Doesn't excuse Bethesda obviously but after how previous Bethesda games ran on Ps3 I can't say I feel bad for anyone trusting enough to buy their game on that platform without waiting a few weeks for any reports of massive issues. Just a dumb choice. Would be like buying the next bioware game and complaining about the ending when their last two endings were god awful, what else do you expect!?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bethesda working with Sony to get Dawnguard to run on PS3.
- Thread starter Starsunder
- Start date
Technosteve
Banned
RockmanWhore
Member
Oblivion and Fallout 3 where fine on PS3. Fallout New Vegas had its problems, but it was developped by Obsidian, not Bethesda. I didn't expect Skyrim to run better than the 360 version, but I certainly didn't expect problems like that. That said, I don't really care personnaly, I bought Skyrim on Steam lol
BruiserBear
Banned
Yup. Blame the customers. It's their fault. Or it could be Sony's fault too. I don't know. Take your pick.
I only know one thing for sure. It's not the fault of the guy's who coded the game. Definitely not their fault. Nope.
This is the only valid response to this problem, but of course that's not going to stop people from claiming otherwise.
They're not going to completely redesign the game for PS3. It's had similar problems over the years on other platforms, tracking everything, everywhere. It's just a particularly difficult fit for PS3 this time. Getting acceptable performance was plan, but that didn't work out for everyone, and they can't release new content in a similar state.
I had the same thing on Morrowind PC, not enough RAM, memory leak.
I had the same thing on Morrowind PC, not enough RAM, memory leak.
Eppy Thatcher
God's had his chance.
Between the chugwagon this became beyond level 35 and the fact that magic is utterly broken and un-impressive as fuck in Skyrim ... i haven't touched my copy in like 5 or 6 months or some shit.
pretty disappointed in the game, personally. But i'm only mildly suprised that it continues to run like shit. I have a hard time thinking about some of the first party games on the ps3 running/looking as they do and Bethesda "simply can't" get an expansion working?
I think Skyrim may be the first game in like 9 years that i go trade in to gamestop. sad story.
pretty disappointed in the game, personally. But i'm only mildly suprised that it continues to run like shit. I have a hard time thinking about some of the first party games on the ps3 running/looking as they do and Bethesda "simply can't" get an expansion working?
I think Skyrim may be the first game in like 9 years that i go trade in to gamestop. sad story.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
There are a lot of little examples. Mafia II didn't have any grass at people's houses when walking/driving but on the PC and 360 it was there.
Bethesda outsourced Oblivion on PS3 didn't they, they should have hired those guys again, not only did they get it working and running great but they made it look better with higher res textures and increased the draw distance too iirc.
What part of "Doesn't excuse Bethesda" do you not understand? It's the first sentence in the post you quoted.
Bunch of bull from someone who hasn't programmed on the PS3. You can use DMA on the SPU's to access the main memory, which would be analogous to a cache miss in a traditional processor. Second, you have less than 256KB since that is reserved for both your code and data, AND you usually have to divide the remaining space in half so you can buffer new data while you're working on the existing set. Not to mention he's also wrong in many other aspects, you can also practically have unlimited "Virtual Memory" on a PS3 using the HDD as swap space. You can also "Steal" from graphics memory, or at least read from it at a decent speed.
Working around the PS3 architecture is not easy, but it's doable if you have programmers who can actually think for themselves instead of blindly implementing what the design people hand out to them.
The split RAM is a red herring here. The issue is simply that they designed code and developed their engine in a way that was inefficient and buggy on PS3 (moreso that normal). The engine chugs on 360 too just not as badly and even on PC it wasn't that hot in terms of optimization at release.
The issue with the PS3 is that code has to be cleaner and memory management more controlled. The 360 is simply a bit more forgiving and the PC even moreso. While I agree Sony should aim to make their hardware easier to code for doesn't for one second change or alter the blame or make the PS3 the issue. Bethesda simply made errors in design despite knowing their target platforms and got caught bad on PS3 as a result.
The whole persistence element is way over-egged. That's just an array table with an (X,Y,Z) for each object in a game world and properly optimized there should be no issue managing this in PS3 memory - I've played the game for over 200 hours on PC and there is zero need for this game to be constantly checking everything - if it is then that's just another example of brute force lazy programming. Skyrim should only need to check objects relative to where you are and what quests are active. If it's checking more than that then it's poor engine/game design. Having played a few Bethesda games on PC now it's pretty obvious that optimal code creation is far from their strong suit.
There have been plenty of clues that what we're looking at is essentially bugs that trigger on the PS3 due to poor code rather some horrible failure of the PS3 RAM. Honestly, people speak as if PS3 has 512MB and 360 1GB. They both have 512MB but PS3 requires more sophisticated memory management routines and efficient use of SPUs (something that with every title it would seem Bethesda prove they don't have the ability to deliver to the level of other developers). All I see is Bethesda getting by on platforms that are more forgiving to buggy/lazy code and failing terribly on a platform designed to demand well written code (this is why most sensible developers lead on PS3 on console - if you write good code on PS3 then it's almost a given it will run well on 360 (which does deserve props for being designed to be more forgiving and easy to develop for of course) and you've got a good set of code on each. Leading on 360 or PC/360 (which it seems certain Bethesda do) is asking for trouble on PS3 (and they sure got it).
I honestly can't believe I'm seeing people blaming customers for being dumb enough to buy this or Sony for making certain hardware choices to excuse Bethesda.
Bethesda are responsible for their QA/QC and no one else. The PS3 could have 256 MB total memory vs 512 MB on 360 and it would still be Bethesda's problem if they tried to get Skyrim running on that, released it and charged full price and the product didn't perform.
No amount of but but the PS3 is hard to develop for can excuse Bethesda's incompetence and deceit in knowingly releasing a broken product.
Thats all on them. No one forced them to release a broken product. No one forced them not to do better QA. No one forced them to be deceptive assholes in the run up to the games release.
These are facts, and no amount of hand waving by the Bethesda apologists can change that.
Thats all on them. No one forced them to release a broken product. No one forced them not to do better QA. No one forced them to be deceptive assholes in the run up to the games release.
These are facts, and no amount of hand waving by the Bethesda apologists can change that.
How much is a PS3? $250 now after 5 years? Wasn't it $600 at launch? And you're saying $400 is a fair chunk of change.
Also, those who say they can't build a PC haven't done any research whatsoever. The process is so straightforward and PC parts are so durable that if you break something during the process then the part was probably broken before you got to it.
It "can" happen but it typically doesn't happen and that is the point. Other than the usual Bethsoft bug fest at launch the 360 version which I have runs fine, the PC version that I have also runs fine and the PS3 version which I have witnessed in person runs like shit. And that's why they shouldn't have released it and devoted that time they spent on the PS3 working on the 360/PC versions either in further bug-killing work or on additional content. They should have never released Skyrim in the state that it was in last year and even now after patches it's still not at the level of the other versions and it still can't run the dlc.
And yes there is at this point in the generation a minority of even the non-GAF gamers who only have one console and no pc and no ability to go out and pick up something else. A 360 is less than $200 and a computer is only a few hundred dollars more. How many of those 4m (?) PS3 owners of Skyrim really don't have another option to play this game? I would say % wise that few of them are PS3 only (no other console and no PC) players and that if the option wasn't there would have missed out entirely.
I think it had reduces draw distance, I remember less grass. The 360 version was released in March 06, a year earlier. 1024x600 and so on. Skyrim has better image quality than Oblivion PS3 on both consoles, and runs smoother to begin with. The 360 version kept a solid 30fps for over 100 hours.
BruiserBear
Banned
Yes, you certainly did say that, but that doesn't make your post any less silly. Your post sounded kinda like this.
"Of course this doesn't excuse the rapists behavior, but that girl was wearing a very sexy outfit, and I could see quite a bit of cleavage, so......"
Your post ignored so many relevant facts to this conversation, as if everyone who goes out and buys Skyrim on the PS3 knew exactly how the previous versions ran on the PS3. That's a little bit ridiculous, no?
Rather than focus on the company who decided to ship a broken game for $60, you chose to focus your criticism for the people who bought the game for $60.
Are you really trying to compare a buggy game to rape? *Mindblown*
BruiserBear
Banned
Just imagine for a moment that Minecraft came out on the 360 this spring and ran like crap.
Would 360 owners find it ok because "well, the game was designed for the PC, so obviously it was going to run like shit on the 360. lolz too bad people who bought it".
Nope. I'm just giving an absurd example of the kind of logic you were employing. Blame the victim who bought it, because after all, they should have known better. As I already asked, and you tried to deflect away from answering by asking your outrage question, do you really believe everyone who bought Skyrim on the PS3 was aware of how the previous games ran on the PS3?
Slightly ot but what open world games run really well on the ps3? I'm playing RDR at the moment and loving it, and would like to play some more of the same but have stayed away from getting Skyrim, Fallout 3, New Vegas because of the stories of the games being buggy, lagging & freezing.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Bethesda...... such shitty developers from a technical standpoint
HoodWinked
Member
lol
Yea, I'd consider $250 a fair chunk of change, too. If you've got lots of disposable income or spend what disposable income you do have on gaming shit, cool, but not everybody prioritizes things like that or has tons of money to spend. Geez.
Saw some weird posts about people saying Skyrim PS3 is still unplayable, but then admit to not having played it, Eh. -- Its not the same for everyone, but I did play through and platinum Skyrim back in March or April with no trouble. No fps drops and after fucking New Vegas, that was something I was looking for it.
That aside, just ugh at Bethesda. I took a chance and bought the PS3 Skyrim. The patch(es) made it work well. I was happy with my experience, but I did foolishly think I'd be able to play the DLC. I'll end up buying a PC copy/goty release someday. Maybe.
But this shit is still on Bethseda. I've been a fan since I've owned a PC. Own all their games. Most CEs and all that. First time I've felt a little burnt.
That aside, just ugh at Bethesda. I took a chance and bought the PS3 Skyrim. The patch(es) made it work well. I was happy with my experience, but I did foolishly think I'd be able to play the DLC. I'll end up buying a PC copy/goty release someday. Maybe.
But this shit is still on Bethseda. I've been a fan since I've owned a PC. Own all their games. Most CEs and all that. First time I've felt a little burnt.
Starsunder
Member
Yeah not so much. But a big stink that is still going to this day (obviously!) was made at how poor the PS3 version ran.
OriginalNameGuy
Member
This is the purchase I regret the most from last year. I went in blind expecting that maybe just maybe I would get a game that runs at a stable 30fps most of the time, but instead I got a true cinematic experience. Was iffy on buying Dawnguard to begin but this long delay coupled with Bethesda's horrible track record on the PS3 has sealed the deal
I think Sony could be blamed for approving the game's release on the system, but even then you have to take in consideration they probably received the game a few months before the release for QA testings, and that cancelling the game's release on the PS3 would've been a massive marketing and financial disaster for Bethesda, which would probably get back at them somehow. I guess they took the cheap route and simply released it anyway, because not releasing would be much more damaging to their brand and whatnot.
Not trying to defend Sony or blame Bethesda for this situation, just sharing a thought.
Not trying to defend Sony or blame Bethesda for this situation, just sharing a thought.
MEGATECHBODY.Co.LTD
Member
from Bethesda's VP of PR and marketing Pete Hines' twitter when some guy brought up Bethesda's inability to code for the ps3:
"Skyrim on PS3 is a terrific game and you can't convince me otherwise."
https://twitter.com/DCDeacon
LOL OK DUDE WHATEVER
"Skyrim on PS3 is a terrific game and you can't convince me otherwise."
https://twitter.com/DCDeacon
LOL OK DUDE WHATEVER
dragonelite
Member
Dat cell and split ram pool....
Truespeed
Member
If memory was such an issue why didn't they just drop the resolution of the game from 720p? Doesn't this seem like a viable solution if you're low on memory and you have no where else to claw memory from (you would even get a free speed bump in FPS due to the decreased resolution). What about down-sampling audio? It's just bizarre to think that a studio with as much talent as Bethesda didn't have the technical insight to handle this problem properly and instead let it turn into a PR nightmare.
Perhaps their failure was a result of trying to make a game that looked like there was parity instead of making a game that performed well on the PS3. The PS3 version was always an afterthought at Bethesda. It must of been agonizing for them to try and shoehorn their 360 code into the PS3.
Perhaps their failure was a result of trying to make a game that looked like there was parity instead of making a game that performed well on the PS3. The PS3 version was always an afterthought at Bethesda. It must of been agonizing for them to try and shoehorn their 360 code into the PS3.
Skyrim at the moment, or at least when I last played it, plays fine thanks to all the patching, it would however get worse with DLC, while it might not be up to par as the PC version it will be fine for playing through. Fallout 3 can be great on its own in my experience, the GOTY edition with all the DLC can get a bit chuggy though at times which is a similar issue Skyrim had but Bethesda never really sorted it out, New Vegas on its own too ran fine for me.
This is of course ignoring the sort of bugs and problems any version of the games might get.
Blaming the PS3 architecture is piss weak of Bethesda and anyone in this thread . We have seen how games built from the ground up for PS3 are superior to those on all other modern consoles as far as technical aspects go.
This is the company that cannot create balanced gameplay, normal looking people or proper animations, its no surprise they also technically inept when it comes to programming.
Just look at the state the PC version launched, unoptimised and glitchy as fuck. And they have no excuse for this. I do not know anyone who didn't have to waste their time tweaking the settings and ini just to get the game running at a decent level and the sound to play properly.
I really had PR guys like this. A complete fuckwit.
This is the company that cannot create balanced gameplay, normal looking people or proper animations, its no surprise they also technically inept when it comes to programming.
Just look at the state the PC version launched, unoptimised and glitchy as fuck. And they have no excuse for this. I do not know anyone who didn't have to waste their time tweaking the settings and ini just to get the game running at a decent level and the sound to play properly.
I really had PR guys like this. A complete fuckwit.
Some things are true, but well, there are to do with skyrim problems just relatively... I continue to repeat not has sense the game waste all the memory to remember a dropped apple from the table... why simply not eliminate that thing? It's completely useless & in the long time could give a lot of problems even in 360...
if only they were honest before i purchased skyrim.
i'm never buying another bethesda game at release ever again, and i certainly won't purchase one devloped in this engine EVER.
Truespeed
Member
The best part is that those trolls don't even realize that they're probably typing from a split pool system.
Lol what has to do grass with this... my God... pared back open world details in the ps3 are another matter... developers tries to save memory for better performance, even in subhd skyrim not would be changed so much... by the way with smart trick we can solve a lot of problems, grass could be popin to bitmap sprites in the long distance on the ps3 & so on... how assassin's creed can handle the same details of 360 version? Simply, it's matter of optimization, developer just needs to find alternative way to decept the eye, is not all question of specs & or standard tech. Look at the FXAA. No one thought was possible an alternative way to MSAA from years... I think a lot of programmers maybe need to concetrate more into the strongest aspects of the hardware to solve the weakest part, using more the creativity than the standard tech or knowledge. IMHO obviously.
I think they made some bad choices in their engine design, and now they are really stuck. They aren't going to throw it out and start from scratch this late in the gen. They'll just keep limping along, and hopefully come up with an architecture that isn't fundamentally broken next gen.
schwabdizzle
Banned
I felt Skyrim was way overhyped......it's kinda boring so in conclusion Fallout>Elder Scrolls.
NekoToshiro
Member
TheGreyHulk
Member
I don't blame bethesda for this. Games are getting tougher and tougher to "make it work" on 2004-05 level technology.
C'mon people. Let's be realistic here. They want to make an open world game on a system with 2x256mb pools. That's just insane to ask of them. The unified 512mb f/ the 360 and the more powerful GPU are definitely helping that platform with skyrim.
This is just more legit proof that we're in need of new hardware. The low ram situation really is stalling the games right now. It sucks, but we can't just keep blaming bethesda for everything. They're just having a hard time being forced to make a big world game work on a system with so little ram.
C'mon people. Let's be realistic here. They want to make an open world game on a system with 2x256mb pools. That's just insane to ask of them. The unified 512mb f/ the 360 and the more powerful GPU are definitely helping that platform with skyrim.
This is just more legit proof that we're in need of new hardware. The low ram situation really is stalling the games right now. It sucks, but we can't just keep blaming bethesda for everything. They're just having a hard time being forced to make a big world game work on a system with so little ram.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
Absolutely.
Similar threads
- Locked