Support NeoGAF

[Teletraan1]

I don't think reviewers actually finish games or play them for a long time. Even the PS3 only places would have had only enough time to quickly blast through the game, maybe just do the main quest line and a few side missions here and there to get a review up. They aren't going to run into the game breaking issues with the ps3 version in that kind of session most likely. Plus you have to dance in a circle with the game when you get it so that is going to cut into your play time.

 

[subversus]

. Just dont do dumb shit like the game loading every placed melon back at home in its exact spot. Streamline the game's stupid shit, dont just hurl it all out there and hope for the best.

nope. world's persistence is the main staple of these games so streamlining it would hurt them.

buy better hardware if you want to play the game. May be it's my mentality of long-time PC gamer, but it has always been this way.

 

[Valnen]

even better lesson:

Don't buy Bethesda games for Sony systems. Everything else is peachy!

Don't support developers that don't support all their customers is a better rule to live by.

 

[Esura]

nope. world's persistence is the main staple of these games so streamlining it would hurt them.

buy better hardware if you want to play the game. May be it's my mentality of long-time PC gamer, but it has always been this way.

Or they shouldn't release the game on the PS3 if they knew it wouldn't work right. Buying better hardware isn't exactly an option for console users.

 

[Pie and Beans]

nope. world's persistence is the main staple of these games so streamlining it would hurt them.

buy better hardware if you want to play the game. May be it's my mentality of long-time PC gamer, but it has always been this way.

I own the game on PC, still boring and cruddy. If I remember correctly, the issue is its remembering all those fucking melons precise locations and concerning itself with them even when you're on the other side of the continent. Thats always been an issue with the game, and the brute force "load everything to RAM" speaks of Bethesda's total inability to streamline their cobbled together game engines for better performance and more.

 

[Hanmik]

I remember someone on the Forums sent an open letter to betehsda about his problems with The game and the forums..

the guy from technical support had this reply to offer..

Hi,

We thank you for your input. Bethsoft does monitor their forums, even if they aren't posting responses. Just so you know, Skyrim, as well
as our other titles released on consoles were approved by Sony and Microsoft Quality Assurance before their release.
Best Regards
His/Her Name
Technical Support

http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1341643-an-open-letter-to-bethesda-freezing-and-lag/page__st__30

so this is not the first time they are trying to make some other company look like a willing partner in their crime that is Skyrim on PS3 (even though I love the game)

 

[yn-neko hates a cat]

Don't know what all the salt is about... If Bethesda can't make it work then Dawngaurd wont be released for the PS3 hence problem solved... everyone gets their wish. When Skyrim was released for PS3 broken, people said they should have never released it in the first place and now that they're being transparent about the whole thing, people want Bethesda shut down for doing so.

You guys are far to negative for your own good.

 

[InfiniDragon]

So I want to start by saying it really, really sucks for all the PS3 only people that are in this situation. That being said, yes Bethesda fucked up and did some grimy stuff to get people to think the PS3 version was actually gonna be stable when they knew it wouldn't be. But to anyone saying it's ALL Bethesda and that Sony didn't screw the pooch just as badly I have one question...who exactly, do you think approved the game in QA for release?

Having worked in QA for THQ in the past, I can personally attest to the fact that Sony can and will kick a "release candidate" of a title for the silliest, most arbitrary things imaginable. I've seen games not pass that QA review for some little stuff. So that being said...Sony passed this game. Because they passed this game and didn't tell Bethesda to fix their shit like they should have, it's asinine to say they get a pass here.

Both companies screwed you (the PS3 consumer). Bottom line.

 

[Esura]

Don't know what all the salt is about... If Bethesda can't make it work then Dawngaurd wont be released for the PS3 hence problem solved... everyone gets their wish. When Skyrim was released for PS3 broken, people said they should have never released it in the first place and now that they're being transparent about the whole thing, people want Bethesda shut down for doing so.

You guys are far to negative for your own good.

Actually, people aren't negative enough. I notice a few trying to downplay it.

 

[omonimo]

I remember someone on the Forums sent an open letter to betehsda about his problems with The game and the forums..

the guy from technical support had this reply to offer..



http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1341643-an-open-letter-to-bethesda-freezing-and-lag/page__st__30

so this is not the first time they are trying to make some other company look like a willing partner in their crime that is Skyrim on PS3 (even though I love the game)

How many games do you know are not approved to the quality assurance service of the company? It's a formal thing, no more. Don't expect that assurance would guarantee seroiusly something...

 

[SkylineRKR]

When is the Skyrim performance actually supposed to go to hell? I haven't played it in a while, but my save file is easily over 25mb and I think I sank over 100 hours into it. Performance has been steady throughout, bar some lockups here and there. Ps3, yes.

 

[Mandoric]

How many games do you know are not approved to the quality assurance service of the company? It's a formal thing, no more. Don't expect that assurance would guarantee seroiusly something...

Platform-holder QA normally approves things like "Still supports Sixaxis", "works with PSN+ Cloud", and "doesn't always crash on any given model" rather than an exhaustive list of making sure the game doesn't suck, doesn't it?

 

[Spinluck]

I blame this on Sony and their RAM configuration. We all knew it was a not-so-smart decision from the get go.

Well, that's bullshit, because devs have to compromise to get things running on BOTH platforms. I'm sure there has been times where corners had to be cut, because the 360 lacked this or that, not with this game but this gen in general. I'm sure there are a few things they could've done to get it to work on PS3, Skyrim doesn't have too many things that are technically impressive about it.

Bethesda seems to be the only ones stuck with this problem, their PS3 ports are usually abysmal.

But I will say, Sony did cripple the development process on PS3, but by now, no one should be complaining.

 

[Ein Bear]

nope. world's persistence is the main staple of these games so streamlining it would hurt them.

buy better hardware if you want to play the game. May be it's my mentality of long-time PC gamer, but it has always been this way.

If world persistence is a staple of the series, then surely they've had it working on much weaker hardware with previous games?

 

[Stewox]

PS3
Bethesda
And a bunch of hazy programmers

These are the ingredience chosen to create the perfect little buggies, but professor Howard accidentially added an extra ingredient into the concoction, C-plus-plus, thus the Unhandled_Exception were born, fps-drop, lag and freeze all dedicated their lives to counteract the perfect virtual world.


...

 

[yn-neko hates a cat]

Actually, people aren't negative enough. I notice a few trying to downplay it.

Downplaying what exactly? Bethesda is working with Sony, the platform holder, to bring functional content to customers on the platform. What is there to downplay here exactly?

People are being negative but its not just that; they're being negative from a point of ignorance. Not sure who makes open world games quite like Beth makes them and while they have definitely slipped up in the past, this particular turn of events is exactly what people have always wanted them to do: Be sure something works before they attempt to release it. To call them a bad developer for doing this or to say they can't develop because other developers are releasing games on the platform is silly and uninformed. Whose developing games with mechanics and complex simulation systems analogous to Beth games? People are comparing speedboats to cruise ships.

Spoiler

...and Beth is not the Titanic.

 

[Hanmik]

yeah but what kind of work..? working to make the DLC run fine on PS3, or working to get the DLC approved even though it runs like a stop motion movie from the 20´s..?

 

[NBtoaster]

If world persistence is a staple of the series, then surely they've had it working on much weaker hardware with previous games?

The persistence thing has been increased each game. Oblivion was 3 days until everything reset, Skyrim is 10-30 days, with lots more persitent scripts and events.

 

[Canis lupus]

When is the Skyrim performance actually supposed to go to hell? I haven't played it in a while, but my save file is easily over 25mb and I think I sank over 100 hours into it. Performance has been steady throughout, bar some lockups here and there. Ps3, yes.

When did you start playing the game? When I was in your situation back in november the game would be unplayable. How long does saving and loading a file take?

 

[Perkel]

Oblivion was ported to the PS3 by 4J studios. Bethesda handled the PS3 ports of FO3, NV, and Skyrim themselves.

That is sad. 4J did better job than Betsheda. They should give port to 4J again.

 

[NBtoaster]

Oblivion wasn't a perfect port. Large save files became unstable too, and it had a lot less to deal with.

 

[Blue Ninja]

Oblivion wasn't a perfect port. Large save files became unstable too, and it had a lot less to deal with.

It's what happens with Gamebryo, pretty much. I think Morrowind had the same problem, all the way back when it came out. It just took a lot longer than Oblivion/Skyrim before it reached that threshold.

And about this, well, I cant' say I'm surprised. It sucks for PS3 owners, of course, but everything I've heard of that version of the game just gave me the impression that they should've just canned it alltogether. They clearly don't have the capabilities to make their games work within the architecture of the PS3: look at how long it took them to finish the vanilla game.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

What the fuck? How can the 360 pull this off and the PS3 not? Is it that poorly optimised?!

 

[mclem]

I'd love to take a look at their memory map sometime; it sounds like they didn't really take all platforms into account when porting the game and now they're paying the price.

It was easier in my day. All we had to do was shout at the artists to use lower-res textures until the thing fit! Much simpler.

 

[Blue Ninja]

What the fuck? How can the 360 pull this off and the PS3 not? Is it that poorly optimised?!

According to Beth, the PS3 doesn't have enough memory.

It's literally the things you've done in what order and what's running. Some of the things are literally what spells do you have hot-keyed? Because, as you switch to them, they handle memory differently.

Apparently, the more you start doing, and the random orders in which it can happen, can start taxing the PS3 way more than it does the 360 or the PC. It was the same case with New Vegas, where Obsidian had to thin out the NPC population through patches just so they could get the game ready for DLC.

 

[Reikon]

Don't support developers that don't support all their customers is a better rule to live by.

Then you're probably going to end up skipping a lot of games since a lot of companies don't treat their PC versions well.

 

[eXistor]

So, is it safe to say Fallout 4 won't get a PS3 release?

 

[ScreenSplitter]

So, is it safe to say Fallout 4 won't get a PS3 release?

It being next gen, I doubt it.

From what I've heard, you're best off skipping Dawnguard anyway.

 

[Strummerjones]

Apparently, the more you start doing, and the random orders in which it can happen, can start taxing the PS3 way more than it does the 360 or the PC. It was the same case with New Vegas, where Obsidian had to thin out the NPC population through patches just so they could get the game ready for DLC.

Fallout New Vegas has PS3 specific code to permanently remove objects in busy areas - and that was before the DLC related NPC purges. I'd imagine the other gamebryo based games have similar code.

 

[MutantCamel]

I can't see why any PS3 user would give any more money to this company.

 

[rvy]

I can't see why any PS3 user would give any more money to this company.

.

 

[Petrichor]

Well, that's bullshit, because devs have to compromise to get things running on BOTH platforms. I'm sure there has been times where corners had to be cut, because the 360 lacked this or that, not with this game but this gen in general. I'm sure there are a few things they could've done to get it to work on PS3, Skyrim doesn't have too many things that are technically impressive about it.

Bethesda seems to be the only ones stuck with this problem, their PS3 ports are usually abysmal.

But I will say, Sony did cripple the development process on PS3, but by now, no one should be complaining.

What other companies are making open world games like bethesda at the moment that are heavily RAM intensive?

GAF seems unable to comprehend that the PS3 must be a terrible platform for these kinds of games. I do agree that bethesda shouldn't even have put it on the platform if it wasn't possible, though.

 

[Enco]

All those other devs got lucky. Right Bethesda?

Ridiculous. How about you get a new engine and better devs?

 

[szaromir]

What I don't don't understand is why they decided to make Dawnguard like that since they knew about PS3 memory problems beforehand. They should have done something like Point Lookout, that is a separate landmass only a fraction as big as the original world, rather than throw stuff into the original world like Broken Steel.

 

[EGM1966]

Bias response : It's Sony's fault! Split RAM!

Considered response : coded properly the game should be able to operate on 512MB of split RAM vs 512 MB of unified RAM. Bethesda released Oblivion on PS3 and were fully aware of the architecture heading into development of Skyrim and the re-vamp of the underlying engine. Bethesda have to carry the can for failing to develop properly optimized code for PS3.

It's their fault their product is unoptimized on a certain platform. I doubt they wanted it but they produced an engine that wasn't up to scratch. And please with the honesty. They put the game on PS3 and saw millions of sales without hesitation and like most corporations have only come clean when caught red handed when the true state of the PS3 version of the game became clear.

There are other games that offer similar experience to Skyrim on PS3 that seem to work fine. I see no reason the game wouldn't work if the design of the engine and the optimization of the code of the engine had been handled correctly.

The bottom line is they clearly didn't have the skill to produce this engine in a form suitable for PC, 360 and PS3 and they should either have skipped the PS3 (if they really wanted to be honest) or sank more time/money into fixing the core engine/code and pushing back the release of Skyrim.

They took the easy, screw the customer protect the business way out and they should be hauled over the coals by the customer base for this.

Of course those who actually have that odd bias to favour a company/platform over another will chose to see this otherwise.

 

[Mastperf]

Are we sure Bethesda had the final say on releasing the game?

 

[CrankyKong]

I hope everyone has learned their lesson now.

Do not buy Bethesda games on consoles.

Worked fine for me on 360.
Load times werent great but no real problems

 

[Canis lupus]

I can't see why any PS3 user would give any more money to this company.

You would think after so many years working with the ps3 they would get more experienced with it/design their games differently so it works on the ps3 aswel.

 

[BoilersFan23]

So I want to start by saying it really, really sucks for all the PS3 only people that are in this situation. That being said, yes Bethesda fucked up and did some grimy stuff to get people to think the PS3 version was actually gonna be stable when they knew it wouldn't be. But to anyone saying it's ALL Bethesda and that Sony didn't screw the pooch just as badly I have one question...who exactly, do you think approved the game in QA for release?

Having worked in QA for THQ in the past, I can personally attest to the fact that Sony can and will kick a "release candidate" of a title for the silliest, most arbitrary things imaginable. I've seen games not pass that QA review for some little stuff. So that being said...Sony passed this game. Because they passed this game and didn't tell Bethesda to fix their shit like they should have, it's asinine to say they get a pass here.

Both companies screwed you (the PS3 consumer). Bottom line.

You also need to realize there's no way SCEA wants a 360 version on the market with no PS3 version out. You know MS would love having a timed exclusive because of SCEA rejecting a game.

 

[elektrixx]

The mess would've been much worse if this DLC was a timed exclusive on PS3 instead.

Imagine if such a contract forced everyone to wait.

 

[disappeared]

This fucking console generation.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

So I want to start by saying it really, really sucks for all the PS3 only people that are in this situation. That being said, yes Bethesda fucked up and did some grimy stuff to get people to think the PS3 version was actually gonna be stable when they knew it wouldn't be. But to anyone saying it's ALL Bethesda and that Sony didn't screw the pooch just as badly I have one question...who exactly, do you think approved the game in QA for release?

Having worked in QA for THQ in the past, I can personally attest to the fact that Sony can and will kick a "release candidate" of a title for the silliest, most arbitrary things imaginable. I've seen games not pass that QA review for some little stuff. So that being said...Sony passed this game. Because they passed this game and didn't tell Bethesda to fix their shit like they should have, it's asinine to say they get a pass here.

Both companies screwed you (the PS3 consumer). Bottom line.

My experience of platform holders QA process is that they will NEVER pass anything 100%. There will always be issues that are known. Nothing is ever 100% bug free.

The platform holder will reach a point in the QA process where they are satisfied the known critical stuff is addressed and will present the game publisher with a waiver form which amounts to "We agree to pass this in our QA with these known issues but you must accept accountability for issues known and unknown".

No publisher gets to their game through Sony (or others') QA with a clean bill of health. So they always agree the waiver to get their game into production and onto shelves.

This makes it pretty transparent as to who is accountable.

 

[bunbun777]

It's a strange feeling, I platinumed the game on ps3 and generally had a great time even with all the slowdown crap pre patch, but I just knew that I was not going to get the dlc. Will not support them anymore, my loss I guess. Did keep my savefile maybe in a year or so will rent goty edition.

 

[Cwarrior]

Bethesda even conned MS into paying for a DLC timed exclusivity!

Microsoft didn't even need to pay for that shit! Lol!

Hahalolol that got me hard.

 

[RoadHazard]

I still love Skyrim (PC), but Bethesda and PS3, lol. What a disaster.

 

[kerrak]

Even if i played Skyrim on ps3 with the game not breaking on me, my status now is "Bethesda former client".

 

[Spinluck]

What other companies are making open world games like bethesda at the moment that are heavily RAM intensive?

Heavily RAM intensive? Then how in the hell can the 360 run it? It's not like that thing is packing much RAM either. I can get the PC version using lots of RAM, but we know how botched console versions end up being. My point is, yes, Sony handicapped the PS3 in that aspect(memory for the most part). But like I said before, devs cut corners to get shit just right on BOTH platforms, Bethesda should be no different. If ONE system doesn't allow it, they scrap it, it's a compromise yes. But that's just how it is, cause shit like this just leaves a good fraction of your consumers in the rain. I still don't get how people still bought this game after the TEERRRRRIBBLLEE Fallout ports the PS3 got, but whatever. Oblivion didn't run that bad on PS3, game was boring though,

Hopefully Sony learns their lesson with PS4. I hear Vita is a breeze to make games for, so that's good. Perhaps that's a little insight on how the PS4 will be.

 

[xJavonta]

"Cell is a supercomputer"

Lol. The only dev that can really use the PS3 to its full potential is Naughty Dog. At least from what I've seen.

 

[RPGCrazied]

After all that wait and patches, the main game was playable and looked decent. I only had like 1 freeze the whole 80hours I played. I guess they are afraid if they released it, it would break the main game over again, and god knows how long it would take for them to fix it.

 

[Styles]

I can't see why any PS3 user would give any more money to this company.

Lesson learned.