Oh ...... "Argh!" - Fallout 3

The one game I really look forward to this fall, all of the FPS I can skip .. and the PS3 exclusives don't appeal

my PC is poor, no 360. I barely play the PS3 at all - (Play violin in background .. :cry:)

So not only does the PS3 not get DLC, now I find out that PS3 version has Tech difficulties !!!!!!

"Argh!!!" - anyone else pissed?

Another Orange Box? So you guys called Valve lazy, gonna call Bethesda lazy too?

There's definitely something not right...

I'm messing around. But I did have it preordered for PS3, glad I saw this. Better go change it now.

Another Orange Box? So you guys called Valve lazy, gonna call Bethesda lazy too?

There's definitely something not right...

I'm messing around. But I did have it preordered for PS3, glad I saw this. Better go change it now.

Mau-Justice

If the game is technically not on par with a PC or 360, then yeah, I'd call the dev lazy. It makes sense if you think about it too. The dev probably thinks that the game will sell more PC and 360 units than the PS3 version, with that in mind they probably have larger teams working on the PC and 360 versions than the PS3's. This is just my opinion but it makes sense, especially considering that many other devs can make games (especially multi-plat games) that are technically on par with the other consoles. If those other devs can do it, why cant Valve or Bethesda?

Another Orange Box? So you guys called Valve lazy, gonna call Bethesda lazy too?

There's definitely something not right...

I'm messing around. But I did have it preordered for PS3, glad I saw this. Better go change it now.

Mau-Justice

It's pretty obvious what is happening in these cases. If it's multiplat for only 360 and PS3 then they develop it on the 360 first because it's fairly straitforward. They try to port it to the PS3 and realize that the way they architected the engine won't work very well on the PS3.

It's even worse when a game starts on the PC. It gets ported to the 360 because it doesn't take them much time at all (with the exception of reducing the assets, cutting back on effects, etc...). Then it gets ported to the PS3. By this point there is not much to do. They've backed themselves into a corner. Do they spend extra money and time writing a new engine for the PS3, or do they do as much as they can to get stuff running that probably doesn't even use the SPU much?

There is nothing mysterious about it. Game studios that are multiplatform need to develop their engine first on the PS3. By that point things are pretty friendly to port back. What's interesting in this case is you have a PS3 game that runs great but might not run that great on the 360. So, don't consider this an attack on the 360, it can go both ways.

As next-gen systems stray further apart as far as how the internals work we'll probably see even worse translations the next cycle.

In an ideal world, a game studio would have a separate team per platform that share base assets. We'd get quality out of both systems for a multiplat then.

On a side-note, I really really really hate when people say that "devs are lazy". You obviously have no idea how things work in a business. It costs an incredible amount of money to make a game. This is why I mentioned it would be "ideal" if a company could have 2 or 3 teams. One for each platform. It is by FAR, NOT lazyness. 100's of people working 12-18 hour days slaving over a product that we hope you'll enjoy.

Call it a bad game, rip on the gameplay, rip on the graphics, but please, the whole "devs are lazy" thing is absolutely rediculous. It is insulting that some people even think all we do is press buttons and play games all day.

Constructive criticism is welcome, always. Disrespect for how much effort someone has put into something has no place here, talented devs or not (that's a different story). I'd like to see what these "not-lazy" posters could do with under a year to make a blockbuster. Maybe they are super gifted. Maybe they are merely pseudo-intellectials that spend their time putting down others because in some dream they were the best.

[QUOTE="Mau-Justice"]

Another Orange Box? So you guys called Valve lazy, gonna call Bethesda lazy too?

There's definitely something not right...

I'm messing around. But I did have it preordered for PS3, glad I saw this. Better go change it now.

PhysicsLCP

It's pretty obvious what is happening in these cases. If it's multiplat for only 360 and PS3 then they develop it on the 360 first because it's fairly straitforward. They try to port it to the PS3 and realize that the way they architected the engine won't work very well on the PS3.

It's even worse when a game starts on the PC. It gets ported to the 360 because it doesn't take them much time at all (with the exception of reducing the assets, cutting back on effects, etc...). Then it gets ported to the PS3. By this point there is not much to do. They've backed themselves into a corner. Do they spend extra money and time writing a new engine for the PS3, or do they do as much as they can to get stuff running that probably doesn't even use the SPU much?

There is nothing mysterious about it. Game studios that are multiplatform need to develop their engine first on the PS3. By that point things are pretty friendly to port back. What's interesting in this case is you have a PS3 game that runs great but might not run that great on the 360. So, don't consider this an attack on the 360, it can go both ways.

As next-gen systems stray further apart as far as how the internals work we'll probably see even worse translations the next cycle.

In an ideal world, a game studio would have a separate team per platform that share base assets. We'd get quality out of both systems for a multiplat then.

On a side-note, I really really really hate when people say that "devs are lazy". You obviously have no idea how things work in a business. It costs an incredible amount of money to make a game. This is why I mentioned it would be "ideal" if a company could have 2 or 3 teams. One for each platform. It is by FAR, NOT lazyness. 100's of people working 12-18 hour days slaving over a product that we hope you'll enjoy.

Call it a bad game, rip on the gameplay, rip on the graphics, but please, the whole "devs are lazy" thing is absolutely rediculous. It is insulting that some people even think all we do is press buttons and play games all day.

Constructive criticism is welcome, always. Disrespect for how much effort someone has put into something has no place here, talented devs or not (that's a different story). I'd like to see what these "not-lazy" posters could do with under a year to make a blockbuster. Maybe they are super gifted. Maybe they are merely pseudo-intellectials that spend their time putting down others because in some dream they were the best.

Listen to this guy... he knows what he's talking.

[QUOTE="Mau-Justice"]

Another Orange Box? So you guys called Valve lazy, gonna call Bethesda lazy too?

There's definitely something not right...

I'm messing around. But I did have it preordered for PS3, glad I saw this. Better go change it now.

PhysicsLCP

It's pretty obvious what is happening in these cases. If it's multiplat for only 360 and PS3 then they develop it on the 360 first because it's fairly straitforward. They try to port it to the PS3 and realize that the way they architected the engine won't work very well on the PS3.

It's even worse when a game starts on the PC. It gets ported to the 360 because it doesn't take them much time at all (with the exception of reducing the assets, cutting back on effects, etc...). Then it gets ported to the PS3. By this point there is not much to do. They've backed themselves into a corner. Do they spend extra money and time writing a new engine for the PS3, or do they do as much as they can to get stuff running that probably doesn't even use the SPU much?

There is nothing mysterious about it. Game studios that are multiplatform need to develop their engine first on the PS3. By that point things are pretty friendly to port back. What's interesting in this case is you have a PS3 game that runs great but might not run that great on the 360. So, don't consider this an attack on the 360, it can go both ways.

As next-gen systems stray further apart as far as how the internals work we'll probably see even worse translations the next cycle.

In an ideal world, a game studio would have a separate team per platform that share base assets. We'd get quality out of both systems for a multiplat then.

On a side-note, I really really really hate when people say that "devs are lazy". You obviously have no idea how things work in a business. It costs an incredible amount of money to make a game. This is why I mentioned it would be "ideal" if a company could have 2 or 3 teams. One for each platform. It is by FAR, NOT lazyness. 100's of people working 12-18 hour days slaving over a product that we hope you'll enjoy.

Call it a bad game, rip on the gameplay, rip on the graphics, but please, the whole "devs are lazy" thing is absolutely rediculous. It is insulting that some people even think all we do is press buttons and play games all day.

Constructive criticism is welcome, always. Disrespect for how much effort someone has put into something has no place here, talented devs or not (that's a different story). I'd like to see what these "not-lazy" posters could do with under a year to make a blockbuster. Maybe they are super gifted. Maybe they are merely pseudo-intellectials that spend their time putting down others because in some dream they were the best.

Maybe "lazy" is the wrong word to use in this situation. Perhaps "better time management business planning" could be used. Its not being disrespectful and I have the upmost respect for how much time and money goes into game development and I also understand how tedious and difficult it can be. The way I see it though is that if a dev is going to put all this time and especially all this money into a game's development why arent they going to do it "right." There are many devs that make broken games that either have bad gameplay mechanics or a slew of technical issues. It comes off as lazy because sometimes these issues are so blatantly obvious and yet they still go unfixed.

I'm not demanding perfection and I know mistakes will happen. But if you (a dev) are going to pump hundreds of hours and millions into a development and you know you'll be releasing it on multiple platforms, why cant you all take the EXTRA time to make sure it works properly for ALL platforms. If money and/or time is the issue, than simply just release it on one or two platforms at a time.

[QUOTE="PhysicsLCP"][QUOTE="Mau-Justice"]

Another Orange Box? So you guys called Valve lazy, gonna call Bethesda lazy too?

There's definitely something not right...

I'm messing around. But I did have it preordered for PS3, glad I saw this. Better go change it now.

Achaean728

It's pretty obvious what is happening in these cases. If it's multiplat for only 360 and PS3 then they develop it on the 360 first because it's fairly straitforward. They try to port it to the PS3 and realize that the way they architected the engine won't work very well on the PS3.

It's even worse when a game starts on the PC. It gets ported to the 360 because it doesn't take them much time at all (with the exception of reducing the assets, cutting back on effects, etc...). Then it gets ported to the PS3. By this point there is not much to do. They've backed themselves into a corner. Do they spend extra money and time writing a new engine for the PS3, or do they do as much as they can to get stuff running that probably doesn't even use the SPU much?

There is nothing mysterious about it. Game studios that are multiplatform need to develop their engine first on the PS3. By that point things are pretty friendly to port back. What's interesting in this case is you have a PS3 game that runs great but might not run that great on the 360. So, don't consider this an attack on the 360, it can go both ways.

As next-gen systems stray further apart as far as how the internals work we'll probably see even worse translations the next cycle.

In an ideal world, a game studio would have a separate team per platform that share base assets. We'd get quality out of both systems for a multiplat then.

On a side-note, I really really really hate when people say that "devs are lazy". You obviously have no idea how things work in a business. It costs an incredible amount of money to make a game. This is why I mentioned it would be "ideal" if a company could have 2 or 3 teams. One for each platform. It is by FAR, NOT lazyness. 100's of people working 12-18 hour days slaving over a product that we hope you'll enjoy.

Call it a bad game, rip on the gameplay, rip on the graphics, but please, the whole "devs are lazy" thing is absolutely rediculous. It is insulting that some people even think all we do is press buttons and play games all day.

Constructive criticism is welcome, always. Disrespect for how much effort someone has put into something has no place here, talented devs or not (that's a different story). I'd like to see what these "not-lazy" posters could do with under a year to make a blockbuster. Maybe they are super gifted. Maybe they are merely pseudo-intellectials that spend their time putting down others because in some dream they were the best.

Maybe "lazy" is the wrong word to use in this situation. Perhaps "better time management business planning" could be used. Its not being disrespectful and I have the upmost respect for how much time and money goes into game development and I also understand how tedious and difficult it can be. The way I see it though is that if a dev is going to put all this time and especially all this money into a game's development why arent they going to do it "right." There are many devs that make broken games that either have bad gameplay mechanics or a slew of technical issues. It comes off as lazy because sometimes these issues are so blatantly obvious and yet they still go unfixed.

I'm not demanding perfection and I know mistakes will happen. But if you (a dev) are going to pump hundreds of hours and millions into a development and you know you'll be releasing it on multiple platforms, why cant you all take the EXTRA time to make sure it works properly for ALL platforms. If money and/or time is the issue, than simply just release it on one or two platforms at a time.

I have a very simple answer for that. Publisher pressure. It's a game studio's worst enemy, well other than not having money :). Sometimes what the publisher wants in a particular time frame is not even possible without cutting corners. We have been completely blessed with a great publisher relationship. Some studios are just not that lucky and must get what most would find impossible done in a short amount of time. Also remember. A game that takes a year to come out actually boils down to around 8 months of development. Not much eh?

[QUOTE="Achaean728"][QUOTE="PhysicsLCP"][QUOTE="Mau-Justice"]

Another Orange Box? So you guys called Valve lazy, gonna call Bethesda lazy too?

There's definitely something not right...

I'm messing around. But I did have it preordered for PS3, glad I saw this. Better go change it now.

PhysicsLCP

It's pretty obvious what is happening in these cases. If it's multiplat for only 360 and PS3 then they develop it on the 360 first because it's fairly straitforward. They try to port it to the PS3 and realize that the way they architected the engine won't work very well on the PS3.

It's even worse when a game starts on the PC. It gets ported to the 360 because it doesn't take them much time at all (with the exception of reducing the assets, cutting back on effects, etc...). Then it gets ported to the PS3. By this point there is not much to do. They've backed themselves into a corner. Do they spend extra money and time writing a new engine for the PS3, or do they do as much as they can to get stuff running that probably doesn't even use the SPU much?

There is nothing mysterious about it. Game studios that are multiplatform need to develop their engine first on the PS3. By that point things are pretty friendly to port back. What's interesting in this case is you have a PS3 game that runs great but might not run that great on the 360. So, don't consider this an attack on the 360, it can go both ways.

As next-gen systems stray further apart as far as how the internals work we'll probably see even worse translations the next cycle.

In an ideal world, a game studio would have a separate team per platform that share base assets. We'd get quality out of both systems for a multiplat then.

On a side-note, I really really really hate when people say that "devs are lazy". You obviously have no idea how things work in a business. It costs an incredible amount of money to make a game. This is why I mentioned it would be "ideal" if a company could have 2 or 3 teams. One for each platform. It is by FAR, NOT lazyness. 100's of people working 12-18 hour days slaving over a product that we hope you'll enjoy.

Call it a bad game, rip on the gameplay, rip on the graphics, but please, the whole "devs are lazy" thing is absolutely rediculous. It is insulting that some people even think all we do is press buttons and play games all day.

Constructive criticism is welcome, always. Disrespect for how much effort someone has put into something has no place here, talented devs or not (that's a different story). I'd like to see what these "not-lazy" posters could do with under a year to make a blockbuster. Maybe they are super gifted. Maybe they are merely pseudo-intellectials that spend their time putting down others because in some dream they were the best.

Maybe "lazy" is the wrong word to use in this situation. Perhaps "better time management business planning" could be used. Its not being disrespectful and I have the upmost respect for how much time and money goes into game development and I also understand how tedious and difficult it can be. The way I see it though is that if a dev is going to put all this time and especially all this money into a game's development why arent they going to do it "right." There are many devs that make broken games that either have bad gameplay mechanics or a slew of technical issues. It comes off as lazy because sometimes these issues are so blatantly obvious and yet they still go unfixed.

I'm not demanding perfection and I know mistakes will happen. But if you (a dev) are going to pump hundreds of hours and millions into a development and you know you'll be releasing it on multiple platforms, why cant you all take the EXTRA time to make sure it works properly for ALL platforms. If money and/or time is the issue, than simply just release it on one or two platforms at a time.

I have a very simple answer for that. Publisher pressure. It's a game studio's worst enemy, well other than not having money :). Sometimes what the publisher wants in a particular time frame is not even possible without cutting corners. We have been completely blessed with a great publisher relationship. Some studios are just not that lucky and must get what most would find impossible done in a short amount of time. Also remember. A game that takes a year to come out actually boils down to around 8 months of development. Not much eh?

Hmm. I guess that makes sense then. I never really though publisher pressure was such a big deal (I knew they would pressure devs, but figured they were more lenient because they wanted the best finished product possible, since its their "name" on the line if it flops). Well, thanks for the clarification!

Does anyone here live near Bethesda Softworks? (just in case)Because, if this game is just a crappy port they are going to have some big problems.

And btw, I totally thing I'm the one that began the whole "devs are lazy" thing. At least, I got a lot of flack for saying it about the Valve to EA port of The Orange Box.

didnt bethesda make a really good looking version of oblivion, how could they mess it up-Y2J-

Thats really a shame. It was a game that everyone was waiting for, and now we get this news....:( Now I'm sad.

Thanks for the heads up though, I guess I'll be taking this one of my Christmas List :P

*revolts and sells consoles

Crippled, dumbed down, technical issues, missing features?!?!?!?! anyone else sick of multi plat ports yet?

I might as well go dump 4g's into a new pc..... :(

not to complain or anything but these ports are leaving a seriously bad taste in my mouth.......

This is BS!!! Why arent the developers making the PS3 their main console to develop with?!?!? Its the superior console!!!!hillelslovak

agreed i bought a PS3 to be on top of current console tech not live in the Xbox360's shadow

my hate for M$ is reaching new heights :)

Well there's still a whole week left and I wanna hear from IGN and GameSpot's reviews to see what they see.email2003

exactly. i searched on google for anything and found nothing, so i have no clue where you all are getting your information.

All right guys, this is what the fuss is all about:

This is from a PSM3 magazine in which the the situation started today about how a reviewer stated how the PS3 version is poorly compared to the PC & 360 version.

wow this really sux... Why does this happen to Sony?? :| No take that back... Why does this happen to all the million Playstation fans out there hoping for a Superb game that pretty much falls short of other consoles/Pc ??

I'm a little sad right now to be honest :| o well they said there working on something to get that fixed, so I'll wait for the problem to get fixed before I lay my $64.86 down.

WOW This sucks. When games come out for both platforms (PS3 and the 360) at the same time I usually get the PS3 version. When they cancel the PS3 version, I tend to not buy the game at all. I was planning on picking this game tomorrow for the PS3 and now....I might just pass all together. Any word on the Far Cry 2 versions?

I don't think that Bethesda would give us a crappy looking and dissapointing game on the PS3 by any means.It may be dulled down to an extent but by how much?I am sure when it comes out that it will be a great game and if there are any hiccups with it there will be a patch to iron them out.I am not going to worry,Bethesda will have done a good job with the time restraints and everything associated with a new game launch.Toxic8

I hope you're right.

This is BS!!! Why arent the developers making the PS3 their main console to develop with?!?!? Its the superior console!!!!hillelslovak

are you sure that wasnt some early code i remeber reading a PSW preview but it was all early code compared to the 360 and PC versons i dont think theyd do this thing on PS3 owners but if it is id blame it on the publisher and MS funding money for exclusive DLC which im sure they are working on now sony needs to pick its game up with 3rd partiesbeedouk

The one game I really look forward to this fall, all of the FPS I can skip .. and the PS3 exclusives don't appeal

my PC is poor, no 360. I barely play the PS3 at all - (Play violin in background .. :cry:)

So not only does the PS3 not get DLC, now I find out that PS3 version has Tech difficulties !!!!!!

"Argh!!!" - anyone else pissed?

soren008

tech dificulties wtf?? why?..what!? i dont believe it literally not after how much bethesda praised ps3.. and the dlc is temporarily exclusive ull dl it in time.. u should buy ps3 games then u will play *snaps violin in half* n also be happy u dont got no xbox:D

[QUOTE="soren008"]

The one game I really look forward to this fall, all of the FPS I can skip .. and the PS3 exclusives don't appeal

my PC is poor, no 360. I barely play the PS3 at all - (Play violin in background .. :cry:)

So not only does the PS3 not get DLC, now I find out that PS3 version has Tech difficulties !!!!!!

"Argh!!!" - anyone else pissed?

Meko_Gear_Solid

tech dificulties wtf?? why?..what!? i dont believe it literally not after how much bethesda praised ps3.. and the dlc is temporarily exclusive ull dl it in time.. u should buy ps3 games then u will play *snaps violin in half* n also be happy u dont got no xbox:D

I'm still unsure what all the fuss is about. This shouldn't be surprising anybody.

Just about every time a multiplat is developed on the 360 first, the 360 version looks and plays better and the PS3 version suffers in some way. The only exceptions are games like Bioshock and Oblivion, because the game studios took the extra time to re-work everything.

I agree with what's being said about developing for the PS3 first. When it's developed on the PS3 as the lead console then it looks and plays better on both systems. Burnout Paradise rocked the house on both consoles.

Eh, didn't want it anyway. The fighting looks pretty lame, and the turn-based, although better looking than the run and gun, looks easy. Also, the death animations just look ridiculous (awesome in an explosion), but I'm sorry, the shooting looks bland...and people don't explode when you shoot them with a shotgun. Limbs can come off, that is awesome, but they don't explode.Erik729

lol physco :P jk play gears or gears 2 then to end ur craving for death mr osama