Since every piece of software released has some level, or amount of bugs, at what point do we start reprimanding companies for their failures to address bugs? Bugs also occur on some systems, and don't occur on others. Should we punish developers because they haven't addressed a few select bugs only present on dated hardware or software? Should we punish developers because they went ahead released their game on platforms that weren't completely fit-for-the-job (I'm looking at the PS3 here)?

I just purchased Skyrim last week, and have been playing it endlessly since then, and so far I haven't experienced any bugs that totally ruin the game experience for me. I run a core2duo, 4gigs of ram and a gtx 250 card on a 32bit windows xp machine. My computer is a motley makeup, mostly consisting of 4 year old equipment. The only quest that has been relatively disastrous was the butcher quest, but I was still able to complete it. I also would get an occasional lag spike that lasted half a second, but that has since been fixed with the latest patch (core2duo performance increase). I have never encountered a situation where I couldn't advance, either physically or in quest terms, because of a bug...and I wouldn't be surprised if many others haven't had any major issue either.

If console gamers desire "larger" games, such as Fallout and TES, they will have to contend with bugs. PC gamers have been dealing with these pesky things for a long time, and companies have dealt with them via patches. Millions of players playing the same game after its release are obviously going to find flaws within the game that the developers had overlooked, that's what happens when you have a deadline, limited funds, limited resources and limited amounts of capable employees.

This debate sounds less like whether Skyrim deserves GOTY and more like whether developers should be punished for releasing a game with "whatever x amount of bugs" on release (because this threshold would vary between individuals). I would say developers need to find a reasonable equilibrium on when to release the product, and I would say Skyrim was released within a fairly good range of what I would consider a good equilibrium. Skyrim could have been released March of next year and had almost no accountable bugs, but I personally would rather have the game in its current state now and have Bethesda contend with the bugs via patches at a later date. Releasing Skyrim in say, March, would be less profitable for them aswell. You have other RPGs to contend with, and you have missed out on the cash-cow chrismas season. Should we punish them for behaving just as any other corporation would?

The rage shouldn't be focused on companies that release "whatever x amount of bugs" on release, it should be companies who release products and completely fail to follow up on the bugs. From my experience, Bethesda has always followed up via patches.

Well there's a difference between consoles and pc.

In pure coding terms - errors are measured 'per thousand lines of code'. The more code you write, the more bugs you get. The more options you add, the more code you have to write to support that, the more bugs you get.

Basically, the more ambitious you are, the more bugs you get. For an open world game, it's far more complicated with many lines of code/script interacting with each other, along with stupid player decisions - it is impossible to fully test such a game.

So if you wanted Bethseda to release "MW3" aka 'oblivion v1.5', then yes it would be less buggy... but did people really want an expansion pack, or something ambitious?

Bethseda tried to create a world unrivalled in scope, and I'd say they pretty much achieved it. Some bits don't work that great, the UI doesn't come off... but it is still a truly great game.

How about some better-than-nightmarish QA in the crticism? You place a map marker where you suppose you will find a cave. You have neither seen nor visited the cave before. You cannot know its precise location. That doesn't stop you from expecting your marker to lead you straight to mouth of the cave. Your marker does place you at a spot near enough to the cave that the cave's own default marker appears on your compass. You choose to ignore that marker and doggedly persist in chasing your own marker as if it is the authoritative marker. What were you thinking?

What I'm thinking is what I say in the video - the marker is utterly useless. There's not even a corresponding cavern marker to go with it.

No. No offense, but no.

Good software development is not hampered by ambition. You do not sacrifice quality by trying to do better - that is counter productive.

If you cannot test what you want to design, you will not be coding it correctly. Does not matter if you are writing a calculator, game or business process.

I watched the video. That black, pointy cavern marker is right there on your compass, right next to the letter N for North.

Name one other game released this year that doesnt have bugs in it? Infact name a game in the last decade that didnt ship with bugs?

There are none.

Thats why the industry overlooks glitches and errors and instead focuses on the gameplay, the ability to svck a player in to the game and keep them playing and the general scope of the game itself. Skyrim has 100 times more content that Call of Duty does, it has WAY WAY more content that the absolutely atrocious Dragon Age 2 does, and has sold more copies than almost every other title this year bar CoD.

Does it deserve GOTY? Simply put, yes it does. No other game this year comes close to the level of content and choice available to the player with such a richly decorated world and with the same level of scale. And in all that is the different stories it tells via quests, books, general conversations and random encounters you get.

Its was a no brainer for GOTY this year.

I am going to guess, and please correct me if I am wrong - that you were only able to get around the butcher/Blood on the Ice quest because you had access to console commands. Which is something which 360 and PS3 users cannot do, for some silly reason.

I've run into the exact bug twice now - the second time after reading about as much as I could on a Wiki and trying to avoid it ... but in the end, being completely unable to do so. Skyrim is a game whose design is based around finishing quests - a design whose engine is obviously fundamentally flawed. An engine which is obviously prone to breaks, bugs and stops - which are easily documented.

This is not a few select bugs - this not like normal games, especially on the console - where there are a couple of specific issues. These are game wide issues when it comes to simply ending quests - which is the name of the game. The video I have in the OP is not some creepypasta - that is simply result of what might happen from a normal night of playing Skyrim.

Like I said - it's a good game, even with the bugs. But if you want to praise it with awards and accolades? Yes, then it should be held to a higher standard. That's what awards are for - but instead, the industry awards things based on sales .... which means that Bethesda will keep on with this lousy state of QA.

Name one other game released this year that doesnt have bugs in it? Infact name a game in the last decade that didnt ship with bugs?

There are none.

Thats why the industry overlooks glitches and errors and instead focuses on the gameplay, the ability to svck a player in to the game and keep them playing and the general scope of the game itself. Skyrim has 100 times more content that Call of Duty does, it has WAY WAY more content that the absolutely atrocious Dragon Age 2 does, and has sold more copies than almost every other title this year bar CoD.

Does it deserve GOTY? Simply put, yes it does. No other game this year comes close to the level of content and choice available to the player with such a richly decorated world and with the same level of scale. And in all that is the different stories it tells via quests, books, general conversations and random encounters you get.

Its was a no brainer for GOTY this year.

Unless someone can prove this is untrue, I don't believe the open world's Bethesda makes are as simple to fix as tighter, narrower productions. There are going to be bugs. That doesn't mean Bethesda has a license to stomp all over us, and they haven't.

I think it's going to be this way for a long time. It may not be financially feasible to completely wring out every new open world game and still charge 60 bucks for it. Like most people, I haven't found any game breakers in Skyrim.

Dude, last decade!! you are deluded, Demigod - Stardock, Gothic 3 - JoWoo, Civilisation V - not sure who, there are a few good games bug Free vanilla.
It has sold so many copies becuase of smart and dubious marketing, porting to all platforms and succeeding at none.
Dude I would vote SiGames - Football manager over skyrim anyday, the thing is it's european, can't have that at an american award with 16 yr olds on mother.

I'm more disappointed with companies who can't seem to reinvigorate my interest. I'm talking Fable, Assassins Creed, Modern Warfare, Crysis and all that bunch. Companies that continue to forge the same exact stuff each and every time should be the ones who get punished, instead MW3 becomes the biggest seller of all time. Recycling good stuff until it becomes crap, that's what should be sad, that's what should be disappointing. Atleast Bethesda waits a good 5 years before making another product within the same setting (if you could call the vast differences between cyrodiil and skyrim the same "setting").

So marker which actually corresponds with the actual point I'm trying to point to is beyond Bethesda.

OK, so at least we agree on that.

Wait are you saying Civ 5 didnt ship with bugs???? What????? The game at release isnt even the same game as it is now they had to do so many balancing patches!!! The release of that particular game was an absolute shower!! Red splocthes on map, CTD, culture & France combo exploit, MP no animation, No fesable AI, Economy system 100% broken......I could go on.

Now I cant comment on the other games you have mentioned above......but if you class Civ 5 as a bug free vanilla game, then I dont think the others were either!!

I never had a problem with it, really dude vanilla, but the other games, awesome.
You can also include support and fan base contact, StarDock are absolutely awesom in that, got a problem, send them a message, two day's latter at most it's fixed.
skyrim has no bugs for me neither except in the UI, but it's a dud game i have come to the conclusion, after the last 3 TES games, this is rubish

Dude, last decade!! you are deluded, Demigod - Stardock, Gothic 3 - JoWoo, Civilisation V - not sure who, there are a few good games bug Free vanilla.
It has sold so many copies becuase of smart and dubious marketing, porting to all platforms and succeeding at none.
Dude I would vote SiGames - Football manager over skyrim anyday, the thing is it's european, can't have that at an american award with 16 yr olds on mother.

Good software development is not hampered by ambition. You do not sacrifice quality by trying to do better - that is counter productive.

If you cannot test what you want to design, you will not be coding it correctly. Does not matter if you are writing a calculator, game or business process.

I guess your opinon of it just goes to show what different experiences people can have with the exact same game. Im not saying I doubt you had any problems, but the Civ Fanatics forums almost imploded after that games release. I actually stopped playing it after the 4th patch they released messed up my games - actually 100% making it unplayable - for the 4th time.

I have bought every game in the civ franchise from 2 onwards, and I will never EVER buy one at release again. There are others that claim the game was the second coming........funnily enough it won stratgey game of the year IIRC.........remind you of any other game?