Honestly guys, I don't know what half of you are on about. Got skyrim day 1, I have been playing for god knows how many hours and my save file is beyond 6 mb but I don't see any game-breaking glitches. I have had no flying horses, no sticking in walls...etc. I have encountered two bugs, one of which I caused to a point. Picked up someones sword when they dropped it and then he started to walk around as if holding it but with no sword. The other is that only once, the game wouldn't go past the load screen. So far, This is the least glitchy TES game and I've been playing them since Arena. I think that some people are gettting this game and just waiting to see the glitches and say: "Huh...see, more bugs from Bethesda!". I am not saying that Bethesda is not responsible for any glitches but you have to keep in mind what an open world game entails and how difficult it is to cover all possible variables. This is not MW3 guys, and even that has a bug or two despite being as scripted as hell.

I think it's convenient for most people to blame the devs for a game being buggy. To be clear here, I am not saying that the devs have no hand in this (they developed the product after all), but it seems that many people will just immediately jump down the developer's throat without thinking about what a game like Skyrim entails. As Monkeyspot said, open-world games have a massive number of variables, which is why we play them. Since we want to "do whatever we want" in a game, devs have to try to anticipate what actions the player will perform and test them. Of course, even if you had thousands of people testing it and trying whatever they can think of, there would still be variables they miss. On another note, when people say that bethesda rushed the game, I find it difficult to believe. This isn't COD and wasn't developed (or upgraded in COD's case) in 10 months. I can't imagine that bethesda sat on their backsides for the first two years of development and then rushed ahead in a couple more. If they could do that, they would have released the game two years ago or made sequels every couple of years to cash in like many other devs do. Also, while Bethesda may be a large game publisher, they actually develop only a few titles meaning that they were (probably I hope) working hard on Skyrim.

I've been playing TES since it started with Arena, and there isn't a better rpg out there. I honestly wouldn't care if it had more bugs than a first release of a Microsoft operating system, I'd still play it:D

you need only an hdmi cable...valkongamer

Doesn't work mate. I am 99.999% sure that the ps3 only picks up a surround system if you use an optical audio cable

If your surround system doesn't have an optical port, you can't use it with your PS3. Sorry mate.

[QUOTE="BrianB0422"]Meh. Everyone knows exactly what they're getting at this point. New maps, changes in perks, new game mode or two, same enging, full price. They really don't even need to rate this series anymore.coasterguy65

This sums up pretty much every sequel anymore.

Why is CoD faulted for this, yet games like Uncharted 3 are praised for the same thing?

Same basic guns, same basic characters, same basic story, same treasure hunting and platforming, basically the same graphics...so basically the same game with a few tweeks.

if it makes you feel any better, I fault both games(and any game franchise that follows the same pattern) for this :D

Oh... and TC, I dislike COD and I am not playing it. You've got to stand by your beliefs after all.

I hate to say this guys, but if you can look past the fact that you're a fan of the game franchise and read his review as objectively as possible (difficult, I know) he has some very reasonable points to make about U3. it is a game with very limited freedom (if any) and is a great cinematic experience but in many ways is no more than an interactive movie (albeit a great interactive movie).

Honestly, I'd have to say it is. I don't want to because it's a defining title on the PS3 and many people buy consoles for it, but I just think that it has been overhyped. I know that many people may argue in favor for its graphics, storyline...etc but let's be honest here, it's an interactive movie and not a game. It may not be as structured or limited as Heavy Rain but it still lacks a level of freedom and interaction that I believe all games should have. This is similar in a way to the Call of Duty issue: Lots of nice scenes but not much "doing" if you catch my drift.

I don't seem to have this problem because most games only take me about 3-4 days to finish (and yes, I do have a job, it's just that I'm an insomniac and don't get much sleep). My advice to not get overwhelmed though is to think about what game will give you the most play time. I'd like to play all the games mentioned (especially Arkham City) but have decided on Dark Souls and Skyrim. Between them you get about 300 hours of game time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geTOvrUVPTE

Everybody watch this please so you can all relax and forget about canceling your pre-orders. This is the final build of BF3 on PS3 and is being played on a PS3 console.