broad as Skyrim, Bethesda's sloppiness was pretty clear in instances where the problems were universal. A perfect example of this was the game breaking conflict between the Civil War quest line and the main quest line (now patched). There is no way to explain the launching of the game with that kind of obvious conflict between quest lines other than poor quality control testing.

Bugs and glitches are generally not universal. It's in their nature to be triggered by specific series of actions under specific conditions which is why it's impossible for game developers to catch all of them in a game like Skyrim where so many different actions can be taken in so many ways and orders by players. However, it's narrow minded and insensitive for someone to dismiss one player's experiences simply because they're not reflective of their own. It's also ignorant to claim that the bugs are trivial and inconsequential when you've never had to deal with them yourself, especially when it's evident that you haven't got the slightest clue about what the more major bugs are in the game.

That being said, if you understand game design and coding, even merely in a very general sense, you have to realize that in any game as broad as Skyrim it's going to be a given that there will be lots of bugs. If you find that unacceptable then, simply put, you shouldn't buy the game or should at least wait several months for the more serious bugs to be patched.

I wasn't a fanboy and it wasn't obvious to me.


I see what you're saying but my gripe isn't with the problems that the game had on release date.


My problem is the fact that people STILL SAY IT'S BUGGY.

It's not sloppy though. If it was sloppy work then they wouldn't have released patches at all.

They kind of HAVE to release it.Notice how fast they patched the huge problems? Finding bugs is MUCH EASIER when you have millions of testers.

It's either release or bust.

Delaying the game wouldn't have changed anything. It's about having more testers and releasing the game is the only way to get the maximum verdict. Bethesda even said that they were ready to patch as soon as complaints came out. We'd still complain about bugs no matter how long it was delayed.

I'd prefer to have a buggy game for 2 days and then have a perfect game after it's patched rather than wait a year for a game that probably wouldn't be that improved anyway.

Bugs are hard to find and the only way to really snuff them out is to have millions of testers.

 

[Dagmar]

Delaying the game wouldn't have changed anything.

This is simply not true. If you ever beta tested a game you would know this. I've beta tested many, and it's simply axiomatic that the more testing you run the more bugs you can uncover and remedy. This is absolutely true for game as broad as Skyrim. In the vast majority of the games I beta tested, whenever the beta testers expressed concerns over the suitability of the game for release, the development team would usually acknowledge those concerns and pass them on to management. While more often than not the beta testing group's concerns were ignored by management the few instances where management agreed to delay the release, the games were markedly better upon release.

The civil war/main story conflict was universal. When I say it was universal I mean it could be reproduced under the same conditions 100% of the time. If you completed the first Stormcloak quest and then started Season Unending there were dialogue conflicts that made it impossible to speak with Ulfric, effectively shutting down both quest lines. Cross-quest testing for conflicts is one of the primary things that should be and probably was done for a game like Skyrim. It was evident from a scripting point of view that Ulfric's dialogue options might have conflicted with both these quests running at the same time but apparently they didn't even bother to test it. From your perspective that might not seem sloppy but from a beta testing point of view it is.

The game was in development for 3 years not 5. Although they conceptualized it in 2006 they didn't start actual work on it until 2008. 3 years is not a lot of time to develop and quality test a game as immense as Skyrim. As Uther Pundragon said, deadlines make bugs.

It wasn't buggy for 2 days. It was buggy for months and it's far from perfect now, over half a year since launch. The fact that you and the hand full of people you know haven't experienced the bugs repeatedly reported by other players doesn't negate their existence so your various comments to that effect really don't bear any relevance to the matter.

It's still a great game but acknowledging both that and the technical problems that existed and continue to exist aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[Goofiestchief]

This is simply not true. If you ever beta tested a game you would know this. I've beta tested many, and it's simply axiomatic that the more testing you run the more bugs you can uncover and remedy. This is absolutely true for game as broad as Skyrim. In the vast majority of the games I beta tested, whenever the beta testers expressed concerns over the suitability of the game for release, the development team would usually acknowledge those concerns and pass them on to management. While more often than not the beta testing group's concerns were ignored by management the few instances where management agreed to delay the release, the games were markedly better upon release.
.

Did you beta Skyrim? No. It doesn't matter if you've beta tested every game ever except skyrim. You already pointed out that Skyrim is a very different game from others. So beta testing games that aren't skyrim is irrelevant. You can't possibly prove that the bugs in skyrim are the same as the bugs in the games you played. The closest way to find out is if you tested oblivion or fallout and even then, skyrim still has a much more advanced and complicated engine.

How do you know that the bugs are still rampant NOW after the patches? You can't exactly beta test a game that's already out. The only info we know is what people say.





"where management agreed to delay the release, the games were markedly better upon release."


"the more testing you run the more bugs you can uncover and remedy"





Uh. I'll call BS. Development time: 11 YEARS!

Not to mention it had a PUBLIC BETA

If you must call Bethesda sloppy because of a 3 yr timespan that turned out buggy, then I guess blizzard is sloppy too cause their 11 YEAR development time apparently wasn't long enough cause it was so buggy and laggy that people were having trouble just starting the darn thing.

I guess we should make the time longer.

20 yr?

50yr to wait for a game?

Hopefully games will actually come out again before we die of old age. This theory that it's time that we need kind of falls apart when you look at games like diablo 3. 11 years and people can't even start the game. 11 yr is certainly enough time. The reality is that the developers and the beta testing isn't the problem. It's how people react.


If a game was 100% bug free, then it would still get just as much as skyrim because PEOPLE aren't 100% bug free.

Sometimes the only thing that they can do is...... nothing.

Nothing but actually release the thing so that they can actually have a better observation of the game to do patches on.

If that means that trolls will have a window to hate well then that's tough. At least they won't have a broken game that they didn't know had the flaws that it did(ie diablo 3) and aren't prepared to release patches. The fact that Bethesda had patches at the ready shows that they were the exact opposite of sloppy. Even if you're the best bug tester, you can't get them all. Even big ones like a civil war bug(which is now fixed thanks to patches from Bethesda).




Development on this game started in 2001.

Blizzard is known for taking forever to release games to make sure it's not buggy.

Guess what happened? It was a buggy mess. They did everything that you talked about in your last comment and it was still a buggy mess. Why? Because bugs are at times impossible to fine no matter how much time your given.


Take a look at what other people in here have to say rather than just uther pundragon.

perkecet

Jersey dagmar

Shadow queen medea

Adam Warlock

SGT_SKY

Halkini





Also. You're missing the point of this thread. Even if you were right. It doesn't matter. I don't care what people said THEN. I care about NOW. And NOW, things like the quest bugs have been improved dramatically.

My gripe and reason for this thread is the fact that if the trolls were right. Nobody should even be able to get past the main menu is skyrim and yet it's quite the opposite. Just look at all the other comments in this thread that I pointed out.

 

[perkecet]

yo all i said was that i was lucky not to experience too many bugs. not that they aren't there or couldn't have been fixed. in fact, i've never done any of the stuff dagmar's talking about, beta testing, etc. but it's simple common sense that if people playing the released game find bugs, then people playing a beta version of that game before release will also find bugs. i'm not quite sure how you can justify your opinion here, but i suppose you're entitled to it. please try not to take completely unrelated things people say and claim they support your point.

 

[Goofiestchief]

yo all i said was that i was lucky not to experience too many bugs. not that they aren't there or couldn't have been fixed. in fact, i've never done any of the stuff dagmar's talking about, beta testing, etc. but it's simple common sense that if people playing the released game find bugs, then people playing a beta version of that game before release will also find bugs. i'm not quite sure how you can justify your opinion here, but i suppose you're entitled to it. please try not to take completely unrelated things people say and claim they support your point.

"sigh"

Please fully read my comment next time cause it's annoying when I have to repeat.

1. I never said that the bugs didn't exist. All I said was that not all bugs are easy to find. This is common sense. Just look at Diablo 3. The game had a public beta and was in development for 11 years and it was still buggy. I'm putting emphasis on the fact that the other guy is gonna call Bethesda sloppy, then every company is sloppy.

2. I never said that beta testers won't find bugs. But if you really think that they will find EVERY bug and think that the games that the other guy tested would have the same bugs as Skyrim then you're the one who doesn't know common sense. Skyrim is not like other games. Bethesda doesn't know what will happen and neither do the testers. If a game is small like cod, then bugs won't be as common. But if you have a huge game, then the fact that trolls were so shocked that it was buggy is pathetic in itself.

3. I didn't point out your comment in the sense that bugs don't exist. Every game has bugs. I was pointing that the fact you were able to say those things shows just how wrong the trolls are since if their claims were true, we shouldn't even be able to get past skyrims main menu.

Please actually read my comment cause you sound like a guy whose just skimmed through it without thinking.

 

[Uther Pundragon]

Every game has bugs. Nothing new. Won't change. End of story.


//Edit//Sorry, sounded like an ass. Just tired. Not intentional.//Edit//

 

[perkecet]

thanks for telling me i was implying you said things you didn't, and then doing the same thing. if you re-read my last post the only time i used the word "all" was in "all i said". so i clearly do not think that a bet test will find ALL the bugs. as a matter of fact, no one will ever find every bug in skyrim, since plenty most likely have precise and unnatural conditions. i fail to understand what your argument is then, i guess. since you "called BS" on dagmar's quote saying "the more testing you run, the more bugs you can uncover and remedy", but now you are saying that beta testing will find bugs, which is what those with whom you disagree have said.

if i am correct you are saying that since skyrim is such a large game, beta testing is pointless since there are too many bugs to weed out. if you had a headache and only had a half an aspirin, would you just throw it away? i would think not, since it may not completely relieve the pain, but it would certainly help, no? in the same respect would you rather have a game come out with 500 bugs, or 450?

 

[Dagmar]

Did you beta Skyrim? No. It doesn't matter if you've beta tested every game ever except skyrim. You already pointed out that Skyrim is a very different game from others. So beta testing games that aren't skyrim is irrelevant. You can't possibly prove that the bugs in skyrim are the same as the bugs in the games you played.

Whether I beta tested Skyrim isn't relevant because the purpose and desired results for beta testing any game, in fact any software application, is the same across the board. The fact that I have beta tested software and you haven't is relevant because I'm speaking from an informed position while you're speaking from a position of total ignorance as evidenced by your post above. The fact that you think that I was asserting that the bugs in Skyrim are the same bugs that I documented and report for the games I beta tested merely emphasizes your ignorance and inability to grasp what beta testing is all about.

It's a logical fallacy to conclude that because software was released with lots of quality issues and bugs that beta testing didn't keep those issues from being even worse or that the duration of beta testing wasn't relevant to a quantification of how much worse those issues would have been.

Nothing I have posted is inconsistent with any of the other posters you mentioned. You're the only one who is taking issue with what I've stated.

...I never said that beta testers won't find bugs....

No but you did say further beta testing wouldn't have changed anything which wasn't true when you first said it and still isn't true notwithstanding anything you've posted in this thread since then.

If you'd bothered to stop being so unnecessarily defensive you would realize that much of the content of my posts and yours are in agreement about nature of bugs and glitches, and the impossibility of preventing all or even a lot of them depending on the games design, which makes the reiteration of them post after post by you unnecessary. Where you and I disagree is on whether Skyrim was released prematurely without sufficient time to beta test it.

I also pointed out that disparaging those that were not fortunate enough to share your relatively bug free experience with Skyrim was narrow minded and insensitive. It still is yet you apparently haven't taken that to heart as you continue to do so while simultaneously displaying that, like many people who post ad hominems in forums, you don't have a firm grasp on the meaning of what an internet troll is.