I played for like 100 hours on 360 before transferring my save over to PC. And that was without any title updates whatsoever. Aside from the relatively long load times (which aren't even a huge deal because you're not transitioning all that often) and the occasional funky texture (which I hardly even noticed until they were pointed out to me) it looks and performs pretty fucking amazingly for a 360 game.
Digital Foundry VS Bethesda: PS3 Skyrim is still shit
- Thread starter AgentOtaku
- Start date
I played for like 100 hours on 360 before transferring my save over to PC. And that was without any title updates whatsoever. Aside from the relatively long load times (which aren't even a huge deal because you're not transitioning all that often) and the occasional funky texture (which I hardly even noticed until they were pointed out to me) it looks and performs pretty fucking amazingly for a 360 game.
360 and PC versions: GOTY
SGRU
Member
Do it.
Truespeed
Member
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.
XDR is significantly faster and, thus, more expensive. Had cost not been a concern then I believe they would have went 512MB XDR UMA. Obviously, the cheaper GDDR was enough of a savings to make it worth their while. The RSX really got the better deal here. Not only can it have its cake and eat it the RSX can even eat the Cell's cake so to speak. It's more complicated for the Cell and extremely inefficient for it to access GDDR3.
Truespeed
Member
I'm blaming the quality of the port. The fact that Bethesda has a pattern of questionable PS3 ports should have been a concern of yours. As for being out $60, sell it and get what you can for it which should be about $40+ and buy all future Bethesda games during Steam sales.
It's absolutely true, which makes it all the more unfortunate for those who can only play the PS3 version.
Bethesda has proven twice now, that they simply aren't capable of working on Sony hardware. At this point, the logical thing to do is issue a refund along with an apology. It may seem trite, but I believe that it'll go a long way into reestablishing some much-needed faith into the brand. Focus your efforts entirely on PC/360 (Goodness knows, the 360 could use some decent exclusives) and everyone will be happy.
DP See below
What I meant was that both products are shit ports but Sega at least did try to fix it eventhough it didn't hit zero FPS or was unplayable.
Just comparing the 2 in that they ran like crap on ps3 but obviously Beth has taken the crown as shitties porter. The Bayonetta ps3 port is still bad even though it's playable etc.
Did you not read the first paragraph of what you quoted? REALLY? You're horrible. Terrible!
Holy shot! You didn't even read my post where I specifically said I don't have a gaming PC anymore. Normal People don't live in a gaming forum vaccuum dammit!
This IS BETHESDAS FAULT NOT MINE
SolidSnakex
Member
It was a concern which is why he listened to what Bethesda said and checked reviews. This is why it's such bullshit that game journalists aren't going after Bethesda for releasing such a broken product. IGN, Eurogamer, and CV&G are the only sites that have called attention to it. And they really haven't gone after Bethesda over it. Only small sites have actually called out Bethesda over this.
jett made a thread about questionable reviews, but Skyrim seems to take the cake for it. What's gone on with it comes off as being extremely shady.
Projectjustice
Banned
Note to self, never buy Bethesda games on PS3.
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
True, that video is simply hilarious. To think that they give so little of a shit that they would even consider releasing the game in that state, the point where it literally becomes unplayable.
The loss of craftsmanship indeed...
Sapphire Dreams
Member
I feel sad for you Skyrim PS3 owners 
.
.3rdamention
Member
Is there anyone that has tried taking back and opened copy of Skyrim on PS3 because of these problems? I have only played a few hours, bought it at KMart, and I am already considering taking this game back. I have heard more negative things about this game on PS3 than positives. I am enjoying the game, but this story is making me very weary of continuing to play if the game is going to get worse after 65 hours or so.
I would love to hear if anyone has been able to get a refund, or at least a store credit, for this game after they have opened it. I would just like to take it back and get Saints Row or something else.
I Platinum'd Fallout 3, and it was pretty enjoyable. I beat Fallout NV with 2 different endings and the stuttering when traveling across the expansive open environments was very annoying. Anyone who has played it knows what I am talking about. Simply walk across the "desert" or open areas and on PS3 it stutters or skips frames every 20 seconds or so.
I would love to hear if anyone has been able to get a refund, or at least a store credit, for this game after they have opened it. I would just like to take it back and get Saints Row or something else.
I Platinum'd Fallout 3, and it was pretty enjoyable. I beat Fallout NV with 2 different endings and the stuttering when traveling across the expansive open environments was very annoying. Anyone who has played it knows what I am talking about. Simply walk across the "desert" or open areas and on PS3 it stutters or skips frames every 20 seconds or so.
I tried at my local Play N Trade and they wouldn't take it back.
I'm almost ready to take it to my local Hastings, where I can get $40 store credit, cut my losses and tell Bethesda to fuck off.
My wife was going to pick this up for Xmas for me for the PS3 but i told her not to bother after reading that digital foundry article.
Such poor performance is unacceptable in late 2011. If other developers can manage to optimise their game engines on multiple platforms with a reasonable level of parity, then it is not too much to expect from Bethesda.
Such poor performance is unacceptable in late 2011. If other developers can manage to optimise their game engines on multiple platforms with a reasonable level of parity, then it is not too much to expect from Bethesda.
funkystudent
Member
Bethesda's response... or lack of response is pretty telling.
Compared to Naughty dogs response to a tiny problem only effecting a few hardcore fans and basically going into panic mode. This head in the sand approach from Bethesda is kind of sucky. Is the problem fixable? will next weeks patch help the problem? is there a official list of guidelines for players to not encounter this problem?
Hope we start hearing of class actions next week.
Compared to Naughty dogs response to a tiny problem only effecting a few hardcore fans and basically going into panic mode. This head in the sand approach from Bethesda is kind of sucky. Is the problem fixable? will next weeks patch help the problem? is there a official list of guidelines for players to not encounter this problem?
Hope we start hearing of class actions next week.
SolidSnakex
Member
They're planning to release another patch this week, but that one will just fix the things that the last patch broke (dragons and resistance). People will have to wait until next year to get a patch after that one.
The PS3 version is completely out if I do get around to having time for the game. However I struggle with even supporting the game by putting money towards the 360 or PC version if Bethesda is going to be put out something like this in general. Either make the PS3 version or any version of a game well or don't do it at all. Returning the PS3 version if one has it only to get the 360 or PC version doesn't help the situation either since it still giving them a pass for their actions.]
If the problem isn't fixable then they should just say so and call it a day. I'm starting to think that it isn't. I had some issues with Fallout New Vegas on the PS3 but nothing at from what I'm seeing in video of Skyrim. Overall I was okay but there had to be enough issues I'm not remembering clearly because since beating it I haven't booted it up just to screw around in the world the way I have with Fallout 3 (360). Not even a hint of a desire to do so.
If the problem isn't fixable then they should just say so and call it a day. I'm starting to think that it isn't. I had some issues with Fallout New Vegas on the PS3 but nothing at from what I'm seeing in video of Skyrim. Overall I was okay but there had to be enough issues I'm not remembering clearly because since beating it I haven't booted it up just to screw around in the world the way I have with Fallout 3 (360). Not even a hint of a desire to do so.
dreamer3kx
Member
Agree, not a good look for Sony regardless, sold my copy withing a week and took a loss, noticed right away it ran and looked like crap.
Do you even know what you're talking about?
The game is capable of running great. It does this for the first fifteen hours of the game or so. Then, something in the game causes memory leaks like crazy and destroys the framerate. The solution, if you can call it that, is to restart the game. Then you'll get good performance again for a few minutes or even an hour or two before it crashes once again.
This is not a PS3 issue. There has never been an issue like this with any other PS3 game, EVER, sans Fallout 3/NV. This is a Bethesda issue. They deserve 100% of the blame for delivering a shitty game, period.
Truespeed
Member
Sorry, I must of missed it during all of the rambling and drama in your posts. I agree it's Bethesda's fault.
Why didn't we see the typical internet outcry reaction of rating the game (on PS3) down on Amazon yet? It would seem like a good place to vent frustration, warn others, and maybe it would even hurt Bethesda a little.
On the Amazons I've checked the PS3 version has the same star rating as the PC version.
On the Amazons I've checked the PS3 version has the same star rating as the PC version.
rohlfinator
Member
I don't think it's really fair to blame the PS3 hardware, or even Bethesda's lack of attention to the PS3 version. The problem here seems to be a fundamental flaw with the engine, which is manifested across all systems, but the other two are able to mask the issue better due to more RAM. I'm not sure if we can even blame Gamebryo, since there are other games that use it (including Catherine, Epic Mickey, Civ IV, Defense Grid) and AFAIK none of them have these kinds of problems. It seems that the problem is tied either to some custom code that Bethesda has added, or maybe they are just pushing the engine beyond its limits with the way they keep track of persistence.
TemplaerDude
Member
The head in sand, life is rosy, you'll-buy-it-anyways approach has sadly become Bethesda code of conduct.
It's their engine and their game and releasing a broken product on a major system is unacceptable in every possible way.
SolidSnakex
Member
It's fair to blame Bethesda when they tell PS3 consumers that its at parity with the 360 version.
So the Obsidian dev quoted on the last page is lying/talking out of his ass?
I still say that Bethesda's engine is a poor fit for the PS3 hardware. And optimization, while possible, would require a lot more effort than simply fixing some sort of memory leak. The problem is more fundamental than that. Also, there's no denying that the split RAM architecture made it more difficult for them to adopt their existing code to fit the system. However, I'm not saying that Bethesda is blameless in this situation, as they absolutely should be held accountable for the final product. I'm simply pointing out that the hardware makes it a more difficult task.
But you can't just compare Skyrim and Fallout to every other PS3 game, as if these games aren't doing things that are radically different from most others. The only counterpoint to this is that Oblivion apparently ran well on the system, but, well, that's only one example.
rohlfinator
Member
I agree 100%, I'm just saying I don't think it was intentional negligence toward the PS3 version so much as the engine is just a broken POS that happens to run worse on the PS3.
Yeah, I agree with this too. But I think the people implying that Bethesda did this intentionally (out of spite for PS3 owners or whatever) are misguided. I probably should have clarified that better in my post. Bethesda is 100% at fault here.
Edit: It seems like realistically, they only had three real options here:
1) Don't release the PS3 version in this state (really unlikely with shareholders to answer to)
2) Dramatically revamp the engine to fix the memory usage on all platforms (the right solution, but also unlikely in the time span they had)
3) Gimp the PS3 version by making it less persistent than the others (probably not too hard or expensive, but also a pretty shitty deal for PS3 owners).
funkystudent
Member
well thats not 100% fair.
The games are pretty close to enough for the first few hours. about as close as any other ps3/360 port. for the first 15/20 hours its probably the best bethesda ps3 port since oblivion.
Then this save thing ruins everything.
If bethesda spent the time to come up with a better way for there ps3 versions to save data we wouldn't be in this mess and people would just be bitching that the 360 version runs at 27fps while the ps3 version only runs at 25.
3rdamention
Member
Well, I did buy it at KMart with a $20 gaming coupon from a previous purchase. So I got it for $40, but I will still lose that Free $20 from my gaming coupon, but will only be out a loss of about $10 if I do sell it. I am simply thinking about slanging it on eBay, taking a loss, and throwing 2 middle fingers in the air to Bethesda and never supporting them again on PS3. However, I only have a PS3, so that means never supporting them PERIOD.
I labored through the glitchfest of Fallout 3 on PS3, labored through the open area framerate issues on Fallout NV on PS3. Now I simply dont want to even go any further in Skyrim just because of all this crap. I will pick it up later used if they ever fix these issues, that way I can play the game and Bethesda doesn't get any more of my money.
ZephyrFate
Banned
Auto-nullified by shit PS3 port.
And I can't believe that some people are unwilling to make even the slightest concession.
SolidSnakex
Member
Why should Sony take any blame? They didn't develop the game and no multiplatform title has had these types of issues. This is completely about Bethesda and their engine. They developed a game on an engine that they knew had problems on the PS3 and then told consumers that it was at parity with the 360 version.
TemplaerDude
Member
People need to stop dropping the word "fair" in here. Do you what's not "fair"? My character on my PS3 version of Skyrim is unplayable. I don't give a flying fucking reindeer what's "fair" or not, I don't care what you guys think Bethesda should being blamed for or not, all I know is the PS3 version of this game is broken and I really want my fucking money back.
I say "slightest concession", and you somehow twist this entirely around.
The concession being that their engine doesn't work well on Sony's hardware without significant reworking. That's it.
sony didn't make the game. bethesda did. you don't blame apple when belkin makes a shitty ipod dock. the ps3 is not a broken platform.
3rdamention
Member
It is also pretty obvious that none of the PS3 Reviews were really properly "reviewed." This is also egg on the face of all of the Review Sites that scored the PS3 version so highly, without, obviously, spending a fair amount of time with the game.
I am not saying that you should have a reviewer spend 65 hours on the 360 version, then 65 hours on the PS3 version, but dont simply slap a score on the PS3 version, dock it a point because of the shitty framerate, then call it a review.
You could always have 1 person review the 360 Version and 1 person review the PS3 Version. Then they could communicate and share thoughts and impressions for the final review. Heck, I am sure most review sites had other people that were playing the PS3 version just for fun at home that could have shared some impressions.
I am not saying that you should have a reviewer spend 65 hours on the 360 version, then 65 hours on the PS3 version, but dont simply slap a score on the PS3 version, dock it a point because of the shitty framerate, then call it a review.
You could always have 1 person review the 360 Version and 1 person review the PS3 Version. Then they could communicate and share thoughts and impressions for the final review. Heck, I am sure most review sites had other people that were playing the PS3 version just for fun at home that could have shared some impressions.
Again, I say "slightest concession" and you equate this with me calling PS3 a "broken platform".
Clay Davis
Member
sony can be held partly to blame for their nonexistent qa process. they need to take a page out of microsofts book and start rejecting games that are fundametally broken.
Didn't see that Obsidian quote before. But look at this:
Bethesda didn't have eighteen months. They've had 3-4 years to understand the PS3 architecture and build their engine to utilize it better.
Oblivion, a game running on the same fundamental engine as Skyrim, had none of these problems on the PS3. It also had an extra year of development and was done by different devs. Maybe Bethesda should have, I dunno, delayed the game until it was in an actual playable condition. But of course, that would cost millions in sales, so they can't do that.
rohlfinator
Member
Whether it's a good fit for the hardware or not, Bethesda knew what they were dealing with -- the PS3 hardware was set in stone long before they started work on Skyrim. If they knew it wouldn't work, they should have either taken steps early on to address the problem, or not committed to a PS3 version of the game.
And the engine in this form is a poor fit for any hardware. The PC can get around this issue it to an extent by throwing more RAM at it (though I think PC players have still been seeing some symptoms).
I'd be curious to see some more in-depth analysis of the 360 version at that point in the game. I imagine it has to start eating some of the "graphics pool" of RAM to compensate for this, so I wouldn't be surprised if that version takes some sort of hit in a more subtle way.
SolidSnakex
Member
Which is their problem and not Sony's. They chose to release it on the PS3 and ask consumer to pay $60 for it. It's up to them to make sure that it runs properly.
It's like blaming Nintendo for that dog shit of a Mortal Kombat port for Gameboy. If the hardware can't support it, for whatever reason, don't port the game to it!
Adam Blade
WWKC
Well, I for one would rather have a game available for the console on which I want to play it, than not at all. I mean, FF13 is a terrible port on the 360 from what I hear, yet I don't hold it against Square too much and will probably play it sometime in the future.
jim-jam bongs
Member
My guess is it would be extremely subtle, if noticeable at all. Most of the problems here are caused by that fact that the game was built for the 360, and the PS3 has a whole different set of strengths and weaknesses.
I absolutely agree that it's abhorrent to put the game out in that state and lie about it. But I understand how this type of decision gets made in Bethesda's boardroom. They had to choose from two losing options (press the discs in time for Christmas and hope that patches clear things up or delay the game and lose out on heaps of money). Not to mention, Rage more than likely didn't rake in the kind of money they were hoping it would.
I agree.
I'm glad this is getting the (negative) attention it deserves. I said in a previous thread that there is zero chance they didn't know about these issues, and that selling the game anyways should be a crime.
The fact that they have not, at any point, come even close to mustering up an apology is ridiculous. Greedy fucking bastards will never see another dime of my money (and I didn't even buy the game on PS3).
The fact that they have not, at any point, come even close to mustering up an apology is ridiculous. Greedy fucking bastards will never see another dime of my money (and I didn't even buy the game on PS3).