Oblivion on 360 gets another patch thanks to PS3 development.

[almighty]

well I'd hope so considering it was a year ago since it was first released.

And how muh of that 12 months do you think they spent porting code over and getting there head around Cell before they stated to optomise?

 

[Tap In]

And how muh of that 12 months do you think they spent porting code over and getting there head around Cell before they stated to optomise?

well regardless, those two items noted are at least what would be expected in a 1 year newer game. (faster loading being most likely due to installing a larger cache file on the 60gig HDD)

 

[patsu]

well regardless, those two items noted are at least what would be expected in a 1 year newer game. (faster loading being most likely due to installing a larger cache file on the 60gig HDD)

Huh ? Are you saying it will load slower on my 20Gb PS3 ? Do you have any official information suggesting their PS3 optimization approach ?

 

[function]

Shortly after the PC version came out there were community mods to significantly improve the quality of distant textures (which were awful) that, supposedly, didn't require any additional memory. Likewise, creating new shaders to handle lod transitions and texture filtering doesn't necesserily require any extra memory. None of this needs to be at odds with developer comments about memory affecting the amount of DLC that they could get running on the PS3.

It's questionable how "finished" many games are when they ship, especially when the size of games and the scope for tweaking grows ever larger. That a game crticised for performance drops and lod handling can improve with a year's extra tweaking should not be a suprise (especially if it relates to how things are done on a well known graphics chip).

I just hope the extra work that will benefit the PS3 (and in some cases 360) will also be shared with PC owners of the game. As the owner of a "high end" GF7 line card, I want whatever benefits RSX is getting!

 

[Polygon Crusher]

Shortly after the PC version came out there were community mods to significantly improve the quality of distant textures (which were awful) that, supposedly, didn't require any additional memory. Likewise, creating new shaders to handle lod transitions and texture filtering doesn't necesserily require any extra memory. None of this needs to be at odds with developer comments about memory affecting the amount of DLC that they could get running on the PS3.

It's questionable how "finished" many games are when they ship, especially when the size of games and the scope for tweaking grows ever larger. That a game crticised for performance drops and lod handling can improve with a year's extra tweaking should not be a suprise (especially if it relates to how things are done on a well known graphics chip).

I just hope the extra work that will benefit the PS3 (and in some cases 360) will also be shared with PC owners of the game. As the owner of a "high end" GF7 line card, I want whatever benefits RSX is getting!

Actually you are wrong about the distant textures. They do increase the VRAM used by the simple reason that theese distant texture are the original (512x512 texture) that has been improved with an image program and the resolution of the texture upped to 2048x2048 or 4096x4096. Thats the reason it doesnt look as blurry as original becouse it is higher res distant textures (ground) and some of theese texture mods may include a higher res normal map for the distant textures (make it look "bumpier").
The latest for PC is a distant texture mod which has been remade and have high res normal map that integrates almost seamingless with the detailed ground textures near the character.

VRAM increasment ranges from 20MB to more than 100MB depending on size of tex and normalmap. So they would need to cut down on something if they use higher res textures unless they make a better LOD system for the textures.

Not from my computer as I have much more detail visible due to tweaks but still...

 

[swanlee]

"well I'd hope so considering it was a year ago since it was first released."

Also the 360 is getting the shaders fixes as the dev said on 1up, and there has already been an update to the 360 that helped load times and stuttering. The update for the 360 version really helped framerates outdoors and mostly got rid of the loading area screen.

But yea for having 1 year extra time you would hope they would be able to fix a few things, not exactly something that deserves alot of praise.

 

[function]

Actually you are wrong about the distant textures. They do increase the VRAM used by the simple reason that theese distant texture are the original (512x512 texture) that has been improved with an image program and the resolution of the texture upped to 2048x2048 or 4096x4096.

Those definitely *aren't* the the same distance texture packs I was talking about!

The ones I used (and am still using through actually) came out within what seemed to be days of the PC version. The blurb with them said they used a different, more highly compressed texture format and for the same memory footprint increased the resolution by 4X. If the originals were 512 x 512 that would make them 1024 x 1024 then, and they used the same technique you mentioned of reworking the original textures. They certainly don't look as good as the ones in those shots!

The distance normal maps still look like crap on mine. I think I need to revisist the community scene and see what delights are available now.

 

[Hardknock]

I thought we all learned that porting to a new architecture is not exactly trivial. Getting the same quality shouldn't be taken for granted, and getting better than the original within this timeframe deserves praise. Granted, for low-caliber games, it can be arguable, but for a game the Xbox360 owners have been raving about as a technical feat for so long, and one that has won RPG of the year awards, its something admirable.

Besides, with all the negativity facing Xbox360 to PS3 ports lately from certain members of the forum, and in particular the doubts put on the BR drive's loading times, this is a welcome change of pace.

The PS3 version started at the same time as the 360 version. I remember this being multiplatform almost 2 years ago.

 

[rounin]

The PS3 version started at the same time as the 360 version. I remember this being multiplatform almost 2 years ago.

And I remember a certain someone stating this game doesn't even exist for the PS3. We didn't know for sure it was coming to PS3 until a few months before PS3 was to be released. I hope you're not confused with the Xbox360 and the PC version. (One of your own stating it wasn't coming to PS3 less than a year ago : http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=759122&postcount=11)

This sort of argument won't go anywhere because for one even if you are correct, nobody knows if resources and time were divided evenly (and given which platform was to be released first ... ).

Oddly enough, we have people who expected this port to be worse on many levels now scoffing at the improvements and saying they expected better.

 

[Tap In]

Huh ? Are you saying it will load slower on my 20Gb PS3 ? Do you have any official information suggesting their PS3 optimization approach ?

my assumption comes from a couple of things....

1) since there is more room on the 60 gig, I assume they would allow a larger install file but maybe they are equal.

2) there is some evidence that we see that behavior (faster loading in the 60gig) possibly due to a larger cache

 

[Farid]

The PS3 version started at the same time as the 360 version. I remember this being multiplatform almost 2 years ago.

Nope, the game started as a Xenon/PC project from the get go.
Bethesda just said, during the game's unveiling in Game Informer, that they would release a PS3 version if they could.

Anyway, I'm still wondering why this game creates so much interest for it, when it has very little going on for it. But then again, I'm part of the PC Game forum Bethesda games hating crew, so it would be nothing new if I don't think the game is not praise worthy at all.

It's one of the rare game for which I hope that the high level of interest surrounding it is only related to inane console partisan reasons and corporate allegiance more than it is for the game's "quality."

 

[DeathKnight]

You can thank improvements made to the game engine for the supposed "increase in usable texture detail and smoothness", not some kind of 'superiority' of the PS3's architecture. You'd expect them to make some kind of headway, after all fans of the PC version have been doing all kinds of things themselves to increase the game's quality (graphical improvements/fixes (LOD, performance improvements, etc), high res/high quality texture packs, all the way to gameplay fixes and balancing).

 

[kyleb]

2) there is some evidence that we see that behavior (faster loading in the 60gig) possibly due to a larger cache

Huh, I thought Gripshift's loading times were rather absurd. Looks like I might be springing for a new drive sooner than I thought.

 

[patsu]

Same here ! Been waiting to get a 16Mb cache HDD

 

[Todd33]

Rumors were rampant about the reasons behind the lack of downloadable content. Other websites have reported that the justification behind the missing missions and features was due to technical limitations of the console. According to Hines, nothing could be farther from the truth. There were two specific reasons behind why items like the Orrery and Mehrunes's Razor will not be included within the PS3 version of the game. First of all, there was a concern about the balancing of the game and initially giving players access to a thieves den or a wizard's tower immediately at the start of the game. "There was no good way to incorporate these features into the game as soon as it started because it didn't make sense," Hines said. While he didn't rule out the possibility of some of these side quests or features making it into the game, it wouldn't necessarily be as soon as the game hit store shelves.

In fact, the other reason why the downloadable content for the PS3 version of the game isn't included isn't solely because of the technical limitations of the system. Instead, it's because the designers haven't actually tested the PlayStation Network Store and the mechanisms for delivering content to systems. Considering that the development team has been spending a large amount of time making sure that the game transitions over to the PS3 well without the numerous bugs or glitches that plagued the PC and 360 versions of the game, working on the store was definitely a low priority on their list when it came to dedicating additional resources to that feature. But it is being worked on, and it will be coming at a later date.

So what about the shaders or optimizations? Rumors were released stating that everything in the PS3 version of the game would migrate over to the 360 or the PC, which kicked off a screaming match on boards about which version was ultimately better. According to Hines, the shader functionality that would re-render the low-res textures would inevitably make its way to the 360 build and PC in future updates. However, certain optimizations that take advantage of the system's hardware will remain exclusive to the PS3 version of the game.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/762/762882p1.html

 

[Bad_Boy]

Rumors were rampant about the reasons behind the lack of downloadable content. Other websites have reported that the justification behind the missing missions and features was due to technical limitations of the console. According to Hines, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Not trying to bring up Garnett again, but I knew it sounded like BS. Then again I was probably wrong about exclusive DLC. Seems they didn't have the DLC specific code supported for the PSN just yet. Thats much easier to understand imo. Though I wonder if they can patch that and make it possible.

Anyways, thanks for the link Todd33.

...

Whats with all the name changes around here. Getting me so confused lately.

 

[Crayon]

Whats with all the name changes around here. Getting me so confused lately.

I just pretend Hupfinsgack, Vysez, and Acert died in a plane crash like Ritchie Valens, Buddy Holly and the Big Bopper.

It's sad, but it makes the name changes easier to cope with.

 

[inefficient]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/762/762882p1.html

Man I want to slap that Garnett for setting the internet alight with that BS Oblivion info.

I hope Shane gives him a good ripping on this week's pod cast.

Welcome back horse armor! I'm still not going to pay money for you though.

 

[Acert93]

I just pretend Hupfinsgack, Vysez, and Acert died in a plane crash like Ritchie Valens, Buddy Holly and the Big Bopper.

It's sad, but it makes the name changes easier to cope with.

Nah, just a bad rerun of, "Return of the Body Snatchers" hitting B3D!

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Not trying to bring up Garnett again, but I knew it sounded like BS.

Ok... I'm here beat me to death already
I'll definately take anything Garnett brings up in the future with tons of salt... I still can't understand what the hell made him say that...