i, being a 360 player, wholeheartedly hope so

And you wonder why the PS3 version of Oblivion was the inferior one.

I'd also like to say, again, that the PS3 version was released a full year after the 360 and PC versions, as it was never intended to be released on that platform until later. I'd say PS3 users have nothing to worry about, as it's been planned to be released on PS3 from the start and they have plenty of time and resources to make it good on every console.

Absolutely. We should choose the one most important issue ever, and then be utterly apathetic about everything else. That's bound to work.

What does this conversation have to do with Uganda? Please stay on topic

I'd rather starve in Uganda than continue to live there. Not our problem they can't figure it out like almost everywhere else has. Go Console Wars!

Oooooh, this is going to get out of hand.

The game is being developed at the same time for all platformers, there will likely be some minor differences, but unless you're tremendously nitpicky you'll enjoy the game regardless where you're playing. By the way, this thing was off-topic when it became a console war. It is now about humanitarian apathy and Uganda's poverty

I was gonna say technically OP's question was answered on the first page

This is a rediculous question to ask since nobody has any clue yet...

the system specs on the ps3 are far superior to the 360 thats why all of the ps3 exclusives look far better. but it is hard as hell to design a multiplatform game and have it look the same because the design practices are totaly different and yes they are harder on the ps3. and the reason they have to optomize it for the 360 is because it has inferior hardware as compared to the pc and ps3. if they started on pc and worked backwards it would make 360 owners feel like they got an n64 quality game.



p.s. not a really devoted fan just a realist (i play more on the 360 than anything)


edit: wow they wont let you say f@n boy

Agreed, if you stack up (most of) the hardware from both the PS3 is superior, But PC can vary, I hope no one ever makes a game directed towards people with 3500 dollar PCs Oblivion was a 360 Launch title, it won't happen again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=989MBOiIghA. PS3 is marginally superior, in large part due to disk format (instead of hardware)

Third time is the charm hopefully for Bethesda... hopefully I can get A CURE FOR VAMPRISM !

Let's see how long you last without buying the game.

actually alot of cumputer companies agree that the design of the cell processor is far more superior to that of most modern day processors. its just been a matter of progamming games to utilize its potential. but this is becoming way too much of a console war, everyone needs to agree both versions are going to be equally as good. after all bethesda isint going to put more effort into the 360 version, more than likely they will work just as hard on both the ps3 version and the 360 version.

no no no, how in the hell is gaming going to evolve if gaming companies dont look beyond what is already being done, sony is improvizing and i like that. after all if standardization was the way to go, right now we might still be playing 64 bit games. as time goes forward so must our leaps in technology, it was sega who first started the use of cd roms with the dreamcast. and then sony introduced motion gaming with the eye toy (witch nintendo pushed even further with the wii mote). and now sony tried something new by creating the cell processor, (who know what the cell processor will lead to in the future) and blue ray disks.

Sony didn't invent either, but in any case, neither of those are game-changers. Switching to optical discs was a big deal, moving to what you're backing as the next generation of optical disc is no bigger a deal than the move from CD to DVD, and the Cell is probably classed as a failed experiment, and in any case is very much a background change that really has very little to do with the games being produced.

Standardisation does not mean standing still - it's actually quite the opposite. If we stood still, there would be no need for standardisation, because there would be nothing to standardise! Everything is standardised on PC, for example, the game talks to one abstraction layer, DirectX, which talks to another, your graphics card drivers, which talks to the card itself. That means that the game doesn't need to care about what card it's running on, and the card doesn't need to care about what PC it's running on. Standard, not still.

frame rate issues never had any

Hey, man, love your anology, could I use it as a sig quote?

For the record, I had quite a few frame rate issues and freeze ups with Fallout 3, but they would crop up closer to the end of the game when I had explored every quest, location, and dlc there was to offer, theory was it had to do with the save file and accumulating so much crap over the course of the game. From what I've heard this happened on occasion with the Xbox 360 as well. I've had more then a few with Fallout New Vegas, however that Game was developed by Obisidian not Bethesda, a company known for its buggy as hell software. And the issues were across all platforms, not just on the PS3.

Haven't had that many that were noticeable or in Oblivion, but then the farthest I've gotten in the game so far is level 16. Have had a few freeze ups though. But that happens with just about every game.

starndardization means to conform to the standard ways of doing something, where as improvization means to improvize or change with time or the situation. sony improvised when they intoduced motion gaming to the world with the eye toy (and that led to the wii mote and natal). sega improvised when they started using optical disks on the dreamcast and having more storage led to more complex games, a big game changer if you ask me(and that led to dvds and blue ray, an even bigger game changer). if none of these companies improvised we might still be playing 64 bit games. And i doubt the design of the cell is dead, the cell processor itself is. but we will probly see something very similar to it very soon.

...basically what pal PhYoshi said

They have 5 years of knowlege of the PS3, something they did not have with Fo3 or OB. So I think we shouldn't worry too much.

I always said that the PS3 is like an ancient power. It's hard to master and control, but when you figure out how to use it. You can make such impressive games as Uncharted or Gran Turismo that completely obliterate their competition in every aspect. Many devs just won't take the time to perfect a game for the PS3 though, it takes to much time, and as we all know: time = money. it's all about the money these days.

What?? No, please don't eat up Sony's marketing. (And to make it clear this isn't console war stuff, I own a PS3.)

The Cell processor is NOT a better design than modern processors at all. Modern processors have multiple cores that can be assigned work by the operating system dynamically. For the Cell, each specific core must be individually coded for, and are specialized in what they can do. You can't just throw multiple threads at the PS3 and have its OS dynamically allocate the work like you can in a modern computer. It's ridiculously inefficient to program for the PS3. It's not some magical supercomputer. Its architecture has major drawbacks and that, combined with its exorbitant launch price limiting its user base, is why it's taken third party support so long to get better for the PS3.

Even considering the Cell, the system is still only marginally more powerful than the Xbox 360. The Xbox 360's GPU is actually a little more powerful than that of the PS3, though a PS3 game can be designed to offload some graphics work to the Cell.

It is very likely the games will be approximately equal on the Xbox 360 and PS3, but it's absolutely untrue to treat the Cell as some magic supercomputer like Sony tried to market it. It's nothing compared to a modern computer CPU.

Personally I'm very interested to see what's up with Nintendo's new console too. Rumor has it they are working very hard at wooing third parties, and they've made a mystery announcement that they (paraphrase) "regret working alone in the past and wish to partner with another company to provide a complete online experience" for their next system. Are they working with Valve using Steam for their console? Are they joining forces with Microsoft? Are they in a partnership with some other company? Who knows, but their console will very likely blow the PS3 and Xbox 360 away... so it would be very interesting if Bethesda ports Skyrim to this new machine. If it does, will the PC get a patch for any graphical enhancements this new machine allows? It's possible Skyrim will be a part of this generation, never getting such an upgrade since the new machine likely launches a full year after Skyrim, but I think it's intriguing.

360 versions of most multiplat games tend to run smoother thanks to unified RAM, which in effect gives devs a little more memory to play with.

Some PS3 games get around this by offloading operations usually handled via RAM to the cell's SPUs, but this can be a fairly difficult and time-consuming process, so it doesn't always happen.

Given that Beth has more experience on PS3 now, it's possible, but not what I'd call a sure thing.

"Standard" and "Improvise" are two polar opposites. You can have a fancy new car without having to redesign the wheel!
In any case, Blu-Ray is an evolutionary step, the Eyetoy was a gimmick at best (And, arguably, even though the tech is mature enough to be useful these days, still is), and the Cell processor is too much of a background detail. Nobody but tech-addicts like ourselves would care about it if it wasn't a part of their marketing - it's a fancy processor design, but it's not magic, and I would say a failed experiment. It would not surprise me in the least if the PS4 went back to a more traditional setup, with several general purpose units, rather than the cell's one general purpose unit and 6 special purpose units, as developers haven't shown any particular interest in taking advantage of that. Far from being the element that puts the PS3 ahead of the pack, most of its problems come from it. The design has its uses (And it's certainly not a new concept, not by a long way), but apparently gaming is not one of them.

(And for the record, '64-bit games' is a marketing term, referring to the bus size of the GPU - a 128bit bus lets you push more data. The 360's Xenon is a 64bit chip, I believe, so funnily enough we *are* still playing 64bit games - but again, that's a purely background technical issue, and has no bearing on anyone. To market a console based on CPU architecture or bus size are just more modern equivalents of blast processing)