So im not a weirdo for loving Devils Third.

All games have bugs, but there's definitely some more polished than others. Bethesta has always been on the shadier side of this. I don't think many people encountered even a small  bug during their first playthrough of TLOU, but I bet most people saw plenty in Skyrim on PS3 even before they hit the 5 hour mark (TLOU is also a PS3 game so it's only fair to keep the comparison within the platform :D).

Also, If I ever attemted a post like this, I bet I would inmediately see the door closing in at light speed.

Ugh...this kind of thread brings out one of my least favorite statements.

"Overrated"

What an arrogant thing to say. "Other people love this game, but because I don't they are speaking too highly of it."

Ick, stop talking

Wait wait did you just say Naughty Dogs games are gray and brown? Please tell me you have really bad colour vision or you're just making claims on games you've never played.

I played the PS3 version of Skyrim a year after launch, I never met any major bugs (there was this one time where a horse just fell from the sky though. Hilarious ) and framerate was fine (I'm sure it had some drops, but nothing noticeable, at least not noticeable enough that I remember it). My only gripe was the long loading screens...

So either at least Skyrim got patched, or Skyrim was never really broken to begin with. I'm pretty sure it's the first one, and, granted, it never being broken to begin with would be preferable, but it did get patched, and you still see this amount of people complaining, so that point isn't really true.

I get it you having a dig at the Fallout situation, the difference is TLoU had a handfull of bugs that very rarely happened and they mostly got fixed fast, Fallout 4 is like the 10th Bethesda game that has severe technical issues and ppl just sweep everything under the rug "cause hughe world".

Fallout 4 is most likely a fun game, but it shouldnt get a pass just because its Fallout, the bugs arent new, arent unfortunate, theyre a patern with Bethesda and ppl should be talking about it not showering them with praise. Not to mention the graphics are horendrous, and even tough I care more about gameplay, Bethesda didnt even try.

I have no personal experience with PS3 Skyrim. I experienced hard crashes and lost progress 3 times playing PC Skyrim years after the game was released and patched. To my knowledge, Bethesda considered not releasing the DLC for the PS3 version of the game because the game was a mess. Again, glad some of you were able to enjoy it, glad some of you didn't experience any game breaking bugs. Many did, however, and I hope FO4 is better than FO3 and skyrim, for the sake of all gamers, but non of that changes the fact that some of us tried to enjoy the game, bought the game, spent money on the game and were left utterly disappointed, especially when Skyrim has scored 95 on metacritic, expectations were high.

Well I for one am GLAD I didn't buy it day 1 then, phew, really dodged a bullet there.

I think a lot of the hate is coming from bandwagoners but some of us genuinely tried to enjoy previous Bethesda games, you can read and differentiate between the two. Reviewers support our claims too, most reviewers talk about the bugs and glitches.

We are just gutted a game as buggy as Skyrim has a score of 95 on metacritic. That's a score should be reserved for polished games.

80s and 70s are great scores. Hypothetically speaking, if New Vegas received 70s from different reviewers because Bethesda didn't learn from their previous release, they would've worked harder on polishing Skyrim. 

ANYTHING rated 6 or even 5 in any other entertainment medium, movies or music for example, is worth checking out. But gamers feel entitled to higher scores and it just screams immaturity from both, reviewers who hand out 9s to games with glaring flaws and gamers who demand their fave games get above 80 on meta.

Go play Banjo Kazooie already : P