So the PS3 version may never get the DLC....

  • 111 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by Terramagi (1159 posts) -

@familyphotoshoot said:

@TheHT: Do you not remember when Bayonetta was disqualified from GOTY discussion because the PS3 version was garbage? I'm not equivocating Skyrim with Bayonetta, but it's the principle of the matter that bothers me.

But SKYRIM

#52 Posted by familyphotoshoot (654 posts) -

@Terramagi said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

@TheHT: Do you not remember when Bayonetta was disqualified from GOTY discussion because the PS3 version was garbage? I'm not equivocating Skyrim with Bayonetta, but it's the principle of the matter that bothers me.

But SKYRIM

I know, man. I played it and loved the hell out of it. Fuck, I nearly S-ranked it (stupid fucking Daedric artifacts). But the fact remains that the game is a total shitshow on the PS3.

#53 Posted by Terramagi (1159 posts) -

@familyphotoshoot said:

@Terramagi said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

@TheHT: Do you not remember when Bayonetta was disqualified from GOTY discussion because the PS3 version was garbage? I'm not equivocating Skyrim with Bayonetta, but it's the principle of the matter that bothers me.

But SKYRIM

I know, man. I played it and loved the hell out of it. Fuck, I nearly S-ranked it (stupid fucking Daedric artifacts). But the fact remains that the game is a total shitshow on the PS3.

No, no, I don't think you understand.

SKYRIM

If I repeat the name of the game for 2 hours, OBVIOUSLY it'll win.

#54 Posted by familyphotoshoot (654 posts) -

brad pls go

#55 Posted by Meteor_VII (126 posts) -

Glad to see all of those Game of the Year awards (not just referring to GB's) going to this game.

#56 Posted by algertman (852 posts) -

@Vinny_Says said:

@algertman said:

@Vinny_Says said:

@Ocean_H said:

@EXTomar said:

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

In other words, Bethesda programmers are seriously incompetent big time compared to the majority of other programmers, even indie ones who are able to program and port to the PS3 or those who make crappy multiplatform games.

Yeah, because there are a ton of games out there that are just like Skyrim.....oh wait.....When your average developer poops out a game with that kind of complexity on the regular then maybe your argument can hold up.

As for the topic, this is a real bummer for PS3 owners because Dawnguard is actually pretty good. But maybe it's best they don't fuck up that version any more, maybe they've learned their lesson this time around.

What lesson to be learned? The gaming press is weak and refuses to call companies out on this shit. Hell, you even praise them and even give them awards. Don't defend this garbage.

The lesson that if you can't develop for a platform, don't go and release DLC for said platform, and I have better things to do then defend a faceless corporation. I do find it funny that you are so livid about this situation and seeing things like this makes my day:

@algertman said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

They were paid well.

Keep the truth out there, don't let them shut you up!

How much free stuff did Bethesda send out for this game to the press? What about parties or special events? How many sites made a killing off a ad money from this game?

The problem with the gaming press is that the companies they are critical of they also have to rely on to keep them up.

#57 Posted by devilzrule27 (1239 posts) -

@SomeDeliCook said:

I mean, its better than releasing it and breaking people's games and also charging them 20 bucks for it.

You mean like when they released a $60 game that was and still is completely busted on the PS3 in November?

#58 Posted by devilzrule27 (1239 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Napalm said:

@Hailinel said:

It continues to boggle my mind as to how Bethesda could fuck up the PS3 version of Skyrim so badly. I'd have thought that they would have gotten their shit together after their troubles with Fallout 3.

I think it was a situation akin to, "we have it working in this way for this system, hardware and specifications, but are finding it difficult to transfer/convert the game to this other hardware set."

Also, I'm just going to say it: the PlayStation 3 version has been nearly bogged even before launch. Who on earth would purchase it for the PlayStation 3 when it is barely in a running state? Even if that's the only system one has?

I would, apparently. But I've learned my lesson.

Part of the problem there was that they withheld the PS3 version from reviewers so they couldn't warn potential purchasers of the complete pile of shit that was the PS3 version.

#59 Posted by The_Nubster (2264 posts) -

@TheHT said:

@The_Nubster said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

And Jeff Even said you can't ignore 1/3 of an entire game, in regards to Battlefield's shitty campaign. Ha.

1/3 of a game itself is not the same as a version of a game on one platform versus that same game on two other platforms. And weren't they explicit about their discussion not including the PS3 version because it's so royally fucked?

Anyways, this is just another bummer for PS3 users. But I imagine anyone who bought Skyrim there won't be blown away by this news.

Everyone else was saying that Battlefield was a multiplayer game, that the terrible campaign shouldn't be taken in to effect, it was tacked on by publisher pressure, etc.

So why is that different for Skyrim? One-third of that game does not work. The PS3 version is a complete clusterfuck of slowdown, crashes, and glitches that they can't fix, and it might not be getting any DLC. Why should a game with such numerous, terrible, and irreparable problems be game of the year? Why should a game of the year winner have the caveat of "But this isn't GotY for PS3, because that one sucks, you guys!" How is ignoring that massive of an issue any different than ignoring a shitty campaign? It's ignoring a very real, and very serious, issue.

Meanwhile, the runner-up worked beautifully on all platforms without a hitch. I don't understand how Skyrim won GotY if they had to outright exclude an entire platform in order to praise it.

#60 Posted by Terramagi (1159 posts) -

@The_Nubster said:

@TheHT said:

@The_Nubster said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

And Jeff Even said you can't ignore 1/3 of an entire game, in regards to Battlefield's shitty campaign. Ha.

1/3 of a game itself is not the same as a version of a game on one platform versus that same game on two other platforms. And weren't they explicit about their discussion not including the PS3 version because it's so royally fucked?

Anyways, this is just another bummer for PS3 users. But I imagine anyone who bought Skyrim there won't be blown away by this news.

Everyone else was saying that Battlefield was a multiplayer game, that the terrible campaign shouldn't be taken in to effect, it was tacked on by publisher pressure, etc.

So why is that different for Skyrim? One-third of that game does not work. The PS3 version is a complete clusterfuck of slowdown, crashes, and glitches that they can't fix, and it might not be getting any DLC. Why should a game with such numerous, terrible, and irreparable problems be game of the year? Why should a game of the year winner have the caveat of "But this isn't GotY for PS3, because that one sucks, you guys!" How is ignoring that massive of an issue any different than ignoring a shitty campaign? It's ignoring a very real, and very serious, issue.

Meanwhile, the runner-up worked beautifully on all platforms without a hitch. I don't understand how Skyrim won GotY if they had to outright exclude an entire platform in order to praise it.

Because SKYRIM

#61 Posted by thechronodarkness (294 posts) -

256megs of ram on the ps3 vs 512megs on 360. Then the raw processor power- 1 3ghz core multithreaded processor ps3 vs a 3 core 3ghz processor on 360. It really is 3ghz compared to 9ghz. You really do have to dial things back on the ps3. Even the vita has 512 megs of ram inside of it. So this isn't bethesdas fault. Just hopefully sony on the next generation, goes back to raw power to let game developers be able to develop muchhh more easily.

#62 Edited by Pr1mus (3951 posts) -

Bethesda being bad at coding games? Where's the news in that?

@thechronodarkness said:

256megs of ram on the ps3 vs 512megs on 360. Then the raw processor power- 1 3ghz core multithreaded processor ps3 vs a 3 core 3ghz processor on 360. It really is 3ghz compared to 9ghz. You really do have to dial things back on the ps3. Even the vita has 512 megs of ram inside of it. So this isn't bethesdas fault. Just hopefully sony on the next generation, goes back to raw power to let game developers be able to develop muchhh more easily.

Not Bethesda's fault? This isn't 2007 anymore, every major developers got their shit together on the PS3 3 or 4 years ago. Even the vast majority of smaller, less fortunate developers can work with the PS3 just fine.

Online
#63 Edited by AlexW00d (6308 posts) -

@familyphotoshoot said:

@TheHT: Do you not remember when Bayonetta was disqualified from GOTY discussion because the PS3 version was garbage? I'm not equivocating Skyrim with Bayonetta, but it's the principle of the matter that bothers me.

That was a dumb as fuck thing to say too, cause I played Bayonetta on PS3 at launch and it was fine and I enjoyed the fucking shit out of that game. Unlike all those people who can't even play Skyrim cause of the 10fps they are getting.

@thechronodarkness said:

256megs of ram on the ps3 vs 512megs on 360. Then the raw processor power- 1 3ghz core multithreaded processor ps3 vs a 3 core 3ghz processor on 360. It really is 3ghz compared to 9ghz. You really do have to dial things back on the ps3. Even the vita has 512 megs of ram inside of it. So this isn't bethesdas fault. Just hopefully sony on the next generation, goes back to raw power to let game developers be able to develop muchhh more easily.

The Cell processor has 9 cores, not 1. Also multicore doesn't work like that.

#64 Posted by algertman (852 posts) -

@devilzrule27 said:

@Hailinel said:

@Napalm said:

@Hailinel said:

It continues to boggle my mind as to how Bethesda could fuck up the PS3 version of Skyrim so badly. I'd have thought that they would have gotten their shit together after their troubles with Fallout 3.

I think it was a situation akin to, "we have it working in this way for this system, hardware and specifications, but are finding it difficult to transfer/convert the game to this other hardware set."

Also, I'm just going to say it: the PlayStation 3 version has been nearly bogged even before launch. Who on earth would purchase it for the PlayStation 3 when it is barely in a running state? Even if that's the only system one has?

I would, apparently. But I've learned my lesson.

Part of the problem there was that they withheld the PS3 version from reviewers so they couldn't warn potential purchasers of the complete pile of shit that was the PS3 version.

I don't believe the gaming press would have warned the public about it even if they did know.

#65 Posted by TheHT (11526 posts) -

@familyphotoshoot said:

@TheHT: Do you not remember when Bayonetta was disqualified from GOTY discussion because the PS3 version was garbage? I'm not equivocating Skyrim with Bayonetta, but it's the principle of the matter that bothers me.

No I don't. If there's precedence for one console version fucking up the the game itselfs running, then Skyrim should have followed suite. Any argument that Skyrim is still so good that it can still win if Bayonetta was disqualified for a fucked up version, would have to be really goddamn persuasive.

@The_Nubster said:

@TheHT said:

@The_Nubster said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

And Jeff Even said you can't ignore 1/3 of an entire game, in regards to Battlefield's shitty campaign. Ha.

1/3 of a game itself is not the same as a version of a game on one platform versus that same game on two other platforms. And weren't they explicit about their discussion not including the PS3 version because it's so royally fucked?

Anyways, this is just another bummer for PS3 users. But I imagine anyone who bought Skyrim there won't be blown away by this news.

Everyone else was saying that Battlefield was a multiplayer game, that the terrible campaign shouldn't be taken in to effect, it was tacked on by publisher pressure, etc.

So why is that different for Skyrim? One-third of that game does not work. The PS3 version is a complete clusterfuck of slowdown, crashes, and glitches that they can't fix, and it might not be getting any DLC. Why should a game with such numerous, terrible, and irreparable problems be game of the year? Why should a game of the year winner have the caveat of "But this isn't GotY for PS3, because that one sucks, you guys!" How is ignoring that massive of an issue any different than ignoring a shitty campaign? It's ignoring a very real, and very serious, issue.

Meanwhile, the runner-up worked beautifully on all platforms without a hitch. I don't understand how Skyrim won GotY if they had to outright exclude an entire platform in order to praise it.

No man, they're not the same situations. The PS3 version of Skyrim isn't 1/3 of the game itself. I get what you're arguing, but comparing it to what they said about Battlefield isn't the way to do it, because that was a different argument where they were looking at an aspect of the game itself. Comparing it to Bayonetta like familyphotoshoot did is fair comparison, if in fact Bayonetta was disqualified due to a shoddy PS3 version.

Like I said in response to him/her it would have had to been really amazing for the crew to award it so even with that caveat. Now whether you think it was or not is up to you. I'm not going to argue about whether Skyrim as a game is worth enough for GOTY even though one demographic of gamers have a completely fucked up version. But comparing it to the Battlefield argument isn't right.

They're both 'important' issues when it comes to GOTY deliberations, but they're two separate issues.

Online
#66 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

@Barrock said:

It's so weird to see how the $600 PS3 monster machine has so many damn problems. This isn't a fanboy post, I own a PS3 and like it a lot.

Well the PS3 looked good on paper . . . and still does when they build games as exclusives. It just didn't come close to being as awesome as PS2 was.

#67 Posted by devilzrule27 (1239 posts) -

@algertman said:

@devilzrule27 said:

@Hailinel said:

@Napalm said:

@Hailinel said:

It continues to boggle my mind as to how Bethesda could fuck up the PS3 version of Skyrim so badly. I'd have thought that they would have gotten their shit together after their troubles with Fallout 3.

I think it was a situation akin to, "we have it working in this way for this system, hardware and specifications, but are finding it difficult to transfer/convert the game to this other hardware set."

Also, I'm just going to say it: the PlayStation 3 version has been nearly bogged even before launch. Who on earth would purchase it for the PlayStation 3 when it is barely in a running state? Even if that's the only system one has?

I would, apparently. But I've learned my lesson.

Part of the problem there was that they withheld the PS3 version from reviewers so they couldn't warn potential purchasers of the complete pile of shit that was the PS3 version.

I don't believe the gaming press would have warned the public about it even if they did know.

Most sites are good enough to at least mention the flaws of the game on other platforms. The information would have been out there and easily accessible to potential purchasers.

#68 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3108 posts) -

@TheHT: It is, in fact, the reason Bayonetta was disqualified from Game of the Year discussions a while ago. I believe their explanation was that they later decided it was a shitty reason to disqualify a game entirely, especially since it was quickly patched and the issues fixed (unlike Skyrim). Didn't stop them from throwing Bayonetta out of the running back then, but when you're Bethesda you get all kinds of special treatment.

It's still completely B.S., but then again, so is nearly every decision they make come Game of the Year time.

#69 Posted by Terramagi (1159 posts) -

Games should straight up be ineligible if they come out in the last month.

There's a reason everybody launches their games during that window.

#70 Posted by Galiant (2193 posts) -

Played over 200 hours on PS3 across several characters, rarely had any issues. Nothing game breaking, either.

That said, I feel sad about the whole thing. I want to play the DLC too!

Never buying their console ports ever again, that's for sure.

#71 Edited by Maginnovision (488 posts) -

@thechronodarkness said:

256megs of ram on the ps3 vs 512megs on 360. Then the raw processor power- 1 3ghz core multithreaded processor ps3 vs a 3 core 3ghz processor on 360. It really is 3ghz compared to 9ghz. You really do have to dial things back on the ps3. Even the vita has 512 megs of ram inside of it. So this isn't bethesdas fault. Just hopefully sony on the next generation, goes back to raw power to let game developers be able to develop muchhh more easily.

Like AlexW00D said, the ps3 doesn't have a 1 core processor. And 3 3ghz processors is not the same as 1 9ghz processor. The PS3 also has the exact same amount of memory as the 360, it's just not shared memory. It's 256 system/256 video.

Online
#72 Posted by Zacagawea (1600 posts) -

@Terramagi said:

Games should straight up be ineligible if they come out in the last month.

There's a reason everybody launches their games during that window.

Yeah, no.

#73 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

This is what happens when you morons play console games. I shall feel no pity while I enjoy the glories of PC gaming, sucks to be you!

#74 Posted by usgrovers (166 posts) -

A lot of people said "well they shouldn't have bothered releasing Skyrim on the PS3 with all these problems!"

I guess they listened; they're not releasing further content on PS3! They listened to the internet and now the internet is in an uproar. Figures.

#75 Posted by Milkman (17032 posts) -

I'm on 360 but that really blows.

Online
#76 Posted by The_Nubster (2264 posts) -

@TheHT: You're right; the issue with BF3 is one of the game itself, and the other is the treatment of the game post-launch.

However, the essence of Jeff's remarks about Battlefield 3's single player applies to Skyrim. While the context and issue is different, you cannot ignore an issue this big while discussing it. While Battlefield's issue is one of gameplay, Skyrim's problems come from the way that Bethesda programs for consoles. You can't ignore the fact that Skyrim struggles to even function at a base level on the PS3, much the same way you can't ignore that BF3's single player campaign is lacking. So I will back away from my argument in regards to directly comparing BF3 with Skyrim, but my problems with how they treated Skyrim still stands: they awarded GotY to a game that is fundamentally flawed on one platform, and that shouldn't be the case.

#77 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4308 posts) -
@Terramagi said:

@The_Nubster said:

@TheHT said:

@The_Nubster said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

And Jeff Even said you can't ignore 1/3 of an entire game, in regards to Battlefield's shitty campaign. Ha.

1/3 of a game itself is not the same as a version of a game on one platform versus that same game on two other platforms. And weren't they explicit about their discussion not including the PS3 version because it's so royally fucked?

Anyways, this is just another bummer for PS3 users. But I imagine anyone who bought Skyrim there won't be blown away by this news.

Everyone else was saying that Battlefield was a multiplayer game, that the terrible campaign shouldn't be taken in to effect, it was tacked on by publisher pressure, etc.

So why is that different for Skyrim? One-third of that game does not work. The PS3 version is a complete clusterfuck of slowdown, crashes, and glitches that they can't fix, and it might not be getting any DLC. Why should a game with such numerous, terrible, and irreparable problems be game of the year? Why should a game of the year winner have the caveat of "But this isn't GotY for PS3, because that one sucks, you guys!" How is ignoring that massive of an issue any different than ignoring a shitty campaign? It's ignoring a very real, and very serious, issue.

Meanwhile, the runner-up worked beautifully on all platforms without a hitch. I don't understand how Skyrim won GotY if they had to outright exclude an entire platform in order to praise it.

Because SKYRIM

Goddamnit Brad!  
#78 Posted by Terramagi (1159 posts) -

@usgrovers said:

A lot of people said "well they shouldn't have bothered releasing Skyrim on the PS3 with all these problems!"

I guess they listened; they're not releasing further content on PS3! They listened to the internet and now the internet is in an uproar. Figures.

Yes, what a surprise. Entitled gamers bitching about their 60 dollar paperweight no longer being supported.

If Bethesda was giving refunds and blowjobs to PS3 players and people were bitching, you might have a point. As is, people are fucked and now things are going to stay fucked because Bethesda is, in the most literal sense of the word, completely incompetent.

#79 Posted by Terranova (595 posts) -

Bethesda have never released a game that wasn't buggy as hell and needed a ton of patches to fix no mater what platform it was on, I own the PC version and it was only via the modding scene that unofficial patches and mods fixed and enhanced a bunch of stuff that Bethesda were either incompetent to fix or just couldn't be bothered to fix hell even their patches need patches as something always breaks, so you cant just single out the PS3 to being the main problem Bethesda themselves are partly to blame they need to do a better job with their games for all platforms.

#80 Posted by Morrow (1829 posts) -

To be honest, I lost interest in Skyrim really quickly. I've been looking forward to it so much and then ended up quitting the game after just 72 hours and a platinum. Motivation is gone. They should have added harder trophies ._.

#81 Posted by jasonefmonk (350 posts) -

To be clear to everyone, as it stands, vanilla Skyrim works very well on the PS3. I don't see a reason to say it isn't on par with the Xbox 360 version. Bethesda was slow, no it shouldn't have been released in that horrid launch state. However they did support the game better than anyone expected.

The loss of DLC is still bullshit. Bethesda is either incompetent or lazy with this stuff. This is my first Bethesda game and I love it. What can I do? My laptop would probably give me a worse experience than my PlayStation, and I'd be giving more money to a company that let me down.

#82 Posted by Barrock (3545 posts) -

@MideonNViscera said:

@Barrock said:

It's so weird to see how the $600 PS3 monster machine has so many damn problems. This isn't a fanboy post, I own a PS3 and like it a lot.

Well the PS3 looked good on paper . . . and still does when they build games as exclusives. It just didn't come close to being as awesome as PS2 was.

Oh no doubt. Games that are strictly for the PS3 can look amazing. It's just very strange that ports often turn out terrible.

#83 Posted by atomic_dumpling (2474 posts) -
@Barrock said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@Barrock said:

It's so weird to see how the $600 PS3 monster machine has so many damn problems. This isn't a fanboy post, I own a PS3 and like it a lot.

Well the PS3 looked good on paper . . . and still does when they build games as exclusives. It just didn't come close to being as awesome as PS2 was.

Oh no doubt. Games that are strictly for the PS3 can look amazing. It's just very strange that ports often turn out terrible.

This is what you get for putting that exotic Cell CPU in there. The PS3 is technologically so advanced and "out there" that programmers seem to have a hard time getting their stuff to work, unless Sony really holds their hand. And that in turn is a privilege of the PS3 exclusive titles. Apparently it is not worth to Bethesda and others to employ in-house dudes who actually know their way around a PS3.
#84 Posted by Ocean_H (290 posts) -

@thechronodarkness said:

256megs of ram on the ps3 vs 512megs on 360. Then the raw processor power- 1 3ghz core multithreaded processor ps3 vs a 3 core 3ghz processor on 360. It really is 3ghz compared to 9ghz. You really do have to dial things back on the ps3. Even the vita has 512 megs of ram inside of it. So this isn't bethesdas fault. Just hopefully sony on the next generation, goes back to raw power to let game developers be able to develop muchhh more easily.

WRONG. The PS3 has 512MB total: 256 MB of XDR DRAM main memory and 256 MB of GDDR3 video memory for the RSX.

Get your info correctly.

#85 Posted by Hemmelight (164 posts) -

I just threw in my PS3 copy the other day after installing the patches and it's just as bad as it was months and months ago for me. Still shitty framerate, especially around Riften. I should just sell it.

#86 Posted by Bell_End (1208 posts) -

bethesda clearly need to stop trying to work this out themselves using their wealth of talent and experiance and start calling upon the known-it-all arm chair experts that post on internet forums.

#87 Posted by Vampir (142 posts) -

@Barrock said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@Barrock said:

It's so weird to see how the $600 PS3 monster machine has so many damn problems. This isn't a fanboy post, I own a PS3 and like it a lot.

Well the PS3 looked good on paper . . . and still does when they build games as exclusives. It just didn't come close to being as awesome as PS2 was.

Oh no doubt. Games that are strictly for the PS3 can look amazing. It's just very strange that ports often turn out terrible.

It's because while Sony was busy winning the format war with Blu-ray, Microsoft was quietly winning the graphics API war with Direct X.

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX

#88 Posted by Galiant (2193 posts) -

I may have already posted in this thread, can't remember.

I'm never buying a Bethesda game for consoles again. I want Dawnguard but I don't want to buy the game again just to play it on PC...

#89 Posted by huntad (1956 posts) -

Better yet, Sony should have thought twice before over-engineering their console. I don't want to start a bunch of negativity, but I really wish the PS3 was more in line, architecture-wise, with PCs. As a PS3 owner, I believe that it started a lot of what's happening with the PS3 and a lot of multiplatform games.

Here's hoping it doesn't happen with the PS4 or next Xbox.

#90 Posted by RE_Player1 (7563 posts) -

@huntad: While the complexity of the PS3 has shown that Sony's exclusives are far and above better than Microsoft's in terms of visuals and design they realize the importance of third party support. You can tell being first last generation by a fucking mile, PS2 is still the best selling system of all time, to dead last in terms of console and software sales this generation has hurt their ego and has humbled them. Even with the Vita one of the main focus points you heard is how easy it is to develop for. The PS4 is going to have a more basic architecture for sure resulting in almost no backwards compatibility which is bad at the start but better in the long run.

#91 Posted by huntad (1956 posts) -

@msavo: Oh cool, I had not heard that about the Vita.

#92 Edited by JackOhara (227 posts) -

To be honest I'm most surprised that people are still playing Skyrim or have any interest in DLC for it at all

#93 Posted by RE_Player1 (7563 posts) -

@huntad: Lots have the higher ups at Sony have been touting that bullet point in interviews and even in Patrick's interview with John Carmack a year ago at E3 has him saying how the Vita is an easy platform to develop for when using the skills used to make a console game.

#94 Posted by FoxMulder (1706 posts) -

Played over 200 hours of Skyrim on PS3 and enjoyed the hell out of it. Got lucky and didn't deal with many bugs other than some quest items being stuck. My first character with 150 hours has loooonnng load times, but it caused me to play as a 2nd character with completley different gameplay style! So far the DLC released/announced seem dumb as hell and I could care less if they ever come to PS3!

#95 Posted by mikethekilla (328 posts) -

Damn I was looking forward o dawnguard.

#96 Posted by Nodachie (77 posts) -

As a PS3 owner, the first man in my town to get it (I let the woman next to me go first because I have manners ) on the midnight release and who played the whole thing loving it, bugs and all...I really don't care.

The game is wonderful but I would not be interested in investing more into it. Unless, of course, the heavy bugs could be solved and the content was game changing.

So short of smooth game play with spears and dragon riding, I'm fine with no PS3 DLC.

#97 Posted by Nightriff (5156 posts) -

Maybe I'll go back into Skyrim and get that S Rank knowing that I won't lose it now....unless it fuckin glitches on me again. 1 more to go.....

#98 Edited by LiquidPrince (16018 posts) -

@thechronodarkness said:

256megs of ram on the ps3 vs 512megs on 360. Then the raw processor power- 1 3ghz core multithreaded processor ps3 vs a 3 core 3ghz processor on 360. It really is 3ghz compared to 9ghz. You really do have to dial things back on the ps3. Even the vita has 512 megs of ram inside of it. So this isn't bethesdas fault. Just hopefully sony on the next generation, goes back to raw power to let game developers be able to develop muchhh more easily.

This is all incorrect. Your understanding of the hardware is wrong. The PS3 has 512MB of RAM as well, just divided between 256MB of system memory and 256MB if dedicated video memory. Also both are single processors, but the 360 has three cores, while the PS3 has 7 usable cores.

#99 Posted by mikethekilla (328 posts) -

Any news on this?

#100 Posted by Neurotic (632 posts) -

Man, that's messed up. Making me nervous to start my PS3 copy of Fallout: New Vegas for fear of my PS3 exploding or something.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.