Mods and Bethesda

[Penguin _Overlord]

There"s something that I've noticed while on this forum and around the net. When ever there is a problem in a tes game, the first thing people say is mods will fix it. As far as I know, they are the only company that has a modding community that will fix problems they "forgot" to fix. I think they could start to become comfy with such a luxury and start skimping on certain areas because they know they have a dedicated fanbase that will fix/add content free of charge. This is not a bash against Bethesda, it's just I find it disturbing people would rather do things themselves then ask Beth. Thought?

[Wolfie]

Many, many,many games have this just not as big, if there was another game like TES, open ended with so much content it would be the same way, most modders spend a good deal of time, with no worry of a dead line AND a already made game from beth, plus you have the deadline they have to get to

[legoless]

The Elder Scrolls games aren't the only ones with third-party patches. Not to say Skyrim is bug free (far from it), but I don't think Bethesda would purposefully slack off on patches because "a modder will fix it". Mostly because mods are only for PC, and I don't think Microsoft would be pleased considering all the money they've (presumably) been throwing at Bethesda.

[Arch-Mage Matt]

That's because it's mostly opinionated things, like no hardcore mode, Dragons attack too often/not enough, or *shudders* you can't remove underwear from dead people or yourself.

[Penguin _Overlord]

Lol Matt. Maybe I'm just making a mountain out off a mole hill. But dam sure, for 65(includes tax) bucks I expect a complete game with good sp and min amount of bugs.

[Wolfie]

Lol Matt. Maybe I'm just making a mountain out off a mole hill. But dam sure, for 65(includes tax) bucks I expect a complete game with good sp and min amount of bugs.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the size of TES makes it impossible to make it where there are not to many amount of bugs, could they tewst more? sure but when they do odds are they will add 18 more, and its not cause they are bad at what they do

Sometimes when you fix Bens diolouge, it messes up David who is needed for the MQ

I'm not saying they could do better, but then again they could do a lot worse and they did a very good job as it is.

[Spiney]

I think the game should really only be 100% functional on a technical level. So long as there are no overt graphical issues, crashes and major incompatibilities, that should be enough to be able to play the game.

Though I still think they failed there. Seeing as the game can only run on a maximum 2GB of RAM, if it goes over that amount it crashes. I find that stupid, since for anyone on PC who plays on Ultra quality, it would be bound to hit that 2GB and crash. Luckily there's a mod that lets it run on 4GB, but I am disappointed that I had to mod the game to be able to play past 20mins.

[Wolfie]

I think the game should really only be 100% functional on a technical level. So long as there are no overt graphical issues, crashes and major incompatibilities, that should be enough to be able to play the game.

Though I still think they failed there. Seeing as the game can only run on a maximum 2GB of RAM, if it goes over that amount it crashes. I find that stupid, since for anyone on PC who plays on Ultra quality, it would be bound to hit that 2GB and crash. Luckily there's a mod that lets it run on 4GB, but I am disappointed that I had to mod the game to be able to play past 20mins.

I'd chalk that up to a they can't test for evreything, yes maybe they could of tested for that but at the cost at what eles?
and really with the way PC's are built it makes it almost impossible to test for evreythng as they tend to be built defreint form the rest

360 aqnd what not is alwas the same

[Spiney]

I'd chalk that up to a they can't test for evreything, yes maybe they could of tested for that but at the cost at what eles?
and really with the way PC's are built it makes it almost impossible to test for evreythng as they tend to be built defreint form the rest

I think playing for 20mins of Ultra quality would be something pretty easy to notice or test.

Hell, they could probably just calculate on the size of textures, of which said .BSA alone is greater than 2GB.

[scribbane]

I think the game should really only be 100% functional on a technical level. So long as there are no overt graphical issues, crashes and major incompatibilities, that should be enough to be able to play the game.

Though I still think they failed there. Seeing as the game can only run on a maximum 2GB of RAM, if it goes over that amount it crashes. I find that stupid, since for anyone on PC who plays on Ultra quality, it would be bound to hit that 2GB and crash. Luckily there's a mod that lets it run on 4GB, but I am disappointed that I had to mod the game to be able to play past 20mins.

Didn't you get the last update?

[Spiney]

I think the game should really only be 100% functional on a technical level. So long as there are no overt graphical issues, crashes and major incompatibilities, that should be enough to be able to play the game.

Though I still think they failed there. Seeing as the game can only run on a maximum 2GB of RAM, if it goes over that amount it crashes. I find that stupid, since for anyone on PC who plays on Ultra quality, it would be bound to hit that 2GB and crash. Luckily there's a mod that lets it run on 4GB, but I am disappointed that I had to mod the game to be able to play past 20mins.

Didn't you get the last update?

Well yes, having Steam and all. :P

Still gotta use the mod it seems.

[Wolfie]

I think playing for 20mins of Ultra quality would be something pretty easy to notice or test.

Hell, they could probably just calculate on the size of textures, of which said .BSA alone is greater than 2GB.

not when you relize how much they have to get rid of on ALL setitngs peiord before its reddy and then relize that the system they run on is very veyr complex and took years to make

They could of tested for it sure, but acting like they just did not just cause they did not feel like it, most pepole dont relize how hard it is to do stuff like a WHOLE game with that much contect

I'd rather have less bugs in game then worry about it play on ultra my self.

[Jeff]

I have been using 2.8 to 3.0GB of RAM since the game came out. I have not seen it increase since the last patch came out. I play on Ultra also.

I have had 4-5 CTD, but in all cases, it was after playing the game for 8-9 hours straight, with no break, so the my laptop was pretty hot by that point. I am not happy about that, but considering I have about 500 hours of game play, only 1 CTD every 100 hours is not that bad.

[scribbane]

See I play on Ultra, I don't know how much RAM it's using, but I've had no problems since release. Well, I had a a couple of CTD's as well, but only 2 maybe. And like Jeff said, those were after long sessions. A few hours at a time and no issues.

[Spiney]

not when you relize how much they have to get rid of on ALL setitngs peiord before its reddy and then relize that the system they run on is very veyr complex and took years to make

They could of tested for it sure, but acting like they just did not just cause they did not feel like it, most pepole dont relize how hard it is to do stuff like a WHOLE game with that much contect

I'd rather have less bugs in game then worry about it play on ultra my self.

I don't really get what you're saying.

My point is what I could discover in the first 20 minutes of playing is something that Bethesda could EASILY discover.

See I play on Ultra, I don't know how much RAM it's using, but I've had no problems since release. Well, I had a a couple of CTD's as well, but only 2 maybe. And like Jeff said, those were after long sessions. A few hours at a time and no issues.

You can easily monitor how much you are using by watching it's process in the task manger. Like Jeff, mine hits 3GB, though it can go further.

It does annoy me, that if I get a HD texture pack, that could potentially move it closer to the 4GB mark. Which is a bother when I have a while 12GB to play with.

[Geonis]

Community/User Patches have a long standing history in PC games, bethesda is far from the first to have these. One could make a reasonable argument house ruling table top games were the precursor to this.

Remember, the minority of end game users use forums. There seems to be a higher degree of mod users as well than compared to the whole of the user base. Mods will never replace developers ability to patch the game, we, as an end user, lack easy access to the core, aka, hard coded aspect. PC users, for the most part, understand developers QA departments cannot house the expansive amount of 'rigs' end users carry, and realize their ability to track down all bugs and be able to witness them all in a very small environment. Programming 101, to fix a problem, you must first understand it. If they cannot emulate the issue, they cannot find out how it is failing, and thus cannot go about how to fix it.

A bug is not the only kind of problem a program can have. A program can run bug-free and still be difficult to use or fail in some major objective.

Most mods can skip the process of debugging software, and in essence, create workarounds. If you held most mods to the same standard as developers, you would find very few would meet this. This doesn't make them bad, I use them myself, however, if a developer stops reasonable patching a game, as it cost them money, I for one would stop buying from them. It wouldn't matter how much the modding community fixed of it. Also, it would be terrible PR if they relied solely on modders for patches.

Something to keep in mind, the highest amount of unique downloads for the highest downloaded mod for Skyrim from the Nexus is 174,516, compare that to the amount of people who purchased the game. Mod users are in the minority.

In short, no, I do not think modders cause a lax in patches.