Talk:The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Petition to ban Skyrim on White House "We the People" website

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/immediately-ban-deadly-videogame-known-skyrim-safety-americas-youths/YmY1bLQ5

-- thought this was interesting, as an example for under "Reception," which currently states that it "has received universal critical acclaim." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.60.254 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, from video game critics. And, anyone can create a "Whitehouse petition". That particular one only has 400 signatures at the moment. Perhaps if it reaches its goal of 25,000, then it might be worth discussing, but certainly not now. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, two of the signatures amused me.

• "Nord K

Frostcrag Spire, Cyrodiil November 29, 2011 Signature # 414 "

• "M'aiq L

Gold Road, Anvil County, Cyrodiil November 28, 2011 Signature # 399"

Also, "To enact an immediate ban on the videogame known as "SkyRim" produced by Blizzard Entertainment." Someone's done their research. Bobfordsgun (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe instead of 'We The People' it should be changed to 'We The Embarrassment To Progressive Society'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.62.93 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with the sentiment (this petition fails on so many levels to be taken seriously), this is not a forum and so is not somewhere to air your grievances. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The petition was put up by satire site "Christwire", a site that satirises fundamental christianity. File under humor , rather than "nutty conservatives", fine line as the difference may be. 121.45.236.194 (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it would seem that Poe's law applies then. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Official Playstation Magazine review

http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/skyrim-ps3-review/

A pretty noteworthy review, not just because it's the 'official' word but because it felt the technical issues were such a problem that it affected the score quite considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.62.93 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Done I've added it to the table. If someone wants to write a bit about the review in the prose go ahead. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Set two hundred years after Oblivion, the game takes place in the land of Skyrim, which is in the midst of a civil war after the assassination of the High King."

I feel that 'assassination' may be the wrong term here, given that it was technically a lawful act. Perhaps 'slaying' would be a better fit? 109.156.234.131 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Where is says Version 1.2[1] on the top right instead change the 1.2 to 1.3 and the link of [1] no longer applies to that line but is still used futher down. So there should be a new ref.

Endeavourous (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical Issues Section

Looking at other major games and associated articles who have issues from time to time, I think this section is a tad overblown and appears to be overactive gamers coming her to vent more than inform. Does the game has some glitches, absolutely. Did The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, yes. Morrowind Yes. Those articles as well as just about every other game article I have looked up that I knew the game had some bugs does not have a overblown technical issues section. So I am proposing a merger either with reception since this game is <1 month and I am willing to bet all the "outcry" will die down once a couple of patches are released. I have played over 40 hours myself and can count on one hand the "major" glitches. Many times it is people who are either not configured right on there PC or demanding 360 gamers who need to realize there consoles are 6 years old and are not going to play the game on full hi-res. Patch Section CHECK. Merge Glitches...--0pen$0urce (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Does any piece of software lack bugs? No. Does Skyrim have a disproportionately high number of particularly bad bugs and issues (or did it at launch)? It would appear so.

By 360 players complaining about resolution are you referring to the texture resolution issue? If that is the case then it has nothing to do with the power of the machine but in fact a bug which occurred (it was supposedly fixed in the latest patch) when the game was run from the hard drive rather than the DVD.

To say that people have improperly configured PCs is an oversimplification. Until the most recent patch the game would not get past the main menu unless the audio was set (within Windows) to 44.1 kHz (some other settings also worked but caused audio glitching for some). This is not a config issue but a bug in the game (it was not hardware or driver specific, and I believe it happened regardless of the OS version (XP, Vista or 7).

It is quite likely that some issues on PC are caused by conflicting software or whatever, and it is quite likely that some of the reported bugs are simply "haters" or only affect a single user or whatever. However, the shear number of bug reported has led to wide reporting in the gaming press, and as such satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. The fact the people will likely stop complaining once the issue is resolved is kinda obvious and doesn't negate the issue as it initially stood. The article is about the game as it is and was.

Additionally, the "Patch history" section that you have added is a little egregious. There is no encyclopædic reason to list all of the issues that exist or that a patch addresses; unless an issue is noteworthy in its own right it shouldn't be mentioned at all. For instance, it could be mentioned in the technical issues section that the 44.1 kHz issue exists/existed but that it was fixed in ver. 1.2. The kind of bug you are talking about that every game has (e.g. "rare issue with renaming enchanted weapons and armor") is exactly what you have added with your bug history copy-pasta. (Additionally, the "Likely many of the problems were discovered prior to release but after game media was shipped as is common with early release patches." sentence seems like OR to me, and the fix list may be considered a copyvio, I'm not sure.)

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If it were just gamers venting or similar the section would be much larger. As it is at the moment it only lists 2 specific (but significant) issues (one on each console) and a general "it crashes" statement for the PC. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 23:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are legitimately more technical issues with Skyrim than you would expect. I got it for the PC, but for PS3 players, they seem to have it really bad in particular. There are also serious problems in the PC version that I had to resolve with the console, otherwise some quests, etc. would be broken indefinitely. I also removed your patch section. There's absolutely no reason for every patch to be completely documented. If you really want to, then put it in prose; the 1.2 patch should probably be summed in a paragraph at most, and some content for it already exists in "Technical issues", which should be expanded on from there. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if a whole dissertation to rebut me is necessary but okay. Alphathon you didn't really address my main sticking point that the technical issues is rather bloated section and more reactive that factual. It has an air of lacking NPOV Much of the outcry appears overblown. Every game has bugs period. This was a bold massive 3 platform release of a game that was in development for 3 years. I have a custom self built PC and the number of crashes after 50 hours can be counted on one hand. It would be unfair not to attribute those crashes to the possibility that I was also watching netflix or hulu or movie files that were reading off my hard drive which was the case every time. Or that like most people I have an active A/V program that can eat memory at times. If this game was soo broken how is it getting such high praise?--0pen$0urce (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You do have a point there, In my 2 days of gameplay (48 hours), I've only had 3 crashes. I run Fraps and often record my gameplay so they may be caused by that. Though, I have had some issues where it doesn't render things properly. Occasionally somethings (like deer) are mono-purple. Aside from that I have had no issues. Your point that the section is bloated though is now moot, becauase although Alphathon didn't directly address that issue here, he has trimmed the section down. It now reads:

"Skyrim was launched with a multitude of technical issues ranging from small to large scale problems. Some examples include
a texture down-scaling issue on the Xbox 360 version when the game was run from the hard drive;[93] crashes, slowdown and
frame rate issues on the PlayStation 3 version when save files exceeded 6 MB;[94] and various crashes and slowdowns on the
Windows version.[95] The PlayStation 3 save file issue was also present in both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas.[94]

An update (Version 1.2) was released on November 29, 2011 to fix some of the game's issues;[96] however, some players
reported new bugs in the game following the patch, including more frequent game crashes.[97] Patch 1.3 was released on
December 7, 2011 to improve stability and fix problems introduced in version 1.2.[98]"

This is rather concise IMO and I don't think it needs trimming any further. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 11:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

While I can understand why one might attribute the inclusion of a section such as this to players being reactionary, this is not (or at least doesn't appear to be) the case here. The fact that every piece of software has bugs doesn't make every bug non-notable; some bugs are more significant than others. Those pieces of software that have these more significant bugs are worthy of discussion as a result. If a game has a bug or scripting error or something which causes, for example, entire sections of the game (especially parts of the story/main quest/whatever) to be unaccessible for a significant number of players, then that is a noteworthy issue (this particular one is a hypothetical). Most games do not have issues of that magnitude, but Skyrim does.

I myself haven't had that many issues, and certainly fewer than I had in Oblivion and Fallout 3 (about the same as in New Vegas). I too have a custom-built PC, and I kill pretty much any process that's running before playing. My personal issues have stemmed largely from the (now fixed) audio bit-rate issue, but I have also had issues relating to my usage of multiple monitors (and before you suggest that I should simply not run multiple monitors, that isn't an option for me - the second "monitor" in my case is actually just my AV receiver, since HDMI audio cannot be sent without an accompanying video signal) and have experienced the "missing/purple texture issue that Akjar13 (a.k.a. "He's Gone Mental") mentioned. Neither of these issues is mentioned at all in the issues section - the monitor one because it affects a relatively small number of people and the texture issue because it is relatively inconsequential, as annoying as it is. Incidentally, the PS3 version seems to have the worst time of it, and that is in fact reflected in its review scores (especially from Official PlayStation Magazine UK).

As for the section being "bloated", what exactly would you remove to make it more concise? It's easy to say it is so, but I don't see any evidence of it (even before the above mentioned copyedit it wasn't exactly bloated, just didn't really flow very well and included some less significant/widespread issues).

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Gameplay section does not parse.

The gameplay section states: There are two skills divided evenly between the three schools of combat, magic and stealth, and training until the necessary required experience is met, results in the player's character leveling-up.

Two skills divided into three schools, means two-thirds of a skill in each school. This doesn't make sense. Also recommend breaking this into two sentences as the second ", and training" clause doesn't flow. "Training" is also not defined. How one trains tends to vary from game to game. 132.3.57.68 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 09:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Dragonborn", not "Sons of Skyrim"

Perhaps, "Sons of Skyrim" was a working title, but the official title is "Dragonborn". [1] [2] (this second link has a scan of the back showing the track name)

Please update when possible. --Kaleb.G (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Bobfordsgun (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Council Armistice

The section under Plot about the Council for Armistice is not necessarily accurate- it is entirely possible for the player to instead resolve the Civil War in favor of one of the two sides, which skips the Council altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyShadowing (talk • contribs) 22:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Due to the sheer quantity of quests, we are describing the plot as if people are only doing the 'main' questline. This way it avoids discrepancies. I fully understand that you can skip the council (I myself never actually having done it since I enjoy the 'side' and other quests more so than the main quest always leaving it til the end) but that would make the section wordy and difficult to read. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 08:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally agree that we should stick with as direct a storyline as possible without taking into account too many sidequests. The Plot section should flow well and be easy to read, because this is an encyclopedia article for gamers and non-gamers alike, just to get a general understanding of the game; it's not a game guide. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics

Does anyone want the lyrics in this artical cuz I have them and know wat they mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkened wiki (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would not be approraite to this encyclopedia. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 17:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also I think there's probably some law we'd be breaking, because technically I don't think you are supposed to reproduce lyrics (without permission). Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I got it Darkened wiki (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Add "External Link"

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_Wiki

This link is great! Gives you all bugs,updates,quest information for Skyrim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TooMuchForYa (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is permitted; see point 12 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet the UESP wiki was still in there. I have removed it. I agree that it's best to stick with official links only when possible. The iMDB is I suppose still useful to determine who the voice actors are, but that's about it. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

DirectX 11

In this interview (march 31, second page) Todd Howard said Skyrim would include support DirectX 11 for PC. Should this be mentioned in the article? --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to get a comment that was made after the game's release, not something from March. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Citing Sources

First off please cite your sources, don't just input speculation or copy and paste from a website, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Also if you would like to make edits when this page is protected which is likely soon again, then make a registered account. Too many ID vandals and IP unsourced edits. All it does it make work for people who contribute.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Assassination?

"Set two hundred years after Oblivion, the game takes place in the land of Skyrim, which is in the midst of a civil war after the assassination of the High King."

I feel that 'assassination' may be the wrong term here, given that it was technically a lawful act. Perhaps 'slaying' would be a better fit? 109.156.234.131 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The game refers to it as an assassination. If you think of it like someone challenging the leader of a country to a swordfight, and then shooting them with your concealed shotgun. Thats essentially what happened, and isn't considered lawful. Assassination stays. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 09:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on which side you look at it. The Imperials see it as an assassination, the Stormcloaks see it as a a fair fight. The reason that it is technically considered assassination is because the attack was done in "the Old Nord Way", and Ulfric is old school Nord, but the High King was obviously not, etc. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the High King, Toryyg I believe, also a child? I heard NPCs refer to him as the "boy-king". So surely the fact that Ulfric killed a boy, if that's the case, would class it as an assassination? Even if it was in the "Old Nord Way", a fully-grown, battle-hardened Jarl using a power like the Voice to murder a boy isn't a fair fight. Bobfordsgun (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No way was he a child. His wife took over the throne when he was killed, and his wife looks like she's middle age. You actually see Toryyg when you get to Sovngarde, and he looks about middle age, too. It would be quite the spectacle to see a Nord using a shout on a boy-king; probably a much more unfair fight than it already likely was. He is sometimes referred to as "boy-king", but that's by Stormcloaks I believe, who just say that to mock his seemingly feeble intellect. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I didn't notice Toryyg in Sovngarde, I'd just heard him referred to as "boy-king" and assumed. I wasn't sure whether his wife being middle-aged was merely a Nordic custom of marriage irregardless of age. Bobfordsgun (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The term 'boy king' may have been used simply because he was relatively young. Most of the royalty i have seen in skyrim has been fairly old and experienced, and a middle aged man may be considered young to be a king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.23.118 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Arrow in the knee

No mention of this then? 82.40.164.118 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no real need to mention it, an annoying internet meme isn't really particularly noteworthyBobfordsgun (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the Easter Eggs section of the Eggs (Skyrim)|Elder Scrols Wiki]. It refers to the fact that Greaves (which protect the shins and knees) don't exist in Skyrim, as they did in previous games. Timeoin (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Creation Engine is the same as Gamebryo

Mainstream gaming media apparently wont admit this. Journalism is dead so they just take Todd Howard's press releases and print it as fact and news. Its obvious to anyone who plays the game that the engine is maybe updated but theres no way they've rewritten it from the ground up as claimed. The same problems and bugs exist from previous games, and features that have become standard on modern engines since Gamebryo was first programed are excluded from Skyrim. I'm fine if they want to rename the engine but not that theres lies about how its completely new. How can we go about printing the truth here and not just marketing hype?

Tell me lies. Tell me sweet little lies

Bethesda are taking advantage of the bizarre way people blame Gamebryo for buggy code that doesn’t come from Gamebryo. Even to the point of claiming they were going to use a brand-new engine. I love the marketing speak, since technically, the engine used for Skyrim will be brand new. Of course that isn’t what people meant, but if even magazines that should (and let’s be honest, do) know better, are going to say daft things about Gamebryo, might as well take advantage and continue basing your game engine on the latest version of Gamebryo anyway. And why not? Gamebryo is a great engine.

http://peter.corrosivetruths.org/skyrim-6-gig-and-gamebryo/

--184.175.1.120 (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, in order to say that it isn't entirely new, we'd need some kind of proof. The fact that bugs have carried over from Oblivion/Fallout 3/Fallout: New Vegas doesn't necessarily mean the engine isn't new. It is certainly possible that the core engine is entirely new, but that Bethesda's other code (for example, the PS3 save game code) that was used in previous games was simply ported to the new engine, so the bugs would have been ported along with it unless specifically addressed. If there is a broad enough speculation in the press that in fact it isn't new, then that speculation may be added. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose this means I need to formulate this research and proof myself since nobody else will do it. Then publish it myself also. Thank you to you or whoever restored this thread of conversation. Since I'm not allowed to discus this topic on the talk page I will be creating a thread or topic or page (whatever the term is) at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk and trying to figure it out there. Thanks again. --184.175.1.120 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No. In fact if you did it wouldn't be permitted on Wikipedia as it would be original research. The thread was restored by another anon IP (124.148.244.35), and you are absolutely allowed to discuss this here as long as you stay within the bounds of the article (i.e. you shouldn't use this page to discuss whether or not it is the case, but whether or not it should be mentioned in the article, if that makes any sense; I always find the not a forum guidelines quite difficult to explain).

It would seem that CityOfSilver (the user who deleted it) thought you were simply discussing the game (and it's understandable why - the language you use does indicate that that is the case) or something similar and as such removed it per WP:NOTAFORUM. However, if Creation is indeed based upon Gamebryo then it should certainly be mentioned in the article, and regardless of your original intent and how you phrased it, this is a legitimate discussion topic. Just bear Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines in mind - with regard to the article, it really doesn't matter that much if it is true, but that it is considered to be true by reliable sources. Also bear in mind that some sources are better than others. Of example, a games journalist isn't necessarily in a good position to judge whether a game engine is based on another, while a computer scientist is more likely to be.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read the entire Original Research page and I don't understand the concept at all. It basically means that if I myself, a computer scientist and engineer with years of training and experience do research and prove something I cannot publish these findings to Wikipedia. But On the same hand anything published by a gaming news website which is just a re-posted blog from some other game news website that they got paid to post is instantly added and universally approved for citation on Wikipedia? --184.175.1.120 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, If you did get the findings and you had them published in a magazine, then we would be able to include it. The policy that you should read in conjunction with WP:OR is WP:RS which basically states that we cannot use primary sources (if I read it correctly). So please, by all means conduct this research and get it published in a 'reliable source' (quotation marks because I don't doubt your integrity but Wikipedia does) and then we could include it. Also, I'd recommend making an account. He's Gone Mental 16:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Preface: this was written before Akjar13's post (edit conflict) so only addresses the IP's post. Akjar13's post is accurate but a little over-simplified (not all primary sources are disallowed for example, although secondary ones are preferred - see WP:SPS)

It's difficult to explain and can certainly be confusing. Nothing can be published to Wikipedia in the sense that it must be essentially a paraphrase of off-Wikipedia info; that is what the no original research bit is about. Almost everything needs a reliable source. Now if you were to write and publish something off-site then that may be considered reliable, depending on who you are and what you do, in which case it could then be added to Wikipedia using that as a source. For big sites like IGN, proving that they are professional gaming journalists is easy and to judge their reliability just requires a look at their back-catalogue. They also have the advantage that they are a secondary source. Similarly, it is relatively trivial to show that, say, Gabe Newell is a good source on whether two engines are different. For less public individuals though it is a bit harder to prove reliability (note that this is not the same as accuracy, but in fact how reliably accurate they are). To do this, it must be proven that:

1. they are an authority on the subject, whatever that may be; being reliably accurate about economics has little bearing on one's reliability regarding astrophysics for example.
2. that they are generally accepted to be accurate by their peers - this avoids the inclusion of fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) etc.

Also, remember that "proof" can be quite subjective (or at least what is accepted by someone as proof can be), so if something can be easily debunked it probably doesn't belong here. The fact that you may show something to be true, and that you accept it as proof does not mean that it necessarily is (it may, for example, be based on a false premise or include some kind of calculation error, or be based on incomplete data or something). In this instance proving that identical bugs exist in both games does not prove that they are using the same engine, since the engine isn't the entire code base^† - to do that would likely require something showing code parity between the two engines.

^† by analogy, two near identical cars can have the same issue but different engines. The engine is what produces the drive, but is not the only required component. As such, if they have the same faulty gear box then they will exhibit the same fault. In this case, the engine essentially handles graphics rendering and possibly audio, with asset management, save games, input devices etc being handled by other bits of code.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, having now read the whole linked article (rather than just the quoted part), you seem to have misinterpreted it - it isn't saying that Gamebryo and Creation are the same engine, but that the bugs in the Elder Scrolls/Fallout games aren't as a result of Gamebryo (so pretty much what I said above). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

http://peter.corrosivetruths.org/2011/12/21/is-skyrims-creation-just-gamebryo - Proof that the Creation Engine is based on Gamebryo code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.109.66 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Flattering, but my little website is hardly a reliable source by wikipedia's standards. 86.135.234.27 (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Gamebryo is middleware so it isn't an engine in itself. There's no doubt that the Creation Engine is the same (albeit updated) engine that has been used in Fallout 3, New Vegas, Oblivion etc (it shares the most in common with the first two though, particularly a game breaking PS3 bug). Effectively, Bethesda have used the same engine since Morrowind and updated/tweaked/enhanced/maade-buggier it for every new game they release. 124.176.67.8 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also considered an engine, and with the exception of the Fallouts a different version of gamebryo was used for each of the other games you mention - so it would be better to say that Bethesda have worked from newer versions of gamebryo each time. Not that you could put that on wikipedia, instead we get PC Gamer articles telling us there's a fundamental difference between rendering faces and trees. 86.185.192.156 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section needs a complete overhaul. It often rambles and contains irrelevant information/sources, doesn't have spaces after full stops, it is structured poorly; for example the first half contains positive reception and the second halfcontains negative reception(as per most wiki articles) but the second half again segways into positive reception. As well as this the fourth paragraph begins by talking about the PC versions while the parts before that talked primarily about console versions, this is fine but halfway through the paragraph it reverts to talking about the PS3.

Also this part in the second paragraph:

”“The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim” puts players in a boundless world complete with death-dealing dragons, Nordic gods, and foreboding prophecy.The latest installment in the popular Elder Scrolls series is being hailed by critics as a standout game amid an army of must-play titles launching for the year-end holiday season.Skyrim was crafted by game designers who produced open-world post-apocalyptic shooter “Fallout 3,” so players are welcomed into an expansive mountainous kingdom that they are free to explore at their peril.Innovative software perpetually generates missions such as saving villagers and righting wrongs, meaning that the game is technically endless even if players complete the main story campaign.

Who is being quoted here and where does the quote end? Where is this quote from?

The whole section is abysmal, so much so that I can't be bothered even beginning to fix it. Hopefully someone else will take on the task... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.7.203 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that comes the end of January, once all of the reviews and end of year awards are in, someone will go through and clean it up. I agree though, the review section is a mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned it up slightly Bobfordsgun (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully cleaned it up to a suitable degree, it is now a summary of some reviewer's main points in one paragraph, a notable line about a single review, and then a short paragraph on the criticism. Feel free to expand or change my edit, it still isn't quite right, but it is much better in my opinion. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Gamespot's Game of The Year 2011?

In the Reception section, where it says: “GameSpot also rated it 9 out of 10, adding that "Skyrim performs the most spectacular of enchantments: the one that causes huge chunks of time to vanish before you know it."” we should maybe add that Skyrim is also Gamespot's Game of The Year 2011 (http://www.gamespot.com/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/videos/game-of-the-year-best-of-2011-awards-winner-6347814). And maybe the Joystiq review could go in a new line. Thanks in advance.

Radrac (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look to the side, you can see that GameSpot is already credited as having awarded the game Game Of The Year, along with other awarders. I will now attempt to tidy up the reception section however, since it is currently a list of reviews with quotes here and there. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delphine's sex?

The Plot says "The thief reveals themselves as Delphine...".

This is obviously grammatically contradictory. What is Delphine's sex, so that that sentence could be changed to "The thief reveals himself as Delphine..." or "The thief reveals herself as Delphine..."? DavidForthoffer (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "herself". Samwalton9 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sexism

The page claimed that Todd Howard referred to Skyrim culture as racist and sexist. However, I watched the video that is referenced, and Howard only refers to racism, not sexism. The relevant quote starts at around 8:30. Therefore I removed references to sexism. If I have missed something in the video, please give the time in the video where Howard talks about sexism. --Mujokan (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Listing the Proficiencies in a List

I would think that it could be of importance to list the different talent trees available to the player in the section talking about levels and such, or maybe put a chart showing the proficiencies that fall under the certian schools ( combat, magic, and stealth ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langaswh (talk • contribs) 13:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be of particular benefit to list them, the current wording is "A perpetual objective for the player is to improve their character's skills, which are numerical representations of their ability in certain areas. There are eighteen skills divided evenly between the three schools of combat, magic and stealth." and I think this is enough information, naming them would be too in depth for this article. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (known typically as Skyrim)

The part in parentheses is redundant. A title in a series is almost always abbreviated, like The Phantom Menace or The Wrath of Khan or whatever. It's obvious that people don't refer to it by the whole title every time; that's what the colon implies. —Gendralman (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd Wording

"The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim received critical acclaim from critics" This seems redundant. Can someone edit it? 74.132.249.206 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "from critics" part. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 01:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012 ps3 lag problem in techinal area

Noticed that the lag detail lacked info about the extended game play hours contributing to the frame rate issue. Here is the link from IGN that I found which explains more. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1214971p1.html

MathewLadd (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Added. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Titus Mede 2

Titus Mede 2 wasn't the one who conquered the imperial city and became emperor, that title belongs to Titus Mede 1. Titus Mede 2 is the emperor during the events of skyrim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahqonnax (talk • contribs) 03:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Bobfordsgun (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

System Requirements for the Xbox 360

• Let me start off by saying that I haven't played any of the Elder Scrolls games, so I'm unfamiliar with what's needed to play it. I have the Xbox 360 but I don't have internet access on it... will I even be able to play it?-99.174.167.4 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, of course :). It is also available in single-player mode, don't worry! --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim is a single player only game so you don't need internet access to play it on 360. You won't get the patches though, you'll just have the game as it was released with any technical issues it had on release. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing Sources and NPOV

Someone took the very liberty to decided my comment on this was not relevant which was original right before the wounded knee one (this one stayed). Bottom line edits have to be NPOV. This article is locked because of vandals, un-sourced edits, and edits lacking NPOV. So please follow wikipedia guidelines both registered and unregistered users. Not sourcing and lack of NPOV seem to be the biggest ongoing issues with thei article. This is not the place to come and get your opinion across, there are thousands of blogs, reviews, and comments sections to do that.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Game version

It should be noted that Skyrim has a different number for its update in Australia; it's 2.03. 124.185.128.18 (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Technical issues section, source 98

The article says: "A Bethesda developer blamed "restrictive RAM" for the issues faced on the PlayStation 3.[98]" The 98th source however reports that: "It's important to note that Sawyer works at Obsidian, and wasn't involved with The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, which uses a newer engine developed by Bethesda." So basically the artcle is quoting a contraddicting source (New vegas was developed by obsidian after all). I'm not editing since I am not registered here. 79.50.193.51 (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Re worded to be less certain, and quoted as from an Obsidian dev rather than a Bethesda one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwalton9 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• • This information is incorrect and speculative. I would remove it if I could; since I have not yet been autoconfirmed. Sawyer is not a developer or linked to Skyrim in anyway; further more the comments are an opinion themselves. Most importantly however is the direct reason given by the director of Skyrim developement from Todd Howard as seen in this Eurogamer article. "The "common misconception", Howard revealed, was that PS3 frame-rate problems were caused by large game-save files. "No it's not," Howard said. "It's literally the things you've done in what order and what's running."" The article goes on to state how and why this happened after examining these save issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't seen this when I added the information, in which case removing it sounds like a good idea. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made the changes, but kept the previous source as a point to the widespread assumed cause. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Shouts

The article says "Twenty-three Dragon Shouts", but several fan wikias only say 20, which is also what the PS3 Trophy says on my version. TheDanishGuy (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Racklever (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the confusion was because apparently there are some NPC and dragon only shouts.[3] --82.171.13.139 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

These extra shouts are also mentioned on The Elder Scrolls Wiki.[4] --82.171.13.139 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Awards table too chaotic

Awards table in the Reception section needs cell borders or something; right now it's too chaotic. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

DLC and Steam Workshop?

The HD texture pack that was released for PC could be included as a free DLC. And there needs to be a mention of the Steam Workshop integration and Creation Kit ShadowStealer7 (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Name inspiration?

Does anyone think the name Skyrim, comes from the mytholichal norse giants name Skrymir ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.162.177 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:FORUM, Wikipedia is not for proposing theories. Skyrim's location is "at the rim of the sky" (far north of Tamriel). Look for that phrase via Google to find forums where the name's origin is being discussed. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Over-reliance on press hype

Lots of sources pulled from gaming mags before game release. Sure, it's a valid "wiki" source but it's flat out wrong. For instance:

Any sort of town economy. The framework of industries supporting specific towns was laid out (e.g the Mill in Riverwood, Mines in Dawnstar) but abandoned before release. It's simply not in the game without mods, though they advertised the heck out of it.

Them's the facts. Counting the promised features as told by Microsoft pre-release, it's like letting a company write its own article and lock it before the game comes out. I would consider not allowing pre-release plugs as source on game features because it just leaves the door wide open for inaccuracies as to what's promised vs. what ships. They are rarely close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.151.169 (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 March 2012

Hi, My name is Andrew. I would like to inform you that as stated IGN did NOT give Skyrim game of the year for 2011, that title was given to Valve's Portal 2. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d94GYdOjLSg&ob=av3e Thank you for your time.

Andrewti86 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it claim that they did. The reception table states the they gave it Best Role-Playing Game 2011, not best game overall. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Memes of Skyrim

Skyrim has spaned numerous 'memes' such as the very annoying "Arrow to the knee" joke and the famous 'Fus Ro Dah'. These memes have a strong impact upon internet society. But these memes seem to be used way too much. But in the eyes of the fans, it has just begun. -DragonBorn

So? Bobfordsgun (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Game Informer Review

THe game was given a 9.5 please add the score — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.5.75 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 April 2012

I want to add the information about the 1.5 patch, that the patch is now on the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360.

187.67.58.166 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The infobox states the version as 1.5, and the patches section only covers the PC version. What more specifically did you want to change? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I found a source that the patch 1.5 is now downloadable in the console versions in the Playsation 3 and Xbox 360, i want to change the information about the 1.5 patch, it is now on the console versions, here the source: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/04/05/skyrim-1-5-live-on-360-hits-ps3-this-afternoon/ 187.67.58.166 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

More pictures needed

There is a tiny screenshot of the game and the cover art which is pretty spartan. For a videogame that's so popular definitely needs more pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.173 (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Here on Wikipedia we don't include screenshots without a good reason due to copyright issues; we do not include them simply because they look nice. If there is something specific about the game that you don't feel can be properly expressed in words then we can consider including a screenshot of it. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 10:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In writing, each mention should have a point.

Concerning your edit in Skyrim plot section here:

Ysgramor informs the player that Alduin has placed a "soul snare" in Sovngarde, allowing him to gain strength by devouring the souls of deceased Nords arriving there. The player meets up with the three heroes of Nordic legend who defeated Alduin originally, and, with their help, destroys the soul snare, confronts Alduin in Sovngarde and destroys him.

-

Some people might want to remove 'destroy the soul snare' part to make things concise and the sentence more readable, but the information was there not as wp:fancruft but to justify the mention of Sovngarde. Because in writing, especially in a summary or synopsis (or even in a novel), each mention should have a point.

If, in a synopsis, you describe a tree standing there in a scene, and there's no mention of anything else consequential to that tree, then there's no point of mentioning it. (Synopsis keeps only important things. And if the tree's just there, why is it worth mentioning? Is it fancruft? Is it there because the contributor likes how cool it is? OR will it be important later on?) If that tree will yield a fruit that will drop onto someone's head and causes his death later, you might wish to mention that tree, because it matters later. Same goes for the soul snare. Ysgramor just mentioned it, and most readers who don't play Skyrim might ask why this is important, because there's no evident reason mentioned in the article. They definitely won't know how cool the soul snare is. It's just there, then does nothing. That makes it inconsequential. But if you mentioned that it must be destroyed later, to defeat Alduin. Then that information about soul snare has a point of being there. I added the information because I didn't want to cut anyone else's information. If you really wish to delete the part saying that the soul snare must be destroyed in order to to force Alduin to show up, then Ysgramor's mention of the soul snare has no reason to be there either, since it's inconsequential.

If you know how to word the sentence better, feel free to edit it. But please consider that its presence is needed to justify Ysgramor's mention of soul snare. If you wish to delete it, kindly remove Ysgramor's mention as well. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - patch 1.6 (mounted combat)

The upcoming patch/update 1.6 (which is in its beta stage on Steam) includes mounted combat and some bug fixes. I think the inclusion of mounted combat includes a mention. The combat is reminiscent of Mount and Blade (slightly). I don't have any sources with me, but a google search would do. Gameinformer, Kotaku, IGN, OXM, any gaming/pc website, etc. --78.147.74.79 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"In popular culture" section?

Anybody think a popular culture section would be applicable for Skyrim?

Considering the amount of content that has been spawned from this game, videos, machinimas, live-action films, musics, memes, etc. I know most of it isn't particularly noteworthy, but perhaps the -impact- on pop culture is? I dunno, just seeing if anyone else agrees. Bobfordsgun (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a look for some refs to support the section, all I could find is this. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

that's what I was wondering, would the ref have to be in something such as a TV show or the like, rather than internet culture and YouTube videos for it to warrant it's own section? Bobfordsgun (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find sources of the Internet culture, which I couldn't, I'm sure it could warrant its own section. EDIT: I just found this. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 07 May 2012

The patch section mentions only the positive side of patch 1.5. I'm requesting an update. Sailing the internet learns many players, including me, experience new bugs and even more crashes again. Some of us, maybe many of us, even give up playing.

Secondly, IGN was cited about Skyrim having infinite quests. The quote I feel is suspicious to begin with because it's easy to calculate such claim is impossible having basic knowledge of the game. 150 "dungeons" and a bunch of cities and towns. Each city/dungeon has an average of say max 2 quests. It's still impressive, but claiming it to be unlimited is sheer nonsense. I'm requesting that the claim is being removed. The fact that IGN said so doesn't mean it is automatically worthy of Wiki-attention. If it is, I consider myself experienced and would like to point to my own blog entry (work in progress but the message is clear): I hope it's worthy of Wiki attention, next to the IGN quotes and other big boys who think this is the best game ever and whatnot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.106.131 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed your blog link, first off you are not being neutral and overtly concerned with forwarding a point of view. Wikipedia is not a soap box for self promotion. For further information see this policy Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I am moving this to the bottom of the page and I will review your request. --0pen$0urce (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

" Secondly, IGN was cited about Skyrim having infinite quests. The quote I feel is suspicious to begin with because it's easy to calculate such claim is impossible having basic knowledge of the game. 150 "dungeons" and a bunch of cities and towns. Each city/dungeon has an average of say max 2 quests. It's still impressive, but claiming it to be unlimited is sheer nonsense."

Actually, the radiant quest system generated by the guilds etc. make quests infinite. Granted, they follow similar/repeating outlines and outcomes but they do provide an endless number of quests to participate in, which Bethesda added to solve players' issues with running out of things to do after completing guilds in previous games. Bobfordsgun (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See also the concerns given above. When you have provided this, simply change the |answered= parameter on {{edit semi-protected}} from "yes" to "no." This will reactivate the template. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

@Bobfordsgun: The Radiant Quest system does not make the number of quests infinite. What it does is give a certain number of quest types (e.g. kill bandits for the Jarl of Whiterun) that can be repeated at a limited number of locations. Granted, the total number of possible quests is very large, but it is still finite by definition. 90.210.26.63 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)