Sorcery reviews

[adriane23]

Runa216 said:

adriane23 said:

mantlepiecek said:

He meant skyrim had the same issues but the reviewers ignored it.

Exactly.

Reviewers didn't ignore it, they factored it in but thanks to the fact that there was so much GOOD in skyrim, the bad (glitches, bugs, poor animations) got steamrolled ignored.  No reviewer I know will say Skyrim is without bugs, no gamer will say that either, but they will say that the game was so fun, so expansive, so immersive, and so ambitious that the shortcomings had next to no effect on their overall enjoyment of it. 

if I play a 6 hour game and encounter a half hour of buggy gameplay, I'd be furious.  if I play a 250 hour game and encounter an hour of buggy gamepaly, it barely registers.  it's all about scope, scale, and relativity.  Skyrim had gitches, they sucked, but the game was so good that we kinda collectively got over it.  

Fixed your sentence. Whether the game is good (I'm guessing you mean fun) is subjective and shouldn't give reviewers license to gloss over the bad parts of a games. That's like saying a car is so fun to drive, you're willing to overlook the fact that it breaks down every 10 miles and may or may not catch fire if you sneeze at it. Also, the size of the game is no excuse for the level of bugs in Skyrim. Kingdoms of Amalur is a huge game and is relatively bug free compared to Skyrim with a much more fleshed out combat system.

Skyrim is sloppy no matter how you look at it, and this isn't the first go-round for bethesda. They have a history of making big, sloppy games that are in my opinion filled with doing the exact same thing for different NPCs in different similar looking caves and I honestly think they don't care about quality so long as enough people buy their games.