Libroex does not care about 360 or PS3 as he is one huge, gargantuan Nintendo fan. It makes you wonder why he would care to post this at all. That being said, I am just waiting and hoping for a 360 game of the year addition that has it all. I also will buy it for 360 this time as I should have from the beginning. Even though my PS3 copy of Skyrim is my favorite game of all time so I do not complain much.
Adinnieken said:
No, it doesn't. The Xbox 360 has 512MB of RAM - 32MB for the OS. That's up to 480MB of RAM that the game can take advantage of. Granted, a game is likely going to be displaying graphics at the same time, so that 480MB will be used up some by graphics. Nevertheless, the Xbox 360 offers flexibility of being able to use more memory than the PS3 is capable of offering.
Oblivion didn't have a single memory issue. It had bugs, but to the best of my knowledge not a single one was an issue where there wasn't enough memory on the system. I never heard of any memory issues with Morrowind or any of the other earlier games. There weren't any memory issues with Fallout 3, or to my knowledge with Fallout New Vegas. There have been several well documented physics engine bugs, one of the reason why Bethesda dropped the previous physics engine and wrote their own. If there were memory problems they were memory leak issues, not a single one that I know of where there was insufficient memory on a system for the game to run. |
A memory leak problem is still a RAM issue?
So much for fact, sh!t and BS.
Adinnieken said:
No, it doesn't. The Xbox 360 has 512MB of RAM - 32MB for the OS. That's up to 480MB of RAM that the game can take advantage of. Granted, a game is likely going to be displaying graphics at the same time, so that 480MB will be used up some by graphics. Nevertheless, the Xbox 360 offers flexibility of being able to use more memory than the PS3 is capable of offering. |
Yes. Yes indeed. I try to explain this to people for years, but they just don't get it.
95% of the people who talk about specs and stats don't understand really them. For years I've seen the PS3 has 512 and 360 has 512 argument. Just saying that doens't mean anything without looking at the other factors. 256X2 and 512 are not the same thing. I'm not even going to getting to the 10 MB EDRAM difference.
The effective RAM capabilities of the PS3 are below that of the 360 and ontop of that, the 360's GPU offers better performance. This is why most ports have a higher frame rate on the 360 more effects and object, even if the core game was built from the ground up for the PS3 like FFXIII. Large scale games that requires enormours amount of data to be loaded at all time like Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption receive better performance on the 360.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247104/red-dead-redemption-sub-hd-on-ps3/
Honestly, Bethesda should have just downgraded the graphics or something else to alleviate the bottleknecking. Any decent analysis can pin point what the problem causer is. They made it clear that the 360 was their target console for it before it was even released it. They more or less just shoved it into the PS3 without seeing what will work and what will not. This is clearly a simple case of a lazy ports.
To properly fix this they would have to go back and rebuild the game then rerelease it. Either that, or they release a patch that scales the game down to the requirements of a PC on low setting.
You can't work around memory limitations.
Adinnieken said:
No, it doesn't. The Xbox 360 has 512MB of RAM - 32MB for the OS. That's up to 480MB of RAM that the game can take advantage of. Granted, a game is likely going to be displaying graphics at the same time, so that 480MB will be used up some by graphics. Nevertheless, the Xbox 360 offers flexibility of being able to use more memory than the PS3 is capable of offering. |
So what kind of memory do you think skyrim needs to render large and open environments?
I have no idea where you got that same amount of memory since I clearly state that they are almost equal taking into consideration the OS requirements.
ethomaz said:
You're kidding right? All these games you listed are buggy plus Oblivion, Rage and others. There are no problem the Gamebryo engine... the engine made over Gamebryo engine for all Fallout games after 3 is the issue... Bethesda's fault. |
The game is friggin' huge. It's okay that they are more buggy than other games.
Besides, i've had two game freezes in a single Uncharted 2 playthrough and only one in Skyrim. Do you see me running around and say that Naughty Dog is a bad dev ?
Adinnieken said:
No, it doesn't. The Xbox 360 has 512MB of RAM - 32MB for the OS. That's up to 480MB of RAM that the game can take advantage of. Granted, a game is likely going to be displaying graphics at the same time, so that 480MB will be used up some by graphics. Nevertheless, the Xbox 360 offers flexibility of being able to use more memory than the PS3 is capable of offering.
Oblivion didn't have a single memory issue. It had bugs, but to the best of my knowledge not a single one was an issue where there wasn't enough memory on the system. I never heard of any memory issues with Morrowind or any of the other earlier games. There weren't any memory issues with Fallout 3, or to my knowledge with Fallout New Vegas. There have been several well documented physics engine bugs, one of the reason why Bethesda dropped the previous physics engine and wrote their own. If there were memory problems they were memory leak issues, not a single one that I know of where there was insufficient memory on a system for the game to run. |
Exactly. The PS3's RAM is very limited. Its the one area where the 360 actually has a pretty major advantage.
However there's many users on this site who it actually personally hurts their feelings if their preferred system isn't the greatest at everything. This is a technical issue between the Skyrim engine and the PS3's limited RAM. End of story.
But people aren't going to listen to that. Instead they are going to try and drag Bethesdas name through the mud and call them lazy and terrible. They keep trying to bring up other games that run fine on the system but NONE of those games are anywhere near as RAM hungry as Skyrim is. Just because other games can run fine on the console doesn't mean any game can.
Guys, we are talking about a DLC, how can it be too much to handle for the PS3 ?
Haha, so now a lack of 5% RAM is very limiting to a release of a DLC?
Kind of hilarious actually. In fact skyrim had a problem at the release itself on PS3, and it was memory leak I believe. Something that didn't exist on 360, and it had nothing to do with RAM and how much of it you have.
I'm gonna post this again because many in here don't seem to understand what the actual problem is.
It ISN'T that the RAM is too limited to render the gigantic open environment. It actually has to do with item movement and placement. Every item you ever pick up and drop in Skyrim will permenantly be rendered in the last location you dropped it. Over the course of dozens of hours of play and HUNDREDS of item movements it starts taking a serious toll on the RAM.
The reason they can't currently put Dawnguard or ANY expansion onto the PS3 version is due to the number of items in the base game alone being moved fry out the game not to mention all the EXTRA items that would be added in the DLC would just break the game even faster.
This is why most people don't encounter game breaking bugs early in the game on the PS3 but rather later and the longer they play. Its because as you play the game it starts requiring more and more RAM to render and load all the item movements away from their former locations and into their new ones.
Thats why Bethesda have said they don't believe its a fixable problem. Because it litteraly has to do with the hardware of the PS3. That doesn't mean that the PS3 sucks by any means its just that Skyrim requires more RAM than the PS3 has open at any given time.
| mantlepiecek said: Haha, so now a lack of 5% RAM is very limiting to a release of a DLC? Kind of hilarious actually. In fact skyrim had a problem at the release itself on PS3, and it was memory leak I believe. Something that didn't exist on 360, and it had nothing to do with RAM and how much of it you have. |
In all honesty I don't understand why you kep throwing out that they are nearly the same RAM or a 5% difference....
Its more than that due to the PS3 dividing its RAM between the GPU and CPU. Its how the actual RAM is used not the amount of it.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
