380°

Next-Gen: Skyrim Studio Bethesda Banking On DX11 For Xbox 720, PS4

NowGamer: Bethesda teases more evidence that next-gen Xbox and PlayStation will be more like PCs than ever.

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
Frankfurt4369d ago

Hopefully Sony will make a console with enough memory to handle a game like Skyrim or Fallout this time, instead of only tiny scripted games like Uncharted or God of War.

darthv724368d ago

for them to bank on DX12 instead? I mean that is MS's graphics language and they would know what it entails.

As for the gpu, MS will want one in the 720 capable of supporting it when needed but it would obviously support DX11 as well.

WetN00dle694368d ago

I highly agree! It be awesome if both the Durango and Orbis were DX12 compatible.

MAJ0R4368d ago

How many times do I have to say that Sony doesn't use DirectX?

SilentNegotiator4368d ago (Edited 4368d ago )

@Frank, Financial

Except it can run games like MAG, Starhawk, Killzone 3, etc, etc, etc.
All you listed were 2 Pathe-sda games. Nice try.

Oh, and keep pretending like N4G is a hostile Sony-fanboy site, FinancialGamer. It isn't a magic button that makes any anti-sony crap said, correct.

MysticStrummer4368d ago

Don't bother, Silent. They know they're being ridiculous.

kreate4368d ago

agreed with mystic.

there's just some people on n4g its not even worth debating or arguing anything over. just bubble him down and move on.

decrypt4368d ago (Edited 4368d ago )

DX 11 was introduced back in 2009.

So consoles will back it up in 2013 possibly 2014. Question is why go for 5 year old tech. By 2013 or 2014 They should be focusing on DX 12 or so. Remember consoles will be stuck with it for another decade. Hence why limit to a format that will already be 5 years old by the time next consoles are out?

Imo console makers need to be more progressive and stop holding the industry back.

hiredhelp4368d ago

DX12 will not be out for some time yet specially as windows 8 will support the new DX11.1. Just like DX9 had few revisions before they brout out DX10.
Not only that its cheaper easyer to do games on DX9 but myself agree consoles need dx11 need tessalation better lighting shadows smoother 3D objects.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 4368d ago
Zha1tan4369d ago (Edited 4369d ago )

Could not believe it when I read the reason behind the PS3 not having party chat.

Memory related issue apparently...and its a shame because thats the only thing that puts me off PS3 online is the lack of smooth communication you can have with your friends.

Con-Fu4368d ago

Its just poor planning. Same thing with trophies as a last minute copy of achievements. It doesn't make any sense that you should need to self sync these things. Hopefully they'll get it right next time.

ForeverGamer4369d ago (Edited 4369d ago )

@Frankfurt & @FinancialGamer
really ???
ps3 have the same amount of ram xbox have
but they are split
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz
http://www.ps3power.com/ps3...
and
ps3 has been doing great with open world games
like
la noire
FF 13
FF 13:2
Batman AC
Prototype 1 and 2
Infamous 1-2
Demon souls
Dark Souls
Saints raw the 3rd
etc

and even one of Bethesda games
Fallout NV was a "tie"
http://www.lensoftruth.com/...

it's not ps3 fault
it was Bethesda fault
they make sh1ty engine full of bugs

the same thing happen on pc version untill the mods stepped in

ForeverGamer4369d ago

i see stealth disagrees with no one to back it up
cool
carry on

RedDragan4369d ago (Edited 4369d ago )

Okay, I will back it up. If modders can fix it, then it obviously isn't the shitty engine at fault. Instead the problem is some manager deciding that they would cater for shitty consoles thus sapping away the time the Devs need to make the game epic, which can only be achieved on PC.

Happy now?

humbleopinion4368d ago

Regarding the Fallout NV, actually it's quite far from a tie if you look at the more professional DF review. The lensoftruth calculations are actually wrong if you do the maths yourself, and it was quite shallow and superficial overall:
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
The main issue with the X360 was the textures, which was later fixed with a patch (just like fallout 3), while the PS3 suffered from framerate issues, lack of AA, and streaming problems.

The problem with the PS3 is that the split memory never allows more than 256MB for graphics, where the X360 shared memory can dynamically distribute it. Plus the super fast EDRAM takes some load of and it has a bigger impact in open-world games. The Bethesda engine is quite remarkable, and the same goes for the Rage engine powering Rockstar games which is also having some issues on the PS3.

But on topic, this is bull. They are trying to deduct that next gen consoles will use DX11 because of a job offer for a next gen game that will obviously be developed for the PC as well and will require the developers to be familiar with DX11. That's bad logic.

Gamer30004368d ago (Edited 4368d ago )

@humbleopinion

from your link
"But as the content in the shipping release is effectively "identical on all platforms", the focus on which to buy if you have the choice available shifts into other areas. The PC version of the game is the one to get if you're looking for the very best all-round experience, but it's something of a Hobson's Choice situation on console where both games have some fundamental issues that detract from the quality of the experience:" the 360's graphics are inexplicably poorer in some areas whereas background streaming on PS3, even with the 4.5GB install to the in-built hard drive, is dog-rough. "

again DF say it's a "Tie"
just like LOT

you didn't prove him wrong at all
you only proved he was right again
and you didn't say any thng about the other open world games that runs on par or better on ps3
that he list
and the last one was prototype 2 which look and play better on ps3
check both DF and LOT

the only games that are buggy and ugly is Bethesda games
it's their fault
and the fact you guys have agrees show how much this is a pro xbox360 site
not the other way around

360GamerFG4368d ago

Why is everyone on my case?? I told the heretic to shut up lol.

humbleopinion4367d ago

@Gamer3000:
Did you read my entire post? My main issue with LOT was that they missed many important aspects in their face-off- both on the PS3 and the X360 side.
But other than that, the main X360 issue (which was basically a bug) that was highlighted in DF was fixed as well, so it's not really a tie anymore. Pop in both games and see for yourself - the many PS3 issues (which are not bugs but performance/capability issues) are still there on the other hand.
Hope it's more clear now...

As for the other games he mentioned, what do you really want me to say? He got it wrong in a few games (Batman AC for example, where the X360 is still slightly, but just slightly, better), missed the point behind "open world" games (FF13 is hardly open world. The game is as linear as it gets) and threw some uninteresting comparisons as well (Prototype for example: the game is hardly a graphical benchmark so why should we care about it? I don't really find it pushing the hardware).
And just to be fair: for I won't mention Crackdown for this same reason, nor any exclusive like The Witcher 2 (as much as it's probably the most impressive looking RPG on console to date) since you can't compare one version to another non-existing version, right?

The point is - the most impressive PROPER open world games (Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption, GTA IV, Just Cause 2, Far Cry 2, Assassins Creed and Mafia 2) offer better performance and image quality on the Xbox 360, in some the difference is minor but it's still there.
And please note that I'm talking about real open world games - games with one consistent world and no loading screens like you get in many semi-open world games (Batman, Mass Effect, Borderlands etc - although most of them and especially the UE3 based ones still perform slightly better on the X360).

So there you have it - I also came up with a list of games which somehow he forgot about. Are you going to Blame Bethesda for the inferior PS3 versions of all of these games as well!? That's quite far fetching IMO...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4367d ago
sly-Famous4369d ago

Hopefully PC devs can make a game that can actually compete with those tiny scripted games you are referring but I doubt it will ever happen.

Jazz41084368d ago

Its.pretty obvious ps3 has ram issues and hence the reason only exclusives seem to play ok or linear games. The 360 is by far imo a much better designed machine for software while sony does well on building hardware but lacks in the end to the 360.

Nac4369d ago (Edited 4369d ago )

@frankfurt
Hey...Shutup!

TheGamingArt4369d ago (Edited 4369d ago )

The funny part is for 1, it does have enough memory, for 2 hopefully lazy devs will learn how to release their object allocations to prevent further 'memory' leaks.. AKA a build up of objects waiting for the release pool at the end of the game. Derp

Also, you do know GOW is renders more than Fallout at once don't you? It just doesn't retail the objects for as long. LOL at tiny scripted games ( ^this guy has no idea what he's saying).

Bladesfist4368d ago

niether do you, Developers have said that memory constraints in both consoles is the main thing holding them back

NeXXXuS4368d ago (Edited 4368d ago )

I honestly think that the PS3 is powerful enough that the system just doesn't handle buggy games very well and that's why the xbox does.

neoMAXMLC4368d ago

Uh Okay so why do "tiny scripted" games on the 360 not hold a candle to the PS3's games? Gears 3 is the best it's got but still not up to par.
Why does the recently released open world Prototype 2 run better on the PS3?
Silly fanboy.

Neo-Axl4368d ago

Haha, Coming from somebody who hasn't played either God of war & Uncharted :P

Rageanitus4368d ago

hopefully ms will spend money on exclusive content.... sorry to say this although alot of the multiplatform games seem SLIGHTLY better on the xbox for a ps3 ONLY owner there is really not much incentive to move into the xbox....

I got my box for Gears of War.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 4367d ago
dirthurts4369d ago

They do, but it's able to be used and licensed out like other products.
All the Nextbox and PS4 need is a compatible video card and os and they're ready to roll.

TheGamingArt4369d ago

I highly doubt this will happen. OpenGL is much much more likely.

FrigidDARKNESS4369d ago

Correct, MS won't let A competing platform get that technology. Expect The ps4 to use Open Gl 4 while the xbox3 will use dx11 with some functions of the upcoming dx12.

vega2754368d ago

Actually MS would just license it out for use in the ps4. But I don't see Sony paying MS for using DX11. So openGL for Sony's next system

dirthurts4368d ago

If Microsoft is Liscensing it out to Sony, the make money on Sony's console, and their own. They win either way. It's incredibly logical business, and quite practical.
If Sony is smart, they'll adopt the standard. It would great increase their multiplatform appeal.

MysticStrummer4368d ago

They could just do an even swap. Sony has Bluray after all...

Arksine4368d ago

They do, but DirectX is just an API. OpenGL 4.1 has feature parity with it. Its up to the hardware manufacturers to create drivers to bridge the hardware features to the APIs.

Sony will likely use their own in house version of OpenGL just as they did with the PS3. They'll work with AMD (or whomeover is designing the GPU) to implement the required features to support any extensions they add to it.

Trenta274369d ago

It would be so great if they did. The games would blow people away.

dirthurts4369d ago

This could be the best thing to happen to gamers in a long time.
Less fragmentation, less trouble for developers.
Games would be easier to develop, and thus the quality would improve.

Patriots_Pride4368d ago

Hope making them cheaper too. I dont want to pay $80 for my games next gen.

$60 IS THE MOST i AM PAYING FOR LAUNCH GAMES and if they cost more then gaming will no longer be one of my hobbies.

skyward4369d ago

Could cut the hassle - and thus cost - of developing next-gen games that devs seem to be so worried about.

Show all comments (59)
90°

Campfire and Frostfall Mod Author Chesko Is Working on The Elder Scrolls 6 at Bethesda

David Pierce, better known as Chesko in the Skyrim modding community, is now a Senior Designer at Bethesda Game Studios currently working on the upcoming TES 6.

Read Full Story >>
thegamenomad.com
120°

A developer shouldnt rely on modders to make their game playable, fun or interesting

Despite being one of the most popular video game releases of the year, Starfield is already getting a lot of backlash in the four days since it has been out. The highly anticipated space RPG from Bethesda was finally launched into orbit on September 6, and naturally, the title has taken over the entire gaming galaxy, for better or worse. Leading up to its awaited release, the developer claimed that its latest title will be a “modder’s paradise.”

Read Full Story >>
fandomwire.com
ApocalypseShadow221d ago (Edited 221d ago )

PC is an interesting place for modding and weird. Gamers have definitely made many games better by adding better textures, better character models, animation, adding features that weren't there or even creating new stories.

But it's also embarrassing that the companies that make the games couldn't be bothered to make the best damn games they can right out the gate. They are the ones that have the high budgets. Should be a given. Nope. It's gamers that have to show the way and how it's done.

Like I said, interesting and weird. If that's the case, these developers should be paying the gamers.

BlackDoomAx220d ago

They don't. They don't even need to finidh it, or to make it work properly. They just need to hype it before launch and hope enough people will buy it. Rinse and repeat every year.

anast220d ago

Modders are passionate artists and Bethesda abuses this. Like I said, they should make an RPG maker game, it would be less sleazy of them.

Black-Helghast219d ago

name it Bethesda Game maker and give us all the tools of ES I - V & Fallout 1 - 4. they can even give us New Vegas & starfield tools as a DLC. I'm telling you, they'd make billions.

PRIMORDUS219d ago (Edited 219d ago )

Maybe the bulk of our money spent on games for PC should go to the modders. I mean, they release games that are not ready, and leave it to modders to fix them, and some like Starfield leave options out like HDR and DLSS. I'm losing respect for most PC developers lately.

Giblet_Head219d ago

Bethesda Softworks hasn't been a "PC developer" since Oblivion. They've half-assed ever since.

380°

Bethesda On Starfield's Big, Empty Planets: Not Every Location "Is Supposed To Be Disney World"

Turns out that a big, empty planet is the perfect environment in which you can contemplate your insignificance in a cold and uncaring universe.

Read Full Story >>
gamespot.com
Jin_Sakai229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

Because everyone wants a barren wasteland with a 1km barrier when exploring a planet.

Let’s see…

You can’t continuously walk the circumference of a planet: you'll hit a boundary eventually

You can’t fly your ship anywhere on a planet: Landing and taking off are purely cutscenes, and there's no way to fly to a different region without returning to orbit first

You can’t run out of oxygen: You have an oxygen meter, but it's not real. "Oxygen" is just Endurance from Skyrim and Fallout 4. A sprint meter, essentially.

You can’t fly to every planet: Saturn for example, you can’t land and you must fly for hours to get closer in which eventually you’ll just clip through the planet as It’s basically a giant prop.

lelo2play229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

Absolutely! When the human race reached the Moon, it was filled with Disney parks and attractions.
When they reach Mars, it will be filled with 7 Star Hotels, 20 Eiffel Towers, 15 Big Ben's, and so on...

Both the Moon and Mars are lovely places to live.

Jin_Sakai229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

Because in real life humans land on a planet with a cutscene and can only explore a 1km barrier.

Obviously he’s figuratively speaking when referring to Disney Land…🙄

lelo2play229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

@Jin_Sakai

Starfield is a game that's suppose to imitate real life, you explore... Lets say in the future you can take a ship and start visiting several unexplored planets. Not taking into account things like gravity, high/low temperatures, breathable air, etc, most of the planets you visit would be uninteresting, barren wolds.
There are other games out there where you can visit many worlds, each filled with lively colors, beautiful landscapes, lots of animals, and so many other things. Starfield isn't that game.

As for invisible walls, it's unfortunate, but like or not most games have invisible walls. Starfield is not the first game with invisible walls, and won't be the last. Played Baldur's Gate 3 last month, it had invisible walls. Played Uncharted 4 PC few months ago, it had invisible walls.

Palitera229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

Wouldn't it be easier to just admit already that they made empty worlds just for marketing's sake, to fool idiots?

"MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND PLANETS TO EXPLORE!!!"

Not only you fell for it, you are fighting for it lol

neutralgamer1992229d ago

Let’s be real here we play games to get away from reality. So yes give me less planets but all fully exportable and full of interesting content

lelo2play229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

@Jin_Sakai
Bethesda have been saying for ages that most planets from the game were barren and empty. You could visit the planets, but likely find nothing of interest there. If idiots weren't paying attention to Bethesda's words, then it's their own fault for believing something diferent.
Starfield is an RPG with some exploration elements, among other things. If you wanted Starfield to be essentially about exploration, you have the wrong game. So the question is... were you paying attention?

toutmanifik229d ago

That's real life though. Starfield is a game so I would like to have a little fun with my $70 purchase. Speaking only on the topic of exploration in Starfield.

229d ago
raWfodog229d ago

“Played Baldur's Gate 3 last month, it had invisible walls. Played Uncharted 4 PC few months ago, it had invisible walls.”

BG3 and Uncharted 4 devs never intimated that exploration was free roam. Todd Howard’s opening statement in the Starfield Direct suggested exactly that.

lelo2play229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

@mrxo

When someone like you relies on name calling to make a point, just shows off your ignorance, immaturity and lack of intelligence.

Binarycode229d ago

Nobody has reached the moon, other then rovers. Nobody has ever left LEO.

Rocketisleague229d ago

You know how other games handle this? You can fly around the planet and spot 'interesting points' and then land there, or else don't land. Its up to you. Its part of the mystery and exploration to be engaged in the seemlessness. What's it called...immersion? Something bethesda tossed away a long time ago

SyntheticForm229d ago

To be fair, no location should be Disney.

iEatNapkinz228d ago (Edited 228d ago )

I think the point is that the game isn't a real life sinulator. It's a fantasy/sci-fi game that could have been more imaginative with its planets, landscapes, and lore behind those properties

It's definitely not a bad game but it's 100% underwhelming from expectations

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 228d ago
Outside_ofthe_Box229d ago

"You can’t fly to every planet: Saturn for example, you can’t land and you must fly for hours to get closer in which eventually you’ll just clip through the planet as It’s basically a giant prop."

Isn't Saturn just a planet made of gas? So I don't think it has an actual surface you can land on and big gas planets like like that usually crushes whatever ever object penetrates the atmosphere because of the insane pressure.

Jin_Sakai229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

It is but that fact that it’s just a prop you can clip through and not even 3d rendered is ridiculous.

DOMination-229d ago

I've not played it so I am basing this purely on what you've said - it sounds like it wasn't really intended that the players would visit Saturn so I can understand that decision. Having said that, our you'd think the planets in Sol would have had more effort put into them.

jwillj2k4229d ago

Not my words but I agree “Don’t talk science landing on gas planets but be okay with your character becoming super human with space magic.”

Nothing in this game is possible it’s all fake we can’t make spaceships, we can’t fly to other planets, we don’t have these make believe guns and suits. It’s a game you should be able to land on ALL types of planets if you have the right ‘make believe’ equipment. Stop being a hypocrite.

VariantAEC225d ago

@Jin_Sakai
Apparently it is a 3D object with a low resolution image plastered on top of it. Nothing remotely difficult to render at all especially on Xbox Series PS5 consoles and modern PCs.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 225d ago
Bobertt229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

The uproar about the barrier is dumb. I have played it and the area you can walk in is huge i wasted hours exploring it without hitting the boundary. You can easily return to your ship and just fly to another spot on the planet to walk past the boundary. Who cares if you can't walk across an entire planet in one shot you can still explore the entire planet and logically it wouldn't make sense to walk to the other side of a planet and leave your ship behind.

I do agree it sucks you can't fly on the planet but i never expected that from the marketing. I do wish there were vehicles like Mass Effect but i figure that was more for balancing as it's still a Bethesda game at it's core and they probably want you to fight the enemies and not use a vehicle to run them over. Like in Mass effect there was no reason to get out of the vehicle unless it was to pick up an item or enter a building since you could easily kill everyone outside.

I also agree the Oxygen meter is mislabeled but why would we want an actual oxygen tank meter in a game like this? You complain about not being able to walk the entire planet in one go but if they used an actual Oxygen meter you would constantly have to return to the ship to refill the tanks anyway.

As for Saturn it's a gas planet there is literally no solid matter there that's why you can't fly there. I am still early on but as far as i know only it's only the gas planets you can't fly to because that makes sense.

If i had to make some complaints about Starfield it would be about the broken HDR. The way the game doesn't explain or tell you about a lot of abilities/features like the location of the storage on your ship or how you can charge the cutter to do more damage or mine metals way faster. Hell it didn't even tell me i had a scanner i walked around for a long time on Kreet looking for the location for my quest before i clicked the scanner button by accident and found it showed a route to the quest, could highlight items, reveal unknown markers, and fast travel.

MrNinosan229d ago

No, you can't explore the full planets. You can explore some zones of a planet.
In No Man Sky, you can explore full planets.

Instead of making a very cool looking Starmap, they could've had a list:

Galaxy A:
Planet A:
Location A, B, C

Planet B:
Location A, B, C

Etc, because that's how limited the exploration is.

Notellin229d ago ShowReplies(2)
porkChop229d ago

It's genuinely hard to take your criticisms seriously when you complain about not being able to land on Saturn, a planet made of gas. From what I understand the only planets you can't land on are exactly that, gas giants. Which makes sense.

OptimusDK228d ago Show
+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 225d ago
Magatsuhi229d ago

So why bother making it then? Seems like it's just a ploy to be able to say big worlds

CobraKai229d ago (Edited 229d ago )

That’s actually good. Kinda gives that feeling of discovery.

VersusDMC229d ago

I like how Forespoken (and other games) got spam comments about having an empty world even though it was explained in the game.

But for Starfield it is justified because it's in space?

I guess i shouldn't be surprised about hypocrisy here...it all depends on what system it's on here.

ravens52229d ago

Funny thing is Forspoken world wasn't empty lol. 🤷🏾 There was an agenda with that game.

darksky229d ago

I played Forspoken recently and it's a decent game.

CS7229d ago

Lol. Agenda?

Where was this agenda for FF XVI, God of War, deathloop, returnal, R&C, Horizon, Miles morales, TLOU2, FFVII remake, GOT.

You guys really need to get a grip.

OptimusDK228d ago

This willl be a modding heaven gooing forward - and everybody said it was pure stupid to have 1000 planets - but the game is bigger than any bethesda game anyway in regard to the handcrafted planets - the rest is just extra and somthing that can be eveolved over time.

But hey i guess when you can not have something it has to be shit on. As for Forespoken is was a bad game pure and simple and the empty part was not the reason.

rippermcrip229d ago

No Man's Sky got absolutely destroyed their false promises. A team of 17 people.

Bethesda gets a pass though apparently.

JEECE229d ago

Even at launch NMS has much more advanced flying mechanics than Starfield, and obviously that game has improved leaps and bounds since then. I already prefer Starfield's on foot segments though.

badz149228d ago

And Starfield even has the team at DF supporting it! 30fps, all the loadings, lots of broken promises and all...

Show all comments (74)