Dev explains why Skyrim lag wont get fixed.

Unesh52

New member
May 27, 2010
1,375
0
0
VanityGirl said:
The 280+ free GB I have on my 360 means I have few problems with memory storage.
Sucks for people with limited memory left on their consoles (or PCs).
That's actually Hard Disk space, which is unrelated to the RAM space that's creating this problem. Basically, when the game starts, it loads the important data into a reserved place that it can read faster than the HDD. It's only supposed to read from the HDD every once in a while, to decide what's going to go on the RAM mostly, because reading from the HDD is too slow to stream all the information it needs to create the game world. The problem is that there's not enough RAM and it's structured awkwardly, so the game has to read from the HDD, not the RAM.
 

Deathninja19

New member
Dec 7, 2009
341
0
0
zelda2fanboy said:
Deathninja19 said:
The point is that we shouldn't have to restart we should be able to play for however long we want. I appreciate where you're coming from, I love Bethesda but if a company releases a broken product it is their fault not the consumers and Bethesda should be doing all they could to fix this or replace defective products.

Through the years I've constanly had problems with Bethesda products but I remained an apologist but this is the straw that broke the camel's back, I'm not defending Bethesda anymore they are in the wrong here and I'm not gonna fall for their shit anymore.
People have said this for every Bethesda game that has come out, yet they keep on buying them...
Too true, this is the first time I've experience a game breaking bug but I share some of the blame for Bethesda getting away with it.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
VanityGirl said:
The 280+ free GB I have on my 360 means I have few problems with memory storage.
Sucks for people with limited memory left on their consoles (or PCs).
I have 249 GB free on my PS3, that's not the problem.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Ilikemilkshake said:
The PS3 is also particularly susceptible because unlike the 360 which has 512mb ram which can be used for anything, the ps3 has divided ram, half for graphics half for processing. Meaning that a patch isnt going to fix the PS3 problems, and the game will stay broken for anyone who's put any time into it.
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?!!?

Ahem - I mean - this is why for all the expensive tech PS3 has it fails on design.

Blu-ray drive added $175 to the price of the PS3 at launch, for nothing. And Dividing the memory after the Xbox 360 had been out for a whole year already showing the benefit of unified system/graphics memory.

And I held off from buying a 360, and bought a PS3 instead in 2007 (when it FINALLY was released in UK) and I've been annoyed by its failure to perform ever since. The Killzones are few and far between and honestly they haven't really demonstrated the uber-graphics advantage you'd expect. I think considering how bloody long they spent on Killzone 2 it might have looked better on 360.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Macrobstar said:
Crono1973 said:
Macrobstar said:
Crono1973 said:
Sjakie said:
man there is so much wrong with this topic and with that article the OP posted.
An Obsidan dev talking about bugs in a Bethesda engine is not really something i will take at face value after FO:NV.
If he knows the engine so well: why was NV such a buggy piece of crap?
Also i dont think you can compare the engine version they used for NV with the one used for TESV that easily, plus, the guy did not work on Skyrim.
Well, both games have the same problem but YOU, in your rush to defend Bethesda, think that they can't possibly be related and that a dev who has worked with the engine on a game with the same problems doesn't know what he's talking about.

My God people, what lengths will you go to? I have seen people blame Sony, the PS3 and even PS3 owners because apparently Bethesda can walk of fuckin water.
Well considering the creation engine is heavily modified I doubt the obsidian dev knows what the fuck he is talking about
Well, considering the Creation engine has the same memory problems, I think the Obsidian dev does know what he's talking about.

I mean the problem is real in Skyrim. The problem was real in FO:NV. What is it that you disagree with?
I don't remember it ever being this big an issue with NV or FO3 and I played both of them for hundreds of hours on PS3 (Platinum'd both :p)
Maybe I just got lucky on both games, but it was never as big a fuss being made as it is now and I'm definately sure he doesn't know the internal workings of bethesda or wth he's talking about, obsidian are amateurs at best afterall
The problem is worse in Skyrim but it's a matter of scale. It's the same problem on a bigger scale. So if a dev for New Vegas understood the problem (but couldn't fix it) then, he also understands it now because IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM.
 

Swyftstar

New member
May 19, 2011
653
0
0
I'll start my post any way that I see fit.
and a harumph to you to good sir.

Let's review:

I don't think Sony should get a pass on this one either. Not having enough RAM is just silly.
First of all, the PS3 has just as much RAM as the 360, it just uses it differently. I think the PS3 RAM is actually faster.

Bethesda knew going into this how the PS3 RAM worked but instead of customizing the engine to deal with that, they just released ANOTHER broken game. This isn't Sony's fault, it isn't like Sony changed the way the PS3 worked in the middle of Skyrims development.

If Bethesda had developed Skyrim for the Wii, would you be blaming Nintendo for poor performance? Skyrim COULD have been fine on the PS3 if Bethesda had put more effort into it. The PS3 is the most powerful console this gen so if the 360 can run it well, then so COULD the PS3.

Sony is to blame for letting Bethesda release this though, they should have pushed it back and told Bethesda to fix the memory problems. Isn't that the point of a license, to make sure the game works properly before you license it on your console?
I will concede the not enough RAM point statement was off. But once again my main point was not that I'm blaming Sony for Bethesda releasing a game not fit for their system. My point is there are certain structural issues with the PS3's memory that seem to rear their ugly head repeatedly in certain games and apps and it annoys me.
 

Eggsnham

New member
Apr 29, 2009
4,054
0
0
I get a sizable amount of lag when I'm in cities or I play for a couple hours straight, but otherwise I'm alright.

Perhaps it's not completely fixable, but they can at least make some improvements on it, I'm sure.
 

Sjakie

New member
Feb 17, 2010
955
0
0
Crono1973 said:
Sjakie said:
man there is so much wrong with this topic and with that article the OP posted.
An Obsidan dev talking about bugs in a Bethesda engine is not really something i will take at face value after FO:NV.
If he knows the engine so well: why was NV such a buggy piece of crap?
Also i dont think you can compare the engine version they used for NV with the one used for TESV that easily, plus, the guy did not work on Skyrim.
Well, both games have the same problem but YOU, in your rush to defend Bethesda, think that they can't possibly be related and that a dev who has worked with the engine on a game with the same problems doesn't know what he's talking about.

My God people, what lengths will you go to? I have seen people blame Sony, the PS3 and even PS3 owners because apparently Bethesda can walk of fuckin water.
Yes, they can indeed *casts waterwalking*
Also, your just yelling at me and if you actually would read AND comprehend what you have read then you would see that i was not defending Bethesda at all, i am very well aware of the intial release problems of FO, FO:NV, TES 3, 4 and 5.

All i was saying in my previous post was to be critical of someone who did not work on Skyrim. He might have a very good educated guess about the problem, but that is all. Give it some time before making a final judgement.

But here is some defending if your so hellbent on argueing about fanboyism:
Skyrim is only out for a short while, but all Bethesda developed (not published) games got fixed properly after some time, Obsidian's on the other hand...not so much.
Actions speak louder then words and all that. In this case just look at the trackrecords of said companies.
Bethesda says they are looking into it and the Obsidian guy is allready saying it probably cant be fixed... no wonder FO:NV never got fixed and the other games did...
 

kouriichi

New member
Sep 5, 2010
2,415
0
0
Im over 80 hours in on Skyrim from the 360, and the only lag ive noticed is opening the load/save screen.

@__@ i need to clear out some of those save files. It can take up to a minute to open.
And my inventory screen at times. I just carry around way to many pieces of jewelry. 13 necklaces, all enchanted, 22 rings, all enchanted, a full set of enchanted clothing ((so that i can run faster since armor slows you down)), at least 30+ potions....

Ok, i think half the problem for lag comes form us being hoarders.
 

zenoaugustus

New member
Feb 5, 2009
994
0
0
Shirastro said:
I pity the console players...well i always pity them, but at least now i have an actual reason.

I don't think Bethesda should get away with this, PS3 users should be refunded fully, if the game is actually unplayable.
There are times when it is fine, and other times were I'm sitting there furious waiting for the game to want to continue. I noticed it was especially bad when I was doing the Civil War fort quests because so much combat was occurring at once (and it didn't help that my dumb ass called a dragon to help our already good odds to win).
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Swyftstar said:
I'll start my post any way that I see fit.
and a harumph to you to good sir.

Let's review:

I don't think Sony should get a pass on this one either. Not having enough RAM is just silly.
First of all, the PS3 has just as much RAM as the 360, it just uses it differently. I think the PS3 RAM is actually faster.

Bethesda knew going into this how the PS3 RAM worked but instead of customizing the engine to deal with that, they just released ANOTHER broken game. This isn't Sony's fault, it isn't like Sony changed the way the PS3 worked in the middle of Skyrims development.

If Bethesda had developed Skyrim for the Wii, would you be blaming Nintendo for poor performance? Skyrim COULD have been fine on the PS3 if Bethesda had put more effort into it. The PS3 is the most powerful console this gen so if the 360 can run it well, then so COULD the PS3.

Sony is to blame for letting Bethesda release this though, they should have pushed it back and told Bethesda to fix the memory problems. Isn't that the point of a license, to make sure the game works properly before you license it on your console?
I will concede the not enough RAM point statement was off. But once again my main point was not that I'm blaming Sony for Bethesda releasing a game not fit for their system. My point is there are certain structural issues with the PS3's memory that seem to rear their ugly head repeatedly in certain games and apps and it annoys me.
I can agree with this but I will say that every console would have some shortcomings and developers either have to not develop for those consoles (like the Wii) or they have to find a way to work around those shortcomings. I am sure the 360 has weaknesses too (like the DVD format or no guaranteed HDD that devs could use to their advantage).
 

TheGuy(wantstobe)

New member
Dec 8, 2009
430
0
0
Crono1973 said:
Swyftstar said:
First of all, the PS3 has just as much RAM as the 360, it just uses it differently. I think the PS3 RAM is actually faster.

Bethesda knew going into this how the PS3 RAM worked but instead of customizing the engine to deal with that, they just released ANOTHER broken game. This isn't Sony's fault, it isn't like Sony changed the way the PS3 worked in the middle of Skyrims development.

If Bethesda had developed Skyrim for the Wii, would you be blaming Nintendo for poor performance? Skyrim COULD have been fine on the PS3 if Bethesda had put more effort into it. The PS3 is the most powerful console this gen so if the 360 can run it well, then so COULD the PS3.

Sony is to blame for letting Bethesda release this though, they should have pushed it back and told Bethesda to fix the memory problems. Isn't that the point of a license, to make sure the game works properly before you license it on your console?
On the PS3 memory vs 360 memory
It has 2 pools of 256MB of RAM. One being DDR3 and one being XDR (the 360 has one 512MB pool of DDR3). The XDR pool is faster with higher bandwitdth/lower latency than the DDR3 pool and is used exclusively as a texture and graphical cache. It cannot be used for any other purpose no matter what developers or even Sony do. Any RAM you don't use here is essentially wasted silicone as it cannot be repurposed. This setup is very effecicient for non open world games that require the extra speed allowed by the XDR ram and not very much system RAM (such as the Uncharted series) but is vastly inferior to a unified single pool for games like Skyrim that need every last bit of system RAM they can get their grubby little mits on. That's just the way it is

On changing engines
The miniscule changes made to Gamebryo for Skyrim would have taken a few months in order ot ensure that those small things alone didn't break the engine. In order to sort out the memory issue would have taken another year at least as any changes made to engine have the potetial to completely fuck it up. It's why you don't see very many completely new engines or when you do they're after years of development.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
zenoaugustus said:
Shirastro said:
I pity the console players...well i always pity them, but at least now i have an actual reason.

I don't think Bethesda should get away with this, PS3 users should be refunded fully, if the game is actually unplayable.
There are times when it is fine, and other times were I'm sitting there furious waiting for the game to want to continue. I noticed it was especially bad when I was doing the Civil War fort quests because so much combat was occurring at once (and it didn't help that my dumb ass called a dragon to help our already good odds to win).
I think every game will eventually reach pitiful levels of lag. It could be that certain quests are causing problems and that only the people who have done those quests are seeing the serious lag. As time goes on and people play all the quests, everyone will likely hit the lag.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
TheGuy(wantstobe) said:
Crono1973 said:
Swyftstar said:
First of all, the PS3 has just as much RAM as the 360, it just uses it differently. I think the PS3 RAM is actually faster.

Bethesda knew going into this how the PS3 RAM worked but instead of customizing the engine to deal with that, they just released ANOTHER broken game. This isn't Sony's fault, it isn't like Sony changed the way the PS3 worked in the middle of Skyrims development.

If Bethesda had developed Skyrim for the Wii, would you be blaming Nintendo for poor performance? Skyrim COULD have been fine on the PS3 if Bethesda had put more effort into it. The PS3 is the most powerful console this gen so if the 360 can run it well, then so COULD the PS3.

Sony is to blame for letting Bethesda release this though, they should have pushed it back and told Bethesda to fix the memory problems. Isn't that the point of a license, to make sure the game works properly before you license it on your console?
On the PS3 memory vs 360 memory
It has 2 pools of 256MB of RAM. One being DDR3 and one being XDR (the 360 has one 512MB pool of DDR3). The XDR pool is faster with higher bandwitdth/lower latency than the DDR3 pool and is used exclusively as a texture and graphical cache. It cannot be used for any other purpose no matter what developers or even Sony do. Any RAM you don't use here is essentially wasted silicone as it cannot be repurposed. This setup is very effecicient for non open world games that require the extra speed allowed by the XDR ram and not very much system RAM (such as the Uncharted series) but is vastly inferior to a unified single pool for games like Skyrim that need every last bit of system RAM they can get their grubby little mits on. That's just the way it is

On changing engines
The miniscule changes made to Gamebryo for Skyrim would have taken a few months in order ot ensure that those small things alone didn't break the engine. In order to sort out the memory issue would have taken another year at least as any changes made to engine have the potetial to completely fuck it up. It's why you don't see very many completely new engines or when you do they're after years of development.
All true, but in the grand scheme of things: If Bethesda is unwilling to make the game work properly on the PS3, then they should not have released it on the PS3.

No one is saying that Bethesda is obligated to release their games on the PS3. They always had the option to not release a broken game on the PS3 and that is the option they should have taken.
 

Ilikemilkshake

New member
Jun 7, 2010
1,982
0
0
Bhaalspawn said:
Ilikemilkshake said:
I love Bethesdas games, especially Skyrim but i dont understand why they keep putting out fundamentally broken games and getting away with it.
I'll tell you why, but you won't like it.

The kind of vast, open world, epic quest game that Skyrim is trying to be is not naturally suited to the still limited capabilities of consoles. Consoles lack high performance processor units, nor do they have the RAM to handle much of what larger games attempt to do in their engines.

Games like The Elder Scrolls, The Witcher, and every other modern day love-child of Baldur's Gate makes it's home on the PC, where there are more than enough resources available to fuel all of a game's functions. And if there isn't, you can easily take resources away from non-essential elements, like graphics quality.

This kind of thing could be easily fixed by allowing Console gamers to tinker with the settings in their games. Including simple functionality like graphics controls, or processor allocation would fix this problem in a heartbeat. Hell, even if a console manufacturer allowed us to open the case and put in some extra RAM chips would go a long way. Not enough RAM? Add more!

I hear people complain about how consoles are simpler than PC Gaming, and that is certainly true. It's cheaper and more convienient. But I could also buy a cheap gaming PC, and I'll still have this same problem. The parts in modern day PC's are brand new, where as the parts in a PS3 or XBox360 are about 5-6 years old now. So games that are designed as PC Games are going to have these kinds of issues when they get ported to consoles for the same release date.

The game isn't broken at all. It's just on ground it's unfamiliar with.
Dont get me wrong, i'd describe myself as a PC gamer, and im playing Skyrim on the PC. (Its my brother thats playing it on the PS3 and having the problems)
I agree with all your points up until you say the game isnt broken... Okay broken might not be the right word, but the game in its current state isnt fit for purpose. Bethesda know this yet they're still charging for the product which is ridiculous.

Put it this way. If i were to port Crysis for the DS.. but it was an utter failure because the DS couldnt handle it... would i still get away with selling it, and then saying well its not my fault that the DS cant play my game?

LightningBanks said:
Ilikemilkshake said:
So is it worth it getting it on ps3? its the only format I can get it on (pc probably wont run it well anyway) :/
I dont know your specs, but if your PC meets the minimum i'd recommend the PC.
Im not really sure if the PS3 is worth it, its up to you if you think you can handle the possible lag then go for it, apart from that its a frikkin awesome game.. but i'd possibly wait a while til the price goes down, or see if they can infact fix it.

Treblaine said:
I think considering how bloody long they spent on Killzone 2 it might have looked better on 360.
Are you serious? I though KZ2 was one of the best looking games ive ever seen o_O
 

Discon

New member
Sep 14, 2009
190
0
0
16 mb saves are a lot? I'm fairly sure my save folder for Dragon Age: Origins was close to 15 gb.
 

Virmire

New member
Sep 25, 2011
174
0
0
I was having horrible lag before the patch and now I have none. Is this still an issue to some PS3 owners?
 

targren

New member
May 13, 2009
1,314
0
0
As a programmer by trade, there are some games that "wow" me, in that I wonder how things work in the background, and how they went about doing what they do.

I've always wondered how the time-rewinding works in things like Fatal Rewind, Blinx, PoP, and Braid, for instance. Conceptually, I have the basic idea, but that's a massive amount of what we call "state" that needs to be stored. I assume that can be reduced by limiting sprite movements to certain cyclical paths at a set timing loop and keeping track of the player's pathing, but I'm not sure. Sorry, rambling off topic...

Skyrim was another one. I can't imagine how they keep track of every single object and actor in the world. The non-random actors are probably similar to the sprites in the other games above, in that they always travel a set path (I haven't tested this, but I probably should). I.E, that Whiterun guard is always walking past Warmaiden's at 9:17PM every night sort of thing.

But keeping track of the location of every single stupid "flavor item" like bowls, tankards, and chamber pots? (Seriously... do I need to be able to pick up wooden ladles when I'm trying to grab the snowberries?). Or the items that constantly respawn in the dungeons? Every one you drop while outside becomes another object for the game to track.

The hundreds of iron daggers and leather bracers created by smithing grinders? If you lug them to a merchant and sell them, they'll get garbage collected during the next refresh. But if you're already lugging around tens of thousands of gold and can't be arsed to find a merchant who hasn't already given you his entire liquid holdings, and chuck them on the ground? More things for the engine to track. In my game, there have been a dozen bowls, cups, and useless books sitting outside Breezehome for 25 play-hours now.

So how does the garbage collection work? Apparently, there is some, since when you leave something behind that you want to pick up later, it's usually gone when you get there (or maybe that's just my bad luck?).

I think Beth has too much of a hardon for "persistence." Sure, it's a cool concept, but when you combine it with the amount of freedom they give you in the name of "realism," I can't imagine a system that would scale without taking up massive amounts of memory to hold the state.

The freedom is good, mostly, don't get me wrong (although the new system still doesn't protect you from the Oblivion problem of 'leveling yourself into a corner'), but we can do without some of the 'realism.' I mean, we're running around killing dragons, casting magical fireballs, and shouting at people with enough force to drive them off of a cliff. I think we can live with our "Moldy Tankard of Tarak-Nor" disappearing after we've left it on a rock in the distant corner of Skyrim for a few days. "True-to-life" isn't the message of the day here...

Hell, if we really wanted "realism," the best seller would be a game where you get up in the morning, go to work at a job you hate, sit in rush-hour traffic for two hours on your way home, then drink yourself to sleep while having sexual fantasies about women you will never ever have. Yeah, I smell a GOTY there <_<.


(Holy crap... at least I don't think I have to worry about a low-content post warning!)