Digital Foundry VS Bethesda: PS3 Skyrim is still shit

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?

Dont know how GameBryo is programmed but changing such a fundamental piece of code is deadly :p. I have first hand experience with a xna project.
Everything i added or deleted from the game fucked things up. I was busy fixing and recovering features 80% of the time,15% adding new code and the last 5% just getting frustrated.
 
Dont know how GameBryo is programmed but changing such a fundamental piece of code is deadly :p. I have first hand experience with a xna project.
Everything i added or deleted from the game fucked things up. I was busy fixing and recovering features 80% of the time,15% adding new code and the last 5% just getting frustrated.

yeah, sounds like software development.
 
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.

Substantially worse than dropping to 0fps and freezing? In those situations you've already got something that's unplayable, so I can't see how it could get much worse.

I'll just be interested to see if anyone eventually goes after Bethesda for this. Sega and Square took tons of shit for the quality of Bayonetta and FFXIII's ports, but at least those two were playable. Bayonetta PS3 was even docked points by reviewers because of it being of lower quality. Meanwhile the PS3 version of Skyrim has 20 reviews on Metacritic and only one of them rated it below a 9.
 
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.

Wow! You sir are a clown.

PS3 is a minority focus? What bullshit are you spewing?

Pull your head out of your ass and try to forget about coming at this from a fanboy perspective.

Bethesda make a product for a platform that is broken and unplayable, in simple terms they are selling a broken product!


"Just be glad you're getting some of the titles that the 360 gets and buy them" .......... again, wow!

smh.
 
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.
Eh, no? Sony doesnt have shit to say on that regard, bethesda is the only one to blame.
 
Substantially worse than dropping to 0fps and freezing? In those situations you've already got something that's unplayable, so I can't see how it could get much worse.

I'll just be interested to see if anyone eventually goes after Bethesda for this. Sega and Square took tons of shit for the quality of Bayonetta and FFXIII's ports, but at least those two were playable. Bayonetta PS3 was even docked points by reviewers because of it being of lower quality. Meanwhile the PS3 version of Skyrim has 20 reviews on Metacritic and only one of them rated it below a 9.

It's obviously impossible to say for sure, but my gut feeling as someone who has been tasked with taking a horribly built application and getting it ready for launch on several occasions is that it wouldn't necessarily be any better. Two examples come to mind, one where I got the devs to throw away the bulk of the application and start again, the other where I wasn't given that option and was instead forced to have them iterate at the component level. The former was a lot more of a nightmare for users (and the development team!) than the latter, and it was an important learning experience for me to say the least.

Like I said earlier I think this situation is inexcusable on Bethesda's part, so I agree with your second paragraph totally.
 
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.

Must. Resist. Quoting. Tag.
 
Wow! You sir are a clown.

PS3 is a minority focus? What bullshit are you spewing?

Pull your head out of your ass and try to forget about coming at this from a fanboy perspective.

Bethesda make a product for a platform that is broken and unplayable, in simple terms they are selling a broken product!


"Just be glad you're getting some of the titles that the 360 gets and buy them" .......... again, wow!

smh.

I think it was a joke post someone said, I don't think anyone could truly think like this unless they are totally insane.
 
PS3 version was never previewed or sent to press for review. Now we know why. This only illustrates that they knew ahead of time the PS3 problem has problems.

If they were gonna make garbage ports such as this they should of never made it for PS3 in the first place. Probably a cash grab. Which is why ppl should complain about it. "Don't buy PS3 version" is at this point of the gen common to the point it's not an attempt to troll like some interpret that sentiment but actually true. If anything Sony should be putting their foot down, but the damage is done this late in the gen.

Having said that ppl do say their PS3 version is fine and they didn't notice anything. . . seems like quite a few ppl say that whenever something like this crops up for any game. I recall ppl saying that about Bayonetta. . . Bayonetta!
 
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.

I am pretty sure Sony has their UK ninjas ready for cases like this. We heard of the tech guys before being at other studios helping out fixing stuff.
 
Substantially worse than dropping to 0fps and freezing? In those situations you've already got something that's unplayable, so I can't see how it could get much worse.

I'll just be interested to see if anyone eventually goes after Bethesda for this. Sega and Square took tons of shit for the quality of Bayonetta and FFXIII's ports, but at least those two were playable. Bayonetta PS3 was even docked points by reviewers because of it being of lower quality. Meanwhile the PS3 version of Skyrim has 20 reviews on Metacritic and only one of them rated it below a 9.

All reviewers finished the game in under 30 hours and 5MB save file.

Or so I hope.
 
How is it that the guys the ported Oblivion managed to beat this issue? That's what I want to know...

& how is it they weren't used by bethesda since? there's obviously ways of dealing with these issues, which these people apparently figured out, & which bethesda, even given years, obviously cannot...
 
I think we should put pressure on the review sites to submit updated reviews of the PS3 version... and new scores.

If they have any integrity at all, they need to address this issue. I don't care if they use Beth as a scapegoat (hell, I think they're probably justified in doing it) but to have perfect or near-perfect scores for the PS3 version is a serious blemish on their record. How can they expect consumers to trust them?
 
Nah totally also happened this gen. Can't quite remember which games they did it for though.




I totally agree.

Wasn't it GTAIV? I swear I read somewhere Sony flew coders to Rockstar to get the PS3 version of GTAIV up and running.
 
Why do Sony keep approving Bethesda games without extensive play-testing them? I'm sure Bethesda would realize that they can't get away with this shit if their game is denied by Sony and they had to delay it and lose lots of sales as a result?
 
From everything I read, it seems the PS3 is too 'weak' on important areas, to run the Bethesda gamebryo games and the way they save and it is inevitable that at many hours such problems will happen.

Someone who buys a game deserves to having that game work for them so Bethesda shouldn't have released this for the PS3.
 
From everything I read, it seems the PS3 is too 'weak' on important areas, to run the Bethesda gamebryo games and the way they save and it is inevitable that at many hours such problems will happen.

Yeah but I've read the third party PS3 Oblivion port didn't have this problem, and was actually a very competent effort.
 
Why do Sony keep approving Bethesda games without extensive play-testing them? I'm sure Bethesda would realize that they can't get away with this shit if their game is denied by Sony and they had to delay it and lose lots of sales as a result?

Not Sony's job.
 
From everything I read, it seems the PS3 is too 'weak' on important areas, to run the Bethesda gamebryo games and the way they save and it is inevitable that at many hours such problems will happen.

Someone who buys a game deserves to having that game work for them so Bethesda shouldn't have released this for the PS3.

The PS3 isn't to weak, the problem is that Sony split the RAM in the PS3 and Bethesda doesn't want to put the work into getting it to work.

The other issue is that Gamebryo totally sucks ass as a gaming engine. Hell, the company who made it isn't even in business anymore.

The other issue is that Bethesda totally covered up the fact that the PS3 version of the game was crap. They told us it was equal to the PC and 360 version and they hid the PS3 version from reviewers. They knew it was crap and still shipped it out.
 

If this is true, then why the hell don't they cap off the "persistent world" shit!?

I mean, it's cool but I'm not gonna fucking care that a body of someone I knocked off 12 hours ago is STILL in the exact same spot.

To be fair, i'm sure there's quite a bit more to it then just details like that ....I least I hope
 
They will not fix this... and they will still release DLC on the PS3 knowing it will only increase the likelihood of game breaking issues.

(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.

:/

It seems they aim to fleece us.
 
Yeah but I've read the third party PS3 Oblivion port didn't have this problem, and was actually a very competent effort.

It wasn't that bad, but it still had issues. The GOTY version for example had a bug that if you got turned into a vampire, you couldn't cure yourself. The game wouldn't let you hand over the items needed to make the cure.

Its still present to this day, they never got around to fixing it.
 
They will not fix this... and they will still release DLC on the PS3 knowing it will only increase the likelihood of game breaking issues.

Or they'll intentionally craft the DLC to be a separate experience, with limited bearing on the rest of the game world.
 
From everything I read, it seems the PS3 is too 'weak' on important areas, to run the Bethesda gamebryo games and the way they save and it is inevitable that at many hours such problems will happen.

Someone who buys a game deserves to having that game work for them so Bethesda shouldn't have released this for the PS3.

The issue isn't that the the PS3 was too weak. It was that Bethesda refused to tailor the engine for the PS3 and as such tried to force a square peg into a round hole.
 
The issue isn't that the the PS3 was too weak. It was that Bethesda refused to tailor the engine for the PS3 and as such tried to force a square peg into a round hole.

More like they aren't going to completely retool their engine for a single platform that represents maybe a quarter of their total sales.

And I think Sony deserves at least some of the blame for forcing developers to work around their silly split-RAM architecture.
 
More like they aren't going to completely retool their engine for a single platform that represents maybe a quarter of their total sales.

And I think Sony deserves at least some of the blame for forcing developers to work around their silly split-RAM architecture.

Then don't bother putting the game out in the first place, its that simple. If your not going to put in the time to make sure your game runs on a particular system (and instead cover up the fact that the game runs like molasses in January in Alaska), don't release it.

Here's the deal, I paid $60 for a game that I basically can't play, but was told the game would run perfectly fine.
 
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.

Its on PC too...
 
Then don't bother putting the game out in the first place, its that simple. If your not going to put in the time to make sure your game runs on a particular system (and instead cover up the fact that the game runs like molasses in January in Alaska), don't release it.

Here's the deal, I paid $60 for a game that I basically can't play, but was told the game would run perfectly fine.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but business is business. They put millions of dollars into the PS3 port, all the while being told by the engineers that all would be good by the submittal date. Then, once the game was due for submittal sometime in October and it was clear that problems were still there, again the engineers promised that things could be ironed out with a day-one patch. And when it became evident that problems were cropping up after extensive play, they again promised to have a patch ready before too long. And the cycle continues.....

I'm not claiming to have any inside information here, except that I know how the design process typically works in these situations.


There is nothing "silly" about the split memory pool. It was the conventional way of doing things.

Silly that they only devoted 256 MBs to the GPU, or that they failed to foresee that the GPU would take on a larger role in modern game design. Silly that they thought the Cell would make up for any other deficiencies.

Again, I'll reaffirm that I think Sony deserves some of the blame. Obviously, the best thing for their customers would have been to delay the game indefinitely until the problems were solved. But would most people have understood or respected that decision? Probably not. They would've been pissed that the game they were promised didn't come out for the system that they own.
 
Absolute bs whats Beth has done here, absolute bs, frak you consumers who purchase our game with your hard earned money, we dont really care about you guys.
 
I totally understand where you're coming from, but business is business. They put millions of dollars into the PS3 port, all the while being told by the engineers that all would be good by the submittal date. Then, once the game was due for submittal sometime in October and it was clear that problems were still there, again the engineers promised that things could be ironed out with a day-one patch. And when it became evident that problems were cropping up after extensive play, they again promised to have a patch ready before too long. And the cycle continues.....

I'm not claiming to have any inside information here, except that I know how the design process typically works in these situations.




Silly that they only devoted 256 MBs to the GPU, or that they failed to foresee that the GPU would take on a larger role in modern game design. Silly that they thought the Cell would make up for any other deficiencies.

If it was only one game, you would have a point. However, this is the 3rd game Bethesda has made (or had a hand in, in the case of New Vegas) for the PS3 that's had this issue.

They've known that their engine has issues with the PS3 since 2008 (when Fallout 3 was released) and have done nothing to attempt to address the issue.

Instead, they told us the PS3 version of Skyrim was equal to the PC and 360 versions of the game. Yet, they refused to send out PS3 review copies. They basically hid the PS3 version of the game until after it was out. They also told us that Skyrim was using a brand new engine, when actuality its just a modified version of Gamebyro.

If Bethesda knew their engine has issue with the PS3, it would have made more sense to say something like this,

"Due to technical issues with our engine and the PS3 hardware, we will not be releasing Skyrim for the PS3."

Would it piss some people off, yes, but they'd get over it. Now, by lying and trying to cover up the fact that the PS3 version is crap, they've pissed a bunch of people off and turned people off of their games.

I love Elder Scrolls, I love everything about Skyrim. its everything I've wanted in a video game, but I'm done with Bethesda's games.
 
Even the simplest code/bug can bring a system to its knees. You can read whatever you want into Bethesda's claims that the PS3 received as much attention as the 360, but it's evident that the majority of that attention was spent making the ported 360 code work as adequately as possible and optimizing what little they could. This seems to be the pattern for PS3 Bethesda games, yet people continue to support their ports irregardless of the previous broken games they've shipped.

I've said this before the patch was released that Bethesda is never going to fix this. They'll keep releasing band aid's until the game is no longer relevant to their interests. We can speculate all we want on what's causing this, but only Bethesda really knows and it's probably so fundamental to the game that it'll never be fully addressed.
 
Top Bottom