Top
350°

If Reviewers Reached The Breaking Point In Skyrim Before Reviewing, Would The Scores Be Different?

Velocity Gamer: It’s easily one of the best games of the generation offering hundreds of hours of content, beautiful landscapes and an overall amazing RPG experience that can't be missed. Unfortunately for PS3 owners who have reached that 40 hour mark, their quests have been stalled for the time being until Bethesda gets the kinks sorted out.

Read Full Story >>
velocitygamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
vortis2703d ago

If a reviewer gets a review up day-and-date of the game's release it lets me know they didn't play too much of diddly squat.

I don't read reviews unless I'm sure the reviewer completely finished the game, otherwise he's just talking out of his dung hole.

Besides, a reviewer is given a free copy of the game (or in IGN/Gamespot's case, paid) so they're always going to have something nice to say even if they didn't finish it.

DeeZee2703d ago

In my experience with review copies, most arrived at my door a week before the game comes out, and that's enough time to finish most games.

vortis2703d ago

Yeah if it's Call of Duty, Uncharted or Gears of War.

But how on Earth do you finish a game like Saints Row, Grand Theft Auto, Skyrim, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, or explore all the content of Just Cause 2 within a week?

There are a lot of other games out there as well that just can't be beat or summed up within a week, like Gran Turismo 5 or Forza 4, yet reviews pop up day-and-date for the release of these games. I can tell you right now that one week in GT5 is basically just earning production value cars in the simulation mode, and no one would give the game a good rating trudging through the C and D class races. You don't earn the good stuff until several weeks in, yet somehow reviews are already up on release day praising the game for it's depth and complexity.

My biggest issue with reviews is that gamers are getting cheated out of whether they should pay the $60 up front if reviewers aren't spending the proper time with the game, as mentioned in the article with the PS3 version of Skyrim.

RedDead2703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

It's your job? They should at least get in 50 hours if they have a week for it(imo 50 is enough to judge any game, you'd well know the ins and outs of it by then, the flaws and good things, major glitches.... despite not getting all the content into you)...it's their job and that's it. It's not like it's just a hobby. They're getting payed for it.

LOGICWINS2703d ago

"My biggest issue with reviews is that gamers are getting cheated out of whether they should pay the $60 up front if reviewers aren't spending the proper time with the game, as mentioned in the article with the PS3 version of Skyrim."

If a gamer buys a game for $60 up front and it turns out that the game sucks...its the gamer's fault. Firstly, why are you spending $60 on a game? There are plenty of great deals out there and prices drop FAST these days.

Second, if you buy a game based off of ANOTHER person's opinion..then YOU screwed up.

If you want reviews, the BEST place to go IMO is Youtube. You can watch HOURS of gameplay before you actually go to the store and spend your money. From there, you can determine if its something that you'd enjoy. If you enjoy watching videos of gameplay, 99.9% of the time you'll enjoy actually PLAYING the game 10x more.

DarkTower8052703d ago

@reddeaddestroyer, you've be surprised how many reviewers have full time jobs other than playing games and writing a review. Reviewing video games will rarely pay enough to support anyone, let alone a family.

Nevers2702d ago

"you've be surprised how many reviewers have full time jobs other than playing games and writing a review. Reviewing video games will rarely pay enough to support anyone, let alone a family." - Darktower805

Unless, of course, you are a credible reviewer on a actual gaming publication's payroll instead of just some schmuck on the interwebs blogging about your leet skillz in an attempt to get your sites hits and more degrees on N4G.

Even then... when trusting a "professional's" review, one must take into account how large of a gift basket the reviewer was given...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2702d ago
DeeZee2703d ago

With games like that I think they just beat the main portion of the game. Saints Row: The Third can be beaten in less than 30 hours. As far as Skyrim goes I think most just reviewed the Xbox 360 version and pasted it to the PS3 section. Or if they got far enough, they didn't have the guts to give it a bad score.

But that's why I only pay attention to the reviews from the smaller sites, the big ones (especially IGN) are afraid to be harsh on bigger titles.

A-Glorious-Dawn2703d ago

I agree however being overly harsh on a game can be a let down as well. I was put off getting resistance 3 due to some reviews, when I finally played it I wad bummed to find it was far better than expected. Exact same thing happened with dead island. Some reviews over play certain aspects which in turn gives a false impression of the game..

humbleopinion2703d ago

I also agree. Many reviewer get an early review build of a game on one console. They play it fully and have a higher tolerance of small issues since they understand it's an early build, so they will usually only complain if there is some big issue.

Skyrim PS3 however WAS a big issue, so what happened here? It's possible that some reviewers only reviewed the X360 game (many outlets mention this), while others probably reviewed the X360 game fully assuming that it was available earlier, then probably gave in just a couple of hours into the PS3 version and didn't notice and big difference - so they essentially published the same review.

omi25p2703d ago

Ive got 100 hours playing time on skyrim. Few little bugs none of which have effected the game. I give it 9/10

Biggest2703d ago

It gets an 8.5 from me. It was a solid 9+ until I got hit with the lag bug. Sadly, it seems the update is giving me more problems than the retail game did. I knew it would happen, but I am still sad that this type of game can't function properly for me.

SP3333D-O2703d ago

It's a 10/10 for me after 94 hours since I've had few problems with the PC version and have been enjoying 1080p and hi-res texture mods.

DeathAvengers2703d ago

Loving Skyrim, played oblivion on my PC and also enjoyed that. Unfortunately, my PC is broken so I got it for Xbox, my console of choice. Haven't regretted getting it at all. Getting those achievements have been a fun journey for me as well. My only complaint was the texture issues on the Xbox, although I guess it's better than lag/framerate issues that I've heard that the Ps3 has been having. It's sad, really, the lack of support Bethesda has put into patching Oblivion/Fallout 3 for that console. Still 10/10 for me and definitely my game of the year.

LunaticFringe2703d ago

I'm at the 50 hour mark now with the PS3 version and things are starting to get problematic with the save file at about 8 megs. Looking forward to the patch, but I'm not feeling reassured it will fix everything. Patches rarely do.

Nodoze2703d ago

Ahh Bethesda. You make so much money, yet devote so little to quality assurance.

When we do start holding them accountable?

kingdavid2703d ago

Much easier assuring quality for a 6 hour linear FPS then a 200+ open world RPG.

Biggest2703d ago

How many years of practice does it require before they are held accountable? I agree with Nodoze.

saint_seya2703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

6 hours? i played counter strike for 1080 hrs and still doing it, same with others fps's.. your logic has no logic... btw i could say, by your logic, that skyrim isnt long enough cause it has no multiplayer. Dont get why a game with lots of bugs has free pass and some others that may have one has to be bashed so much.. reviews are so flawed this days.
If your game offers 1hr or 20000hrs, u should assure your costumers that they will have a quality experience the full time playing the game. "Its 200 hrs of gameplay, its ok if this bug, that bug, those bugs..". No its not. U pay for a game completed, not waiting for mods, or patchs to fix something that should have worked since day one.
Btw not saying skyrim isnt good, its a blast to play, but giving that game a 10 or even a high 9's with so many bugs, only will open doors to more lazzy devs.

kingdavid2703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

For starters, lazy is not spelt "lazzy".

Skyrim is complicated and has a fuckload of unique content. That counter strike example is silly. Using multiplayer as an example of unique content? Oh IC. You're talking about net code using the same maps over and over whilst using the same simple shooting mechanic and a game which has been out of years. Plus how many goddamn patches has CS had over the years? Many.

I dunno about anyone else but Ill take the slight bug for a game with massive value for money then a short FPS which runs well but is finished after playing for a day.

frostyhat1232702d ago

@kingdavid You do know there is more genre's of games then "a 6 hour linear FPS". They are many open world games that don't have half the bugs Skyrim has. We need to start holding devs acountable for broken games which they think they can fix through patches. Give your team a half a year to polish everything, but sadly most publishers don't give that...."sigh"

Iroquois_Pliskin2702d ago

Infamous 2 is open-world and almost bug free. Far cry 2 is open world, and I noticed very few bugs. Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess also has few to no bugs. GTA IV is open world and little bugs that arent that noticiable.

Should I go on?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2702d ago
DOOMZ2703d ago

The games a freaking MASTERPIECE!!!

Show all comments (31)
The story is too old to be commented.