Wtf ??!!! Bethesdaaa!!!!!!

Hey guys about a month ago never cared about Fallout 3 i thought meehhh i dont think this game is too great, but after seeing some gameplay videos and trailers and reading some stuff about the previous games i thought "damn maybe this is going to be an awesome game" to be honest i was exited about this game until..... The freaking lazy **s staff of bethesda gave us a ****ing lame **s port !!!! Im ****ing pissed off !!! about all this "scrathing balls" ports coming to the PS3 i mean even if they are minor issues thats never the point, the point is that we PS3 users have the right to play the game the way is meant to be played, like in the other freaking consoles !!!

"It's a shame, in light of these impressive design elements, that the PlayStation 3 version is shockingly inferior to the others from a technical perspective. Although the Xbox 360 and PC versions display the occasional visual oddity and bland texture, these nitpicks are easy to overlook. Sadly, the jagged edges, washed-out lighting, and slightly diminished draw distance of the PS3 release aren't so easy to dismiss. We also experienced a number of visual bugs on the PS3. Character faces disappeared several times, leaving only eyeballs and hair; limbs on robots went missing; some character models had an odd outline around them as if they were cel-shaded; and the day-to-night transition may cause odd streaks on the screen as you move the camera around. This version doesn't even offer trophies, whereas the Xbox 360 and PC versions offer Xbox Live/Windows Live achievements."

"Aside from a few PS3-specific sound quirks" WWWWTTTFFFF ???!!!!!

To me bethesda is just another incompetent video game developer that they dont even put an effort to make the game great as it is on the 360 or the PC

shame on bethesda, shame on every other ****ing game developer that make this bloody ports....... incompetents.

So who ? of you guys are in ?? sign this if your a agree.

Ok I'm going to clear up a common missconception with the PS3 development process. Sony deviated SIGNIFICANTlY from the arcitecture of previous consoles and computers. By doing this companies developing for the PS3 had to completely change the way they made video games.

Typically games have been bottle necked at the GPU and game developers usually had more than enough processor power to do what needed to get done. The PS3 forced developers to switch the way they code games and try to maximize the processor. The 360 relies on more typical architecture that developers are familiar with, which is why most games are developed for the 360 first then ported to the PS3. Even though the 360 has less processing power their memory architecture makes up for it. 360s have 512MB of unified DD3 memory which means that if a developer wants to give an extra bost to graphics they have a full 512 to work with. For example in a scene where someone is walking down a street, your CPU is doing F** all so you can focus more resources to your graphics. Conversely the PS3 has 256MB dedicated to the CPU and only 256MB dedicated to the GPU, so even if a developer wanted to dedicate more resources to the graphics card they can't on the PS3 because of it's dedicated architecture.

This is what causes alot of the problems on the PS3, is it's inflexibility. And since games are more GPU limited anyways, hampering what the system can do GPU wise while giving more didicated resources to the already massively overpwered CPU doesn't make alot of sense. Sony has basically told developers that they were changing up the way they had to code games and to find a way to suck more juice out of the CPU and deal with it, given more time I'm sure developers could make both games equal but because of Sony's design choices games released simultaniously usually are a bit worse for the PS3.

actually, IGN said similar things that's why they gave it a slightly lower score than the 360 version. Really, try not to be too eager to blame GS right away before reading facts or other reviews.

It's the GameSpot review people.aflakian

It's from the gamespot review, what do you expect?bwrector

It's the GameSpot review people.aflakian

Bethesda waived the proverbial middle finger to PS3 owners, all the while asking them for the same money as 360 owners but for a far less quality version.

BS, in my book.

Hopefully Bethesda does right by PS3 owners. Not just does right by them, but does it quickly, too.

[QUOTE="bwrector"]It's from the gamespot review, what do you expect?MAILER_DAEMON

It's the GameSpot review people.aflakian

Ok I'm going to clear up a common missconception with the PS3 development process. Sony deviated SIGNIFICANTlY from the arcitecture of previous consoles and computers. By doing this companies developing for the PS3 had to completely change the way they made video games.

Typically games have been bottle necked at the GPU and game developers usually had more than enough processor power to do what needed to get done. The PS3 forced developers to switch the way they code games and try to maximize the processor. The 360 relies on more typical architecture that developers are familiar with, which is why most games are developed for the 360 first then ported to the PS3. Even though the 360 has less processing power their memory architecture makes up for it. 360s have 512MB of unified DD3 memory which means that if a developer wants to give an extra bost to graphics they have a full 512 to work with. For example in a scene where someone is walking down a street, your CPU is doing F** all so you can focus more resources to your graphics. Conversely the PS3 has 256MB dedicated to the CPU and only 256MB dedicated to the GPU, so even if a developer wanted to dedicate more resources to the graphics card they can't on the PS3 because of it's dedicated architecture.

This is what causes alot of the problems on the PS3, is it's inflexibility. And since games are more GPU limited anyways, hampering what the system can do GPU wise while giving more didicated resources to the already massively overpwered CPU doesn't make alot of sense. Sony has basically told developers that they were changing up the way they had to code games and to find a way to suck more juice out of the CPU and deal with it, given more time I'm sure developers could make both games equal but because of Sony's design choices games released simultaniously usually are a bit worse for the PS3.

TheRaven17

Then how do you explain MGS4 graphics achievement and i think i've only encoutered 1 bug and No laaag at all in about 10 times i played the game. 1. bethesda needs new programers (preferably Japannese) or 2. they are a bunch of lazy **s people.

I think with a little more effort a game can bethe same in all the consoles.

Bethesda did nothing wrong here, they are people just like us. As I said in my post before the Sony "Chose" to use a different architecture then what developers are used to, they could have used a unified architecture system, they could have stuck with the same models as previous consoles and computers but they said "We're gonna change things up and make people utalize the CPU more". In my opinion Sony gave the finger to all the developers and fanboys are too ignorant to realize it and are blaming the developers.

I'm sure Bethesda has a team that is still optimizing the code for Fallout 3 on the PS3. It's something most companies aren't used to and they need time. Oblivion was released a full year later, that's alot of optimization going on in a year. I'm sure the PS3 version will get a healthy does of patches that bring it up to par with what we all expect. It will probably happen quicker than we thing.

Meh, First Valve, now Bethesda. This is a growing trend of great developers. Seems strange and uncharacteristic.

When do we finally turn and point the finger at Sony?

[QUOTE="bwrector"]It's from the gamespot review, what do you expect?MAILER_DAEMON

It's the GameSpot review people.aflakian

How is that trolling? I answered the question. And "your" review is different than any other site.

Meh, First Valve, now Bethesda. This is a growing trend of great developers. Seems strange and uncharacteristic.

When do we finally turn and point the finger at Sony?

Mau-Justice

Exactly. This is happening too frequently across too many development teams.

Every PS3 owner has the right to be pissed off about this. Bethesda screwed them bad on Fallout 3. There just isn't any excuse for such shoddy work, bugs, glitches, freezes, a lack of DLC and trophies.

Bethesda waived the proverbial middle finger to PS3 owners, all the while asking them for the same money as 360 owners but for a far less quality version.

BS, in my book.

Hopefully Bethesda does right by PS3 owners. Not just does right by them, but does it quickly, too.

nyc05

Same here man.

side note: Not every one can have all the consoles, i made a desition a 360 or a PS3, since i live in Bolivia i choose the PS3 afraid of the RROD of the 360 . Now i have the bloody right to play the same game that the 360 owners are playing.

Shame on bethesda.

Bethesda did nothing wrong here, they are people just like us. As I said in my post before the Sony "Chose" to use a different architecture then what developers are used to, they could have used a unified architecture system, they could have stuck with the same models as previous consoles and computers but they said "We're gonna change things up and make people utalize the CPU more". In my opinion Sony gave the finger to all the developers and fanboys are too ignorant to realize it and are blaming the developers.

I'm sure Bethesda has a team that is still optimizing the code for Fallout 3 on the PS3. It's something most companies aren't used to and they need time. Oblivion was released a full year later, that's alot of optimization going on in a year. I'm sure the PS3 version will get a healthy does of patches that bring it up to par with what we all expect. It will probably happen quicker than we thing.

TheRaven17

Bethesda did nothing wrong here, they are people just like us. As I said in my post before the Sony "Chose" to use a different architecture then what developers are used to, they could have used a unified architecture system, they could have stuck with the same models as previous consoles and computers but they said "We're gonna change things up and make people utalize the CPU more". In my opinion Sony gave the finger to all the developers and fanboys are too ignorant to realize it and are blaming the developers.

I'm sure Bethesda has a team that is still optimizing the code for Fallout 3 on the PS3. It's something most companies aren't used to and they need time. Oblivion was released a full year later, that's alot of optimization going on in a year. I'm sure the PS3 version will get a healthy does of patches that bring it up to par with what we all expect. It will probably happen quicker than we thing.

TheRaven17

So I'm just an ignorant fanboy because I see this as Bethesda's fault? Have you seen any of my other postings, not to mention my sig?

You can blame Sony's choice of architecture all you want, but it's not warranted. If it was the PS3 then why was the PS3 version of Oblivion the premium version for the consoles? Believe me, as an owner of both systems and both copies of the game, I can assure you that the PS3 version is superior.

Also, if the PS3 was just too difficult or had too many bottlenecks, how do you explain how games like Uncharted, MGS4 and Killzone 2 look the way they do?

It's obvious that Bethesda didn't put the priority on the PS3 version the way they did the other two. That fact is obvious to me, at least.

In the interest of not clogging up this topic or getting into system wars, I'll end this here because there's no point. You see it how you do, as do I. All I know is that there is no excuse for such a shoddy port, and PS3 owners shouldn't be left with a far inferior version for the same price.

The ps3 was passed over on this 1 fella's

And dont accept any messages, cause thats it for the game

I never said the cell architecture was bad. I think it's an amazing piece of technology. What I said was the "Memory" arcitecture was inferrior. The cell is still a CPU, nothing more. GPU's are the most important thing in a gaming system and restricitng how you can use your memory to feed the CPU and GPU has been a detriment.

It's like someone braging about their new computer, if you say you have an amazing CPU and you can run games with the greatest of ease anyone who knows anything about computers will say "ok so how's your graphics card?" build a computer sytem with a mid range CPU and a high end graphics card compared to a high end CPU and a mid range graphics card and guess which one will perform better.

If it was the PS3 then why was the PS3 version of Oblivion the premium version for the consoles? Believe me, as an owner of both systems and both copies of the game, I can assure you that the PS3 version is superior.

nyc05

Personally I think the superior version of Oblivion was due more to familiarity with the game and engine than anything else, but that's just my opinion. In regard to the cell being difficult to program for, I'm not a programmer so I know very little about it. But if we can't agree that it's difficult to program for, we can at least agree that it's significantly different from other CPU's.

Also, in reference to your statment about Uncharted, MGS4, and Killzone 2. You're right, they are great looking games, but they are also 1st party games with the developer only working on a single architecture.

I'm sorry, but I don't blame Bethesda for this, I blame it on the cost of developing games for todays generation of consoles.

While the PS3 is more than capable of offering great games with excellent graphics (LBP, Resistance 2, MGS4), the reality is that the cell is hard to develop for when compared with other CPU's. With games becoming more expensive to create, it's hard for them to justify spending a significant amount of money and time on learning the architecture when they may not see a return on their investment due to a smaller install base. Eddie5vs1

Then if it cost to much for them the price of the game should be 49$ since its not the same product.

Its just an extreme non realistic thought but , if so many game developers can't produce a port identical to the 360 version then the games should cost 49$ if they think the costs of making a great decent port to the PS3 are to high then make a ****y game and put the 49$ price tag for the crap port, since its not worth to pay 60 freaking bucks for tan inferior version of any game.

I never said the cell architecture was bad. I think it's an amazing piece of technology. What I said was the "Memory" arcitecture was inferrior. The cell is still a CPU, nothing more. GPU's are the most important thing in a gaming system and restricitng how you can use your memory to feed the CPU and GPU has been a detriment.

It's like someone braging about their new computer, if you say you have an amazing CPU and you can run games with the greatest of ease anyone who knows anything about computers will say "ok so how's your graphics card?" build a computer sytem with a mid range CPU and a high end graphics card compared to a high end CPU and a mid range graphics card and guess which one will perform better.

TheRaven17

Keep this thread alive friends keep it alive until BETHESDA sees the freaking disaster that they've caused

more like a protest thread !!! :P

[QUOTE="TheRaven17"]

I never said the cell architecture was bad. I think it's an amazing piece of technology. What I said was the "Memory" arcitecture was inferrior. The cell is still a CPU, nothing more. GPU's are the most important thing in a gaming system and restricitng how you can use your memory to feed the CPU and GPU has been a detriment.

It's like someone braging about their new computer, if you say you have an amazing CPU and you can run games with the greatest of ease anyone who knows anything about computers will say "ok so how's your graphics card?" build a computer sytem with a mid range CPU and a high end graphics card compared to a high end CPU and a mid range graphics card and guess which one will perform better.

PhysicsLCP

Thank you. I think we're starting to see eye to eye now. I love the cell, I think it's great and I was really routing for the PS3 when I heard about it. (I'm a hardware junky). Some developers can burn the midnight oil and find a way to deal with the 2 different ways of coding (1 being stressing the GPU as hard as possible and the other being stressing the CPU as hard as possible), EA sports was able to do it for Madden 09 after the significantly worse Madden 08 showing on the PS3. But I think we should be commending companies that are able to work but no tearing other companies a new A-hole just because they couldn't. Developers are people too, changing the way things are done is tough.

bethesda is just another incompetent video game developer

Nope, Bethesda has been one of the top dogs in the industry for a reason.

Its just an extreme non realistic thought but , if so many game developers can't produce a port identical to the 360 version then the games should cost 49$ if they think the costs of making a great decent port to the PS3 are to high then make a ***** game and put the 49$ price tag for the crap port, since its not worth to pay 60 freaking bucks for tan inferior version of any game.

dantesergei

While that's a nice thought, IMO, it's unrealistic. As a multiplatform owner, if I saw the one version at $60, and the other @ $49, I would most likely believe the cheaper version was the inferior version (which it apparently is) and get the more expensive. Many gamers don't read reviews on games and will pick up any version not knowing one is inferior to another.

While the PS3 is more than capable of offering great games with excellent graphics (LBP, Resistance 2, MGS4), the reality is that the cell is hard to develop for when compared with other CPU's. With games becoming more expensive to create, it's hard for them to justify spending a significant amount of money and time on learning the architecture when they may not see a return on their investment due to a smaller install base. Eddie5vs1

In that case why not just not make a PS3 version instead of making a poor port in hopes of gaining a profit. That's ignorance and laziness if you ask me.

[QUOTE="TheRaven17"]

Bethesda did nothing wrong here, they are people just like us. As I said in my post before the Sony "Chose" to use a different architecture then what developers are used to, they could have used a unified architecture system, they could have stuck with the same models as previous consoles and computers but they said "We're gonna change things up and make people utalize the CPU more". In my opinion Sony gave the finger to all the developers and fanboys are too ignorant to realize it and are blaming the developers.

I'm sure Bethesda has a team that is still optimizing the code for Fallout 3 on the PS3. It's something most companies aren't used to and they need time. Oblivion was released a full year later, that's alot of optimization going on in a year. I'm sure the PS3 version will get a healthy does of patches that bring it up to par with what we all expect. It will probably happen quicker than we thing.

nyc05

So I'm just an ignorant fanboy because I see this as Bethesda's fault? Have you seen any of my other postings, not to mention my sig?

You can blame Sony's choice of architecture all you want, but it's not warranted. If it was the PS3 then why was the PS3 version of Oblivion the premium version for the consoles? Believe me, as an owner of both systems and both copies of the game, I can assure you that the PS3 version is superior.

Also, if the PS3 was just too difficult or had too many bottlenecks, how do you explain how games like Uncharted, MGS4 and Killzone 2 look the way they do?

It's obvious that Bethesda didn't put the priority on the PS3 version the way they did the other two. That fact is obvious to me, at least.

In the interest of not clogging up this topic or getting into system wars, I'll end this here because there's no point. You see it how you do, as do I. All I know is that there is no excuse for such a shoddy port, and PS3 owners shouldn't be left with a far inferior version for the same price.

It took an extra year to get the PS3 version of Oblivion to where it is, and why is that you ask? It's because of the PS3's architecture. It is bottlenecked to a degree, and it takes longer to program for.

[QUOTE="PhysicsLCP"][QUOTE="TheRaven17"]

I never said the cell architecture was bad. I think it's an amazing piece of technology. What I said was the "Memory" arcitecture was inferrior. The cell is still a CPU, nothing more. GPU's are the most important thing in a gaming system and restricitng how you can use your memory to feed the CPU and GPU has been a detriment.

It's like someone braging about their new computer, if you say you have an amazing CPU and you can run games with the greatest of ease anyone who knows anything about computers will say "ok so how's your graphics card?" build a computer sytem with a mid range CPU and a high end graphics card compared to a high end CPU and a mid range graphics card and guess which one will perform better.

TheRaven17

Thank you. I think we're starting to see eye to eye now. I love the cell, I think it's great and I was really routing for the PS3 when I heard about it. (I'm a hardware junky). Some developers can burn the midnight oil and find a way to deal with the 2 different ways of coding (1 being stressing the GPU as hard as possible and the other being stressing the CPU as hard as possible), EA sports was able to do it for Madden 09 after the significantly worse Madden 08 showing on the PS3. But I think we should be commending companies that are able to work but no tearing other companies a new A-hole just because they couldn't. Developers are people too, changing the way things are done is tough.

My big question is why did they not have an install for this game? At least make it optional. The standard hard drive in the PS3 is one of it's biggest advantages. Part of the reason Oblivion was better on PS3 was from use of the HDD.

This is just a sloppy port, there are no excuses.

Bethesda died after the crap called Oblivion. So Im just skipping this game. To bad, cause I was a fan of the past Fallouts. I may get it for the PC in "that" other way though, since Im in no way supporting bad devs anymore.kenshinhimura10

Are you saying oblivion was crap?

[QUOTE="Eddie5vs1"]While the PS3 is more than capable of offering great games with excellent graphics (LBP, Resistance 2, MGS4), the reality is that the cell is hard to develop for when compared with other CPU's. With games becoming more expensive to create, it's hard for them to justify spending a significant amount of money and time on learning the architecture when they may not see a return on their investment due to a smaller install base. anime_gamer007

In that case why not just not make a PS3 version instead of making a poor port in hopes of gaining a profit. That's ignorance and laziness if you ask me.

That's not laziness or ignorance, it's called risk assessment. Many developers are reluctant to invest in unproven and unknown new IP's. That's one reason we have Madden, Halo 1, 2, 3, Resistance 1 & 2, Guitar Hero 4, Rock Band Band 2, Killzone 2, etc. That doesn't mean some seuquels aren't great or better than the originals, but these titles are already proven and thus present less risk.

I'm not saying Bethesda should be proud of the ps3 version, but what developer wants to release a glitchy game? Some people act like the developers are the president's of their respective companies. Let's say one version of Fallout 3 costs 10 million to develop and the developers ask for additional time/$ to create a marginally better version for the ps3 but they don't see a return on the extra money. CEO's and financial boards are unwilling to take that risk.

Vavle and Bethesda are both PC devs.. and since the 360 is basically 2 degrees south of a PC its not surprising that it gets more/better ports. you need to buidl from the ground up on the PS3...

But after Oblivion came out soo good on the PS3 i thought Bethesda would be able to make Fallout 3 at least equal....

It took an extra year to get the PS3 version of Oblivion to where it is, and why is that you ask? It's because of the PS3's architecture. It is bottlenecked to a degree, and it takes longer to program for.

BioShockOwnz

Well, yes but mostly no. Most of the reason it took longer to come out is because the PS3 didn't launch until November 2006, whereas Oblivion was released originally in March of 2006 for the PC and 360.

People can talk about bottlenecks all they want, but when the system is constantly showing what it's capable of the argument become less compelling.

Look, I'm not saying the PS3 is the be all end all, because it's not. The architecture does have some difficulties. However, this isn't about hardware or system comparisons, it's about a shoddy port of Fallout 3, a game that the PS3 can run better then what the final product indicated.

Bethesda clearly put a premium on the 360 and PC versions, and while it's understandable to a degree given that those versions (maybe not the PC, but the 360 version for sure) will make them more money, PS3 owners also have an expectation of getting a high quality version of the game for the same price, something that did not happen.

I'm certainly no Bethesda hater. I loved Morrowind, Oblivion, and I'm playing Fallout 3 on my PC as we speak, but Bethesda wronged PS3 owners here. Hopefully all is fixed via a patch, as I suspect a great deal of it will be, but nobody can blame PS3 owners for being upset.