what do you mean? There are two patches.
Having said this, why does the game need a patch. Because there was a defined dead line and it wasnt tested enough to sort out problems. Granted you cant catch everything, but i cant think of the last time i saw the boom enter into the shot of a spielbeg movie, or half the set fell down and they just left it in the final cut. Stop being the brainless rentacrowd this forum is renowned for and use a little bit of your brain. You wouldnt accept this kind of product from a different manufacturer, beth should be held to the same standard.
It is brave to attempt this type of game, and there are so many things that impress me about it but it is not the standard of game we should expect from a top level game producer.
Well, considering that
most people haven't had a single glitch, I'm betting most of the problems weren't, and couldn't, be detected by the QA team. Seeing how many bugs the patches have introduced to the game, some of the previously-known bugs were written off as "Impossible to fix without breaking the game even more"
Which is worse: Occassional performance slowdowns or CTDs, or a completely screwed up gaming experience? (Backward-flying, unkillable dragons that don't drop souls, no function from magic resistances at all, etc.)
There's
so much in this game that a "complete" bugtesting+fixing attempt would dethrone
Duke Nukem Forever as "Development Joke of the Industry".
Think of it like this: Would you like a game now that you can play that is fixed by next year? Or would you rather wait 10 more years for the game to be completely bugfixed, and ridiculously outdated?
less quests and shorter quest lines, less land area, yea id call that smaller.
Actually, more quests,
same land area, and less tedium/"padding" in the quest lines: I enjoy the Companions and College of Winterhold
far more than I enjoyed
Oblivion or
Morrowind's Fighters and Mages' guild quest lines.