Fallout: New Vegas for the PS3...

[Ghost Machine]

Well, I'm very disappointed. Even after Bethesda moved on to Skyrim, F:NV is still suppressed in lag even with all the patches set up for the PS3. Considering it's the only way I can play NV, I really want to stop just because of the HORRIBLE frame rate drops and the lag from fast travelling, VATS, and just regular gameplay.

I traded Fallout 3 for New Vegas a while back, so I can't resort to that anymore. (And for the record, Fallout 3 ran very well on the PS3, even with DLC's installed.) I have the original games on my laptop, but I've played through them so many damn times I don't even know if I want to touch them for a long while. I can't run mods on my laptop either.

All I can say to Bethesda is a heart-felt fuck you for caring about their fans on the Playstation. I have a feeling they assume we're inferior in a console war sort of way. Just sayin'.

By the way, this is my first official post on the forum. I apologize if I've done anything wrong so far.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I am not trying to be a smart arse but in general it's better to play games like these on the PC.
If the official support is terrible there is still chance that any tech savy modder might fix up some of the technical problems to make games run better.

Also, you may have been lucky with Fallout 3 because Bethesda is notorious for released badly optimized games and cringy on fixing up any problems their software causes when it doesn't play nice with another.

 

[Wintermind]

It's not even an issue of support, it's because the console companies are asses about releasing patches. Sony less so than Microsoft, but still. Patching for PCs is much easier, especially when you take in that us can makes mods to fix things, but even then, it's much easier to push a patch out through Steam than through XBL or PSN.

 

[Ghost Machine]

I am not trying to be a smart arse but in general it's better to play games like these on the PC.
If the official support is terrible there is still chance that any tech savy modder might fix up some of the technical problems to make games run better.

Also, you may have been lucky with Fallout 3 because Bethesda is notorious for released badly optimized games and cringy on fixing up any problems their software causes when it doesn't play nice with another.

It's okay. Your not being an arse at all. In fact I got the same notion once I started lurking around the web for information on which is better to play the game on. Shame I didn't buy the game for PC to start with. Then again, shame on me for having not enough space on my computer to even hold it. Yea, it's become THAT old.

On the contrary, I always figured PC gamer's had bragging rights when it came to mods. 'Mods', if you would call them that, for the PS3 are simply outrageous and nothing like PC mods.

 

[Ghost Machine]

It's not even an issue of support, it's because the console companies are asses about releasing patches. Sony less so than Microsoft, but still. Patching for PCs is much easier, especially when you take in that us can makes mods to fix things, but even then, it's much easier to push a patch out through Steam than through XBL or PSN.

Ha! It's no secret that console companies really like to take their sweet time pushing official patches out to their consumers in a very slow manner. Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't actually care for their costumers, considering they already act like that. The only true time they would ever care for us is when something severe, like hacking, becomes a issue.Other than that, they just sit there and make sure that everyone buys and everyone plays. Even if the issue is small, they don't care. It's not their game, so it's not their concern. Just it's money matters.

I'm just glad that there are people out there that take dedication to a game serious enough to heal through it's bugs and glitches. Patch mods do prove to be a helping hand a lot. Just wish they were transferable to console systems via thumb drive, which is how we console gamer's get our 'mods'.

 

[Wintermind]

I don't know about Sny, but Microsoft charges for patches (or title updates, as they prefer to call them.) and has limits on how often that they'll allow a developer/publisher to push out updates. Ostensibly, it's to encourage developers to release finished games and 'good' patches that don't break stuff.

This isn't really having the desired effect.

 

[Ghost Machine]

Sony doesn't charge for patches thankfully. Instead they force-feed it to you by keeping you offline until you download and install the damn thing. This mostly applies to online games like Call of Duty or Battlefield. Otherwise, patches for single player non-online games like New Vegas are considerably optional at the moment of notice... until you become irritated with all the horrid bugs and glitches and so forth. Still not as bad as having it forced up your ass if you want to continue enjoying it.

As for Microsoft's little 'stress-for-effect' tactic, I'm not as surprised that they would practice something like this. They do after all make you pay to play online with Live. If they were to push poorly done updates that were uncaringly rushed or unhelpful to a users gameplay, then their costumers would see every reason to drop them and move on to better services like free online usage, Sony's only effective weapon against Microsoft. Sadly since you stated this, I see that not even players are unable to detect these faults and report them to see they correctly re-execute the intended effect. I guess even Microsoft is trending carelessly as bad as Sony ever could. And yet Sony is yet to show their pure worst.

 

[TorontoReign]

Problem with PS3 and Bethesda is the games aren't optimized for a PS3... Actually, they are worse on those systems than any other.

 

[Ghost Machine]

Problem with PS3 and Bethesda is the games aren't optimized for a PS3... Actually, they are worse on those systems than any other.

Oblivion and Fallout 3 run very smoothly with not as much errors that occur during anytime of gameplay. Meanwhile, Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim are almost the opposite of this. Why? I say its all the game data storage it takes up. Also, there's a lot of features that both games have that surpass the previous games old features. That being said, there's more locations, NPC's, and everything else noticeable. The more everything you have the more data storage you take up. The PS3 was NEVER made to be good at holding nor handling games that advance their own performance expectations.

 

[TorontoReign]

Problem with PS3 and Bethesda is the games aren't optimized for a PS3... Actually, they are worse on those systems than any other.

Oblivion and Fallout 3 run very smoothly with not as much errors that occur during anytime of gameplay. Meanwhile, Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim are almost the opposite of this. Why? I say its all the game data storage it takes up. Also, there's a lot of features that both games have that surpass the previous games old features. That being said, there's more locations, NPC's, and everything else noticeable. The more everything you have the more data storage you take up. The PS3 was NEVER made to be good at holding nor handling games that advance their own performance expectations.

Well, Bethesda has commented on this, and it had something to do with the points you brought up. Not to mention the Gamebro engine is a giant fucking turd to begin with.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

It's not even an issue of support, it's because the console companies are asses about releasing patches. Sony less so than Microsoft, but still. Patching for PCs is much easier, especially when you take in that us can makes mods to fix things, but even then, it's much easier to push a patch out through Steam than through XBL or PSN.

Ha! It's no secret that console companies really like to take their sweet time pushing official patches out to their consumers in a very slow manner. Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't actually care for their costumers, considering they already act like that.

For what it's worth Sony made a patch for Bayonetta, a Sega game that wasn't exactly a system seller.

 

[Ghost Machine]

It's not even an issue of support, it's because the console companies are asses about releasing patches. Sony less so than Microsoft, but still. Patching for PCs is much easier, especially when you take in that us can makes mods to fix things, but even then, it's much easier to push a patch out through Steam than through XBL or PSN.

Ha! It's no secret that console companies really like to take their sweet time pushing official patches out to their consumers in a very slow manner. Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't actually care for their costumers, considering they already act like that.

For what it's worth Sony made a patch for Bayonetta, a Sega game that wasn't exactly a system seller.

That could be from demand though, not wishful thinking. Just because a game doesn't sell well with the mainstream market doesn't mean it won't sell well with long time die-hard fans of the game series. And true fans of any game series would do their best as a whole to demand better, in this case making it the patch.

So if Fallout isn't mean't to be a system seller, who says there won't be people who still buy it, let alone care for it? So far, Xbox has bragging rights to better system handling even without DLC's or patches installed. All I'm complaining about is that Bethesda should be considerate and make PS3 copies of their games, specifically Fallout, equal with the Xbox in performance.

 

[mvm900]

But they have to work within the capabilities of the consoles... Don't they?

 

[TorontoReign]

It's not even an issue of support, it's because the console companies are asses about releasing patches. Sony less so than Microsoft, but still. Patching for PCs is much easier, especially when you take in that us can makes mods to fix things, but even then, it's much easier to push a patch out through Steam than through XBL or PSN.

Ha! It's no secret that console companies really like to take their sweet time pushing official patches out to their consumers in a very slow manner. Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't actually care for their costumers, considering they already act like that.

For what it's worth Sony made a patch for Bayonetta, a Sega game that wasn't exactly a system seller.

That could be from demand though, not wishful thinking. Just because a game doesn't sell well with the mainstream market doesn't mean it won't sell well with long time die-hard fans of the game series. And true fans of any game series would do their best as a whole to demand better, in this case making it the patch.

So if Fallout isn't mean't to be a system seller, who says there won't be people who still buy it, let alone care for it? So far, Xbox has bragging rights to better system handling even without DLC's or patches installed. All I'm complaining about is that Bethesda should be considerate and make PS3 copies of their games, specifically Fallout, equal with the Xbox in performance.

The problem is the PS3 hates the Gamebro engine. Bethesda has no way of fixing the problems with it. It's a console problem.

 

[Ghost Machine]

It's not even an issue of support, it's because the console companies are asses about releasing patches. Sony less so than Microsoft, but still. Patching for PCs is much easier, especially when you take in that us can makes mods to fix things, but even then, it's much easier to push a patch out through Steam than through XBL or PSN.

Ha! It's no secret that console companies really like to take their sweet time pushing official patches out to their consumers in a very slow manner. Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't actually care for their costumers, considering they already act like that.

For what it's worth Sony made a patch for Bayonetta, a Sega game that wasn't exactly a system seller.

That could be from demand though, not wishful thinking. Just because a game doesn't sell well with the mainstream market doesn't mean it won't sell well with long time die-hard fans of the game series. And true fans of any game series would do their best as a whole to demand better, in this case making it the patch.

So if Fallout isn't mean't to be a system seller, who says there won't be people who still buy it, let alone care for it? So far, Xbox has bragging rights to better system handling even without DLC's or patches installed. All I'm complaining about is that Bethesda should be considerate and make PS3 copies of their games, specifically Fallout, equal with the Xbox in performance.

The problem is the PS3 hates the Gamebro engine. Bethesda has no way of fixing the problems with it. It's a console problem.

Eh, you're probably right. It's still unfair. I have to live with this until one of the following events happens:
A.) I get my computer to run both Fallout 3 and New Vegas
B.) I purchase a new computer
Either way I still plan on becoming a mod author once one of these happen.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

It's not even an issue of support, it's because the console companies are asses about releasing patches. Sony less so than Microsoft, but still. Patching for PCs is much easier, especially when you take in that us can makes mods to fix things, but even then, it's much easier to push a patch out through Steam than through XBL or PSN.

Ha! It's no secret that console companies really like to take their sweet time pushing official patches out to their consumers in a very slow manner. Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't actually care for their costumers, considering they already act like that.

For what it's worth Sony made a patch for Bayonetta, a Sega game that wasn't exactly a system seller.

That could be from demand though, not wishful thinking. Just because a game doesn't sell well with the mainstream market doesn't mean it won't sell well with long time die-hard fans of the game series. And true fans of any game series would do their best as a whole to demand better, in this case making it the patch.

So if Fallout isn't mean't to be a system seller, who says there won't be people who still buy it, let alone care for it? So far, Xbox has bragging rights to better system handling even without DLC's or patches installed. All I'm complaining about is that Bethesda should be considerate and make PS3 copies of their games, specifically Fallout, equal with the Xbox in performance.

Bayonetta on PS3 sold 500~600k copies, are you telling me that people made so much noise for that game that Sony decided to make a patch themselves, but they did nothing for huge sellers with big advertized problems like FO3 and New Vegas?

 

[Wintermind]

The problem is the PS3 hates the Gamebro engine. Bethesda has no way of fixing the problems with it. It's a console problem.

The PS3 hates like every goddamned engine not designed for it and it's whackass GPU. This is why PS3 exclusive games come out amazingly graphically, but most other games just look moderately the same/better than the xbox version.

 

[SnapSlav]

The same could be said of ANY system, Wintermind. Remember the olden days of "Mac gaming", which was a joke because there WAS no such thing for several decades? Trying to take the same code for a PC title and slapping it onto a disc and inserting that disc into a Mac and getting it to work properly would result in SOME form of exploring that code, but in very ugly, terrible way. Of course games made FOR the PS3 function like a dream whereas games not made for it don't run so well. That's not a problem with the console, it's a problem with the developers of the product and their efforts (or lack thereof) to port it properly TO the console. Many games were ported like shit to the PS3, but the same could be said of the 360, the Wii, and PCs. Hell, you could even argue that the severe limitations of the recent Fallout titles are a direct result of developers not caring to "properly port" a system designed for consoles onto a (potentially) superior system. The PS3 is a fucking sexy-ass system, and it's brilliantly designed. Devs are just lazy as balls and don't port their projects to it a lot of the time, because Westerners don't care for the system like they do the 360.

 

[Ghost Machine]

It's not even an issue of support, it's because the console companies are asses about releasing patches. Sony less so than Microsoft, but still. Patching for PCs is much easier, especially when you take in that us can makes mods to fix things, but even then, it's much easier to push a patch out through Steam than through XBL or PSN.

Ha! It's no secret that console companies really like to take their sweet time pushing official patches out to their consumers in a very slow manner. Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't actually care for their costumers, considering they already act like that.

For what it's worth Sony made a patch for Bayonetta, a Sega game that wasn't exactly a system seller.

That could be from demand though, not wishful thinking. Just because a game doesn't sell well with the mainstream market doesn't mean it won't sell well with long time die-hard fans of the game series. And true fans of any game series would do their best as a whole to demand better, in this case making it the patch.

So if Fallout isn't mean't to be a system seller, who says there won't be people who still buy it, let alone care for it? So far, Xbox has bragging rights to better system handling even without DLC's or patches installed. All I'm complaining about is that Bethesda should be considerate and make PS3 copies of their games, specifically Fallout, equal with the Xbox in performance.

Bayonetta on PS3 sold 500~600k copies, are you telling me that people made so much noise for that game that Sony decided to make a patch themselves, but they did nothing for huge sellers with big advertized problems like FO3 and New Vegas?

Yes. Keep in mind that Sony was only responsible for pushing the patches to the players, not making them. Yet if Sony was to have made any patches, then matters would have changed, drastically. I doubt Sony would have wasted their time responding to the needs of New Vegas fans (aside from being yelled at to release DLC's on their online market on time) by gaining some time and effort to assemble a patch themselves, considering that they primarily focus on both PlayStation exclusives and popular mainstream games like Call of Duty and Battlefield. Hearing Sony come out of the woodwork to work on a game that can't propel itself to buck up against anything more popular than it is fairly uncommon, almost rare in some cases. Also, Bayonetta is a game developed by Platinum Games, a Japanese company. This could mean that they may have had connections to officials in Japan working with Sony and may have dealt privately on the affair of maintaining the game's fixable needs. I don't truly know if this did truly, but it is very plausible. It's just a theory per say.

 

[Ghost Machine]

The problem is the PS3 hates the Gamebro engine. Bethesda has no way of fixing the problems with it. It's a console problem.

The PS3 hates like every goddamned engine not designed for it and it's whackass GPU. This is why PS3 exclusive games come out amazingly graphically, but most other games just look moderately the same/better than the xbox version.

That's a given. PS3 exclusive games are expected by PlayStation to meet their criteria for all tiers, including graphical output. The same applies to Microsoft having expectations with Xbox exclusive games and all their criteria needs.