thats not true typically games as large as skyrim has a content complete mark at a few months before release to allow polish and testing, clearly you have never written code with a program as massive as skyrim adding or removing on thing could cause bugs all over the place. you must reach content complete to test effectively. on top of this you must go gold 3 weeks or so before release so the discs can be manufactured, boxed, and shipped to stores. so with 6 months until release we can chop off 3-4 months conceivable giving the game about 2 months where content is still being added, however i would put money on beth only polishing and only adding features already planned. Tell people to go make things on the whim of the community and the game would never get done.

Are you using that word without knowing what it means, or do you really think Skyrim will be that much of a step down from even Oblivion / New Vegas?

Yup, I think Skyrim'll be a...errr...solid...improvement over Oblivion et al.
*EDIT*
One only has to glance at the side-by-side comparison pics to realzie how much better Skyrim looks and how pale Obliivon now appears.

Also remember they probably need even more time to manufacture and ship since it's a simultaneous worldwide release.

Okay, that's better.


You were implying, by saying Skyrim Itself, will just be "Solid" is that it's unremarkable either negatively or positively. While that's fitting for say, the Combat, as we understand it, and maybe other features, Bethesda has not actually released a game that is simply "Solid" Since Redguard.

It could very well be an unremarkable game, come 11-11-11, but I just don't see any warning signs of that yet.

I tend to use it in this sense:

22.
thorough, vigorous, great, big, etc. (with emphatic force, often after good ): a good solid blow.

Flaws? The game has barely been shown folks. Wait until it's released first, then we can argue over how good it is.

Literal sense, I know, but in the context of gaming, it's almost like a backhanded compliment. There's nothing overtly wrong, but it doesn't differentiate itself in any particular way. It's just semantics, I'll not pull that stupid card anymore.

In your case, the gaming media would use the term "Strong". But uh... Gaming Media includes places like GiantBomb, so maybe hanging on their lingo isn't the best way to create productive banter.

This is weird, I've been away a couple days and suddenly everyone's talking about flaws. What the hell? The game looks great so far to me. Some polygon what-something or other in the hunting pic sounds stupid to me. What were you expecting? No polygons at all? But anyways, with a game like this surely beta stage is longer, so if not now then they'll be there pretty soon.

Hey, it's a free world!
If you don't happen to find that off putting then good for you! This is not North Korea.
On the other hand, you'll never be able to say that cloth looks ralistic, unless the guy is wearing a Marie Antoinette's dress wireframe underneath, in which case...
Skyrim is going kinky...

I never told you what to think. I know everyone has their opinion. I just think too many people place an overly high amount of importance on graphics. Having said that, I know I wouldn't mind having realistic moving hair and cloth in game. Still low on the list though.

Honestly, I thought the screenshot with the hunter and the birch trees was a really good example of a screenshot where something is obviously wrong. Sure, the environement looks great, but Skyrimer is right, the character itself looks pretty jagged, and the hair appears attached to the shoulder by some cosmic super glue.

-

So we have come full circle then. Skyrim has flaws. Not Earth shatering flaws, mind you, but still noticeable, People - i'm not saying you - people who keep sorting forumnites into two big camps, the haters who reasonlessly nag about everything and those who see it for the pristine wonder that it is are misrepresenting the broad range of valid opinions that exists here.

Skyrim has flaws. It's only natural. It'd be better off without tehm, but i predict a very good game nonetheless.

What flaws we saw about Skyrim?

It's too bright, the HDR is bad, etc. - If you say so...
It doesn't use DX11 - I don't care.
That guy's hair is glued to his back - It's still better than Oblivion's frozen hair, also a dev already said that they've been working on it.
Enemies still slide away, don't react much to hitting them - It is still easily solvable, also I've never had any problem with it in Oblivion either.
The lack of attributes dumbed the game down - no, it didn't.

What else is there?

How dare there be scratches on our bar of gold!

True, but just to add to that and not necessarily argue with you, but it depends again on what you think is a "flaw". I don't see those things as flaws, I just see it as ordinary game traits. It's gonna happen, I don't usually have high expectations when it comes to graphics. Flaws in dialogue, gameplay, etc annoy me. Game graphics always look strange anyway. And if those few things are the only things people have seen wrong so far, then you're right, it should be good. Many steps above Oblivion in graphics at least. Hopefully in other stuff too. Yeah I know I'm really just going in circles and covering old territory so I'll leave it there.

Sums it up pretty well.

It's hard to find a middle ground between really devoted fan and Doomsayer. I've already bought into the hype, but I'm still trying to be as critical as my bias allows me.

I was able to play minecraft when it was Indev. Bet i can do the same with skyrim . :chaos:

I am certain he is mainly speaking of just certain aspects of the game not the whole thing, like the voices he said (Todd that is) that they were just bringing in the voice actors right after they told of the release from the first, and they also speak of pre alpha when they discussing what to keep in and cut, Alpha is where they actually testing the finished project thinking they will add and take nothing more away and working on bugs they find so it can be called beta afterwards, so I am not worried in the least,.....

^ i agree

You who talk about alpha and beta, in an open world RPG, what the [censored] is alpha version? And beta version? :unsure2:

How often it is that obsession becomes dissatisfaction. : :gun: ::tes: :wub:

Varies from developer to developer.

Alpha usually means the game is "Feature Locked" meaning nothing new is going in.


Beta, is a lot more malleable. It represents the game at a "Playable" level, but there's multiples beta stages. a Bver1 is a lot different than a Bver2.2. In Theory, every game that has ever received a patch, has been released as a Beta product, though "Post Release consumer support" sounds a lot less lazy.

I guess Skyrim will be alpha until they are done with it then they are adding new quests all the time. But if you don't count adding quests into the game.. Then it might reach beta state at early summer.

We'll i'm sure the game is quite playable right now and it's not beta. Todd just demoed 45 minutes of the game to 105 members of the press.