By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Skyrim Dawnguard PS3: Punished for choosing wrong console

Attoyou on 16 October 2012
Barozi said:
ethomaz said:
Barozi said:
ethomaz said:
BenVTrigger said:
Of course they arent blaming Sony or the PS3......its not their fault.

I swear gamers are weird man. Just because theres technical issues dont mean its someone fault. Just that Bethesdas engine doesnt work that great with the PS3 any plataform. That sucks but it doesnt mean anyones a traitor or at fault or anything.

Were talking about video games people, no one should feel personally invested in any of this....

Fixed.

Anyway that's all Bethesda fault... Fallout Las Vegas was released broken in all platforms... that's like this dev is.

Except that was Obsidian and not Bethesda.

You know Vegas is developed in Fallout 3 engine developed by Bethesda... no?

so why is it Bethesda's fault that Fallout New Vegas is more buggy than Fallout 3 or Skyrim ?
Obviously Bethesda did a better job than Obsidian.
Also Bethesda didn't create the engine for Fallout 3 and Vegas, they just built upon the Gamebryo engine.

QA on New Vegas was bethesdas responsibility. So Bethesda did a worse job than Bethesda.



Atto Suggests...:

Book - Malazan Book of the Fallen series 

Game - Metro Last Light

TV - Deadwood

Music - Forest Swords 

Around the Network
walsufnir on 16 October 2012
lilbroex said:
Adinnieken said:
mantlepiecek said:

It's most definitely not "PS3's fault", because it has almost the same RAM as the 360. It's not like bethesda is using the entire PS3's archtecture to its advantage and still failing.

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.

The best the PS3's memory comes split, 256MB for the system (CPU) and 256MB for the video (GPU).  The OS consumes 50MB, which is technically split between the system and video (48/2?).  So at best the PS3 has 218MB of RAM to games.  That's it.  There is no borrowing from elsewhere.  The GPU can take advantage of the system memory, but the CPU can't take advantage of the video memory. 

So, please tell me how the Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same amount of memory?  I haven't been in school for quite a while, so maybe they're teaching you "kids" a new kind of math, but when I was in school 480MB =/= 208MB.  Are you going to try and tell me that the PS3 uses some sort of memory compression?  That it shrinks normal sized 1's and 0's into much smaller, compact 1's and 0's so it can fit more of them in a smaller space?

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.

that's clearly a case of: "i don't have any clue what you are writing but i have an opinion!" people ignoring technical facts and/or differences are discussing in a way where you can't really argue with them.



Adinnieken on 16 October 2012
VXIII said:
Guys, we are talking about a DLC, how can it be too much to handle for the PS3 ?

The problem is that with Bethesda's open world games, the save file grows larger and larger as you get deeper and deeper into game.  The reason for this was somewhat explained by Bethesda when they mentioned that everything you do, every quest you take, every skill you learn, every piece of equipment you wear, etc, all adds up.  So, when you add onto that DLC, which will increase everything you do, aquire, and learn, it'll just make it worse.

From what Bethesda seems to be saying is, it works for some people, just not 100% of the people. 



sergiodaly on 16 October 2012

many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Adinnieken on 16 October 2012
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.

You failed maths, didn't you?

218 / 480 = .45416666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

That's 45% not 5%.

The PS3 has up to 218MB available for the game.  The Xbox 360 has up to 480MB for the game.



Around the Network
walsufnir on 16 October 2012
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.


caching to hdd? swapping is magnitudes slower than ram... so where is the benefit? especially with slow 2.5"-hdds attached to a sata 1.5g-interface.

 

and why shouldn't they release it? it sold very well and shoveled a lot of money, even on ps3. games with issues have always been released.



lilbroex on 16 October 2012
walsufnir said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.


caching to hdd? swapping is magnitudes slower than ram... so where is the benefit? especially with slow 2.5"-hdds attached to a sata 1.5g-interface.

 

and why shouldn't they release it? it sold very well and shoveled a lot of money, even on ps3. games with issues have always been released.


Indeed. Jus tlook at the downports to the Wii *cringes at Sims 3*.



deskpro2k3 on 16 October 2012

bethesda need to call up naughty dog, kojima, and guerilla games for help. they seriously can use some tips and pointers. even square enix can help them. they're porting over FF14 Online, an MMORPG.



Ajescent on 16 October 2012
deskpro2k3 said:

bethesda need to call up naughty dog, kojima, and guerilla games for help. they seriously can use some tips and pointers.

considering they have "Sony"...

also, NG and GG are both linear experts, whereas Bethesda need someone with more non-linear expertise.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

deskpro2k3 on 16 October 2012
Ajescent said:
deskpro2k3 said:

bethesda need to call up naughty dog, kojima, and guerilla games for help. they seriously can use some tips and pointers.

considering they have "Sony"...

also, NG and GG are both linear experts, whereas Bethesda need someone with more non-linear expertise.


see edit post.