I've noticed the exact opposite. I own the GOTY edition on PS3 and my sister has it on 360. The difference in frame rate is like night and day. Her copy runs WAY smoother than mine. There are always exceptions (Darksiders comes to mind), but in general I always get the 360 versions these days. That extra RAM makes a noticeable difference.

Thats totally false. You can make a top PC and it will last exactly the same time a console will last, and be much more usefull.
Is just that usually, PC users doesn t like to lag behind like console user do.
And on a PC you can resell your used part, but i don t know how the used market is on consoles.
I for example always buy at least 1/3 of my new PC (MTB,GFX,CPU and RAM) with the resselled pieces money. Usually 40 up to 50%.

from what ive read the reason they do this is because a) the PS3 is a little harder to design for because the hardware is just different with the cell processes and the SPE's... B) its easier to port games from the PS3 to the 360 because (i dont know why ive just read it more than once).... c) the ps3 is actually a better machine you just have to code the games the right way to make use of the hardware and logically its better to make the best game you can on the better machine and then port the game down to the 360 and compress it so it fits and tweek it so it runs... that way you get the best product you can have on both consoles with less work... the alternative is either make it on the 360 port it over and just make it work on the PS3 which will piss of the PS3 fans because they know the game could be better because they have ps3 exclusives that are better, or your have to completely re-work the code from the 360 version to the ps3 and then add in the stuff the ps3 can handle (1080p graphics better multitask-er so frame rate is faster)

I didn't actually suggest that most people should attempt to put a computer together, that'd be a bit disasterous

But seriously it's very easy to find out what sort of parts you should be looking for using google. It's research, there's nothing too complex you just need to work out what numbers are relatively good then use that as a bench mark when buying stuff. It's very time consuming if you're a little new to it but not complicated. It's about as mentally taxing as adding together a long string of numbers, not hard just long.

Piracy on the Wii is simple software modification that even has its own installer now, piracy on both the PSP and DS just require something to put the data on, the 360 requires some minor hardware modifications but nothing that will cost you any real amount of money, and simple enough that a 12 year old can do it, and the PS3 has recently been left effectively defenceless. Piracy on the consoles is trivial, and either free, or very cheap.

The "making a PC is too complex" argument is correct for the mentally challenged, but a few hours of research and a few hours to put it together really aren't much when you're talking about spending anywhere from 400 to 1500 dollars. I understand it's tempting to go with a console because you don't have to think, but to use that as an argument against PCs just compounds the illusion that most console gamers are 12.

mabye thats something else to look into, my comparison was on original games not the game of the year (we both got it before the GOY edition came out)
i do know that the 360 got a couple updates after the goy that the ps3 did not and i know some of them were bug fixes... perhaps that has something to do with it idk

thats why i said budget gaming PC not top of the line gaming PC... but it comes out to close to the same thing... if you make a budget one you ahve to buy a graphics card twice for $150 each... or if your making a top of the line one you buy one graphics card in the time frame but it costs $250-$300....

The thing you have to remember is that ALTHOUGH consoles ran JC2 and RDR, they didn't run them the way these games could have been run. Granted, RDR was designed for console, so it doesn't count, but Just cause 2 is graphically gimped on console. Draw distances are scaled down, textures are lower resolution, anti-aliasing and AF are turned off, the framerate is locked at 30, it doesn't run in true HD resolutions...

Most importantly perhaps, JC2 had PhysX on pc.

I could go on, but you get the idea; it's not that the game won't RUN on a console, it's that the consoles are preventing the evolution of the engine past a point where the current hardware can handle it.

I only played the demo of Just Cause 2, but I played a lot of Red Dead, and it seemed to me, for the most part the cities were fairly small, compared to what the Elder Scrolls cities are like. And the fact that in ES theres more clutter, and just heavier in general. Just my thoughts.

npcs daily schedules in oblivion were horribly simple....sleep, somtimes sit and eat and walk around all day... or stay in shops... is that so hard to consoles handle that? even in the sims 3 characters do more stuff during the day

At the end of the day,it doesn't matter,we know it's multi-platform.
What matters is that we all get to enjoy it as a series and a game.
We are all going to be playing it,thats the reason we are here.

How many other games do you know do this?? In Sims 3 can you pick up all the other objects and such?? AI is a hard thing to simulate, and they did a good job at it. It's very CPU heavy.

Other games running on other engines are not a good indicator of anything.

I don't see why open cities would be necessarily impossible on consoles, though I won't pretend to know what I'm talking about.

Te huge cities in Assassin's Creed (especially brotherhood) are EXTREMELY large (bigger then any city in Oblivion) with many many npc's capable of being on the screen at once.

That is true, but at the same time do Assassin's Creed not have any interactive objects at all, nothing that can be picked up or moved around, everything is static. And all the NPCs are without any importance, you can't stop and talk to them and so on, their only purpose is to detect you doing something bad.

All hail the console Oligopoly!

"We don't want to compete, so you just have to sit there and wait until we feel like making a better product," I'm almost positive that Sony and Microsoft have actually sat down and agreed to commit to mediocrity. That should be [censored]ing illegal. 10 years for one console is absolutely unacceptable, processing power doubles every 18 months, the hardware available now is 5-6x more powerful than whats in the PS3/360, yet the game market is literally being held back because they don't want to create a new generation of consoles. I think 5 years to each console generation should be the minimum standard.

Long story short, yes.. Skyrim is not going to look (or play) as good as it should because the game is limited by the current consoles that are archaic by today's standards. I really hope that cities will not be in separate cells this time, that would ensure that there is no climbing feature, and no levitation feature.



Yep, people shouldn't be comparing games like JC2 or Assasins creed to skyrim. They are entirely different. TES has a much different priority list when it comes to NPC tasks, and general city layout; on a whole everything in TES has much more visual detail. Though, one thing that would really help this time is if NPCs had lod models. One cause for poor performance in TES has always been the fact that the NPCs are always displayed at the highest detail regardless of your distance.

I dont know and would not really agree with consoles holding the PC back.......as frankly I dont really care

I enjoy playing games on all 3 platforms, and do prefer some games on certain platforms, Morrowind on the PC but Oblivion on the Xbox. So I am far from a Cosole really devoted fan, and I'm happy with the speed the games are developing at the moment, I got excited about morrowind all those years ago about the same as I am getting excited about Skyrim this year. 3-4 games a year to get excited about is more than enough for me. So I'm like a pig in muck at the moment with such additions to my collect like RDR, Assassins Creed Brotherhood, Fable 3 and Skyrim all in the space of 2 years.

All in all I think certain games companies and developers are doing a pretty good job at the moment.

Interesting conversation, but I am almost certain that BGS will make the game equally good on the consoles and PC - there would be no point to doing otherwise (as it would offend a huge group of folks).

Where the game is conserned, the PC has had (and will continue to have) just one advantage over the 360 or PS/3; access to the console. It allows us to "cheat" and to mod, and that is Only because the games themselves are built on the PC by necessity.

But for the game itself, there may be some resolution differences at some level, but it will look equally fantastic on all 3 platforms.

Keep the faith.

You all realize there was nothing to complain about with Oblivion on PS3 and at that time PS3 was just finding it's potential of how good games can look and almost every game that tried to look good after Oblivion did look better than Oblivion, maybe not until late 2008 but still much better graphics than Oblivion. So graphics won't be an issue so I don't see the whole problem here. Besides, Todd literally said that he and Bethesda thinks that the current generation consoles still have life in them to make Skyrim just as epic as Oblivion was 5 years ago.

Simple yet beyond what anyone else had done up to that point or since. Everything is simple in it's first incarnation....

As for people worried about graphics, I have a few things to say. Arena, one of the best looking games of it's time. Daggerfall, best looking game of it's time. Redguard, best looking game of it's time. Morrowind, best looking game of it's time. Oblivion, best looking game of it's time. Do you see a pattern here?

Not including extra features for the PC will offend a huge group of folks too.

Just as epic indeed, but in different ways. I assume the striving is going to be in gameplay and combat functionality. That, and it looks like they've just done a better job on the world; and that doesn't require a powerful platform, that just requires artistic asset design and handmade map layout. I think the innovations will be in the general design of the game, and gamplay innovation.

The raw polycount, texture resolutions, and screen resolution are going to be the same as Oblivion (the last one applying to consoles), and I find that disturbing. You could make the argument that "blah blah games don't need good graphics" sure, they don't need them, but if you can have them then they should. To be honest, the skyrim screenshots have not impressed me in a graphical sense, I can see the technology has barely changed since 2006, but I can see that they've simply done a better job with what they have, that, and I'm sure the game engine is far more stable than... Gamebryo. So sure, the game will probably still blow you away, but the graphics will not leave the lasting impression that Oblivion left.

Either way, though, for the PC people will come around with high resolution retextures so I can be satisfied in that regard.

I don't think we can confirm one way or the other Exactly what will be included/not in any platform until we see the game.

As a PC user I've had to endure Not playing Dead Money because I play on a PC.

The love goes both ways, it's just something we have to live with in a multi-platform world.

PS3 is defenseless but anyone who signs on to PSN with a hacked PS3 is automatically banned. You also have to buy a jailbreaking device to do that stuff on the PS3. On PC anyone can do it with out spending a cent.

I'm pretty sure Bethesda wouldn't do that. They would lose a lot of money from the people that don't like playing on a PC. They would also get majorly attacked by critics saying that they "tried to bite off more then they can chew." All in all, I think we are all just getting so hyped up about the game that rumors keep changing into worse ones.