I'm not defending Trash, nor have I played Skyrim yet.
The whole Codex kneejerk reaction to games is part of the problem. If you don't want to play it, don't. If I play a game, whether AAA or not, I usually play it as if I'm reviewing it.
I RtFM, I play with attention to mechanics and gameplay elemets, I keep my out for possible bugs, I pay attention to the graphics and art style, and most of all, to how all of these elements merge together to create narrative. Because every gameplay element is a narrative element in gaming.
Writing a game off is bullshit. If a game is unplayable, if it can't even get past the first loading screen, then it is "banal shit boring" unplayable crap. If a game works, then we have something playable on our hands. That's when you use above criteria to judge how it does what it sets out to do and how well it does it.
If you want to pretend to be an elitist, at least do what a pure elitist is meant to do: criticise from a base of specialist knowledge.
If you don't have a critical frame of reference, you're just another voice in the chorus of retards and whether you're playing fanboy or hater, it's the same thing. Without a critical approach in which each title is treated in the context of past games and current games, then all you're doing is adding to the flood of useless "criticism" that already fills the pages of so many gaming mags.
Fuck, most of you just criticise all new games, regardless of their merits. Alpha Protocol is an example. Alot of Codexers desperately wanted their KKKs so they shit all over the game in much the same way they shit on Oblivion. Nothing of worth was gained and a good, but unpolished game, was left by the wayside.
If Skyrim has any merits, it's worth pointing out what they are. Maybe Bethesda will see that they don't have to make another Oblivion, but actually try to add some brains back into their work.
