@Zelyre said:

@Hailinel said:

@jetsetwillie said:

the PS3 is just getting old and tired. the cell clearly is not as powerful as sony lead us to believe.

That's bollocks, given that the PS3 is younger than the 360.

The Cell could be most powerful CPU of all time. It won't do jack crap with 256 megs of system memory. Especially when 50+ megs of it is used by XMB. The 360's OS has a much smaller footprint and much more flexible memory structure.

Whoa, I haven't seen a rabid fanboy in the wild since the mid 2000's.

I'm pretty sure the Oblivion PS3 GOTY vampirism bug was enough to scare me away from any Bethesda game on the PS3.

Basically, there was a bug on the North American copy of the GOTY edition that made it impossible to cure vampirism, it was never patched, and there's no work around other than just buying a different disk. Stuff like that just seems unnecessarily scary for this style of game.

@RsistncE said:

@Zelyre said:

@Hailinel said:

@jetsetwillie said:

the PS3 is just getting old and tired. the cell clearly is not as powerful as sony lead us to believe.

That's bollocks, given that the PS3 is younger than the 360.

The Cell could be most powerful CPU of all time. It won't do jack crap with 256 megs of system memory. Especially when 50+ megs of it is used by XMB. The 360's OS has a much smaller footprint and much more flexible memory structure.

Whoa, I haven't seen a rabid fanboy in the wild since the mid 2000's.

Am I a 360 fanboy? Because, my name isn't green, and my 360, unlike my PS3, isn't even hooked up. In fact, I turned around, looked on my entertainment center, and couldn't find my 360 until I looked real hard. The only reason why my Live gamer score is over four digits is because I got achievements in GFW games. I'm a rabid PC fanboy, but console wise? I like the PS3 controller more, as I dig fighting games, but otherwise, I'm as console agnostic as it gets.

Tell me where my statement isn't factual and I'll change my console of choice to 360.

The PS3 has a smaller amount of system ram available to developers. It's locked at 256 megs whereas the 360 has a pool of 512 megs shared between system and video memory; if they don't need to use 256 megs of vram, they can reallocate what's not being used to system ram. XMB sits on ~50 megs of system memory. Last I checked, the dashboard used ~30.

So, you can have a super fast processor (Which the Cell is. It crunches numbers like there's no tomorrow.), but if its starved for ram, it's not going to perform anywhere near its potential. Sony gave the PS3 very fast (for its time) and very expensive Rambus memory. If you're moving small chunks of data around rappidly, that's great. Its like comparing a Porche to a sedan. The porche is going to be much faster moving a single box, but the sedan can move four boxes in the time it takes the porche to move three.

It's a bottleneck, but unlike the PC, you can't just toss $20 ram module into the glossy piano black box. It's something Bethesda and their QA team needs to do, and their QA team? They used to be good at finding issues in Bethesda games, until someone stole their sweet roll. That's the meme those young whipper snappers are using nowadays, right?

@Zelyre said:

@RsistncE said:

@Zelyre said:

@Hailinel said:

@jetsetwillie said:

the PS3 is just getting old and tired. the cell clearly is not as powerful as sony lead us to believe.

That's bollocks, given that the PS3 is younger than the 360.

The Cell could be most powerful CPU of all time. It won't do jack crap with 256 megs of system memory. Especially when 50+ megs of it is used by XMB. The 360's OS has a much smaller footprint and much more flexible memory structure.

Whoa, I haven't seen a rabid fanboy in the wild since the mid 2000's.

Am I a 360 fanboy? Because, my name isn't green, and my 360, unlike my PS3, isn't even hooked up. In fact, I turned around, looked on my entertainment center, and couldn't find my 360 until I looked real hard. The only reason why my Live gamer score is over four digits is because I got achievements in GFW games. I'm a rabid PC fanboy, but console wise? I like the PS3 controller more, as I dig fighting games, but otherwise, I'm as console agnostic as it gets.

Tell me where my statement isn't factual and I'll change my console of choice to 360.

The PS3 has a smaller amount of system ram available to developers. It's locked at 256 megs whereas the 360 has a pool of 512 megs shared between system and video memory; if they don't need to use 256 megs of vram, they can reallocate what's not being used to system ram. XMB sits on ~50 megs of system memory. Last I checked, the dashboard used ~30.

So, you can have a super fast processor (Which the Cell is. It crunches numbers like there's no tomorrow.), but if its starved for ram, it's not going to perform anywhere near its potential. Sony gave the PS3 very fast (for its time) and very expensive Rambus memory. If you're moving small chunks of data around rappidly, that's great. Its like comparing a Porche to a sedan. The porche is going to be much faster moving a single box, but the sedan can move four boxes in the time it takes the porche to move three.

It's a bottleneck, but unlike the PC, you can't just toss $20 ram module into the glossy piano black box. It's something Bethesda and their QA team needs to do, and their QA team? They used to be good at finding issues in Bethesda games, until someone stole their sweet roll. That's the meme those young whipper snappers are using nowadays, right?

This is why all systems should be made like the N64. That one had a thing you could plug more RAM into! STATE OF THE ART!

In all seriousness though, I think this just shows these consoles have reached their limits. Even the N64, sadly.

@MooseyMcMan said:

@Zelyre said:

@RsistncE said:

@Zelyre said:

@Hailinel said:

@jetsetwillie said:

the PS3 is just getting old and tired. the cell clearly is not as powerful as sony lead us to believe.

That's bollocks, given that the PS3 is younger than the 360.

The Cell could be most powerful CPU of all time. It won't do jack crap with 256 megs of system memory. Especially when 50+ megs of it is used by XMB. The 360's OS has a much smaller footprint and much more flexible memory structure.

Whoa, I haven't seen a rabid fanboy in the wild since the mid 2000's.

Am I a 360 fanboy? Because, my name isn't green, and my 360, unlike my PS3, isn't even hooked up. In fact, I turned around, looked on my entertainment center, and couldn't find my 360 until I looked real hard. The only reason why my Live gamer score is over four digits is because I got achievements in GFW games. I'm a rabid PC fanboy, but console wise? I like the PS3 controller more, as I dig fighting games, but otherwise, I'm as console agnostic as it gets.

Tell me where my statement isn't factual and I'll change my console of choice to 360.

The PS3 has a smaller amount of system ram available to developers. It's locked at 256 megs whereas the 360 has a pool of 512 megs shared between system and video memory; if they don't need to use 256 megs of vram, they can reallocate what's not being used to system ram. XMB sits on ~50 megs of system memory. Last I checked, the dashboard used ~30.

So, you can have a super fast processor (Which the Cell is. It crunches numbers like there's no tomorrow.), but if its starved for ram, it's not going to perform anywhere near its potential. Sony gave the PS3 very fast (for its time) and very expensive Rambus memory. If you're moving small chunks of data around rappidly, that's great. Its like comparing a Porche to a sedan. The porche is going to be much faster moving a single box, but the sedan can move four boxes in the time it takes the porche to move three.

It's a bottleneck, but unlike the PC, you can't just toss $20 ram module into the glossy piano black box. It's something Bethesda and their QA team needs to do, and their QA team? They used to be good at finding issues in Bethesda games, until someone stole their sweet roll. That's the meme those young whipper snappers are using nowadays, right?

This is why all systems should be made like the N64. That one had a thing you could plug more RAM into! STATE OF THE ART!

In all seriousness though, I think this just shows these consoles have reached their limits. Even the N64, sadly.

Though Bethesda was never really good at programming for the PS3. I think the only reason that Oblivion got a positive impression was because they were focused on making a specific version of the game for that platform. But Fallout 3? Ugh.

@RedDragon123 said:

I just sold my PS3 version of Skyrim and ordered the 360 version from amazon.

I had no idea how terrible this version would be. Constant Frame-Rate drops and Shitastic lagging. And I only played it for 20 hours.

I had the same thing as well. I'm starting to doubt people saying this game started out at 60FPS for them because I never got that. Ever. I have a slim PS3 as well.

I just bought the game on Steam to play on my iMac which can run the game perfectly fine. I got the PS3 version just because I wasn't sure if my computer could handle it and if I had known it would have run worse on the PS3 I wouldn't have bothered.

I'm going to keep the map that came with it and just trade it in for Saint's Row or something.

edit: I should mention that my save file on the PS3 version is only 25 hours or so. I've since put in almost 46 hours on the PC version and shit's just dandy. No problems at all on pc so far.

Seeing as the PS3 version has sold more than the PC version, it baffles me that once again the Bethesda doesn't give a flying fuck about that platform. I've had the same problems with my save since it hit 8MB.

It's just lazy portwork.

@Hemmelight: I'm kinda in the same boat; I'm not sure if my pc can handle this game. Plus, for this type of game, I'd much rather a controller +couch over mouse+keyboard :/

This is like the most embarrasing bug of all time, if it is happening to everyone with a big save file then it clearly shows that during the quality control nobody bothered playing more than 40 hours on a ps3, come on, how did they test it, speedruns?.

Yes, yes it is.

@Conker said:

@Hemmelight: I'm kinda in the same boat; I'm not sure if my pc can handle this game. Plus, for this type of game, I'd much rather a controller +couch over mouse+keyboard :/

I'm using my PS3 controller to play and it's exactly the same as the PS3 version. I used a program called 'motioninjoy' to trick the game into thinking it's an xbox controller and voila. Works like a chaaaarm. :)

I tried playing with KB+M for a few hours but it was just awkward as hell. I am not a PC gamer by any means, though.

@Hemmelight: Ya I used to game PC only back in the day but I switched to console last year. Not sure if my pc can run skyrim properly though, its not the same when you're running the game on the lowest graphical settings!

You can only play this game properly on the PC. Use a controller if you want but without the PC modding and console to fix all shit this game will make you crazy.

Seeing as the PS3 version has sold more than the PC version, it baffles me that once again the Bethesda doesn't give a flying fuck about that platform. I've had the same problems with my save since it hit 8MB.

It's just lazy portwork.

Before the "lag fixing" patch I would get have to get in the habit of starting a character and then leaving it for dead after 30 hours and starting a new game save to remember what it was like to have a smooth game, the only thing the patch fixed is that it now takes a couple hours longer to lag out, and most of the frame rate problems are now replaced by crashing issues. 
 
I would say that if you have to buy it then buy it somewhere else, maybe save up for a good PC and buy it there, buying it on the PS3 sort of feels like you're rewarding them for another shoddy port.

I don't have a PS3, but here is a possible but likely explanation of the problem http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?s=24101f6bc5c70143be4e8ca65615126b&p=33181475&postcount=1. Obviously it really sucks for those affected, but to blame the QA team? Nope, sorry. This was an engine decision made years ago, chances are no one ever considered this was a possible issue but here we are. It's not that they don't care, it's that a fundamental engine change could be next to impossible and that doesn't seem like a project for post-release support. It's really shitty, but it might just be the way things are.

...or that could all be bollocks. We might never know.

@twi said:

I'm about 22 hours in and have a save file just under 5mbs. (currently playing on the new 160gig PS3 Slim) That said i've noticed a few slow downs but none of the game breaking lag that has been reported. At 22 hours i'm no where near the end, so I'll have to wait and see what happens as my save file increases.

Around the same game time as you and also haven't seen crazy slowdown. I did a couple of lock ups at the start but not anymore, although i have a conscious decision to not play sky rim anymore :P

My save file is about 11 MB and I have had very few issues. I had some serious lag about 2-4 times but all of those times I had been playing for like 5-7 hours and my PS3 was very hot.

I restarted after 50hours cause my weapon plaques in the solitude home weren't working. I know, I'm crazy but it's fine aslong as you don't go comparing it to pc and stuff. Wait a for real patch, not that fake bs one Bethesda pushed out.

I'm curious as to whether the model of PS3 affects this issue as I'd heard rumours that older models suffer less. I've been playing on a 5 year old 40gb model and 90hrs in I only experience significant framerate problems immediately after fast travelling, maybe 20s after spawning is poor. Aside from that it's been fine. Am I an outlier or do the older models suffer less?

My girlfriend insists that I buy PS3 versions of games when possible because she can't stand the 360 controller. She'll never play the 360 because of the controller, she's very set in her ways, it kinda sucks, I know. I would prefer to be playing the 360 version if only because Bethesda DLC tends to go to the 360 first. I'm following all of these problems that the PS3 version is having and dread having them happen to me when I get into 40+ hours.

An option I have is to buy the game for the 360, effectively buying the same game twice. It seems to me such a waste of money to buy the 360 version so that she can have these issues and I don't have to. I can afford to buy it twice but I hate supporting Bethesda's shitty-ness. *ugh*...

I don't know if I should continue playing the game and hope that an effective patch is released, or if I should give Bethesda more money for their fuck-up. I have ethical problems paying a company more money for fucking-up.

motioninjoy is great for ps3 controller with pc, I don't hate the xbox controller but I do prefer the ps3 and actually have one.

as for this topic, I'm just shy of 6mb on ps3 and suffering slow down at places already, with me just starting dark brotherhood and thief guild and not that far into the main quest. It's worst in places I've been a lot, the downside of radiant is it is horrible when I pop in my home in whiterun for the first minute and soso after that.

I think I do help a bit in that I try to stick to a area. do all the quests for a town then move on, so not a lot going back besides for whiterun.

@Vestigial_Man you have me curious, I have a launch 20 at home but right now am playing on my parents slim and was when I hit the size mark. Dad has a pc version of skyrim but not the pc to play it, so I've been reluctantly debating us swapping. but maybe I need to check on my ps3 first, as I really don't want to lose my character.

Seems to be inconsistent from system to system. People in this thread will make blanket statements for all PS3s, while there are plenty of posts from people not having the issues brought up.

If you have a Redbox by you with games, might be worthwhile to rent a copy and sink some time into it before you buy it just to see how it performs. Then again, these problems seem to not manifest until tens of hours into the game most of the time, so who can say.

Bethesda save files are and always have been too goddamned big, regardless of platform.

@MadLeper: Bethesda is known to have bugs in all their games. more like Bugthesda

@Krakn3Dfx said:

Seems to be inconsistent from system to system. People in this thread will make blanket statements for all PS3s, while there are plenty of posts from people not having the issues brought up.

If you have a Redbox by you with games, might be worthwhile to rent a copy and sink some time into it before you buy it just to see how it performs. Then again, these problems seem to not manifest until tens of hours into the game most of the time, so who can say.

Bethesda save files are and always have been too goddamned big, regardless of platform.

Thats the big thing. I've pushed close to 90 hours into one of my characters in Skyrim and never had an issue. My brother hit about 50 hours on his system and he's been fine too. But my sister on her console has had lock up issues and awful slowdown.

It definitely does not effect all PS3s. I'd wager to say it doesn't even effect the majority of them. But it does effect enough to where it's a problem and it totally sucks.

No, and yes. It has a problem, yes. When the save goes above 6-8MBs in size. Its easily fixed though by skipping 30 days in-game. Just press select (you can make it faster by deactivating the autosave feature). Once done the problem is fixed. Just do this every time and voila. Its not nice, and its messy as it revives every enemy in the map, but it makes the game playable again. I guess Bethesda should include a "Purge world events" button in the settings to make this easier and be done with it.

I've played each of the big Bethesda games since Morrowind on PC. This is the first I've played on console. I had a bug hit right off, during the opening sequence. Frame rate dropped to near zero, and the audio was knocked out. I had to quit the game and restart... but the sequence played just fine the second time through. I've had slowdowns in spots, but only a few and always when auto-saving. There has been only one other instance of total frame rate loss, but I was still able to fast-travel to a different cell and the problem was gone. I'm about 20-30 hours in, and both freezes were after the PS3 has been running for a while. So far, Skyrim doesn't seem worse on the PS3 than any other Bethesda game has been on the PC.

@Zelyre said:

@Hailinel said:

@jetsetwillie said:

the PS3 is just getting old and tired. the cell clearly is not as powerful as sony lead us to believe.

That's bollocks, given that the PS3 is younger than the 360.

The Cell could be most powerful CPU of all time. It won't do jack crap with 256 megs of system memory. Especially when 50+ megs of it is used by XMB. The 360's OS has a much smaller footprint and much more flexible memory structure.

Do you seriously believe this? An i7 s sooo much more powerful its not even funny. Sony lied hard about the power of the cell.

Finished the PS3 version yesterday with my level 54 rogue character. Made sure to wrap up all the major quests I had left hanging while refusing new quests. Never even touched the companions or mage college. I just needed it to be over. After it was all done, I made my character walk into the sea and drown himself. A melancholy end for a troubled PS3 journey.

The past 30 levels have been a real struggle with the constant freezing issues and occasional lag (occasional for me, some people had it worse). But I had grown attached to my character and wanted to see through his adventure, even after I bought the better PC version. But I often felt like giving up.

Now that I've closed that chapter, time to dedicate myself strictly to my two other PC characters. I expect I'll be playing my PC version for years to come. PS3 version is officially shelved.

I really wonder why the PS3 usually gets the short end of the stick from Bethesda? Is it because the 360 came out first, and they put all of their resources into learning it backwards and fowards? Then, when the PS3 came out, they just didn't have as many resources (time, manpower, etc.) to devote to making sure they utilized the system?

If the PS4 releases before the next Xbox, I wonder if this will all be reversed?

@ripsaw117 said:

@Zelyre said:

@Hailinel said:

@jetsetwillie said:

the PS3 is just getting old and tired. the cell clearly is not as powerful as sony lead us to believe.

That's bollocks, given that the PS3 is younger than the 360.

The Cell could be most powerful CPU of all time. It won't do jack crap with 256 megs of system memory. Especially when 50+ megs of it is used by XMB. The 360's OS has a much smaller footprint and much more flexible memory structure.

Do you seriously believe this? An i7 s sooo much more powerful its not even funny. Sony lied hard about the power of the cell.

Actually, yeah. Reading that could make me seem like I'm touting the Cell as the most powerful processor of all time. I didn't mean for it to sound like that. I don't hop on the Sony hype train and I chuckle a bit inside whenever someone tells me the Vita is as powerful as a PS3. Yeah, the PS2 could also render parts of Spirits Within in real time, too.

"If it were the most powerful processor of all time, the miniscule amount of system ram would bottle neck it horribly." Is probably what I was looking to say.

@Zelyre said:

@ripsaw117 said:

@Zelyre said:

@Hailinel said:

@jetsetwillie said:

the PS3 is just getting old and tired. the cell clearly is not as powerful as sony lead us to believe.

That's bollocks, given that the PS3 is younger than the 360.

The Cell could be most powerful CPU of all time. It won't do jack crap with 256 megs of system memory. Especially when 50+ megs of it is used by XMB. The 360's OS has a much smaller footprint and much more flexible memory structure.

Do you seriously believe this? An i7 s sooo much more powerful its not even funny. Sony lied hard about the power of the cell.

Actually, yeah. Reading that could make me seem like I'm touting the Cell as the most powerful processor of all time. I didn't mean for it to sound like that. I don't hop on the Sony hype train and I chuckle a bit inside whenever someone tells me the Vita is as powerful as a PS3. Yeah, the PS2 could also render parts of Spirits Within in real time, too.

"If it were the most powerful processor of all time, the miniscule amount of system ram would bottle neck it horribly." Is probably what I was looking to say.

Naw man you don't understand. We are going back to 2006-2007 when people were having stupid console war arguments instead of blaming the developers for realeasing a sub-par version of their product. Naw man Sony is the worst console manufacturer ever son.