I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bethesda shouldn't be making these epic 100+ hour massive open world games if they don't have the talent; time; and resources to not **** it up. I don't accept the common excuse that it's "ok" for their games to be like this, or that they "have" to be so buggy because "the world is just so huge and there are so many interconnecting systems." Sorry, but if you can't make your game within your design without massive game-breaking (and, in the PS3's case, system-breaking) bugs, you shouldn't be making massive open world games. But people keep letting them get away with their shoddy QA practices, something I find particularly distasteful when reviewers allow the scope of the game to overwhelm their better judgement. It's a broken game fond of creating corrupted data files, runs at 0 FPS frequently, and has quite a few quests that break for a multitude of common userpath reasons? 10 out of 10, because as bad as the experience will be for most users, "my 360 copy" only gave me a few "acceptable" loading screen crashes"! Sheesh, the world we live in.
As a PS3 user, I'm especially jaded against Bethesda because what happened with Skyrim was nothing new to me. It was extremely common for Fallout 3 to crash on me on PS3, and the DLC missions were practically a slideshow in places. But Bethesda promised that that was a relic of their old engine, and that the new one would be much more stable and bug-free. Then they released Skyrim on PS3, and it was even worse. Well, that'll be the last Bethesda game I ever buy. The scope of the game is outstanding, but when I see a game as relatively massive as Xenoblade ship on a system substantially less powerful than the PS3 and it runs 100x better with no major issues, I can't accept Bethesda's laziness anymore.