Very upset with the gamebreaking bugs in the PS3 version of Skyrim
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I don't think it's a bad port like people are making it out to be, I have a 11 MB save file on the PS3 version and I haven't had any performance issues so far. No massive framerate drops or anything like that, it's been pretty smooth overall. I didn't notice a difference between the 360 version or the PS3 version when I went to my friends house.
However I do have an issue with the game, it has nothing to do with the performance but a bug in the main quest. Basically I'm supposed to talk to the Storm Cloak leader and convince him to go meet the grey beards for a peace meeting. Sounds easy right? Well it would be excpet for the fact that Ulfric (storm cloak leader) won't talk to me! He literally has nothing in his dialog box, I can't choose any topic because there arn't any, it's just empty! I have no way around it and I looked online for help but apparently this is happening to people with ALL versions of the game and it can happen to other people (the Jarl of whiterun, some shop keepers, and the leader of the Dark Brotherhood) I can't believe Bethesda didn't notice this! It's like they don't even test their damn games! It sucks because I'm level 33 and have done all the main guild quests and everything, but now I will have to make a whole new charecter to finish the game with....it sucks.
I'm never buying a Bethesda game at launch again, I'm just going to about a month after they release a game to buy it that way it will be fixed. Bethesda man, why can't you get better programmers or testers? I know it's massive open world but come on! Rockstar didn't have this problem and Bethesda needs to learn from their mistakes. Which they don't.
its not bad ports, its ps3's inherent **** memory management where every cpu has its own local memory which means complications for dev's.
savagetwinkie
No it is Bethesda. No one else has issues with develpoing for PS3 and almost every multiplat (despite what the lemmings say) are the same on both consoles. It's all Bethesda fault for not programming and testing right. I honestly doubt they even test their games at this point.
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]
its not bad ports, its ps3's inherent **** memory management where every cpu has its own local memory which means complications for dev's.
ShadowMoses900
No it is Bethesda. No one else has issues with develpoing for PS3 and almost every multiplat (despite what the lemmings say) are the same on both consoles. It's all Bethesda fault for not programming and testing right. I honestly doubt they even test their games at this point.
"The politically incorrect answer is that the PS3 is a huge pain in the ass," Himmerick told the hosts.
"Anyone making a game, if you're going to make it for both, just lead on the PS3 because if it works on the PS3, it'll work on 360," he said. "We had to play catch-up on the PS3 because of the memory constraints and how it renders; how it processes is just different. And it's harder on the PS3," Himmerick continued.
A slew of well-known developers have spoken out against Sony's high-power console.
Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."
In one of the most shocking and bizarre comments ever made by a company chief, Hirai, the brains behind the entire PlayStation empire, explained to the Official Playstation Magazine in its February issue that Sony didn't want to make it easy on developers.
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.
http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/
I thought I was just imagining things since it seemed so gradual, but I have definitely had framerate slowdown the further into the game I get. Unfortunately I had to get the PS3 version because I didn't have enough room on my 360's hard drive for an install, hope it gets fixed soon :(
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]
its not bad ports, its ps3's inherent **** memory management where every cpu has its own local memory which means complications for dev's.
Riverwolf007
No it is Bethesda. No one else has issues with develpoing for PS3 and almost every multiplat (despite what the lemmings say) are the same on both consoles. It's all Bethesda fault for not programming and testing right. I honestly doubt they even test their games at this point.
"The politically incorrect answer is that the PS3 is a huge pain in the ass," Himmerick told the hosts.
"Anyone making a game, if you're going to make it for both, just lead on the PS3 because if it works on the PS3, it'll work on 360," he said. "We had to play catch-up on the PS3 because of the memory constraints and how it renders; how it processes is just different. And it's harder on the PS3," Himmerick continued.
A slew of well-known developers have spoken out against Sony's high-power console.
Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."
In one of the most shocking and bizarre comments ever made by a company chief, Hirai, the brains behind the entire PlayStation empire, explained to the Official Playstation Magazine in its February issue that Sony didn't want to make it easy on developers.
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.
http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/
A few quotes from a few people doesn't mean anything, there are plenty of devs who have no issue with the PS3.
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
No it is Bethesda. No one else has issues with develpoing for PS3 and almost every multiplat (despite what the lemmings say) are the same on both consoles. It's all Bethesda fault for not programming and testing right. I honestly doubt they even test their games at this point.
ShadowMoses900
"The politically incorrect answer is that the PS3 is a huge pain in the ass," Himmerick told the hosts.
"Anyone making a game, if you're going to make it for both, just lead on the PS3 because if it works on the PS3, it'll work on 360," he said. "We had to play catch-up on the PS3 because of the memory constraints and how it renders; how it processes is just different. And it's harder on the PS3," Himmerick continued.
A slew of well-known developers have spoken out against Sony's high-power console.
Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."
In one of the most shocking and bizarre comments ever made by a company chief, Hirai, the brains behind the entire PlayStation empire, explained to the Official Playstation Magazine in its February issue that Sony didn't want to make it easy on developers.
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.
http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/
A few quotes from a few people doesn't mean anything, there are plenty of devs who have no issue with the PS3.
yep, totally. who would listen to that gabe newell noob anyway. that dude knows nothing about making games. right?although $$$ i have to $$$$ admit $$$$ later $$$ he did $$$ change $$$ his stance on $$$$ the ps3 $$$ 100%.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
"The politically incorrect answer is that the PS3 is a huge pain in the ass," Himmerick told the hosts.
"Anyone making a game, if you're going to make it for both, just lead on the PS3 because if it works on the PS3, it'll work on 360," he said. "We had to play catch-up on the PS3 because of the memory constraints and how it renders; how it processes is just different. And it's harder on the PS3," Himmerick continued.
A slew of well-known developers have spoken out against Sony's high-power console.
Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."
In one of the most shocking and bizarre comments ever made by a company chief, Hirai, the brains behind the entire PlayStation empire, explained to the Official Playstation Magazine in its February issue that Sony didn't want to make it easy on developers.
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.
http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/
Riverwolf007
A few quotes from a few people doesn't mean anything, there are plenty of devs who have no issue with the PS3.
yep, totally. who would listen to that gabe newell noob anyway. that dude knows nothing about making games. right?although $$$ i have to $$$$ admit $$$$ later $$$ he did $$$ change $$$ his stance on $$$$ the ps3 $$$ 100%.
When did I bring up Newell? I think your trying too hard man....
yep, totally. who would listen to that gabe newell noob anyway. that dude knows nothing about making games. right?[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
A few quotes from a few people doesn't mean anything, there are plenty of devs who have no issue with the PS3.
ShadowMoses900
although $$$ i have to $$$$ admit $$$$ later $$$ he did $$$ change $$$ his stance on $$$$ the ps3 $$$ 100%.
When did I bring up Newell? I think your trying too hard man....
Not to mention that doesn't justify releasing a broken product. Why even defend them? Yes it's hard to program for, not impossible. If they have time to overhaul their engine graphically, then they have time to iron out a game breaking bug. It's at least 5 years deep into this gen, and years since Fallout 3, I think that should provide enough time to play catch up, no?yep, totally. who would listen to that gabe newell noob anyway. that dude knows nothing about making games. right?[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
A few quotes from a few people doesn't mean anything, there are plenty of devs who have no issue with the PS3.
ShadowMoses900
although $$$ i have to $$$$ admit $$$$ later $$$ he did $$$ change $$$ his stance on $$$$ the ps3 $$$ 100%.
When did I bring up Newell? I think your trying too hard man....
he was the guy in the story.A slew of well-known developers have spoken out against Sony's high-power console.
Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]yep, totally. who would listen to that gabe newell noob anyway. that dude knows nothing about making games. right?
although $$$ i have to $$$$ admit $$$$ later $$$ he did $$$ change $$$ his stance on $$$$ the ps3 $$$ 100%.
TruestGamer
When did I bring up Newell? I think your trying too hard man....
Not to mention that doesn't justify releasing a broken product. Why even defend them? Yes it's hard to program for, not impossible. If they have time to overhaul their engine graphically, then they have time to iron out a game breaking bug. It's at least 5 years deep into this gen, and years since Fallout 3, I think that should provide enough time to play catch up, no?you are right that it was wrong to do but what was the alternative?releasing the 360 version and not the ps3 version?
holding up the launch until the ps3 version was ready?
just like all of us these devs are on the ragged edge of staying afloat.
they probably literally could not afford to wait until the ps3 version was done.
:lol: I agree.Why did you come to SW to complain? Playing Skyrim on PS3 is entirely your fault.
Tikeio
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]yep, totally. who would listen to that gabe newell noob anyway. that dude knows nothing about making games. right?
although $$$ i have to $$$$ admit $$$$ later $$$ he did $$$ change $$$ his stance on $$$$ the ps3 $$$ 100%.
Riverwolf007
When did I bring up Newell? I think your trying too hard man....
he was the guy in the story.Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."
That was Newells opinion which has then since changed, wether through money or just simply enjoying the system more now, either way it doesn't matter. Plenty of devs such as Rockstar had talked about how they like the PS3 along with many others, both systems are good and at this point a dev who wants to make a multiplat should have no issues developing for either.
he was the guy in the story.[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
When did I bring up Newell? I think your trying too hard man....
ShadowMoses900
Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."
That was Newells opinion which has then since changed, wether through money or just simply enjoying the system more now, either way it doesn't matter. Plenty of devs such as Rockstar had talked about how they like the PS3 along with many others, both systems are good and at this point a dev who wants to make a multiplat should have no issues developing for either.
i cannot disagree that both are good because they are both good but acting like there are not real developmental problems tied to the hardware and the costs involved in developing for each one is strange to me and smacks of denial.the bean counters in the dev houses have more to do with the final product than i think any of us really knows.
Not to mention that doesn't justify releasing a broken product. Why even defend them? Yes it's hard to program for, not impossible. If they have time to overhaul their engine graphically, then they have time to iron out a game breaking bug. It's at least 5 years deep into this gen, and years since Fallout 3, I think that should provide enough time to play catch up, no?you are right that it was wrong to do but what was the alternative?[QUOTE="TruestGamer"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
When did I bring up Newell? I think your trying too hard man....
Riverwolf007
releasing the 360 version and not the ps3 version?
holding up the launch until the ps3 version was ready?
just like all of us these devs are on the ragged edge of staying afloat.
they probably literally could not afford to wait until the ps3 version was done.
An alternative, would be how they approached Oblivion, as it wasn't realsed simutaneously with the 360 or PC. It was given at least a year. Second alternative, rather than focus on a graphically overhaul, they should have addressed a game breaking bug as priority. It's completely unacceptable. 3rd alternative, why not just release a 360 and PC version and no PS3? It came down to profit and their arrogance in thinking they can shoot out 360 copies to reviewers and sneak by as they have with their other past titles.
They are also not a small company. In fact, they are huge, and even if they were on the "ragged edge", that doesn't justify a pass for them to release product broken products. Other companies would be facing a lawsuit. If this were an ipad or phone, there would have been a recall years ago. Not addressing these issues after a certain amount of time, you cannot possibly blame the difficulty in programming or justifying it by saying, "would you rather not have it?". They released it on the PS3 not as a favor, but for profit. Period.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]he was the guy in the story.
Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."
Riverwolf007
That was Newells opinion which has then since changed, wether through money or just simply enjoying the system more now, either way it doesn't matter. Plenty of devs such as Rockstar had talked about how they like the PS3 along with many others, both systems are good and at this point a dev who wants to make a multiplat should have no issues developing for either.
i cannot disagree that both are good because they are both good but acting like there are not real developmental problems tied to the hardware and the costs involved in developing for each one is strange to me and smacks of denial.the bean counters in the dev houses have more to do with the final product than i think any of us really knows.
I don't know how the dev process works too much and I doubt anyone here does either. But most devs don't have an issue developing for both systems so I don't think it's that big of a deal. This is apparent in multiplats as they are look and play the same (mostly), you and some others may think otherwise but there really isn't a difference between them. Same goes for exlcusives, just down to prefernce.
you are right that it was wrong to do but what was the alternative?[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="TruestGamer"] Not to mention that doesn't justify releasing a broken product. Why even defend them? Yes it's hard to program for, not impossible. If they have time to overhaul their engine graphically, then they have time to iron out a game breaking bug. It's at least 5 years deep into this gen, and years since Fallout 3, I think that should provide enough time to play catch up, no?TruestGamer
releasing the 360 version and not the ps3 version?
holding up the launch until the ps3 version was ready?
just like all of us these devs are on the ragged edge of staying afloat.
they probably literally could not afford to wait until the ps3 version was done.
An alternative, would be how they approached Oblivion, as it wasn't realsed simutaneously with the 360 or PC. It was given at least a year. Second alternative, rather than focus on a graphically overhaul, they should have addressed a game breaking bug as priority. It's completely unacceptable. 3rd alternative, why not just release a 360 and PC version and no PS3? It came down to profit and their arrogance in thinking they can shoot out 360 copies to reviewers and sneak by as they have with their other past titles.
They are also not a small company. In fact, they are huge, and even if they were on the "ragged edge", that doesn't justify a pass for them to release product broken products. Other companies would be facing a lawsuit. If this were an ipad or phone, there would have been a recall years ago. Not addressing these issues after a certain amount of time, you cannot possibly blame the difficulty in programming or justifying it by saying, "would you rather not have it?". They released it on the PS3 not as a favor, but for profit. Period.
Everyone releases games for a profit, wether it be Behtesda or anyone. Exclusive or multiplat, it's all about the profit. Who would think otherwise?
That being said I haven't seen how Skyrim is bad on PS3 in terms of graphics or performance, I am 11MB save file into my game and I don't have frame rate issues (most of the time anyway) and I don't have "memory leaks" or anything like that. I do however have an issue with abug in the main quest which my blog explains.
I'm not saying there arn't issues with framrate, just that I haven't experienced them. I think alot of people are just tyring to bash the PS3 version, I don't see what's so bad about it.
you are right that it was wrong to do but what was the alternative?[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="TruestGamer"] Not to mention that doesn't justify releasing a broken product. Why even defend them? Yes it's hard to program for, not impossible. If they have time to overhaul their engine graphically, then they have time to iron out a game breaking bug. It's at least 5 years deep into this gen, and years since Fallout 3, I think that should provide enough time to play catch up, no?TruestGamer
releasing the 360 version and not the ps3 version?
holding up the launch until the ps3 version was ready?
just like all of us these devs are on the ragged edge of staying afloat.
they probably literally could not afford to wait until the ps3 version was done.
An alternative, would be how they approached Oblivion, as it wasn't realsed simutaneously with the 360 or PC. It was given at least a year. Second alternative, rather than focus on a graphically overhaul, they should have addressed a game breaking bug as priority. It's completely unacceptable. 3rd alternative, why not just release a 360 and PC version and no PS3? It came down to profit and their arrogance in thinking they can shoot out 360 copies to reviewers and sneak by as they have with their other past titles.
They are also not a small company. In fact, they are huge, and even if they were on the "ragged edge", that doesn't justify a pass for them to release product broken products. Other companies would be facing a lawsuit. If this were an ipad or phone, there would have been a recall years ago. Not addressing these issues after a certain amount of time, you cannot possibly blame the difficulty in programming or justifying it by saying, "would you rather not have it?". They released it on the PS3 not as a favor, but for profit. Period.
but we see how ps3 guys react at every turn when something does not go their way. petitions, boycotts, accusations of an international anti ps3 conspiracy.it is literally a cliche at this point how they go bat**** crazy over things.
guys are breaking down in tearful youtube rants for the last 5 years and people expect them to delay the ps3 version?
it's not going to happen, the ps3 fanbase has painted themselves into a corner on this one and instead of rileing them up i bet the thinking was they were better off hurrying through a patch rather than face the bad publicity of not launching the ps3 version.
[QUOTE="TruestGamer"]
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]you are right that it was wrong to do but what was the alternative?
releasing the 360 version and not the ps3 version?
holding up the launch until the ps3 version was ready?
just like all of us these devs are on the ragged edge of staying afloat.
they probably literally could not afford to wait until the ps3 version was done.
Riverwolf007
An alternative, would be how they approached Oblivion, as it wasn't realsed simutaneously with the 360 or PC. It was given at least a year. Second alternative, rather than focus on a graphically overhaul, they should have addressed a game breaking bug as priority. It's completely unacceptable. 3rd alternative, why not just release a 360 and PC version and no PS3? It came down to profit and their arrogance in thinking they can shoot out 360 copies to reviewers and sneak by as they have with their other past titles.
They are also not a small company. In fact, they are huge, and even if they were on the "ragged edge", that doesn't justify a pass for them to release product broken products. Other companies would be facing a lawsuit. If this were an ipad or phone, there would have been a recall years ago. Not addressing these issues after a certain amount of time, you cannot possibly blame the difficulty in programming or justifying it by saying, "would you rather not have it?". They released it on the PS3 not as a favor, but for profit. Period.
but we see how ps3 guys react at every turn when something does not go their way. petitions, boycotts, accusations of an international anti ps3 conspiracy.it is literally a cliche at this point how they go bat**** crazy over things.
guys are breaking down in tearful youtube rants for the last 5 years and people expect them to delay the ps3 version?
it's not going to happen, the ps3 fanbase has painted themselves into a corner on this one and instead of rileing them up i bet the thinking was they were better off hurrying through a patch rather than face the bad publicity of not launching the ps3 version.
I haven't seen any petitions or boycotts or people crying or anything of the sort over PS3 Skyrim or anything else. I don't know where you are getting this from, mabey a few dumb fanboys on the internet but in real life I doubt it. And I haven't had any performance issues with my PS3 Skyrim and I have 11 MB save file which is massive and the problems were supposed to happen around 8 MB or so with frame rate drops. It still runs smooth for me atleast.
I do have an issue with the main quest and a damn bug that bethesda didn't fix (it's in all versions) can't belive they didn't catch it, it's like they don't test their games.
[QUOTE="TruestGamer"]
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]you are right that it was wrong to do but what was the alternative?
releasing the 360 version and not the ps3 version?
holding up the launch until the ps3 version was ready?
just like all of us these devs are on the ragged edge of staying afloat.
they probably literally could not afford to wait until the ps3 version was done.
Riverwolf007
An alternative, would be how they approached Oblivion, as it wasn't realsed simutaneously with the 360 or PC. It was given at least a year. Second alternative, rather than focus on a graphically overhaul, they should have addressed a game breaking bug as priority. It's completely unacceptable. 3rd alternative, why not just release a 360 and PC version and no PS3? It came down to profit and their arrogance in thinking they can shoot out 360 copies to reviewers and sneak by as they have with their other past titles.
They are also not a small company. In fact, they are huge, and even if they were on the "ragged edge", that doesn't justify a pass for them to release product broken products. Other companies would be facing a lawsuit. If this were an ipad or phone, there would have been a recall years ago. Not addressing these issues after a certain amount of time, you cannot possibly blame the difficulty in programming or justifying it by saying, "would you rather not have it?". They released it on the PS3 not as a favor, but for profit. Period.
but we see how ps3 guys react at every turn when something does not go their way. petitions, boycotts, accusations of an international anti ps3 conspiracy.it is literally a cliche at this point how they go bat**** crazy over things.
guys are breaking down in tearful youtube rants for the last 5 years and people expect them to delay the ps3 version?
it's not going to happen, the ps3 fanbase has painted themselves into a corner on this one and instead of rileing them up i bet the thinking was they were better off hurrying through a patch rather than face the bad publicity of not launching the ps3 version.
It's quite simple. It's not a consipiracy, Every single one of their games becomes unplayable on the PS3. They are going "crazy" because, like me, I've probably spent 120 dollars on items labeled GOTY that I could never finish, not to mention the bug never being addressed in any reviews. Bethesda has painted them selves into a corner, not the consumer, by releasing knowingly broken products consistently, they have built a snowflake into an avalanche that could have been prevented. Instead, they tweaked the graphics. Blaming the consumer here is absolutely ridiculous. The outrage is how they've consistently gotten by and their products integrity reflects that. If fallout 3 or oblivion bugs were addressed, this topic wouldn't exist.[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]but we see how ps3 guys react at every turn when something does not go their way. petitions, boycotts, accusations of an international anti ps3 conspiracy.[QUOTE="TruestGamer"]
An alternative, would be how they approached Oblivion, as it wasn't realsed simutaneously with the 360 or PC. It was given at least a year. Second alternative, rather than focus on a graphically overhaul, they should have addressed a game breaking bug as priority. It's completely unacceptable. 3rd alternative, why not just release a 360 and PC version and no PS3? It came down to profit and their arrogance in thinking they can shoot out 360 copies to reviewers and sneak by as they have with their other past titles.
They are also not a small company. In fact, they are huge, and even if they were on the "ragged edge", that doesn't justify a pass for them to release product broken products. Other companies would be facing a lawsuit. If this were an ipad or phone, there would have been a recall years ago. Not addressing these issues after a certain amount of time, you cannot possibly blame the difficulty in programming or justifying it by saying, "would you rather not have it?". They released it on the PS3 not as a favor, but for profit. Period.
TruestGamer
it is literally a cliche at this point how they go bat**** crazy over things.
guys are breaking down in tearful youtube rants for the last 5 years and people expect them to delay the ps3 version?
it's not going to happen, the ps3 fanbase has painted themselves into a corner on this one and instead of rileing them up i bet the thinking was they were better off hurrying through a patch rather than face the bad publicity of not launching the ps3 version.
It's quite simple. It's not a consipiracy, Every single one of their games becomes unplayable on the PS3. They are going "crazy" because, like me, I've probably spent 120 dollars on items labeled GOTY that I could never finish, not to mention the bug never being addressed in any reviews. Bethesda has painted them selves into a corner, not the consumer, by releasing knowingly broken products consistently, they have built a snowflake into an avalanche that could have been prevented. Instead, they tweaked the graphics. Blaming the consumer here is absolutely ridiculous. The outrage is how they've consistently gotten by and their products integrity reflects that. If fallout 3 or oblivion bugs were addressed, this topic wouldn't exist.I don't see what's so bad about the PS3 version of Fallout 3, I understand at launch it had framerate issues and would crash constantly, but once they patched it it was fine. I didn't see a difference after coming off the 360 version (which I owned first). Guessing yours was a different experience from mine.
but we see how ps3 guys react at every turn when something does not go their way. petitions, boycotts, accusations of an international anti ps3 conspiracy.[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="TruestGamer"]
An alternative, would be how they approached Oblivion, as it wasn't realsed simutaneously with the 360 or PC. It was given at least a year. Second alternative, rather than focus on a graphically overhaul, they should have addressed a game breaking bug as priority. It's completely unacceptable. 3rd alternative, why not just release a 360 and PC version and no PS3? It came down to profit and their arrogance in thinking they can shoot out 360 copies to reviewers and sneak by as they have with their other past titles.
They are also not a small company. In fact, they are huge, and even if they were on the "ragged edge", that doesn't justify a pass for them to release product broken products. Other companies would be facing a lawsuit. If this were an ipad or phone, there would have been a recall years ago. Not addressing these issues after a certain amount of time, you cannot possibly blame the difficulty in programming or justifying it by saying, "would you rather not have it?". They released it on the PS3 not as a favor, but for profit. Period.
ShadowMoses900
it is literally a cliche at this point how they go bat**** crazy over things.
guys are breaking down in tearful youtube rants for the last 5 years and people expect them to delay the ps3 version?
it's not going to happen, the ps3 fanbase has painted themselves into a corner on this one and instead of rileing them up i bet the thinking was they were better off hurrying through a patch rather than face the bad publicity of not launching the ps3 version.
I haven't seen any petitions or boycotts or people crying or anything of the sort over PS3 Skyrim or anything else. I don't know where you are getting this from, mabey a few dumb fanboys on the internet but in real life I doubt it. And I haven't had any performance issues with my PS3 Skyrim and I have 11 MB save file which is massive and the problems were supposed to happen around 8 MB or so with frame rate drops. It still runs smooth for me atleast.
I do have an issue with the main quest and a damn bug that bethesda didn't fix (it's in all versions) can't belive they didn't catch it, it's like they don't test their games.
http://www.destructoid.com/fact-ps3-fanboys-are-the-worst-149259.phtmlhttp://www.destructoid.com/ekans-haters-boo-final-fantasy-xiii-360-at-launch-event-166768.phtml
http://www.destructoid.com/fanboys-petition-to-boycott-capcom-over-dmc4-going-multi-platform-update--30538.phtml
http://gamersheep.com/2011/06/ps3-fanboys-start-to-turn-in-insomniac/
Havent played it in days due to the problem.
its good though, putting 20+ hours has left me with 0 time for Saints row and Batman AC.
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]but we see how ps3 guys react at every turn when something does not go their way. petitions, boycotts, accusations of an international anti ps3 conspiracy.[QUOTE="TruestGamer"]
An alternative, would be how they approached Oblivion, as it wasn't realsed simutaneously with the 360 or PC. It was given at least a year. Second alternative, rather than focus on a graphically overhaul, they should have addressed a game breaking bug as priority. It's completely unacceptable. 3rd alternative, why not just release a 360 and PC version and no PS3? It came down to profit and their arrogance in thinking they can shoot out 360 copies to reviewers and sneak by as they have with their other past titles.
They are also not a small company. In fact, they are huge, and even if they were on the "ragged edge", that doesn't justify a pass for them to release product broken products. Other companies would be facing a lawsuit. If this were an ipad or phone, there would have been a recall years ago. Not addressing these issues after a certain amount of time, you cannot possibly blame the difficulty in programming or justifying it by saying, "would you rather not have it?". They released it on the PS3 not as a favor, but for profit. Period.
TruestGamer
it is literally a cliche at this point how they go bat**** crazy over things.
guys are breaking down in tearful youtube rants for the last 5 years and people expect them to delay the ps3 version?
it's not going to happen, the ps3 fanbase has painted themselves into a corner on this one and instead of rileing them up i bet the thinking was they were better off hurrying through a patch rather than face the bad publicity of not launching the ps3 version.
It's quite simple. It's not a consipiracy, Every single one of their games becomes unplayable on the PS3. They are going "crazy" because, like me, I've probably spent 120 dollars on items labeled GOTY that I could never finish, not to mention the bug never being addressed in any reviews. Bethesda has painted them selves into a corner, not the consumer, by releasing knowingly broken products consistently, they have built a snowflake into an avalanche that could have been prevented. Instead, they tweaked the graphics. Blaming the consumer here is absolutely ridiculous. The outrage is how they've consistently gotten by and their products integrity reflects that. If fallout 3 or oblivion bugs were addressed, this topic wouldn't exist.well tbo i'm not real happy with myself for blaming the consumer either.but... when the old saying goes "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me thrice...and... umm you obviously only have a ps3".
then it is time to start taking responsibility.
I've played WoW on 56k....now thats lag, the lag in skyrim is bad but it's never game breaking....
I swear people will ***** about anything.
[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]
[QUOTE="PAL360"]
Yet, 6 years into the gen, ppl keep blaming devs instead of Sony.
PAL360
If it really were their fault then every singly game released on the PS3 would be as bad as all the Bethesda games.
Not saying PS3 is not as capable as 360, but games need more time and dedication to reach the same results. Those unintelligent hardware decisions are obviously not devs fault.
Releasing a bugged game is the devs fault though, and apparently this same save issue has affected some users (though curiously, not all) since at least fallout 3. Other devs have been able to get their head around the hardware in the last 5 years, but you're gonna give bethesda a pass on releasing a flaw they've known about for years? That's unbiased...:roll:
If they want to cry that it was too hard so they skipped the platform, then I'm with you. Once they decided to release, Bethesda had the responsibility over the performance of their game. You can cry hardware all you want, but other devs have figured out the mystery of Saving Games. If Bethesda can't then they deserve any scorn gamers toss their way.
[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]
I've played WoW on 56k....now thats lag, the lag in skyrim is bad but it's never game breaking....
I swear people will ***** about anything.
santoron
:lol::lol::lol:
I can just imagine that...
Did it when they had 40 man raids...yeah it was pretty much set there and cry...hopefully the guild leader and officers didn't notice.
People need to stop giving Bethesda free passes on broken and buggy games. There's no excuse for releasing a bugged out game, no amount of patches can wipe away the distaste of knowing you preordered a game that wasn't even fully playable.
I know man, thank god I'm not one of those people.People need to stop giving Bethesda free passes on broken and buggy games. There's no excuse for releasing a bugged out game, no amount of patches can wipe away the distaste of knowing you preordered a game that wasn't even fully playable.
commonfate
I only started getting that problem. But it isn't that bad I only have to wait a couple more days for the patch because it is supposed to be fixed this week. Right?
So you get a less shi***** version of a game, big whoop. PC still owns all.and another+to the 360:cool:
and another- to the ps3:lol:
almasdeathchild
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
No it is Bethesda. No one else has issues with develpoing for PS3 and almost every multiplat (despite what the lemmings say) are the same on both consoles. It's all Bethesda fault for not programming and testing right. I honestly doubt they even test their games at this point.
ShadowMoses900
"The politically incorrect answer is that the PS3 is a huge pain in the ass," Himmerick told the hosts.
"Anyone making a game, if you're going to make it for both, just lead on the PS3 because if it works on the PS3, it'll work on 360," he said. "We had to play catch-up on the PS3 because of the memory constraints and how it renders; how it processes is just different. And it's harder on the PS3," Himmerick continued.
A slew of well-known developers have spoken out against Sony's high-power console.
Valve's Gabe Newell said in 2007--long before Sony's decline started--that the PlayStation 3 is a "waste of everyone's time." He went on to tell Edge Magazine that "investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution."
In one of the most shocking and bizarre comments ever made by a company chief, Hirai, the brains behind the entire PlayStation empire, explained to the Official Playstation Magazine in its February issue that Sony didn't want to make it easy on developers.
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.
http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/
A few quotes from a few people doesn't mean anything, there are plenty of devs who have no issue with the PS3.
you missed the part where SONY admitted they had made it hard for developers then, that's pretty much coming from the horses mouth,lolyou are right that it was wrong to do but what was the alternative?[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="TruestGamer"] Not to mention that doesn't justify releasing a broken product. Why even defend them? Yes it's hard to program for, not impossible. If they have time to overhaul their engine graphically, then they have time to iron out a game breaking bug. It's at least 5 years deep into this gen, and years since Fallout 3, I think that should provide enough time to play catch up, no?TruestGamer
releasing the 360 version and not the ps3 version?
holding up the launch until the ps3 version was ready?
just like all of us these devs are on the ragged edge of staying afloat.
they probably literally could not afford to wait until the ps3 version was done.
An alternative, would be how they approached Oblivion, as it wasn't realsed simutaneously with the 360 or PC. It was given at least a year. Second alternative, rather than focus on a graphically overhaul, they should have addressed a game breaking bug as priority. It's completely unacceptable. 3rd alternative, why not just release a 360 and PC version and no PS3? It came down to profit and their arrogance in thinking they can shoot out 360 copies to reviewers and sneak by as they have with their other past titles.
They are also not a small company. In fact, they are huge, and even if they were on the "ragged edge", that doesn't justify a pass for them to release product broken products. Other companies would be facing a lawsuit. If this were an ipad or phone, there would have been a recall years ago. Not addressing these issues after a certain amount of time, you cannot possibly blame the difficulty in programming or justifying it by saying, "would you rather not have it?". They released it on the PS3 not as a favor, but for profit. Period.
they are only 40 guys mate, they said so in one of there skyrim developement videos, behind the wall i think it's called, you should check it out.The problem starts and only gets worse. I have no faith that the patch will fix anything like Bethseda's other PS3 games.I only started getting that problem. But it isn't that bad I only have to wait a couple more days for the patch because it is supposed to be fixed this week. Right?
Nintendo_Ownes7
It's quite simple. It's not a consipiracy, Every single one of their games becomes unplayable on the PS3. They are going "crazy" because, like me, I've probably spent 120 dollars on items labeled GOTY that I could never finish, not to mention the bug never being addressed in any reviews. Bethesda has painted them selves into a corner, not the consumer, by releasing knowingly broken products consistently, they have built a snowflake into an avalanche that could have been prevented. Instead, they tweaked the graphics. Blaming the consumer here is absolutely ridiculous. The outrage is how they've consistently gotten by and their products integrity reflects that. If fallout 3 or oblivion bugs were addressed, this topic wouldn't exist.well tbo i'm not real happy with myself for blaming the consumer either.[QUOTE="TruestGamer"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]but we see how ps3 guys react at every turn when something does not go their way. petitions, boycotts, accusations of an international anti ps3 conspiracy.
it is literally a cliche at this point how they go bat**** crazy over things.
guys are breaking down in tearful youtube rants for the last 5 years and people expect them to delay the ps3 version?
it's not going to happen, the ps3 fanbase has painted themselves into a corner on this one and instead of rileing them up i bet the thinking was they were better off hurrying through a patch rather than face the bad publicity of not launching the ps3 version.
Riverwolf007
but... when the old saying goes "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me thrice...and... umm you obviously only have a ps3".
then it is time to start taking responsibility.
hahaha good one.
you cannot accurately test a game like skyrim because you never know who's going to do what or in which order they are going to do it, there are too many variables in a game that size and not everybody is encountering the same problems either, quite a few people are suffering the ps3 savegmae bug but at the same time lot's of people are not.What's up with Bethesda anyway? They make such good games, but they're always full of glitches. Is it the vast size of their games that cause problems? What's up with those guys?
glimpus
[QUOTE="glimpus"]you cannot accurately test a game like skyrim because you never know who's going to do what or in which order they are going to do it, there are too many variables in a game that size and not everybody is encountering the same problems either, quite a few people are suffering the ps3 savegmae bug but at the same time lot's of people are not.What's up with Bethesda anyway? They make such good games, but they're always full of glitches. Is it the vast size of their games that cause problems? What's up with those guys?
delta3074
true. i thought that might be part of the problem. ive had some texture issues with the 360, but nothing horrible. one time a dragon turned all pixelated on me, it looked like an N64 dragon lol.
i always install games, cause they run quieter and cooler. i can wait for the patch this week, i figure some nicer textures will just make the game look better about 50 hours in **** i really have no idea how long ive played it, but im up to level 32). but i think my buds game on ps3 has gone all wonky, hes usually raving about it, but lately ive heard nothing.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment