Killing Dragons and Stuff (Skyrim)

Gaming Forums > General Gaming

<< < (20/29) > >>

broodwars:
My biggest problem with Bethesda is that they have these big ambitions, and then they proceed to design beyond what they're capable of actually programming. They remind me of Ian Malcolm's big speech in Jurassic Park:

Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you, you've patented it, and packaged it, you've slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now
[pounds table with fists]

Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're selling it.
[pounds table again]

Dr. Ian Malcolm: You want to sell it, well...

John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

Bethesda is so concerned with pushing the envelope of just how much unnecessary crap they can cram into these games that they never stop to think if their engine is actually capable of doing it. For example, is it really necessary to keep track of each and every person you've slain and the state of their body once you leave an area? Is it necessary to keep track of each and every thing you interact with exactly as you left it? Stuff like this is what causes the file size to skyrocket and gradually pushes the engine beyond what it can handle. The result? Massive glitches and inevitable crashes. I'll gladly take a smaller and more focused game from Bethesda if it means the game actually works like it should.

I'll acknowledge that Bethesda is a visionary in pushing the immersion of games. Lord knows they've certainly hooked me several times with their big worlds and wanton freedom to explore. But I look at other games that have come out this year that are now thought to be "lesser", and I wonder why? Arkham City isn't a big massive world that tracks every single thing you can do, but Rocksteady knew their limits and designed within them. The result is that the game is very solid and polished, and it's never once crashed on me. It's the same with Portal 2, Xenoblade, Resistance 3, Child of Eden, Deus Ex HR, etc. Al the great games that came out this year not from Bethesda are much better designed, and yet they'll likely get snubbed due to this game come Game of the Year time. What a pity.

broodwars:
A poster on another of my boards posted this excellent article by The Digital Foundry showing just how badly this game runs on PS3 with larger save files, as well as educated theories as to why that is. There's even video so you PC and 360 gamers can see for yourselves how badly Bethesda screwed up here.

Ceric:
You know I didn't think the PS3 had less useable RAM then the 360. That explains some things.

broodwars:

--- Quote from: Ceric on December 05, 2011, 02:49:14 PM ---You know I didn't think the PS3 had less useable RAM then the 360. That explains some things.

--- End quote ---

There are undoubtedly hardware-specific issues with this game that's just native to how the PS3 works, but it begs the question of why Bethesda didn't optimize the game to work within those specs (like most companies do, and their PS3 ports tend to turn out fine). Oh right, because they're Bethesda and working with what you have rather than what you want is for "lesser" companies.

And it is pure amateur hour that Bethesda designed this game to steadily increase the file size of the save file as the user changes things from their default state. Nothing good ever comes from having a file that can grow unchecked by the rest of the system.

I'm just furious with myself for buying into Bethesda's lies with this game. I somehow managed to finish Fallout 3 despite it being the buggiest game I'd ever played at that time. Then Obsidian released New Vegas, which was even buggier and used the same engine. Then Bethesda promised us all that Skyrim wouldn't be as unplayable as those two games eventually got. Then they release a half-assed PS3 port of Skyrim, and it's just as bad if not worse. And I was suckered into giving them $60 for it. Well, never again.

Chozo Ghost:
Broodwars, there is an Elder Scrolls wiki and you may want to consult that whenever you get new items or whatever so you can find out if these things are needed or not. I guess you are probably close to being done with the game so it might not really matter, but here is the link anyway.

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Skyrim

I've found this site extremely helpful when I was playing Oblivion. It is even better than any game guide you could buy, because unlike a game guide this is constantly being kept up to date, and unlike a game guide this wiki is completely free. You can also edit to it if you have anything new to add.

Edit:

--- Quote from: broodwars on December 05, 2011, 02:24:01 PM --- how badly this game runs on PS3
--- End quote ---

Well, you do have a 360.... I know you said you reserve that only for Microsoft exclusives, but maybe you should allow an exception for Bethesda games?

Obviously Bethesda is a PC first developer. That's where their roots are and that's what their focus is. The 360 is the console most similar to PCs so that would be next in line. Finally, in third and final place there is the PS3 which Bethesda treats as their redheaded step child. Maybe once the Wii U is out Bethesda will decide that system will be their redheaded step child and abuse that and maybe the PS3 will be treated a little better, but until then apparently the 360 is the best console for this.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version