Well if my game sold like sh-t and I put a extra 6 months into it I would not do that anymore either.

Good post lol

this is one thing I will agree with you on.

Next time Sony should release a console with a decent amount of RAM rather than release a console to push out their technology (blu ray and Cell in this instance). If Sony hadn't been so arrogant than the PS3 would've been easily more powerful than the 360 from day one. The CPU could've been better without having to resort to the expensive Cell. A faster DVD drive than the 360 would have sufficed rather than an expensive and slow 2 x blu ray. The GPU could've been better since Sony could have picked a better one due to the money they'd save by using off the shelf components or similar. They could have increased the RAM allocation or unified it ala 360 by going for GDDR3 RAM throughout rather than expensive RAMBUS main RAM. With these simple measures the PS3 (if released a year later like it did so as to allow for the better hardware) would have trounced the 360 in every single multiplatform game H2H's with ease and still have the better looking exclusives.

Blame Bethesda all you want for releasing a game not suited to the PS3 hardware but Sony is at fault too for their paltry RAM allocation (which is probably the reason Skyrim has major issues on PS3).

Yes, a perfect knee shot! Whiterun needs more guards.

OT: The idea that this is some grand anti-Sony conspiracy is absurd. For one thing, it runs better on PC than on either console because it's easiest to develop for PC and any good semi-new PC has the most processing power of the three, and by far the most RAM. The 360's architecture is a lot more similar to that of the PC, and therefore more familiar to developers. Moreover, Skyrim was lead developed on Xbox 360, so naturally it will run better on 360 than PS3.

No significant slowdown seems to be visible until 60 hours in, so it wouldn't have showed up in testing, and Betheda have made every effort to fix the problem (and have improved it slightly, hopefully with more patches to follow).

Oblivion PS3 was a year late and optimised for PS3. Would you rather have Skyrim now, or in a year's time? The fact of the matter is that, although Bethesda really ought to have made the game run better on PS3, they have not been moneyhatted by Bill Gates/contracted by Satan/otherwise been persuaded to damage Sony and the PS3 by releasing an inferior version of the game on it. It's an honest mistake.

I can sort of understand why this logic would prevent Skyrim from winning PS3 Game of the Year, for the moment, but not why that should stop a game which runs better than every other game Bethesda has ever released on the two lead platforms and is a fantastic experience on all three from winning overall GoTY.

Very well said.

But I must ask...what is all this shenanigans about taking a arrow to the knee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vncIBREXCwU

New Vegas was great on PS3, just as good as the 360 version.

I just bought Skyrim...On the 360.

And they had three games selling well after Oblivion, so where are you going with this?  They had it right with Oblivion, someone screwed something up and they let it slide through 3 games.  I'd understand Fallout not working at launch, but New Vegas and Skyrim both have problems.  There's no reason for Skyrim to have these kinds of bugs and to be frank; this is unacceptable.

I can't believe I never noticed all those gaurds saying that.