Digital Foundry VS Bethesda: PS3 Skyrim is still shit

My friend's save is like 45 MB, with over 220 hours played. The patch helped him a bunch, but he also did a few things that were suggested on the official forums (turning off auto-save is the only one of the 4 or 5 things suggested).

I'm glad I bought this for PC, but I feel really bad for those who went the PS3 route. Sort of unfair that y'all got the super shaft on this.
 
My friend's save is like 45 MB, with over 220 hours played. The patch helped him a bunch, but he also did a few things that were suggested on the official forums (turning off auto-save is the only one of the 4 or 5 things suggested).

Is one of those things he did getting a solid state drive?
 
~Puts on tin-foil hat~

How many people think Bethesda is paying or has already paid reviewer's for their scores ?

Like Famitsu .... NO WAY IN HELL IS SKYRIM 40/40.

~Takes off tin-foil hat~
 
Guys, don't know if anyone asked this, but any info on the effects of the patch if you start a new game, with a new save?

Does it makes a difference?
 
After reading what J. E. Sawyer has said about the Gamebryo/Creation engine, as implemented by Bethesda, and the PS3, I'm not surprised Skyrim has the issues it has.

Also sounds like it's almost impossible to fully fix with a patch, without completely rewriting parts of the engine. Specifically how it tracks your interaction with objects in the game world.
 
After reading what J. E. Sawyer has said about the Gamebryo/Creation engine, as implemented by Bethesda, and the PS3, I'm not surprised Skyrim has the issues it has.

Also sounds like it's almost impossible to fully fix with a patch, without completely rewriting parts of the engine. Specifically how it tracks your interaction with objects in the game world.

What did he say?
 
What did he say?

Someone compiled all his comments into a thread on the official forums.

Short of it is that it's a combination of there being so much information a save game has to store, and load, on all the objects (NPCs, mobs, items, etc) in the game world you've interacted with, and the PS3 having a divided memory pool. Which is why it isn't as much of an issue on the 360.
 
Think it's worth posting.

Josh Sawyer (Guy who worked on F:NV said:
"divided memory pool"?

The Xbox 360 has a unified memory pool: 512 megs of RAM usable as system memory or graphics memory. The PS3 has a divided memory pool: 256 megs for system, 256 for graphics. It's the same total amount of memory, but not as flexible for a developer to make use of.

(Same fellow you just answered) So....basically, every time I manipulate an object, it fluctuates the save file up or down? I've noticed files can get rather huge, is there no way this could have been greatly diminished in a game as big as New Vegas?

It almost always goes up. Some areas will reset contents after three (game) days, but a lot of stuff lingers. Additionally, we also have to deal with "persistent references". These are objects that are immediately loaded with the game because we need to be able to reference them anywhere/everywhere in the world -- even if the player is nowhere near the object. Characters are the most common example. All of the companions need to be able to move around the world even when they are not in your current area, so they are all persistent references.
All object data (excluding art assets like .nifs and audio assets [VO]) for persistent references is loaded at all times, so that's more-or-less a permanent chunk of resident memory. The number of persistent references invariably goes up with each DLC, so as the number of DLCs increases, the system has less and less memory available. Of course, the player's save game file only gets bigger and bigger, since he or she is going through more or more areas manipulating an increasingly large number of objects.
This is why some of our later patches actually removed content from the core game (e.g. Primm). Even though we had balanced the memory footprint for the core game, DLC content was pushing down the available resources.

Is the inflating save file just an issue for the PS3 (I've seen lots of lag/crash complaints from PS3 users) or does it happen on all platforms? I'm just wondering if other platforms handle it better than the PS3.

As with Fallout 3 and Skyrim, the problems are most pronounced on the PS3 because the PS3 has a divided memory pool.

Hey Josh, different user, but same kind of 'lesser knowledge' bloke. What's a bit difference and how does it determine a save file?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_field
It's a compact way to store data. The bit differences in this case are just flags set up to mark what data has changed (i.e., are different) from what's in the core .esm.
Let's say that I, as a designer, set up a creature in an area. I set all of the character's statistics and gear and save it in the master FalloutNV.esm file that gets loaded into the game. You, the player, run through the area and shoot that dude. You loot him of his gear and put a shovel in his inventory because you are wacky.
The game needs a way to mark that his a) position b) health c) inventory d) some other stuff has changed on him. It does that by marking what fields have changed (by setting individual bits) and then indexing the individual (changed) values for reference later.
When you load the save game, it loads up all of the bit fields marking changes in your save game. When the individual objects load, it applies the indexed changes to those objects. That way, when you come back to the area you left two nights ago, the character is still sprawled out where you left him, naked, with a shovel in his inventory.
Individual bits of data are tiny, but there are thousands upon thousands of objects in F:NV, each one containing numerous data fields that could potentially be changed in your save game. Over time, it adds up.

If it's an issue why hasn't it been resolved.The pace at whivh game sellers basically dish an alpha or beta game to the marketplace is sickening. New V stopped being "beta" in mid-2011. I know as a dev my workplace wasn't AAA dishing but we had integrity
.
Since you're a developer, you should understand the implication of what I wrote. It's an engine-level issue with how the save game data is stored off as bit flag differences compared to the placed instances in the main .esm + DLC .esms. As the game modifies any placed instance of an object, those changes are stored off into what is essentially another .esm. When you load the save game, you're loading all of those differences into resident memory.
It's not like someone wrote a function and put a decimal point in the wrong place or declared something as a float when it should have been an int. We're talking about how the engine fundamentally saves off and references data at run time. Restructuring how that works would require a large time commitment. Obsidian also only had that engine for a total of 18 months prior to F:NV being released, which is a relatively short time to understand all of the details of how the technology works.
Joshua E. Sawyer*

Question from one of lesser knowledge... Is there a save game size that you would call "normal" for F:NV? Mine is 14mb, and i'm having intense lag in multiple sections of the Mojave/ all DLC lands. Just curious if that is/could be an issue!

That can easily be a big problem, especially if you're on the PS3. The longer you play a character, the more bit differences on objects (characters, pencils on tables, containers, etc.) get saved off and carried around in memory. I think we've seen save games that are pushing 19 megs, which can be really crippling in some areas.
 
Oh wow, thank you. I haven't read this stuff, and I always enjoy hearing what JE Sawyer has to say on... nearly anything actually. Man-crush total.
 
Someone compiled all his comments into a thread on the official forums.

Short of it is that it's a combination of there being so much information a save game has to store, and load, on all the objects (NPCs, mobs, items, etc) in the game world you've interacted with, and the PS3 having a divided memory pool. Which is why it isn't as much of an issue on the 360.

That's cool to know why it happens. Now fix it, Bethesda. Don't think that's an unreasonable demand.
 
That's a good explanation.

Seems like the engine is being stretched on ps3 for the amount of persistence they want in Skyrim. Some areas don't purge their contents at all, and the average time for an area to reset is longer than three days. I guess explosive magic doesn't help that can send everything in an area flying, and that needs to be saved..

In Oblivion save files didn't grow nearly as fast, I checked my biggest PS3 save file and it's 105 hours, and 5mb. With Fallout 3 I have one at 30 hours and 8mb.

Maybe they could purge cell contents more often to help. But that's at the expense of gameplay and it could cause glitches if it they haven't carefully planned for it, like quest items and npcs respawning.
 
I did this, and No. No difference.

Man that's sad...

I have the game on my backlog, I'll wait until they patch it further...maybe we'll get something playable in 5 or 6 months...

I would get the game on the 360 but I've always preferred the PS3, and I lent the 360 to my little cousin and it would broke his heart if I were to get it back right now after so little time.

Also I already bought the game, used. It's the first time ever I've bought a game used, and I'll start to do it more when I don't agree with a policy from the dev/publisher (I'm looking at you EA), or when I don't want to support then, but still want to play their game.

It's a huge change of attitude for me, I was generally against buying games used (I liked to support the devs), and I could understand devs/publishers trying to implement online passes in some ways, but after all the shit EA is pulling lately, and all the shit Bethesda is making their PS3 costumers go through, I can't support those guys with a clean conscience.
 
random idea.

why dont they have the save file size capped somewhere before the performance starts taking a hit and when the file get near the cap it starts deleting the oldest random non quest related interactions you had.

so after 15/20 hours and the save file reaches XXmbs it starts resetting the interactions you had during the early game so the first random spawned bad guys you killed, there bodies vanish and they respawn or the cup you knocked over randomly is reset.


I dont think a lot of people would mind.
 
random idea.

why dont they have the save file size capped somewhere before the performance starts taking a hit and when the file get near the cap it starts deleting the oldest random non quest related interactions you had.

so after 15/20 hours and the save file reaches XXmbs it starts resetting the interactions you had during the early game so the first random spawned bad guys you killed, there bodies vanish and they respawn or the cup you knocked over randomly is reset.


I dont think a lot of people would mind.

From what little experience I have with coding, I can say confidently that this would only make matters worse.

You'd be getting locked out of quests left and right, along with numerous other unforeseen consequences.
 
~44 hours in, before patch: stuttering every now and then (but still playable).
after patch: stuttering almost gone, perfectly playable.

I don't care what DF says. Beth already stated that they are not yet done with optimizing the PS3 Version.

If I compare the current state of Skyrim to oblivion back then on my 360 - its almost unbelieveable how much better skyrim runs.
 
yeah, as I thought it's a memory issue on PS3.

Bethesda is in sucky situation when they have a working game which breaks itself in some time but not for everyone and with a workaround. On the one hand shit works, so they can sell it. On the other hand it works very bad, so it's an ethical question if they should sell it. A class-action suit would move this question from ethical into legal area of expertise. I doubt that it will happen though.
 
So, PS3 gamers are a bunch of spoiled children, who knew!?

Don't get me wrong, bitch about online passes and stuff. But don't bitch about getting "360 ports" because they don't match your magical expectation levels. The market has shifted: PS3 is a minority focus, just be glad you're getting some of the titles that the 360 gets and buy them. It seems like some people on PS3 simply don't do that because "LOL XBOX PORT!" :/

People throwing their arms up and whining and going "why aren't they supporting us!?" when they attempt to (even if poorly) is crazy.

Great call back. I don't know if it's good or bad that so many people fell for it. I think it makes it better because it shows how utterly stupid that post was in the first place.
 
From what little experience I have with coding, I can say confidently that this would only make matters worse.

You'd be getting locked out of quests left and right, along with numerous other unforeseen consequences.
well it would be a nightmare to decide what gets reset and what doesnt and making sure everything thats reset wont effect quests and stuff.


probably way to late to patch something like that in.

still the first patch sort of made things better for people and it was spat out pretty quick after release and reports of the problem. they have had a extra few weeks now so hopefully they have improved things even more with next weeks patch.
 
I'm not really getting the memory issue part. Why do they store persistent data on the system memory instead of the HDD and just load what's needed from there?
 
I'm not really getting the memory issue part. Why do they store persistent data on the system memory instead of the HDD and just load what's needed from there?

because it works like that in their engine. fixing it would need to rewrite some fundamental code in the engine itself, it seems.

the only question is - if they had this issue in FO3 WHY THE FUCK THEY DIDN'T FIX IT THREE GAMES LATER?
 
I'm not really getting the memory issue part. Why do they store persistent data on the system memory instead of the HDD and just load what's needed from there?

Too hard to work out what you need would be my guess. Data packed into an ESM wouldn't be stored in a linear fashion, so it's hard for the engine to predict which game data and which persistent data to load and merge at any one time. This would be especially true in the case of a game like New Vegas, as systems like the faction system are global.
 
Problem is Bethesda could not waste a day more on testing/ qaing the PS3 version than on the 360 one. 360 has no problems it goes gold. Now imagine the shit Sony would make if Bethesda said to them "We cannot master the PS3 version yet cause it has some severe performance issues. Give us 1 month more." Sony goes "LOL WHAT?" and I fully understand them. This game had to be released same date and hour as the 360 version, no other way around it.
 
yeah, as I thought it's a memory issue on PS3.

Bethesda is in sucky situation when they have a working game which breaks itself in some time but not for everyone and with a workaround. On the one hand shit works, so they can sell it. On the other hand it works very bad, so it's an ethical question if they should sell it. A class-action suit would move this question from ethical into legal area of expertise. I doubt that it will happen though.

Bethesda is in a sucky situation? If I've got my story straight, they sold over 1 million copies of Skyrim to PS3 owners. Guessing that's somewhere between $30 and $50 million revenue.

Bethesda isn't in a sucky situation, I'M in a sucky situation. As a new Bethesda PS3 gamer, they tried pretty damn hard to make sure I wouldn't find out about this fiasco before it was too late. I bought the stupid game and it's going to stop working eventually and I can't fix it. The hell do they care?

Let me repeat that for shits and giggles. Bethesda sold one.. MILLION.. copies. Of a broken game. I DO NOT feel bad for them.

:(
 
Bethesda is in a sucky situation? If I've got my story straight, they sold over 1 million copies of Skyrim to PS3 owners. Guessing that's somewhere between $30 and $50 million revenue.

you don't understand what I meant. They were in sucky situatuion in regard to this case since FO3. Sales have nothing to do with that. Selling a broken game = dissapointed customers = sucky situation.
 
Engines are complex, multifaceted beasts. It may be the case that the lighting and rendering engines are different, for example, but the scripting engine and core architecture are still the same.
 
That's a 100% certified lie. How can they lie like that? And how can gamers and gaming "journalists" buying that crap? Why don't they ask now, postfactum, why Skyrim is still using Gamebryo?

Because gaming "journalism" is nothing more than hype machines for publishers. At this point, there's little to no distinction between publishers and gaming journos. There's a reason why gaming journos usually find jobs in the industry.
 
That's a 100% certified lie. How can they lie like that? And how can gamers and gaming "journalists" buying that crap? Why don't they ask now, postfactum, why Skyrim is still using Gamebryo?

That's why I brought it up. I posted a quote earlier from Pete Hines where he claims that the PS3 version was at parity with the 360 version in terms of framerate, fidelity etc. There's so much bullshit that Bethesda spread about this game and yet game journalist don't want to call them on it. Instead they'll just shower them with awards.

Engines are complex, multifaceted beasts. It may be the case that the lighting and rendering engines are different, for example, but the scripting engine and core architecture are still the same.

Sure, but he said the engine is "all-new". That's them saying that they created a new engine instead of using one based on Gamebryo.
 
Engines are complex, multifaceted beasts. It may be the case that the lighting and rendering engines are different, for example, but the scripting engine and core architecture are still the same.

you won't be heard. BETHESDA LIED THAT'S THE SAME OLD ENGINE WHICH THEY USED SINCE DAGGERFAL (
that's true because the engine was renamed into Gamebryo in 2000-something
) WAAAAAAHHHH!!!
 
Sure, but he said the engine is "all-new". That's them saying that they created a new engine instead of using one based on Gamebryo.

Your inference, not necessarily their implication. I'm not going to sit here and say that there's nothing disingenuous about the statement but calling it an outright lie is a bit of a stretch.
 
Oh... mah... gawd, I just saw the video for the first time! D:

This is unacceptable, seriously, that's real shit. I knew it was bad, but I never thought a single second it could be THAT terrible. It's mind blowing how unfinished products can reach the market, this issue is big enough for delaying a launch imo, yeah people would have been pissed but it would be way better than having to deal with that issue themselves right now.

*Looking at the game going below 10...15-25 fps* O______________O
 
Engines are complex, multifaceted beasts. It may be the case that the lighting and rendering engines are different, for example, but the scripting engine and core architecture are still the same.

This is the case with Irrational and BioShock Infinite, IIRC. They like the usability of UE3, but the engine as a whole wasn't able to do what they wanted, so the decision was made to keep the most fundamental aspects - such as UnrealScript - and rewrite virtually if not literally everything else; hence the ~five-year wait.
 
At this point Bethesda is probably doing more harm than good with PS3 releases.

I don't know, at least its playable with the patch. Shitty news though, best not to buy a Bethesda game anywhere other than the PC, at least modders can fix problems themselves there.
 
This is the case with Irrational and BioShock Infinite, IIRC. They like the usability of UE3, but the engine as a whole wasn't able to do what they wanted, so the decision was made to keep the most fundamental aspects - such as UnrealScript - and rewrite virtually if not literally everything else; hence the ~five-year wait.

It's a fairly reasonable distinction to make too. I mean, in a lot of respects the core of the Quake, Quake 2 and Quake 3 engines were essentially the same, and the Unreal engine has been a continuously moving target too. I dunno, it's just a software thing; you give something a new major version and it's "all new".
 
Your inference, not necessarily their implication. I'm not going to sit here and say that there's nothing disingenuous about the statement but calling it an outright lie is a bit of a stretch.

Some may call it lying and others may call it misleading, but the point is that Bethesda should be called on it. The problems in Skyrim are problems associated with Gamebryo. These problems probably wouldn't exist if the engine actually was "all-new".
 
Engines are complex, multifaceted beasts. It may be the case that the lighting and rendering engines are different, for example, but the scripting engine and core architecture are still the same.

And in the case of scripting, while the original scripting engine is still there they also have their new 'Papyrus' scripting engine.
 
Some may call it lying and others may call it misleading, but the point is that Bethesda should be called on it. The problems in Skyrim are problems associated with Gamebryo. These problems probably wouldn't exist if the engine actually was "all-new".

No, instead there would be myriad other issues, some probably substantially worse. Creating a game engine isn't something you do overnight, particularly not midway through a console hardware cycle.
 
It's a fairly reasonable distinction to make too. I mean, in a lot of respects the core of the Quake, Quake 2 and Quake 3 engines were essentially the same, and the Unreal engine has been a continuously moving target too. I dunno, it's just a software thing; you give something a new major version and it's "all new".

Another fine example is Source, which originated from GoldSrc, which itself is a heavily modified version of the Quake engine.
 
I look back with fond memories of playing Fallout 3 for 70 hours on my xbox 360. It was mostly perfect.

It's a shame I sold imy 360 after getting a PS3 as both New Vegas and Skyrim have been games i've had to just walk away from after 30 odd hours due to crashing and the stuttering. I wish I kept my 360 if only just for those two games, as with New Vegas in particular I know it would have been one of my favourite games this gen.
 
Top Bottom