Support NeoGAF

[H_Prestige]

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 screw over the consumer who paid you $60. I didn't design the ps3 nor did any other ps3 owner. If you think it's worth making a ps3 SKU, then make sure it works. If you can't make it work, don't ship it.

 

[Evolved1]

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.

^^^ not only that but they attempted to rebrand the engine... purposely to allay concerns that stem from these past issues.


edit: sorry... somehow I missed that you'd already stated this in your post

 

[GavinGT]

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.

Developers rarely make new engines any more. They're almost always iterative.

And I'm sure Bethesda weighed the decision to release/not release the game and did what they felt was in the best interest of the future of their company. They shipped the game on time, thinking it was patchable, made their money, and probably pissed off fewer people than they would have with an all-out cancellation. Hell, how many people do you really think even play a game for 60 hours? It might sound preposterous to a hardcore gamer, but I'd bet it's a lot less than you think.

Then don't screw over the consumer who paid you $60. I didn't design the ps3 nor did any other ps3 owner. If you think it's worth making a ps3 SKU, then make sure it works. If you can't make it work, don't ship it.

I'm not trying to excuse their behavior. They clearly acted unethically in the eyes of their customers. But my next post after the one you quoted explains how I think this type of thing happens.

 

[koji]

So, they can`t do PS3 games and developing for PC is a headache.

Next Bethesda title 360 exclusive confirmed!

 

[Demon Ice]

After dealing with countless bugs and crashes on the PC version and then seeing this on the PS3...I'm at a loss for words. I don't think I'll be buying another Bethesda game anytime soon.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Lets see Fallout New Vegas ships with some bugs, gets 80s and chastised about bugs!

Skyrim ships and EVERY PS3 version stutters to unplayability with a large save, gets 100-95s and probably numerous GOTYs.

It'd be a fun social experiment if Skyrim was the exact same game but had Obsidian on the box instead.

 

[Truespeed]

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.

I know, it's not like PC developers never had to put up with it. But, it's a console and you have a point. I keep wondering why they used a split memory pool and the only reason I can come up with is that an extra 256MB of XDR was just too cost prohibitive. The benefit is that the Cell and RSX can access their respective memory simultaneously, but I'm not sure how really significant that is.

 

[dreamer3kx]

So Beth doesn't lose anything here right, Beth steals ps3 owners hard earned cash and nothing, all they get is complaints which wont do ish.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Lets see Fallout New Vegas ships with some bugs, gets 80s and chastised about bugs!

Skyrim ships and EVERY PS3 version stutters to unplayability with a large save, gets 100-95s and probably numerous GOTYs.

It'd be a fun social experiment if Skyrim was the exact same game but had Obsidian on the box instead.

The main difference is that the issues with New Vegas affected the 360 version also while the main problems with Skyrim only affect the PS3 version. It just goes to show that most reviewers aren't even touching the PS3 version of the game or else you'd probably hear a lot more negativity about it (same goes for if the issues were in the 360 version). That's why Bethesda went out of their way to not show that version or send out review copies of it.

 

[GavinGT]

Lets see Fallout New Vegas ships with some bugs, gets 80s and chastised about bugs!

Skyrim ships and EVERY PS3 version stutters to unplayability with a large save, gets 100-95s and probably numerous GOTYs.

It'd be a fun social experiment if Skyrim was the exact same game but had Obsidian on the box instead.

To be fair, Obsidian got shit not only for bugs, but for releasing basically the same game two years after Fallout 3.

I know, it's not like PC developers never had to put up with it. But, it's a console and you have a point. I keep wondering why they used a split memory pool and the only reason I can come up with is that an extra 256MB of XDR was just too cost prohibitive. The benefit is that the Cell and RSX can access their respective memory simultaneously, but I'm not sure how really significant that is.

I think they just had their priorities all wrong. They had to have Cell. They had to have Blu-ray. Before long, it became evident that they would be producing consoles costing them in excess of $600, and they had to cut costs elsewhere.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Always buy the 360 version of anything and there will be no problems.

So this is ok for developers to do? What does your post have to do with this thread at all besides trolling?

 

[Zeliard]

To be fair, Obsidian got shit not only for bugs, but for releasing basically the same game two years after Fallout 3.

lol, no

 

[Truespeed]

So Beth doesn't lose anything here right, Beth steals ps3 owners hard earned cash and nothing, all they get is complaints which wont do ish.

Their only play is to offer PS3 users a free Steam key. Their cred meter would then be maxed.

/s

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

To be fair, Obsidian got shit not only for bugs, but for releasing basically the same game two years after Fallout 3.

Yes but logistically with their team, 2 years wasn't enough time to really reinvent the wheel, and I think their tweaks and additions to the gameplay/rpg systems actually make it harder to go back to Fallout 3 even though I like the more theme-parkish design of Fallout 3 over the more realistic but blander New Vegas world.

But apparently this is the 2nd game for Bethesda that is doing this on PS3, and still not one smack on the wrist? Thats crap.

 

[Cruzader]

I know, it's not like PC developers never had to put up with it. But, it's a console and you have a point. I keep wondering why they used a split memory pool and the only reason I can come up with is that an extra 256MB of XDR was just too cost prohibitive. The benefit is that the Cell and RSX can access their respective memory simultaneously, but I'm not sure how really significant that is.

Whoever ported Oblivion made a better job than Beth at it's own game. That's pretty embarrassing. It's an older game but the ps3 was was "newer" back then so it was tougher to code for. So I don't think blaming the console Is the right way to see this.

To me this is comparable to bayonetta. It's still a crap port but atleast Sega did try and improve it to an extent after launch. If Sega can do it, these lazy fools can.

 

[Death Dealer]

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.

Only 256MBs ? So how much XDR system ram should it have come with ? Perhaps a 320/192 MB arrangement ? So we'd have better textures but less complex programs ? Or was Sony supposed to include 320MB or more of VRAM while maintaining the full 256MB of system ram, just tack on another $50 at launch ? It already started at the astronomical $500 and $600 price points. Remember X360 was originally planned to only have 256MB total.

From what I gather, this isn't even a GPU memory problem. If it was, it would have been simple to dial the graphics (textures) back, to free up more memory, and the problem would fix itself. It's a database problem. And if they were that tight on memory, they should have compromised something else on the PS3 port just so the damn thing can be played without dropping to 0 FPS walking down a path. LOL

It's not slowing down because the GPU is overworked, it's slowing down because it's a game built on ancient legacy code with a PS3 compilation which is fundamentally unsound, leading to severely degraded performance over time.

I think your argument that Sony bears some responsibility for Skyrim's poor running state, because PS3 hardware is so "weird", is ungrounded. PS3 needed its own project manager, with expertise. It was obviously not optimized if the game ends up a stuttering slide show. Apparently FO3 PS3 and GOTY had the same exact issue.

The series earns enough money, they should have done it right (preferable) or not done it at all. I'm not so sure the actual game programmers at Bethesda wouldn't have liked to try and fix it, call in Sony ninjas or whatever, but maybe the corporate suits said fuck it, ship the PS3 version broke, we don't want to spend the cash. And if that's the case, they should be sued in court and forced to pay damages. It's really no different than any other defective product. It's against the Uniform Commercial Code.

 

[Truespeed]

I do have to give Bethesda credit, though. Of all of the PS3 games released, I don't think any have ever hit the PS3 Mendoza line of Zero FPS.

 

[GavinGT]

Yes but logistically with their team, 2 years wasn't enough time to really reinvent the wheel

Sure, but it's not the responsibility of the reviewer to factor in such constraints.

Only 256MBs ? So how much XDR system ram should it have come with ? Perhaps a 320/192 MB arrangement ? So we'd have better textures but less complex programs ? Or was Sony supposed to include 320MB or more of VRAM while maintaining the full 256MB of system ram, just tack on another $50 at launch ? It already started at the astronomical $500 and $600 price points. Remember X360 was originally planned to only have 256MB total.

From what I gather, this isn't even a GPU memory problem. If it was, it would have been simple to dial the graphics (textures) back, to free up more memory, and the problem would fix itself. It's a database problem. And if they were that tight on memory, they should have compromised something else on the PS3 port just so the damn thing can be played without dropping to 0 FPS walking down a path. LOL

It's not slowing down because the GPU is overworked, it's slowing down because it's a game built on ancient legacy code with a PS3 compilation which is fundamentally unsound, leading to severely degraded performance over time.

I think your argument that Sony bears some responsibility for Skyrim's poor running state, because PS3 hardware is so "weird", is ungrounded. PS3 needed its own project manager, with expertise. It was obviously not optimized if the game ends up a stuttering slide show. Apparently FO3 PS3 and GOTY had the same exact issue.

The series earns enough money, they should have done it right (preferable) or not done it at all. I'm not so sure the actual game programmers at Bethesda wouldn't have liked to try and fix it, call in Sony ninjas or whatever, but maybe the corporate suits said fuck it, ship the PS3 version broke, we don't want to spend the cash. And if that's the case, they should be sued in court and forced to pay damages. It's really no different than any other defective product. It's against the Uniform Commercial Code.

Just read my other posts. And while you're at it, go back to the last page and re-read the comments made by the Obsidian developer. He places the blame squarely on the split memory pool. I brought up the issue of VRAM not because it directly affected Skyrim's performance, but because, had Sony recognized the general need this generation for increased VRAM, they might have instead gone with unified memory.

 

[SolidSnakex]

To me this is comparable to bayonetta. It's still a crap port but atleast Sega did try and improve it to an extent after launch. If Sega can do it, these lazy fools can.

I don't even think that it's comparable to Bayonetta. Bayonetta looked worse than the 360 version and it ran at half the framerate, but the game was still completely playable. I don't remember hearing any reports of lockups or anything that would be seen as game breaking. It was just a poor port in the sense that the visuals weren't as good. Skyrim takes being a poor port to a completely new level. It's the new standard.

 

[Akkad]

I don't even think that it's comparable to Bayonetta. Bayonetta looked worse than the 360 version and it ran at half the framerate, but the game was still completely playable. I don't remember hearing any reports of lockups or anything that would be seen as game breaking. It was just a poor port in the sense that the visuals weren't as good. Skyrim takes being a poor port to a completely new level. It's the new standard.

Yup, I enjoyed the shit out of Bayonaetta on PS3, it NEVER HIT 0 FPS.

 

[Evolved1]

Just read my other posts.

I've read all of your posts, and I'm still kind of confused about what you're trying to say.

 

[Respawn]

Only 256MBs ? So how much XDR system ram should it have come with ? Perhaps a 320/192 MB arrangement ? So we'd have better textures but less complex programs ? Or was Sony supposed to include 320MB or more of VRAM while maintaining the full 256MB of system ram, just tack on another $50 at launch ? It already started at the astronomical $500 and $600 price points. Remember X360 was originally planned to only have 256MB total.

From what I gather, this isn't even a GPU memory problem. If it was, it would have been simple to dial the graphics (textures) back, to free up more memory, and the problem would fix itself. It's a database problem. And if they were that tight on memory, they should have compromised something else on the PS3 port just so the damn thing can be played without dropping to 0 FPS walking down a path. LOL

It's not slowing down because the GPU is overworked, it's slowing down because it's a game built on ancient legacy code with a PS3 compilation which is fundamentally unsound, leading to severely degraded performance over time.

I think your argument that Sony bears some responsibility for Skyrim's poor running state, because PS3 hardware is so "weird", is ungrounded. PS3 needed its own project manager, with expertise. It was obviously not optimized if the game ends up a stuttering slide show. Apparently FO3 PS3 and GOTY had the same exact issue.

The series earns enough money, they should have done it right (preferable) or not done it at all. I'm not so sure the actual game programmers at Bethesda wouldn't have liked to try and fix it, call in Sony ninjas or whatever, but maybe the corporate suits said fuck it, ship the PS3 version broke, we don't want to spend the cash. And if that's the case, they should be sued in court and forced to pay damages. It's really no different than any other defective product. It's against the Uniform Commercial Code.

Agreed. Also, they outsourced Oblivion. I guess they didn't want their in house coders to look like tools since the Oblivion version even though came out later was a tad better technically than 360. If you cannot code for PS3 give it to the hands of a team that can.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Or they'll intentionally craft the DLC to be a separate experience, with limited bearing on the rest of the game world.

SO THATS why the dlcs in Fallout 3/New Vegas have been they way they are....They needed to rope of the capital wasteland so the engine didn't give a fuck what item you stacked on dogmeats nose back in Megaton...

 

[Death Dealer]

go back to the last page and re-read the comments made by the Obsidian developer. He places the blame squarely on the split memory pool.

I read that before I even posted my comments to you. The problem boils down to Bethesda treating the PS3 version like an afterthought. Don't tell me you don't think PS3 is powerful enough to handle running Skyrim. This is a software problem.

Your 1/4 marketshare argument doesn't hold either. This isn't 2007. Worldwide PS3 install base is very similar to X360's. Even in the minority, large games sell millions of copies. NPD alone, at 27% of sales, PS3 Skyrim revenue will be in the hundreds of millions. They aren't some indie outfit just starting out, Imagine if Sony released a DVD release that always turns to static 3/4 of the way through the movie, and when people complain they say, why are you watching a DVD anyways ? The movie "wouldn't fit" on it.

Buy it for Blu Ray.
Bethesda's job was to make Skyrim "fit" on PS3 and they failed.

 

[wallbc01]

it really is bs that this wasn't addressed before release. it makes sense now why no one was sent ps3 copies to review. i still have my ps3 copy on the shelf in the wrapping and am seriously considering returning it.

 

[Fantasmo]

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.

It has nothing to do us supporting this type of release! Nothing! THIS issue is NOT common amongst 99.9% games released! For buyers of previous Bethesda PS3 games sure, but I played Oblivion on a now broken PC, and Fallout on a 360 I no longer have. This was hyped to hell and back and we were assured of near system parity. This is not most gamers' faults! Reviews then echoed Bethedsa.

I experienced bugs in Oblivion and Fallout, but in my 31 years I've never experienced ANYTHING like this.

This never should have reached the stores. Stop saying its gamers' faults!

 

[freenudemacusers]

I do have to give Bethesda credit, though. Of all of the PS3 games released, I don't think any have ever hit the PS3 Mendoza line of Zero FPS.

surely some kind of honorary award could be presented at the VGAs.

 

[perryfarrell]

This better disqualify Skyrim for GOTY then.

 

[Truespeed]

Only 256MBs ? So how much XDR system ram should it have come with ? Perhaps a 320/192 MB arrangement ? So we'd have better textures but less complex programs ? Or was Sony supposed to include 320MB or more of VRAM while maintaining the full 256MB of system ram, just tack on another $50 at launch ? It already started at the astronomical $500 and $600 price points. Remember X360 was originally planned to only have 256MB total.

No split would have been ideal, but any split that had more XDR than GDDR3 would have been a better solution because the RSX can access the XDR almost as fast as the Cell so it's really a moot point for the RSX to get whatever it needed from the XDR memory. The optimal PS3 split memory pool arrangement would have been to give the RSX as little GDDR3 as possible and the Cell the remainder in XDR memory.

 

[Xater]

This better disqualify Skyrim for GOTY then.

Well it certainly is off my list.

 

[CoffeeExpress]

More like Bethesdon't amirite?

 

[Truespeed]

It has nothing to do us supporting this type of release! Nothing! THIS issue is NOT common amongst 99.9% games released! For buyers of previous Bethesda PS3 games sure, but I played Oblivion on a now broken PC, and Fallout on a 360 I no longer have. This was hyped to hell and back and we were assured of near system parity. This is not most gamers' faults! Reviews then echoed Bethedsa.

I experienced bugs in Oblivion and Fallout, but in my 31 years I've never experienced ANYTHING like this.

This never should have reached the stores. Stop saying its gamers' faults!

I was referring specifically to their PS3 ports only. As for being assured of system parity - the comment was made by the VP of PR for Bethesda. Parity for a PR person is two screen shots looking somewhat similar.

 

[erpg]

Bayonetta fluctuates from 15-25 on PS3, and 23-30 on 360. The colours on the Ps3 version look a little washed out, but it still has comparable textures to the 360 version (barring angel gates). I don't know how you can even think to put it in the same category as Skyrim.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I was referring specifically to their PS3 ports only. As for being assured of system parity - the comment was made by the VP of PR for Bethesda. Parity for a PR person is two screen shots looking somewhat similar.

Yes, PS3 and 360 have reached a good place of parity....framerate, fidelity, etc. The PS3 version is getting a ton of attention

http://twitter.com/DCDeacon/status/108594625547206656

 

[freenudemacusers]

Yeah that statement is really indefensible.

 

[Marco1]

I know people are blaming Sony but surely Bethesda could have tailored the engine for the PS3 hardware but why didn't they?
I also don't blame Sony for their decision to go with split ram as it was obviously the right thing to so at the time or they wouldn't have done it.

 

[TheSeks]

http://twitter.com/DCDeacon/status/108594625547206656

The PS3 version is getting a ton of attention

JuliaRobertsAndSomeDudeThatHasHerFacePhotoshoppedOnLaughing.jpg

 

[GavinGT]

Yeah that statement is really indefensible.

Well, they got 99% of the way there in that the games are at parity....for the first ~60 hours.

If this were any other game, this would have been seen as a totally competent port.

I'll compromise and say that both hardware and software were to blame. The hardware limitations served to exasperate the difficulties in correctly coding the software. Sure, the PS3 is technically capable of running the game without issue, but it would've taken a much larger investment into reworking the code to play well with the system's unique architecture. We'll see in the coming weeks whether Bethesda deems it worth it to undertake that challenge.

 

[coldfoot]

Not Sony's job.

It's Sony's job to approve games to be released on their platform and they definitely send back games/patches that don't meet their TRC. They could have put a little more effort into testing anything that comes from Bethesda, knowing their history.

 

[Fantasmo]

I was referring specifically to their PS3 ports only. As for being assured of system parity - the comment was made by the VP of PR for Bethesda. Parity for a PR person is two screen shots looking somewhat similar.

I'm not sure what your goal here is? I got burned exactly ONCE now out of $60 by Bethesda, and I'm certain not to repeat the experience. I was told parity and checked reviews. I did MY part then spent my $60. They outright LIED to people!

This is not a 99.9% expectation to have of any game, even the worst ones which are no fun, at least they WORK, so your comment bears no weight. A common expectation is less graphical quality, not a 200 hour experience that 100% completely breaks after less than a quarter of that. They keep getting new suckers, and the way this product came out is most likely illegal and punishable by law.

Bottom line, I don't mind a few cuts or alternations, but this is not a working product! Where do you get off blaming gamers?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Well, they got 99% of the way there in that the games are at parity....for the first ~60 hours.

No, it isn't. The framerate is very unstable on the PS3 even before your save gets to a certain size. It just eventually gets to a point where it's unplayable.

 

[Death Dealer]

No split would have been ideal, but any split that had more XDR than GDDR3 would have been a better solution because the RSX can access the XDR almost as fast as the Cell so it's really a moot point for the RSX to get whatever it needed from the XDR memory. The optimal PS3 split memory pool arrangement would have been to give the RSX as little GDDR3 as possible and the Cell the remainder in XDR memory.

That's interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way, I was responding to his premise that Sony should have gave the GPU more Vram. So was XDR that much more expensive than GDDR3 ? Would cost be the only reason not to ? Seems like that could have been a nice midway point between the 50/50 split and unified.

I just think it's pointless for some people to criticize the hardware as the problem for Skyrim being FUBAR'd when it's obvious the software is the real issue. Chicken before the egg.

Like someone said, a square peg in a round hole. They made the PS3 port without dedicating enough resources. The Skyrim team continued sweeping an existing problem from FO3 under the rug, probably not even their call, a maneuver that led to results that are so poor, the game crashes or drops to 0 FPS, it's a bad deal for consumers.

Oblivion had the vampire quest bug but it didn't have this, game breaking, 0 FPS as you rack up the hours, bug did it ?

I'd just like to know who made that call. I don't think the Zenimax shareholders would appreciate that decision. I see liability. Don't be surprised if one day PS3 Skyrim buyers get a coupon for $15 off TES VI, and some lawyers take a few million out of Bethesda's war chest.

Ideally, they'd get a full refund and the coupon.

Perhaps one day, someone from the inside will write an anonymous expose on what went wrong.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Well, they got 99% of the way there in that the games are at parity....for the first ~60 hours.

I take it you haven't played it on the ps3. You can fast travel immediately in the game and cause the problems descibed in the OP. it just gets worse, and more frequent, the longer you play.

 

[GavinGT]

I take it you haven't played it on the ps3. You can fast travel immediately in the game and cause the problems descibed in the OP. it just gets worse, and more frequent, the longer you play.

I see. Yeah, I generally stay away from the PS3 releases of multiplats.

I just heard people saying they were 40 hours in or whatever and weren't experiencing problems. Plus, I heard that the image quality was mostly on par. I coupled those together and figured it played fine until the long term problems set in.

 

[Evoga]

The game is outstanding and I normally don't enjoy 'Fantasy' type games with orc's and elves etc.

If you only have a PS3 it Is well worth either buying an Xbox or a PC powerful enough to run it as the game is that good.

 

[Wimps]

I seriously want to play this game. But I don't think it's worth it with all these bugs?

What do you think GAF? Just wait for another patch and then buy it? Talking about 360 version here btw.

 

[soldat7]

More like Bethesdon't amirite?

Bethesduh

 

[Feindflug]

Bayonetta fluctuates from 15-25 on PS3, and 23-30 on 360. The colours on the Ps3 version look a little washed out, but it still has comparable textures to the 360 version (barring angel gates). I don't know how you can even think to put it in the same category as Skyrim.

Bayonetta is more like 25-40fps on the PS3 and 50-60fps on 360 actually but yeah I totally agree that you can't even compare it to Skyrim..after seeing the videos at Eurogamer's article all I have to say is WTF Bethesda? 0 freakin' fps? seriously? this is some ridiculous shit right there.

It's one thing to deliver an inferior port and is a whole other thing to deliver an unplayable fuckin' mess...Skyrim should be out of GOTY nominees just for the PS3 version alone - it's really sad that we are so far into this gen and we're seeing unforgivable crap like this from a team like Bethesda.

 

[linkboy]

I seriously want to play this game. But I don't think it's worth it with all these bugs?

What do you think GAF? Just wait for another patch and then buy it? Talking about 360 version here btw.

The 360 version is nowhere near as bad as the PS3 version. Even right now, you can play the 360 version just fine.

The PS3 version is just downright terrible. Here's how bad it is, if this was any other industry, it would be recalled.

 

[Evolved1]

Well, they got 99% of the way there in that the games are at parity....for the first ~60 hours.

If this were any other game, this would have been seen as a totally competent port.

I'll compromise and say that both hardware and software were to blame. The hardware limitations served to exasperate the difficulties in correctly coding the software. Sure, the PS3 is technically capable of running the game without issue, but it would've taken a much larger investment into reworking the code to play well with the system's unique architecture. We'll see in the coming weeks whether Bethesda deems it worth it to undertake that challenge.

OK just fucking stop now...