Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[612DwarfAvenue]

Dragons will respawn infinitely at dragon roosts and you will encounter an infinite number of dragons randomly. The fact that you couldn't absorb its soul is a bug; it's a coincidence that it came up just then.

I thought it was intentional that you can't get souls off Dragons from roosts you've already dealt with? Or was i misinformed?

[Rose]

Dragons will respawn infinitely at dragon roosts and you will encounter an infinite number of dragons randomly. The fact that you couldn't absorb its soul is a bug; it's a coincidence that it came up just then.

I thought it was intentional that you can't get souls off Dragons from roosts you've already dealt with? Or was i misinformed?

I've gottan about half a dozen souls from the same dragon roost. Also about 4 bounties.

[Rex_Nex]

I hope Bethesda doesnt pull a FONV and ignore the PS3s issues for this game. They really bombed the performance; its like they didnt optimize it for the ps3s structure at all. Low FPS and freezing on top of all the usual bethesda issues. To really "fix" the issue, I fear the entire engine would need to be reworked. The chance of that happening for a already released game is slim to none.

It really sucks, as the PS3 is a great system when games are made properly for it. Beth is taking a lot of heat for its PS3 port of Skyrim, PS Magazine itself made "Skyrim Scandal" part of their front page.

[Rose]

I blame the xbox.

[forsaken1111]

I blame the general trend towards console adaptation. If the thing was built for the PC and then ported properly to each console, they'd have paid proper attention to each platform rather than trying to make one game that works on all three.

[Leatra]

Game is built for consoles. Just look at the UI.

I was complaining a lot about how much PC port of Skyrim sucked but I guess PS3 players has more right to complain than PC players.

As I always said, money comes from console games not PC games. I got used to deceivements of Bethesda. Once you pay for their game they are done with you if you don't sue them or something.

[piecewise]

I blame the general trend towards console adaptation. If the thing was built for the PC and then ported properly to each console, they'd have paid proper attention to each platform rather than trying to make one game that works on all three.

Sorry, but how does that make any sense? If it was built for pc they would spend time and adapt it to the consoles better; what makes you think thats true? The game was built for the 360, and then ported onto ps3 and pc and they were pretty lazy on both versions. Why would a different starting point illicit a different work ethic? More then likely it would simply mean bad console games, and since consoles are the majority of the sales (pc accounts for something like 15%), that would be unacceptable. Bethesda knew they were going to get the biggest chunk of their sales from the 360, so they designed the game around it and quickly ported it to the other platforms. Makes sense, business wise.

What really bugs me, being a ps3 player, is that they knew this game was going to have problems on the ps3, problems identical to those experienced by many players on the other gamebyro engine games like fallout 3 and oblivion. Those games a similar frame rate and bug issues as the save file became larger, but Bethesda washed their hands of it and  pretty much said "You're shit out of luck, buy it on 360". But, in those cases, the ps3 port was kind of an  afterthought, so I could understand why they didn't care as much, though it was still a dick move. But in the case of skyrim, the ps3 version was released at the same time, amidst assurances that it would run just as good or better then the 360 one. And this is the result.

At some point you have to look at the fact that they refused to show anything but 360 footage, sent out only 360 versions to be reviewed before launch, and then did everything they could to downplay the situation on the ps3 (even in the patch that was supposed to fix the problems they described the fact that your game eventually became unplayable to pretty much everyone as a "occasional problem") and come to the conclusion that they just don't care. Either they can't or don't want to fix the problem, and none of the lamenting of customers will do a thing.

By the way, the new patch thats supposed to fix everything is only a band-aid solution, giving you a few dozen more hours worth of play before the lag begins again. I'm sorry if this all seems like an angry rant or a venting session but...I want to play my game god damn it, it's a good game.

For me it's the Mage's college which seems to draw them. Almost everytime I go there, there's a new ancient dragon all ready to try and fry me. Unfortunately for it, my master level enchanting and black smithing skills mean that I have 100% reduction in cost to both destruction and restoration skills on my Daedric armor. Considering it's attacks are magic based and my wards never run out of juice, the fights have become a bit token at this point.

Dragons will respawn infinitely at dragon roosts and you will encounter an infinite number of dragons randomly. The fact that you couldn't absorb its soul is a bug; it's a coincidence that it came up just then.

I thought it was intentional that you can't get souls off Dragons from roosts you've already dealt with? Or was i misinformed?

I've gottan about half a dozen souls from the same dragon roost. Also about 4 bounties.

[forsaken1111]

I blame the general trend towards console adaptation. If the thing was built for the PC and then ported properly to each console, they'd have paid proper attention to each platform rather than trying to make one game that works on all three.

Sorry, but how does that make any sense? If it was built for pc they would spend time and adapt it to the consoles better; what makes you think thats true? The game was built for the 360, and then ported onto ps3 and pc and they were pretty lazy on both versions. Why would a different starting point illicit a different work ethic? More then likely it would simply mean bad console games, and since consoles are the majority of the sales (pc accounts for something like 15%), that would be unacceptable. Bethesda knew they were going to get the biggest chunk of their sales from the 360, so they designed the game around it and quickly ported it to the other platforms. Makes sense, business wise.

Because if they built a separate version for each system then they could focus on the issues endemic to each platform rather than doing what they did which was to make compromises and try to shoehorn one version onto all 3 platforms while ignoring the issues that cropped up.

[piecewise]

I blame the general trend towards console adaptation. If the thing was built for the PC and then ported properly to each console, they'd have paid proper attention to each platform rather than trying to make one game that works on all three.

Sorry, but how does that make any sense? If it was built for pc they would spend time and adapt it to the consoles better; what makes you think thats true? The game was built for the 360, and then ported onto ps3 and pc and they were pretty lazy on both versions. Why would a different starting point illicit a different work ethic? More then likely it would simply mean bad console games, and since consoles are the majority of the sales (pc accounts for something like 15%), that would be unacceptable. Bethesda knew they were going to get the biggest chunk of their sales from the 360, so they designed the game around it and quickly ported it to the other platforms. Makes sense, business wise.

Because if they built a separate version for each system then they could focus on the issues endemic to each platform rather than doing what they did which was to make compromises and try to shoehorn one version onto all 3 platforms while ignoring the issues that cropped up.

But they're not going to build a separate version for each system, regardless of the system they start on; they're going to port it in. Like I said, I don't know why you think starting on pc would cause them to completely change their work ethic and business policies from what they are now, on the 360. We'd just end up with a good pc game and two poorly optimized console games with weird interfaces.

[forsaken1111]

But they're not going to build a separate version for each system, regardless of the system they start on; they're going to port it in. Like I said, I don't know why you think starting on pc would cause them to completely change their work ethic and business policies from what they are now, on the 360. We'd just end up with a good pc game and two poorly optimized console games with weird interfaces.

This doesn't bother me. My objective was to stop PC games from suffering because of shitty console specs. Yes, I am selfish but Skyrim is a mess because they built it for hardware released in 2005 to be navigable by a controller.

[piecewise]

But they're not going to build a separate version for each system, regardless of the system they start on; they're going to port it in. Like I said, I don't know why you think starting on pc would cause them to completely change their work ethic and business policies from what they are now, on the 360. We'd just end up with a good pc game and two poorly optimized console games with weird interfaces.

This doesn't bother me. My objective was to stop PC games from suffering because of shitty console specs. Yes, I am selfish but Skyrim is a mess because they built it for hardware released in 2005 to be navigable by a controller.

Welp, hate to tell ya, but that isn't going to happen. Pc is a tiny market compared to consoles, so much so that bethesda could pretty much just stop publishing for pc all together and not see much of a drop in profits. You're just not a priority. Neither is ps3, not really. We're all insignificant beneath the might of the 360's sales numbers.

[Jopax]

That freaking necromancer in Meridia's temple is so freaking annoying, god damned bastard and his frost breath shout that isn't really a shout but a spell that murders me in two hits while stopping me dead in my tracks, and the fucker is pretty much imune to my ice powers and shouts, screw that bitch, I don't need that sword anyway XP

[forsaken1111]

But they're not going to build a separate version for each system, regardless of the system they start on; they're going to port it in. Like I said, I don't know why you think starting on pc would cause them to completely change their work ethic and business policies from what they are now, on the 360. We'd just end up with a good pc game and two poorly optimized console games with weird interfaces.

This doesn't bother me. My objective was to stop PC games from suffering because of shitty console specs. Yes, I am selfish but Skyrim is a mess because they built it for hardware released in 2005 to be navigable by a controller.

Welp, hate to tell ya, but that isn't going to happen. Pc is a tiny market compared to consoles, so much so that bethesda could pretty much just stop publishing for pc all together and not see much of a drop in profits. You're just not a priority. Neither is ps3, not really. We're all insignificant beneath the might of the 360's sales numbers.

Oh I know. I'm just bitter.

[nenjin]

The irony is that the 360 is closer to a PC than it wants to admit. It really sucks for the PS3, since its architecture is further from the PC.

[jmancube]

To be honest, I don't think it's correct stating that the PC market is tiny compared to the consoles. Yes, they likely had more purchases, but for this game there was a large amount of PC purchases as well. When it's the best selling game on steam for months, I wouldn't exactly claim it being a "tiny" market, it demanded enough purchases that it should receive better attention than it did. A customer is a customer, regardless of what platform they bought it on.