Support NeoGAF

Werewolf Jones · Jun 7, 2014

In this interview with Todd at around the 20 minute mark

"Yes [we can stretch boundaries of old generation]. With the new systems, the main thing they really have - processing power mostly drives graphics - but the amount of memory makes a huge difference for the kinds of games that we make. So now that we're getting into 8GB (RAM) and so fourth, we doing things we really only wanna do on the PC..."

"Think about how we store and stream our games...We can just think about a lot more stuff at once, like characters across the world, even if their not on the screen. In Skyrim, it's clear we haven't loaded the buildings...If we have enough memory, it's already loaded when you're near. We can have the sounds from the inside come out."

It's a good interview, and he goes on to avoid the question regarding their next project. It's very interesting that he specifically mentions 8GB RAM - with the PS4 having GDDR5 RAM, does this mean no more crappy PS3 Bethesda RPGs. If I'm reading this right - he's basically hinting at no loading screens next game, with design elements like diagetic sounds from taverns or locations.

Also, question for PC modders - isn't there something about Skyrim on PC being tied to x32 RAM architechture, and PC modding to allow for x86 which results in much more AI on screen and better textures in the distance? Is next-gen ram all X86 - does this mean greater number of AI (think back to the Oblivion 'epic battle' of...uh...6v6?) in future Bethesda games across PC and console? Not a tech guy, so sorry if that makes no sense...

TheFurizzlyBear · Jun 7, 2014

Well both next Gen systems have 8 GB RAM but they don't offer all to be used.

Wishmaster92 · Jun 7, 2014

So tired of developers mentioning 8GB of RAM. You're only getting 5GB

Digital-Hero · Jun 7, 2014

Wishmaster92 said:
So tired of developers mentioning 8GB of RAM. You're only getting 5GB

That footprint may change more than you think.

JayEH · Jun 7, 2014

I really hope Fallout 4 isn't cross gen. That talk of stretching boundaries of old consoles scares me lol.

Wishmaster92 · Jun 7, 2014

Digital-Hero said:
That footprint may change more than you think.

It's gonna change, but for now it's 5GB.

Perfect Cha0s · Jun 7, 2014

JayEH said:
I really hope Fallout 4 isn't cross gen. That talk of stretching boundaries of old consoles scare me lol.

Given Skyrim's sales, I really think they could move some consoles with Fallout 4.

BigTnaples · Jun 7, 2014

Please god yes. Loading cells being gone is my biggest wish for FO4 and ESVI.

rokkerkory · Jun 7, 2014

I wonder from the removal of kinect, can devs use more than the 5GB in the x1?

orochi91 · Jun 7, 2014

Wishmaster92 said:
So tired of developers mentioning 8GB of RAM. You're only getting 5GB

Lol I agree.

I wonder when the PS4 OS will allow for more access to the RAM.

PhoenixDawn · Jun 7, 2014

Hopefully their next game actually runs on consoles, especially Sony's... Skyrim PS3 was absolutely pathetic.

T.M. MacReady · Jun 7, 2014

MLB 14: The Show says "LOL, no."

Saintguine · Jun 7, 2014

GreatCharleston said:
Also, question for PC modders - isn't there something about Skyrim on PC being tied to x32 RAM architechture, and PC modding to allow for x86 which results in much more AI on screen and better textures in the distance? Is next-gen ram all X86 - does this mean greater number of AI (think back to the Oblivion 'epic battle' of...uh...6v6?) in future Bethesda games across PC and console? Not a tech guy, so sorry if that makes no sense...

Do you mean x64? Because x86 refers to 32-bit limits.

Anyway to sum it up concisely without really getting into the technomumbojumbo, Skyrim has a hidden setting called uGrids which is essentially allows better draw distance of both graphics and the actors (NPCs, monsters etc.) unfortunately this setting really is heavy on the CPU and RAM and due to Skyrim's 32-bit executable (Skyrim.exe) Skyrim has a maximum RAM usage of 3.1GB though this has lately been circumvented by work around mods like Skyrim Startup Memory Editor.

Theoretically due to the PS4 and XB1's greater memory limits and 64-bit architecture, future games would allow for more crap happening on screen and greater draw distance due to Bethesda actually accounting for a 64-bit OS's capability of utilizing more RAM beyond 3.1GB. However in my opinion in its current state the Creation Engine is an unstable engine held together by spit and string, I wouldn't say it would definitely allow for more crap happening on screen + greater draw distance without the engine being adapted for 64-bit OS.

Aliquidmeri · Jun 7, 2014

GreatCharleston said:
"Think about how we store and stream our games...We can just think about a lot more stuff at once, like characters across the world, even if their not on the screen. In Skyrim, it's clear we haven't loaded the buildings...If we have enough memory, it's already loaded when you're near. We can have the sounds from the inside come out."

Reminded me of this video.

SolidChamp · Jun 7, 2014

PhoenixDawn said:
Hopefully their next game actually runs on consoles, especially Sony's... Skyrim PS3 was absolutely pathetic.

Yeah, and not just from a technical perspective. The way they handled that with their PR was atrocious. I'm willing to bet Todd Howard is still being a coward about it, unwilling to acknowledge that they released what was arguably the most broken AAA title in the last decade.

Branduil · Jun 7, 2014

I have no doubt that next-gen consoles could have 80 GB of RAM and Bethesda's engine would still be a bloated, slow, and buggy piece of crap.

I mean PCs don't really have RAM limits and yet their games were still full of stuttering, loading, game-ending crashes, etc.

Eusis · Jun 7, 2014

TeethMummy said:
MLB 14: The Show says "LOL, no."

Different needs for different games, nevermind that some are just programmed better than others when it comes to load efficiency (... though I wouldn't expect the best in that regard from Bethesda.)

I really, really hope they DO go with a seamless world on PS4/XB1. That sort of stuff matters to me far more than the graphics quality and is one of those things that'd feel really next gen even though you technically could've probably done that back on PS2.

InFamousRaiden · Jun 7, 2014

Looks like they are always trying to reduce loading.

On ps3 they achieved their goal by dropping the frame rate to 0 frames per sec.

disappeared · Jun 7, 2014

Does this mean we'll get to kite Deathclaws into the starting town?

Cave Johnson · Jun 7, 2014

Another one of their "Radiant AI" hype?

Tagyhag · Jun 7, 2014

I would sure hope so...I was so ticked when they made cities have to be loaded in Oblivion when Morrowind didn't have that problem.

Fortunately mods fixed that. If one thing Bethesda does right, it's their mod tools.

GifGafIsTheBestGaf · Jun 7, 2014

Great interview. He handles himself well and isn't a boring.

I would buy a Skyrim remaster for the PS4 without a doubt

rrs · Jun 7, 2014

I want something like Morrowind, but with no loading times between dungeons, house interiors, etc. The walled in loading areas gotta go.

Tagyhag said:
I would sure hope so...I was so ticked when they made cities have to be loaded in Oblivion when Morrowind didn't have that problem.

Fortunately mods fixed that. If one thing Bethesda does right, it's their mod tools.

Some areas did have walls, but nothing like Oblivion and Skyrim's obsession with them.

Laconic · Jun 7, 2014

PhoenixDawn said:
Hopefully their next game actually runs on consoles, especially Sony's... Skyrim PS3 was absolutely pathetic.

The fact that they released it in that state, and then money-hatted all of the big name review sites into asserting that it played identical to the other versions, was scummy enough to get them permanently put onto my "do not purchase from ever again" list of publishers.

antonz · Jun 7, 2014

Hopefully the extra ram will mean they can try and not released a bug ridden mess that only gets better when Modders spend tons of hours improving the game.

Should not take Modders to fix your game

BeforeU · Jun 7, 2014

I want to believe. But seriously, taking out loading times from open world games is huge. Dead Rising 3 is a great game to play because of that, i mean one of the reason is that.

Respawn · Jun 7, 2014

Not falling for this BS. We did not forget.

DeadlyParasite · Jun 7, 2014

This only furthers my burning desire for Fallout 4.

FloweryMarston · Jun 7, 2014

Cave Johnson said:
Another one of their "Radiant AI" hype?

I don't think so. The way he said it was more an example, or natural progression, than something that you should be hyped for. He even goes out to say "well, i don't want to say much so early, but one thing that could go well is no loadings". And really, bethesda seems to be the kind of company that puts their worlds higher than any other thing in the game, and doing this has paid of a lot to them, and their games are always very rewarding and memorable. So i wouldn't take this interview as something as of a PR talk, or hype for anything. It's just a insightful interview about todd howard and some of his design philosophies.

With that said, i do think this is a natural evolution that they will do with now more advanced machines, and revamped engine. He even goes out to say that they don't want to talk about the new project too soon because not everything is set on stone. Nevertheless, as todd said, their best is still coming in the future. Very good interview in general

SystemUser · Jun 7, 2014

Wishmaster92 said:
So tired of developers mentioning 8GB of RAM. You're only getting 5GB

With the CPU and GPU in the consoles what chance do they have of needing more RAM? I have never seen a game process take up more than 2 GB and then you can add another 1GB for the RAM on the graphics card. Admittedly my PC is shit, but it seems like the consoles have more RAM than the devs need for those CPUs. On the PS3 512 MB RAM was a horrible bottleneck when developers understood how to use the Cell processor. The bottleneck on the PS4 and XB1 is the GPU.

Both the new consoles have hardware dedicated to the OS. On the Xbox 360 Microsoft would not let a publisher release a game if it slowed down the performance of the Guide/Blade too much. I assume this won't be an issue on the XB1 and PS4.

nbthedude · Jun 7, 2014

I would take combat that isn't shit over no-loading screens.

k3rn3ll · Jun 7, 2014

JayEH said:
I really hope Fallout 4 isn't cross gen. That talk of stretching boundaries of old consoles scares me lol.

I dont think so. At one point he talk about no going after different platforms that are less as powerful just to get sales. He says he wont do it because it will hold the game back. I think hes referring to skyrim not going to we but the same case can be made for 360 and ps4.

The way he words this whole interview makes it sound like a cross gen title is out of the question

Dire · Jun 7, 2014

Perfect Cha0s said:
Given Skyrim's sales, I really think they could move some consoles with Fallout 4.

It's fairly safe to say that the plurality if not the clear majority of Skyrim's sales were PC. The game sold a total of 20million units. I don't believe exact figures have been released, but we do know that the game sold around 20million across all platforms, and at one time more than 5million people were playing it -simultaneously- on Steam and then there's Todd Howard's: "Skyrim did better than weve ever done on PC by a large, large number. And thats where the mods are. That feeds the game for a long time."

The point of that is that Skyrim's console sales are likely quite a bit less than what you're estimating.

I also would not be surprised if they faced some degree of reduced sales after their recent console releases. Bethesda console games at or near release tend to be just painfully broken.

I'm new be nice · Jun 7, 2014

Aside from the PS3 version of skyrim I think people are being pretty hard on Bethesda, calling their engine bloated and such. This style of game doesn't come easy, and you rarely see other developers attempt such a feat.

That said, I doubt they'll be able to eliminate all loading times. I just don't see it. They'll try to do too much within each area and they'll have to section them off again.

Lactose_Intolerant · Jun 7, 2014

I don't believe his lies.

Dire · Jun 7, 2014

Also the game will obviously have loading scenes since Bethesda thinks their players demand quick travel type systems even if there are seamless zones like cities/caves. The quotes from OP seem to be talking more about minimizing area pop in and the like.

SwiftDeath · Jun 7, 2014

GreatCharleston said:
"Yes [we can stretch boundaries of old generation]. With the new systems, the main thing they really have - processing power mostly drives graphics - but the amount of memory makes a huge difference for the kinds of games that we make. So now that we're getting into 8GB (RAM) and so fourth, we doing things we really only wanna do on the PC..."

Unintentional Fallout 4 reference?

/s

Spaghetti · Jun 7, 2014

looking forward to another dumbed down, technically incompetent bethesda game

k3rn3ll · Jun 7, 2014

SystemUser said:
With the CPU and GPU in the consoles what chance do they have of needing more RAM? I have never seen a game process take up more than 2 GB and then you can add another 1GB for the RAM on the graphics card. Admittedly my PC is shit, but it seems like the consoles have more RAM than the devs need for those CPUs. On the PS3 512 MB RAM was a horrible bottleneck when developers understood how to use the Cell processor. The bottleneck on the PS4 and XB1 is the GPU.

Both the new consoles have hardware dedicated to the OS. On the Xbox 360 Microsoft would not let a publisher release a game if it slowed down the performance of the Guide/Blade too much. I assume this won't be an issue on the XB1 and PS4.

I dont think it works that way. The reason for not needing more than 2gb is because that's what most video cards now have at least. Newer ones have more. The images/world is rendered in videocard first then passed back through the memory. Anything over 2gb at a time for the game isnt actual graphics/images but rather AI, physics, etc. At least I think someone correct me if im way off

Imperfected · Jun 7, 2014

antonz said:
Hopefully the extra ram will mean they can try and not released a bug ridden mess that only gets better when Modders spend tons of hours improving the game.

Should not take Modders to fix your game

This.

I'm glad you guys have more to work with. Maybe actually figure out how to use a fraction of what you already have correctly, though, before you worry about more. I mean, for fuck's sake, I distinctly remember having to modify my .ini files and administrator settings just to get Skyrim to use more than 1 GB of available RAM on PC back when it first came out. It took weeks if not months for it to be patched to do it without modification.

Derpcrawler · Jun 7, 2014

Saintguine said:
Do you mean x64? Because x86 refers to 32-bit limits.

Anyway to sum it up concisely without really getting into the technomumbojumbo, Skyrim has a hidden setting called uGrids which is essentially allows better draw distance of both graphics and the actors (NPCs, monsters etc.) unfortunately this setting really is heavy on the CPU and RAM and due to Skyrim's 32-bit executable (Skyrim.exe) Skyrim has a maximum RAM usage of 3.1GB though this has lately been circumvented by work around mods like Skyrim Startup Memory Editor.

Theoretically due to the PS4 and XB1's greater memory limits and 64-bit architecture, future games would allow for more crap happening on screen and greater draw distance due to Bethesda actually accounting for a 64-bit OS's capability of utilizing more RAM beyond 3.1GB. However in my opinion in its current state the Creation Engine is an unstable engine held together by spit and string, I wouldn't say it would definitely allow for more crap happening on screen + greater draw distance without the engine being adapted for 64-bit OS.

He is correct, you are wrong. x86 is an architecture, 32 bit or 64 bit it still is x86. There is no x64, if anything AMD named first 64-bit Athlons just an extension to x86, i.e. x86-64.

Just like PowerPC are 32 and 64 bit, but you don't call 32-bit PPC an "x86".

CGwizz · Jun 7, 2014

when this guy talks all i hear is lies and BS.

never again a bethesda game on day 1, they cant be thrusted.

i remember very well skyrim ps3

jblank83 · Jun 7, 2014

RAM isn't the end of loading screens. There are massive art assets that need to be loaded from drives and discs. It's just as much a matter of bus speed and bandwidth, disc read rates, etc.

N.Domixis · Jun 7, 2014

Fallout 4 multiplat confirmed?

Lucent · Jun 7, 2014

CGwizz said:
when this guy talks all i hear is lies and BS.

never again a bethesda game on day 1, they cant be thrusted.

i remember very well skyrim ps3

Yep. And after the first Fable, I did the same for Peter Molyneux. lol

Goodacre0081 · Jun 7, 2014

you see that mountain, you can go there

GenericUser · Jun 7, 2014

Dire said:
It's fairly safe to say that the plurality if not the clear majority of Skyrim's sales were PC.

Total Skyrim units sold 20,270,000

Skryim Sales By Platform
XBox 360 59 %
Playstation 3 27 %
PC 14 %

http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/

Just because it's the most dicussed version due to mods, doesn't mean it's the version most people played.

I'm fine with vanilla skyrim and I have full confdence in bethesda to once again blow my balls into orbit with the next tes. If it only would release a little sooner. I don't expect it before 2017.

you see that mountain you can go there

I still don't know whats so wrong with that statement. I find it to be true honestly, not really a selling point for skyrim for me though, but true.

block tower · Jun 7, 2014

Todd please only speak when it concerns Fallout 4, otherwise get back to making Fallout 4.

Derpcrawler · Jun 7, 2014

N.Domixis said:
Fallout 4 multiplat confirmed?

The possibility of it being exclusive was 0.0001%, with how much Bethesda games selling across all platforms it would cost more than Titanfall by 2-3 times in order to keep it off PS4 and release only for PC and Xbox One.

Zeuanimals · Jun 7, 2014

Digital-Hero said:
That footprint may change more than you think.

Yeah, it'll get better once they slim things down, but I don't think Bethesda even needs 5GB. They were able to have all of their games running like they do with half a 512MB RAM last-gen, I'm sure they could more than make do with 10 times more RAM. They'll probably use a lot for higher res textures and stuff though, so maybe they do need 5GB+.

And this is why new consoles are a good thing. Consoles make publishers a bunch of money since that's where most of the casuals go and so it tends to be what they focus their development on, the lowest common denominator for development gets bumped up so the devs can have their games do more on all platforms the games are available on (so long as they're not cross-gen), and everyone benefits, even PC gamers since they're no longer getting whack ports of games made for 8 year old hardware.

And then someone is gonna say "well, the consoles are already X year old hardware"... Please don't.

Let's hope this generation doesn't last too long, I want the lowest common denominator to be raised again in atleast 5 years.

Support NeoGAF

Todd Howard (Bethesda) talks next-gen consoles; 8 GM RAM = no loading screens?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Junior Member

Member

Member

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account

Member

Member

Member

NO ONE DENIES MEMBER

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Neo Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Neo Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads