Top
270°

Why Skyrim Didn’t Play Nice With The PS3

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim was a wonderful game on the PC and a fine game on the Xbox 360. On the PlayStation 3, however, it had issues for some players. Lag issues. Horrible, game-killing lag issues. Issues that made some Sony console owners shout that the game shouldn't be Game of the Year.

The story is too old to be commented.
Drekken2125d ago

Because Bugthesda suck at coding. /end of story.

Pushagree2125d ago Show
_Aarix_2125d ago Show
Brosy2125d ago

I suppose Drekken and A2X would have both done a better job huh?

It must suck to run into these issues. Skyrim is truly a game that any real gamer shouldn't miss out on.

Atleast they are still working on a fix. I guess they could do like some devs and just let the masses deal with it. Still a pain in the balls to have to wait though.

I think Skyrim still deserves it's GOTY awards. It's a little buggy overall but it still ran o.k. for the majority of the people who played it.

Christopher2125d ago (Edited 2125d ago )

***I suppose Drekken and A2X would have both done a better job huh?***

Stating one's opinion doesn't mean that they could do better or that their opinion isn't accurate.

In all honesty, look at the history of Bethesda's games on the consoles this generation--from Oblivion, to Fallout 3, and now Skyrim--and tell me that the concerns over Bethesda's ability to code a game that isn't filled with more glitches and bugs than most games out there is somehow uncalled for.

Pushagree2125d ago (Edited 2125d ago )

Why the hell was my post blocked? Ive seen just as much framerate problems on 360 as the ps3 before 1.04. You can look up the videos if you dont believe me. Issues on 360 are never brought up because they are afraid it it wll alienate the 360 fans that visit the website and because it's very easy to get hits for bashing the ps3.

Some people just cant handle the truth.

Ducky2125d ago

"Stating one's opinion doesn't mean that they could do better or that their opinion isn't accurate."

Saying that someone 'sucks' is easy when there's commonly known examples that prove the point.

However, in this case, there aren't many (any?) games on the scale of Skyrim on consoles that aren't made by Bethesda.
So if you're going to call out Bethesda for sucking at coding, then who would you say is better than them?

If there isn't anyone in the same league, then the question naturally becomes; do you think you could've done a better job?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2125d ago
Tanir2125d ago

yep, cuz bethsdeda can't even get the game to work right on the hardware it was made on let alone a console that has different architecture than it was made on.

Basically, a crappy artist drawing on Standard paper compared to the same crappy artist drawing on a bumpy rock

pixelsword2125d ago

I would put 90% of it on the devs, but 10% I have to place on Sony: it's been out for years, but they refuse to put out a really descent dev-kit. The PS3 can do native 1080p games (which was proven by Lair, despite the occasional fluttering of the framerate) but yet even companies like Id suffer to put a 1080p game out for the PS3.

phantomexe2125d ago

Rage ran fine and so did final fantasy 13. Just saying

pixelsword2125d ago

I agree; I'm not complaining about the games at all, but when you have a technical powerhouse like Id pushing out a 720p game when the PS3 is capable of full 1080p, I can't honestly pin all of the blame on Id.

Baka-akaB2125d ago

I dont even see why single out Rage in the example .

Since the displayed goal was to do 60fps with rage level graphics , wich very few , if any other games do anyway .

baodeus2125d ago (Edited 2125d ago )

@pixelsword

even Sony own studio can't push 1080p games out (UC,KZ, GoW, etc...) so how can Sony demand 1080p out of 3rd party? Most Sony exclusives games not only ran at 720p, but also at 30fps only. Rage running at twice the fps and also at 720p so i don't know what you are talking about.

Perhaps the ps3 isn't as powerful as you think? Can't believe u still believe in what Kenkutaragi said at the beginning of the console (1080p, 60fps, 4D). Really?

RedDeadLB2125d ago

@Baodeus

That's exactly the reason why PS3 exclusives look as awesome as they do. Developers stated (Santa Monica for one..) that they COULD do native 1080p games, but that 720p allowed them to polish and add to the graphics even more.

On topic - I wasn't even that impressed with Skyrim (played it on my PC). It could have been a very interesting and good game for me if it wasn't for the technical failures which this game has plenty of (stiff and ugly animations, bugs etc). From my experience, I fear what would I have had to put up with if I got it on PS3. Batman Arkham City - now that's GOTY material.

baodeus2125d ago (Edited 2125d ago )

@buljo

so it is not different than x360 because x360 also has 1080p games as well, except most are at 720p and 30fps like Sony because developers also said it would allow them to add more details, stable frame rate, and effects. So how do u guys determine one is stronger than the other?

PS3 is probably better at game that require focus (know exactly where to dedicate the RAM so it is not wasted due to the split RAM architech), while x360 have more flexible/united RAM that are better for open world.

@pixelsword
Why putting the blame on ID when you should put the blame on Sony own studio for not pushing 1080p games. If what u said is true, UC/KZ/GOW/infamous/etc...shoul d all be 1080p and running at 60fps already, but what happen in reality? Funny how u gloss over Sony exclusives but like to blame other for not utilizing ps3 ULTIMATE power? C'mon, can't you man up and give me a legit respond?

If you disagree, go a head and give me an example of open world game exclusives to ps3 that looks like UC2/3 or with looks+details+SCALE like RDR/Witcher 2/skyrim?

You are just making the rest of the legit PS fans looks bad.

Skyrim is a really huge game. The kind of details on such a large scale is second to none. Can you make a claim like i have been playing for 200 hrs and haven't even touch the main quests or I have play 1000 hrs and still haven't seen everything? No other games can claim that except skyrim. Some glitches are prone to happen and it is much harder to control when the game is as big as skyrim though; no tester/QA would have enough time to test 100% of the game.

pixelsword2125d ago

@ Baka-akaB:

Because Id has one of the best reputations for technical competency.

@ baodeus

Lair ran at 1080p (natively, as stated in his 1up.com video interview), 60fps (it fluttered, but it was 60fps), and it exhibited 4D traits (again, in that same interview), many, if not all of the levels, were 32x32 square miles and had smoke and particle effects, utilized the water simulator, had up to 5,000+ characters in a full-time battle simulator with thousands of arrow projectiles, large riding beasts and the light source would change in real time... and Lair came out in 2007; so why can't Id, with it's legendary reputation, do the same thing?

baodeus2123d ago (Edited 2123d ago )

@pixelsword

so according to what you said and what the interview of developers:

The ps3 lauched in 2007 when the tech is practically alien to developers, it did what it promise:

-1080p, 60fps, 4D, SMOKE+PARTICLES, EPIC SCALE (32x32 square miles), REAL LIGHT sources (dynamic lighting i assume), + THOUSANDS of AIs,artillery, etc....going on at the same time.

Now let fast forward to the current time 2012, when Sony 1st party developers have considered to "mastered the ps3" thanks to 200% support from Sony internal studios sharing tech, which 3rd party developers don't have and what do we have?

720p or lower, barely maintain 25-30fps, extremely small scale or linear (even fix angle like GOW for example), deferred + baked lighting instead of real time lighting, massive reduction of things on screen at once ( > 10 AI enemies on screen seems quite a stretch), revert to less taxing AA method (ex: FXAA/MLAA), QTE (GoW, Heavy Ra..QTE) instead of a real massive battle ground.

I haven't even mention the extreme reduction in quality on practically everything (textures, polygons, frame rate, etc...) just to go for 3D, no less 4D.

Are you telling me that Sony is retrograding?

At least ID still have large scale, 720p and 60fps game which is already higher than Sony AAA (high budget) exclusives can ditch out currently (UC3,KZ3,GoW3, etc..)

Who do you think deserve the blame for not able to utilize the POWER of the ps3? Sony 1st studio (which get full support especially with the ps3 tech) or 3rd party developers (which lack the same support sony reserved for 1st party studio) like ID?

Well I guess at least ps3 still able to keep that smoke effects, particles, and water simulation u mentioned earlier. LOL.

At the rate they are going, we might be going back to ps1 at the end of their 10 years plan (which isn't really bad per say because there are much more innovations in game at the time).

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2123d ago
dantesparda2125d ago

UGH! can we stop calling "frame dropping" lag! I mean seriously, it has a name. Its calling frame dropping or dropping or framing up, not lag. Lag is a term that is already used for something else.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2123d ago
Kakihara2125d ago

I'm probably jinxing myself by saying this but I think I must be the only person who didn't have any major problems with the PS3 version of this game. I'm about 75 hours in and the most I've had is two freezes and the occasional framerate dips only when I'm watching a dragon attack a valley full of forsworn or camp full of giants and mammoths. I'm not denying the problems exist, just saying it's weird because I'm usually the unluckiest guy alive when it comes to this stuff, I'll have every bug or error going normally but for once I seem to have avoided them.

Lex_Dangerously 2125d ago

I had the same experience, but with Fallout 3. I swear I only noticed one thing that I would call a bug throughout my entire experience.

Like you, I'm not claiming the bugs don't exist. I was just lucky.

:)

SaiyanFury2125d ago

Yeah I'm in the same boat. I played through the game once completely and in 300 hours the only glitches I noticed were freezing issues on loading screens. I didn't really notice anything else other than that. I know the game is glitchy, as it's a Bethesda game, I guess I've just been lucky.

maniacmayhem2125d ago

I think one thing Bethesda could have done to relieve the stress on memory is to eliminate useless movable objects for example:
Wooden plates, tin cups, baskets, embalming tools. Everytime the game loads it has to place all these items in the exact spot you might of moved them in.

If this would be cut out maybe the strain would be lessened.

Uhurus22125d ago

Maybe yes, especially the items you moved, but all this objects is part of what ES is, it's part of the identity of the series.

Infiny2125d ago

I was really scared of playing Skyrim on my PS3 since my PC didn't run it well (argh, 40 bucks thrown away). But i took the shoot and bought it on the PS3 too.

Finished the game last week with 116 hours and a platinum trophy.

How many bugs did i encounter? a few, only quest related... but it was a problem in all plataforms according to the skyrim wikia.

How many problems i had with lag/textures and etc? None o_O

Oh yeah... i've started it with the 1.2 patch, so to me.. the game is "fixed" and running fine.

Tonester9252125d ago

Wasn't Fallout like this too? Just Sayin

Show all comments (30)