PS3, Skryim and Digital Foundry. A look at how Bethesda created a 0 fps game.

It's quite unbelieveable that this isnt getting much coverage anywhere except for neogaf and bethesda's official forums. Eurogamer's Digital Foundry just ran this piece comparing the game's performance pre and post patch, and it isn't pretty.

These prolonged bouts of stuttering render the game almost completely unplayable, even during non-intensive walks down pathways, with some freezes lasting long enough to drag the frame-rate down to zero in places - the first time we've seen this in years of performance analysis here at Digital Foundry.Eurogamer

So has the new patch improved performance? Yes, it has benefited, with the aforementioned 20FPS baseline being raised to something closer to 25 on average. However, the root cause of the stuttering - whatever it may be - is still there and the potential for zero frame refreshes per second is still a possibility, leading to some very unwieldy controller response and an extremely poor gameplay experience in general. To all intents and purposes, this updated version of Skyrim on PS3 is still unplayable for those with a huge time investment in the game - unless you're only willing to play Skyrim in half-hour bursts, saving and restarting the game. Hardly ideal. Eurogamer

Even this new patch hasn't improved things a whole lot. I'm sure the game will be patched, bnut the question remains, how did Bethesda ship something so broken and got away with it?

Also, this was in the patch notes:

"improves occasional performance issues resulting from long term play".

Occasional, lol.

Full analysis and vids here.

Glad I picked up a 360 earlier this year, that's for sure. I just knew Skyrim was going to be trash on the PS3. Bethesda can't program for it to save their lives.

This just appears to be a very extreme case of the norm, if you ask me.

I'm not making excuses for Bethesda, but most third-parties have trouble with attaining parity on the PS3... the system was, by Sony's own admission, designed to be as such. I don't understand why this is so shocking, but yes it absolutely does suck. I suppose it's up to each individual what percentage they lob on Bethesda versus Sony, but BOTH should be blamed. Developers have publicly gone on record for YEARS (PS2 AND PS3) saying that Sony kit is a pain in the ass to program on, the most explosive this generation being Gabe Newell. The only reason they used to put up with it was because Sony was the market leader and they had little choice. That has changed, and now it's become a giant liability for Sony.

Hopefully, Sony doesn't have its collective head up its ass next generation and makes a system that is easy to code on instead of being cute and all "Hay we r rad becuz our s*** is all custem n stuff WORD!"

This just appears to be a very extreme case of the norm, if you ask me.

I'm not making excuses for Bethesda, but most third-parties have trouble with attaining parity on the PS3... the system was, by Sony's own admission, designed to be as such. I don't understand why this is so shocking, but yes it absolutely does suck. I suppose it's up to each individual what percentage they lob on Bethesda versus Sony, but BOTH should be blamed. Developers have publicly gone on record for YEARS saying that Sony kit is a pain in the ass to program on, the most explosive this gen being Gabe Newell.

Hopefully, Sony doesn't have its collective head up its ass next generation and makes a system that is easy to code on instead of being cute and all "Hay we r rad becuz our s*** is all custem n stuff!"

Shame-usBlackley

This isn't 2006 or 2007 where the PS3 got stuck with bad ports because it was too tough to program for. We are 5 years into this gen, this is Bethesda's third game on the PS3. The blame lies squarely on Bethesda.

Sony should be blamed for letting this go through their own QA process, yes, but if Bethesda couldn't make their game run at a playable framerate after 65 hours, they shouldnt have released the PS3 version. Plain and simple.

This isn't 2006 or 2007 where the PS3 got stuck with bad ports because it was too tough to program for. We are 5 years into this gen, this is Bethesda's third game on the PS3. The blame lies squarely on Bethesda.

Sony should be blamed for letting this go through their own QA process, yes, but if Bethesda couldn't make their game run at a playable framerate after 65 hours, they shouldnt have released the PS3 version. Plain and simple.

S0lidSnake

No, it's 2011 where the PS3 gets stuck with "not quite as bad" or "almost as good" ports. Look, if the system wasn't a pain to make games on, it logically stands to reason that we'd be seeing parity by now, especially when the performace issues are so lopsidedly on third-parties and Sony first-party magically makes the system kick ass. Maybe Sony should be sharing some of that awesomesauce with developers, no?

I work with mechanics and the one SURE FIRE way to piss one off is to make them feel stupid, whether they are or not. I know guys who will intentionally s*** on an HVAC unit just because it's a nightmare to work on. Sure, they'll do it in such a way that they can't be held accountable, but it happens... all the time. I'm no programmer, but human nature is to get pissed off when dealing with something frustrating, and that's a BAD environment that Sony should have never even believed should be fostered towards those who will be responsible for selling systems in between first-party releases. Not saying that this is what is happening for sure, only that it's possible/likely.

I agree that Bethesda is wrong for releasing a PS3 version. They should've just canned it. Or turned it over to whoever did the Oblivion port.

it's Bethesda. :roll:

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

This isn't 2006 or 2007 where the PS3 got stuck with bad ports because it was too tough to program for. We are 5 years into this gen, this is Bethesda's third game on the PS3. The blame lies squarely on Bethesda.

Sony should be blamed for letting this go through their own QA process, yes, but if Bethesda couldn't make their game run at a playable framerate after 65 hours, they shouldnt have released the PS3 version. Plain and simple.

Shame-usBlackley

No, it's 2011 where the PS3 gets stuck with "not quite as bad" or "almost as good" ports. Look, if the system wasn't a pain to make games on, it logically stands to reason that we'd be seeing parity by now, especially when the performace issues are so lopsidedly on third-parties and Sony first-party magically makes the system kick ass. Maybe Sony should be sharing some of that awesomesauce with developers, no?

I agree that Bethesda is wrong for releasing a PS3 version. They should've just canned it. Or turned it over to whoever did the Oblivion port.

I dont know. The past few years, most of the multiplatform games have been just as good if not better than the Xbox versions. Sure, we might see better AA, shadows and minor framerate improvements in UE3 360 games, but it hasn't been this bad for years now. The last PS3 game I played that was truly outcIassed by the 360 version was AC1. AC2 and Brotherhood both ran okay on the PS3 with the XBox version maintaining a slight framerate advantage.

I really cant think of anything other than the Fallout games. It seems only Bethesda has been behind the curve when it comes to getting performance out of the PS3. Fallout 3 had massive problems and New Vegas did as well. Glad I never played them.

P.S Naughty Dog's Ice Team's Edge libraries are available for every developer out tehre. The whole source code of Uncharted 1 is available for everyone as well. THough U2's source is only available for first party devs. I understand there is nothing as massive as Skyrim on the PS3. Sony's own devs could never create a game that big, but then again they knew they couldnt and they chose not to.

if Bethesda couldn't make their game run at a playable framerate after 65 hours, they shouldnt have released the PS3 version. Plain and simple.

S0lidSnake

P.S Naughty Dog's Ice Team's Edge libraries are available for every developer out tehre. The whole source code of Uncharted 1 is available for everyone as well. THough U2's source is only available for first party devs. I understand there is nothing as massive as Skyrim on the PS3. Sony's own devs could never create a game that big, but then again they knew they couldnt and they chose not to.

S0lidSnake

Glad I picked up a 360 earlier this year, that's for sure. I just knew Skyrim was going to be trash on the PS3. Bethesda can't program for it to save their lives.

Vari3ty

DF is talking out of their ass once again, but it's not surprising since they cater to 360 fanboys anyway. I have an 11MB save file on Skyrim and I'm playing on PS3 and I have no framrate issues, no memory issues, no performance issues whatsover. My charecter is level 37 and I am about 40 or 50 hours in the game, only issue I did have was a bug in the main quest but the update fixed it.I know what the truth is and DF and all their belivers can kiss my ass, seroiusly do you believe every article on the internet? Do you realise that there are plenty of articles that say the PS3 version is better like N4G? The point is that these articles cater to a small fanbase and should just be ignored.

Skyrimplays justfine on PS3

I dont know. The past few years, most of the multiplatform games have been just as good if not better than the Xbox versions. Sure, we might see better AA, shadows and minor framerate improvements in UE3 360 games, but it hasn't been this bad for years now. The last PS3 game I played that was truly outcIassed by the 360 version was AC1. AC2 and Brotherhood both ran okay on the PS3 with the XBox version maintaining a slight framerate advantage.

I really cant think of anything other than the Fallout games. It seems only Bethesda has been behind the curve when it comes to getting performance out of the PS3. Fallout 3 had massive problems and New Vegas did as well. Glad I never played them.

P.S Naughty Dog's Ice Team's Edge libraries are available for every developer out tehre. The whole source code of Uncharted 1 is available for everyone as well. THough U2's source is only available for first party devs. I understand there is nothing as massive as Skyrim on the PS3. Sony's own devs could never create a game that big, but then again they knew they couldnt and they chose not to.

S0lidSnake

I think it's been pretty consistent, from what I remember -- be it lower resolution, muddled framerates, or muffed up sound (inexplicable, really). Although, I haven't kept up on DF comparisons for quite some time now... my feelings on the PS3 have changed somewhat and I now wish it good luck as I think the other systems are a threat to conventional gaming. But there are only so many ways to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Sony needs to be HAMMERED on these flaws so they don't make them again next go around. They need to be whipped into fighting shape, or I fear they will lose harder next time. If people don't vocalize their displeasure with getting inferior ports to Sony (as the developers have done), then they may think it's cool to stay the course for the PS4.

Skyrimplays justfine on PS3

ShadowMoses900

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

if Bethesda couldn't make their game run at a playable framerate after 65 hours, they shouldnt have released the PS3 version. Plain and simple.

inoperativeRS

Sony is idiotic in that they use the Playstation brand to pimp out their other electronics. They shoved the Bluray down PS3's throat and made every PS3 at least $250 more expensive. Now they are forcing every first party dev to add 3D to their games to sell their 3DTVs, which resulted in KZ3 not getting online coop and Uncahrted 3 being released in an unfinished state. There are lot of things Sony should be blamed for, but releasing a system with 8 processors running at 3.2 Ghz should not be one.

I guess that god awful GPU and RAM is something you could give them grief for, but the Cell is capable of handling most of the GPU tasks which frees up quite a bit of processing for the GPU. SOny's first party devs use MLAA for anti-aliasing now which is done by the cell i believe, not the GPU.

And let's not forget every PS3 comes with a harddrive unlike the 360. For PC devs like Bethesda, this should be a godsend but nope, they couldn't even take advantage of that.

really, if the reviewer only plays the 360 version then they should only review that version. im not saying that every multiplat needs 2 or 3 reviews, but its presumptuous to say that the 360 performance will speak for the ps3 performance or vice versa. however, its also kind of hard to get an idea of this specific game's performance because many of the issues are more serious after large amounts of total playtime and many users will get what they want out of the game after 40 hours. still, i will say that i have more issues with the controls of skyrim than i do with those of skyward sword.LoG-Sacrament

I think reviewers should be REQUIRED to post a screen grab of their save file and achievement/trophy profile for any game they review.

I am unable to talk to any NPCs in the game which means that I can't activate/complete quests anymore. ExoticAnimal

Read my post in the other Skyrim thread and tell me if you had the same problems.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Skyrimplays justfine on PS3

ExoticAnimal

The patch came out like 3 days ago, and even before it I didn't have any framerate issues. Sure it dropped when I would enter town but it was only for a few seconds, sucks that your having issues (if you really are) but I don't see anything wrong with it. DF is just making more anti PS3 biased stuff again, just like Lens of Truth or N4G (a PS3 bias site)

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

I dont know. The past few years, most of the multiplatform games have been just as good if not better than the Xbox versions. Sure, we might see better AA, shadows and minor framerate improvements in UE3 360 games, but it hasn't been this bad for years now. The last PS3 game I played that was truly outcIassed by the 360 version was AC1. AC2 and Brotherhood both ran okay on the PS3 with the XBox version maintaining a slight framerate advantage.

I really cant think of anything other than the Fallout games. It seems only Bethesda has been behind the curve when it comes to getting performance out of the PS3. Fallout 3 had massive problems and New Vegas did as well. Glad I never played them.

P.S Naughty Dog's Ice Team's Edge libraries are available for every developer out tehre. The whole source code of Uncharted 1 is available for everyone as well. THough U2's source is only available for first party devs. I understand there is nothing as massive as Skyrim on the PS3. Sony's own devs could never create a game that big, but then again they knew they couldnt and they chose not to.

Shame-usBlackley

I think it's been pretty consistent, from what I remember -- be it lower resolution, muddled framerates, or muffed up sound (inexplicable, really). Although, I haven't kept up on DF comparisons for quite some time now... my feelings on the PS3 have changed somewhat and I now wish it good luck as I think the other systems are a threat to conventional gaming. But there are only so many ways to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Sony needs to be HAMMERED on these flaws so they don't make them again next go around. They need to be whipped into fighting shape, or I fear they will lose harder next time. If people don't vocalize their displeasure with getting inferior ports to Sony (as the developers have done), then they may think it's cool to stay the course for the PS4.

Most of the DF faceoffs still go in the 360's favor, but the difference is minimal really. Hell, some games do a few things a bit better now thanks to MLAA becoming more and more common in the industry.

And SOny pretty much admitted they are done making ridiculously complicated platforms when they revealed the PS Vita. Everyone's been raving how easy it's to develop for, so looks like Sony has wised up. I agree, let's hope they keep it that way for the PS4.... but i hope they go all out and release a powerful system just like they did with the PS3 and Vita. I would hate for them to release a half assed next gen console like Nintendo is doing.

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"] I am unable to talk to any NPCs in the game which means that I can't activate/complete quests anymore. Dracula68

Read my post in the other Skyrim thread and tell me if you had the same problems.

really, if the reviewer only plays the 360 version then they should only review that version..LoG-Sacrament

Bravo! I have been on a mission to get sites to just say "version tested 360" or something like that because I am the same way. I just deleted a Skyrim review for PS3 when I found out they used the 360 version(on a Playstation site no less!). Too many sites just like to copy/paste reviews across all systems and I am trying to stop that.

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Skyrimplays justfine on PS3

ShadowMoses900

The patch came out like 3 days ago, and even before it I didn't have any framerate issues. Sure it dropped when I would enter town but it was only for a few seconds, sucks that your having issues (if you really are) but I don't see anything wrong with it. DF is just making more anti PS3 biased stuff again, just like Lens of Truth or N4G (a PS3 bias site)

How long have yhou played the game? How big is you save file? Did you even click on the link I provided? DId you watch the vids which clearly show the game running at 14 fps and dropping down to 0?

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"] I am unable to talk to any NPCs in the game which means that I can't activate/complete quests anymore. ExoticAnimal

Read my post in the other Skyrim thread and tell me if you had the same problems.

Very last post

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]really, if the reviewer only plays the 360 version then they should only review that version..Dracula68

Bravo! I have been on a mission to get sites to just say "version tested 360" or something like that because I am the same way.

Eurogamer started doing that a couple of months ago.

I thought only PC games were allowed to have this kind of problem. They should be ashamed of themselves for releasing a broken product and should be held accountable for it. There's no excuse.

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]really, if the reviewer only plays the 360 version then they should only review that version..S0lidSnake

Bravo! I have been on a mission to get sites to just say "version tested 360" or something like that because I am the same way.

Eurogamer started doing that a couple of months ago.

Oh yeah, they were easily the biggest site that actually listened and didn't act like they are above us when we asked. I also got them to change that awful "most populart" review list to a reverse chon index with dates as it was too hard to figure out waht new games got reviewed. Tom is an awesome guy.

There was a reason why Bethesda didn't send out the PS3 copy of the game to reviewers.ExoticAnimal

Yup. This needs to be posted again and again in this thread. Bethesda held the PS3 version back, and misled the reviewers. The sad thing is that the whole industry fell for it.

Oh yeah, they were easily the biggest site that actually listened and didn't act like they are above us when we asked. I also got them to change that awful "most populart" review list to a reverse chon index with dates as it was too hard to figure out waht new games got reviewed. Tom is an awesome guy.

Dracula68

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"] There was a reason why Bethesda didn't send out the PS3 copy of the game to reviewers.S0lidSnake

Yup. This needs to be posted again and again in this thread. Bethesda held the PS3 version back, and misled the reviewers. The sad thing is that the whole industry fell for it.

Do you have an offical link where it states that?

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

Oh yeah, they were easily the biggest site that actually listened and didn't act like they are above us when we asked. I also got them to change that awful "most populart" review list to a reverse chon index with dates as it was too hard to figure out waht new games got reviewed. Tom is an awesome guy.

S0lidSnake

I e-mail them :P I work for CBS!

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"] Heh.. no it doesn't. I can't say how well it plays with the patch now but it was damn frustrating to play the game because I experienced so much framerate drops and game freezing quite often. I was about 50 some hours into the game and had a save file of 11 mb too. I know I'm not the only one who has problems with the PS3 version. S0lidSnake

The patch came out like 3 days ago, and even before it I didn't have any framerate issues. Sure it dropped when I would enter town but it was only for a few seconds, sucks that your having issues (if you really are) but I don't see anything wrong with it. DF is just making more anti PS3 biased stuff again, just like Lens of Truth or N4G (a PS3 bias site)

How long have yhou played the game? How big is you save file? Did you even click on the link I provided? DId you watch the vids which clearly show the game running at 14 fps and dropping down to 0?

I have an 11MB save file with a level 37 charecter and about 40-50 hours in the game. No issues at all, this is the same **** they do with every multiplat that comes out, first fanboys go to DF and believe their bias then they go bash the other version even though differences are minimal and not even noticble. Same thing happened with RDR and people were posting videos about how the frame rateand gameplay were terrible on PS3 but guess what? I never ran into those issues once and you know why? Because those were either fake videos and weren't real or were isolated instances and don't apply to most people. I have about 7 or 8 people on my PSN friend list that play Skyrim and none of them have issues either.

Your trying to make something out of nothing.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Glad I picked up a 360 earlier this year, that's for sure. I just knew Skyrim was going to be trash on the PS3. Bethesda can't program for it to save their lives.

Dracula68

In what way? I haven't heard of the framerate issues for the 360, but then again, I've only played for around 20 hours or so. I know there are quest glitches and other issues.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"] There was a reason why Bethesda didn't send out the PS3 copy of the game to reviewers.Dracula68

Yup. This needs to be posted again and again in this thread. Bethesda held the PS3 version back, and misled the reviewers. The sad thing is that the whole industry fell for it.

Do you have an offical link where it states that?

Just pointing out to the people blamming this on Sony, Bethesda said that the PC is a "pain" to work on.

Just pointing out to the people blamming this on Sony, Bethesda said that the PC is a "pain" to work on.

crimsonman1245

I remember that. Makes me wonder if Bethesda should just design the game concept and then outsource the actual coding to someone like Rockstar.

Every reviewer had either a 360 copy or a PC copy. Most didn't get the PS3 copy until after launch. Even Kevin VanOrd said on his Twitter account that he didn't have the PS3 version when reviewing the game. Not even sure he played the PS3 version when it came out tbh.ExoticAnimal

Well I do hope he didn't place a review under PS3 if that was truly the case? So no link?

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]really, if the reviewer only plays the 360 version then they should only review that version. im not saying that every multiplat needs 2 or 3 reviews, but its presumptuous to say that the 360 performance will speak for the ps3 performance or vice versa. however, its also kind of hard to get an idea of this specific game's performance because many of the issues are more serious after large amounts of total playtime and many users will get what they want out of the game after 40 hours. still, i will say that i have more issues with the controls of skyrim than i do with those of skyward sword.Shame-usBlackley

I think reviewers should be REQUIRED to post a screen grab of their save file and achievement/trophy profile for any game they review.

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Yup. This needs to be posted again and again in this thread. Bethesda held the PS3 version back, and misled the reviewers. The sad thing is that the whole industry fell for it.

ExoticAnimal

Do you have an offical link where it states that?

So doesn't mean anything, your just speculating. If you don't know than don't assume it's fact, soemtimes they only give them one version like LA Noire was reviewed on PS3 first but the 360 version turned out fine.

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"]Every reviewer had either a 360 copy or a PC copy. Most didn't get the PS3 copy until after launch. Even Kevin VanOrd said on his Twitter account that he didn't have the PS3 version when reviewing the game. Not even sure he played the PS3 version when it came out tbh.Dracula68

Well I do hope he didn't place a review under PS3 if that was truly the case? So no link?

What exactly did you want link of?ExoticAnimal

Did Bethesda ever announce anywhere they ONLY sent out 360 and PC copies?

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"]What exactly did you want link of?Dracula68

Did Bethesda ever announce anywhere they ONLY sent out 360 and PC copies?

Bethesda tells me they didn't have any PS3 versions at the time review copies were being sent out.psxextreme

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"]

Did Bethesda ever announce anywhere they ONLY sent out 360 and PC copies?

ExoticAnimal

Bethesda tells me they didn't have any PS3 versions at the time review copies were being sent out.psxextreme

Playstation Magazine had the PS3 version. A few don't doesn't mean everyone.....

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"]

Did Bethesda ever announce anywhere they ONLY sent out 360 and PC copies?

ExoticAnimal

Bethesda tells me they didn't have any PS3 versions at the time review copies were being sent out.psxextreme

Thanks! Yeah I saw PSXtreme and just removed that review before I logged into GS but now I am thinking about removing all of them.

Playstation Magazine had the PS3 version. A few don't doesn't mean everyone.....

ShadowMoses900

Well how long do you think a reviewer should play a game before they review one? I am thinking one week after release to play the "retail" version since that is apparently the only one any site/mag could have played. If I go by that I only have 2 sites that fit in that time range...lol Not worth keeping just two reviews.

Playstation Magazine had the PS3 version. A few don't doesn't mean everyone.....

ShadowMoses900

Just pointing out to the people blamming this on Sony, Bethesda said that the PC is a "pain" to work on.

crimsonman1245

I'm in over sixty hours and not experiencing problems anywhere near that bad, in fact my problems are significantly lesser than Dracula68 is having on the 360 version at a similar high amount of game time. Varying factors can come into play to give different gamers different experiences, so all the people taking immature potshots at each other insinuating lies/fanboyism need to chill out. If anything, Drac's issues with the 360 version, chronicled in the official thread, highlight that neither the 360 nor PS3 versions were played long enough to really give a through review.

I like Kevin, but he was obviously rushing to meet a deadline to give ANY version a 9.0, which none of them deserved. Both console versions should have scored no higher than a 7.5 at best. (PC, maybe a 8.0 or so) Great game, but way too many issues in ALL versions to be able to score in the upper echelon. This isn't just GS either, most every site overscored what is, for all intents and purposes, a beta test. A great beta test, but a beta test all the same.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The patch came out like 3 days ago, and even before it I didn't have any framerate issues. Sure it dropped when I would enter town but it was only for a few seconds, sucks that your having issues (if you really are) but I don't see anything wrong with it. DF is just making more anti PS3 biased stuff again, just like Lens of Truth or N4G (a PS3 bias site)

ShadowMoses900

How long have yhou played the game? How big is you save file? Did you even click on the link I provided? DId you watch the vids which clearly show the game running at 14 fps and dropping down to 0?

I have an 11MB save file with a level 37 charecter and about 40-50 hours in the game. No issues at all, this is the same **** they do with every multiplat that comes out, first fanboys go to DF and believe their bias then they go bash the other version even though differences are minimal and not even noticble. Same thing happened with RDR and people were posting videos about how the frame rateand gameplay were terrible on PS3 but guess what? I never ran into those issues once and you know why? Because those were either fake videos and weren't real or were isolated instances and don't apply to most people. I have about 7 or 8 people on my PSN friend list that play Skyrim and none of them have issues either.

Your trying to make something out of nothing.

You didnt answer three of my questinos. If you had read the article, you would see that it clearly states that save files for over 65 hours are what cause issues. Especially when they are the same save file used.

If you had bothered to watch the vids, you would see that there is no DF bias but actual facts of the game running at a pathetic framerate. Which drops down to 0 whenever you encounter an NPC.

You can choose to believe in conspiracy theories and fanboy bias or you can look at the facts presented to you in video form. But dont say im trying to make something out of nothing when Bethesda forums are full with posts of such behavior, same with neogaf and hell, we even had a thread in this same forum. Wake up.