Orange Box on PS3 largely unplayable - bit-tech.net Forums

CardJoe · 23rd Nov 2007, 10:45

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/11...y_unplayable/1

A recent preview of The Orange Box on the PlayStation 3 has raised some potential worries according to the folks at 1-UP as the game is almost unplayable.

DeXtmL · 23rd Nov 2007, 11:38

PS3 has been left alone in corner

mmorgue · 23rd Nov 2007, 12:17

With the likes of COD4 and Resistence which play very nicely and look great, you have to wonder why something like the Source engine couldn't be ported over and run at near PC speeds/quality.

Sure, the programming for the PS3 is far from a walk in the park, but others have done it.

Strange...

Cobalt · 23rd Nov 2007, 12:53

I guess it could be something particular to the shorce engine that makes porting difficult.

COD4 and Resistance aren't good examples because both games were made with the PS3 in mind from the begining.

themax · 23rd Nov 2007, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobalt

I guess it could be something particular to the shorce engine that makes porting difficult.

COD4 and Resistance aren't good examples because both games were made with the PS3 in mind from the begining.

Which highlights the problem. Valve focused on the easy platform, as the lead developers, they should have worked on the PS3 platform, and let EA handle the Xbox 360 version. EA has no problems developing good code for the 360, it's widely known that either 1. EA just can't develope on the PS3 properly, or 2. EA doesn't really try to develope on the PS3 properly to save on the budget. I'm sure this way the title would have released on both consoles at the same time with relatively no problems between the two. I'm done agreeing that the PS3 might be too diffucult to program for. Too many other developers have it down, why can't Valve/EA?

chrisuk · 23rd Nov 2007, 13:33

Lets all remember for a moment that the 360 is based on the same API as the PC, so porting is and always has been relatively easy from a developers point of view, well, the PC to 360 ports anyway.

But why should we stop agreeing with the PS3s development problems. The PS2 was exactly the same, and SOny haven't learned anything. This is where Sony have failed, by making exotic hardware decisions and not being able to back them up with a good development kit, every developer is starting on the back foot. The Xbox didn't suffer from this, and the 360, while having exotic-ish hardware, has excellent development tools and a relatively similar environment to the PC.

It's a shame that people won't admit that Sony have completely destroyed their platform this time round, consumers are voting with their wallets and developers are by constantly whining and providing, to be honest, non spectacular to down-right-nasty games.

CardJoe · 23rd Nov 2007, 13:41

Valve never wanted a PS3 port at all, thats why. They want a PC game as they are PC developers and probably only worked on a 360 port because of similarities between the system and the fact that many of them are ex-Microsoft. I've heard numerous developers say that coding from PC to 360 is easy, 'a matter of weeks and tweaks'. Coding for the PS3, from scratch or port, is never easy from what I've heard.

themax · 23rd Nov 2007, 17:16

They shouldn't have ported it to PS3. I like the console, but I don't like it when a port is half-assed. I'de rather buy it for PC and 360 if it's target for that console, than have them waste their budget, time, and complaints doing it for the PS3. I'm just fine with Insomniac, Inifity Ward, Epic, Ubisoft, and the rest who atleast seem interested in developing for new platforms instead of running back to the easy breezy methods. I'm not saying Valve is wrong for developing on a platform they are familiar with, that being the PC. The 360 makes porting between both very easy, so it's expected. But Epic seems to also prove Valve's complaints are unfounded and that as long a developer is willing, it can be done with PC --> PS3, or better yet, developng both from the ground up. I know it saves money to just port, but considering CoD4 has already hit 3 million copies sold as a Multiplatform at 50-60$ a copy 3 million sold multiplatform more than makes up the costs of developing it for all 3 It's not Halo 3 money seing that Halo 3 is 360 sales so far, and soon to be PC but still 3 million any way you slice it as a Multiplatform title is great.

sandys · 23rd Nov 2007, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by themax

They shouldn't have ported it to PS3. I like the console, but I don't like it when a port is half-assed.

Indeed, If the devs can't be bothered to do a proper job, I can't be bothered to buy it, its not like the games are cheap.

This was always going to be bad, the moment I heard they were outsourcing I knew the game was never going to get the attention of the others, especially with Gabe Newells comments on the system.

exceededgoku · 23rd Nov 2007, 18:36

And remember nvidia cards have never been top dog in Source powered games, which could explain some of the performance issues. I imagine they were told to set it to a specific detail quality and weren't allowed to deviate and so have to tweak the engine as much as possible which has led to these massive delays and performance issues.
Sort of like how Crysis is with everybodies hardware currently (which is actually the feature of their engines - as in run it at full 1-2 years after it is released)!

Cupboard · 23rd Nov 2007, 18:38

I suppose that it terms of fairness it would be comparable to play an FPS on either the PS3 or 360, so it would be nice if M$ and Sony somehow made their consoles talk for a bit of cross platform multiplayer. For them it would have the incentive of making console gaming in general more popular.

Although that said, this palaver is clearly not the way to do things.

8igdave · 23rd Nov 2007, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by themax

Which highlights the problem. Valve focused on the easy platform, as the lead developers, they should have worked on the PS3 platform, and let EA handle the Xbox 360 version. EA has no problems developing good code for the 360, it's widely known that either 1. EA just can't develope on the PS3 properly, or 2. EA doesn't really try to develope on the PS3 properly to save on the budget. I'm sure this way the title would have released on both consoles at the same time with relatively no problems between the two. I'm done agreeing that the PS3 might be too diffucult to program for. Too many other developers have it down, why can't Valve/EA?

If EA are so good, why do they seem to bodge every game they make? They are forcing gamse out to fast. They have done need for speed to death for instance. They also bought up two of the best game making stuidos going and now say they are going to be putting 8 games a year out from them i read in an interview. If this is the case they are likely to be unfinished and poor. Dont like have EA makes games, ive yet to paly one which hasn't had problems or been rushed.

DXR_13KE · 23rd Nov 2007, 23:03

strange.... the PS3 is insanely powerful.... strange that valve did not use it for their advantage.....

[USRF]Obiwan · 23rd Nov 2007, 23:08

HL belongs to pc. FT consoles...

proxess · 23rd Nov 2007, 23:12

Pretty normal I guess. Half assed port for a half assed console. As mentioned above, Sony have to learn to make it simpler for developing. Valve are pc game developers anyhow.

steveo_mcg · 24th Nov 2007, 00:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

strange.... the PS3 is insanely powerful.... strange that valve did not use it for their advantage.....

It maybe insanely powerful but so is a cray super computer, doesn't mean its easy to work with and with out that it isn't worth a lick.

themax · 24th Nov 2007, 02:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveo_mcg

It maybe insanely powerful but so is a cray super computer, doesn't mean its easy to work with and with out that it isn't worth a lick.

Playstation 2 in it's day says you are wrong.

Insonmiac says you are wrong.

Ubisoft says you are wrong.

Naughty Dog says you are wrong.

I can go on....

inflatable · 24th Nov 2007, 12:34

Great PC FPS developers like Valve, ID, and Epic should stay far away from the consoles.. They should just focus on the the PC, which is still by far the best FPS platform arround.. If they do not, the PC will suffer.. Just look at what happened to UT3, the game's GUI sucks balls on the PC because it's clearly designed for a console, that's a clear sign of bad console influence.. Really, just forget about the consoles, they're obsolete already anyway compared to the latest PC tech (especially bad for the PS3 which is barely a year on the market), so who cares.. There's more in life then just money (that's the only reason they port to the consoles), like making the best FPS games arround on the best available platform..

steveo_mcg · 24th Nov 2007, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by themax

Playstation 2 in it's day says you are wrong.

Insonmiac says you are wrong.

Ubisoft says you are wrong.

Naughty Dog says you are wrong.

I can go on....

Valve says i'm right,
EA says i'm right
Gran Turismo says i'm right, if it was an easy console that would have been a launch games.
The PS2 was very powerful for its time and also difficult to work with but there was very little other option, the dreamcast and gamecube never really took off so if you wanted to make console games to sell you had to deal with sony. This gen 360 and PC games are virtually interchangeable and the wii has a huge market share so the question becomes... why bother!

Kipman725 · 25th Nov 2007, 01:04

ps3 is poor for the source engine which was orignaly designed in an era of single core 32bit CPU's. Porting the source engine is just silly as the PS3 is a dying console anyway.

23rd Nov 2007, 10:45	#1
CardJoe Player Character bit-tech Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 8,009	Orange Box on PS3 largely unplayable http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/11...y_unplayable/1 A recent preview of The Orange Box on the PlayStation 3 has raised some potential worries according to the folks at 1-UP as the game is almost unplayable. __________________ this is joe's non-bit-tech blog

23rd Nov 2007, 11:38	#2
DeXtmL Modder Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 50	PS3 has been left alone in corner __________________ We are "netted" together!

23rd Nov 2007, 13:41	#7
CardJoe Player Character bit-tech Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 8,009	Valve never wanted a PS3 port at all, thats why. They want a PC game as they are PC developers and probably only worked on a 360 port because of similarities between the system and the fact that many of them are ex-Microsoft. I've heard numerous developers say that coding from PC to 360 is easy, 'a matter of weeks and tweaks'. Coding for the PS3, from scratch or port, is never easy from what I've heard. __________________ this is joe's non-bit-tech blog

23rd Nov 2007, 18:36	#10
exceededgoku What's a Dremel? Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10	And remember nvidia cards have never been top dog in Source powered games, which could explain some of the performance issues. I imagine they were told to set it to a specific detail quality and weren't allowed to deviate and so have to tweak the engine as much as possible which has led to these massive delays and performance issues. Sort of like how Crysis is with everybodies hardware currently (which is actually the feature of their engines - as in run it at full 1-2 years after it is released)! __________________ Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.2Ghz (400Mhzx8) 1.52V (set in bios, 1.47v after droop)- worst C2D ever \| 4GB GeIL PC6400 4-4-4-12 @ 800Mhz 4-4-4-12 \| Gigabyte DQ6 @ 1600Mhz \| Sapphire 512MB X1900XTX @ 689/774 \| Enermax Liberty 620W \| Silverstone TJ07-B with custom watercooling \| Dell 2005FPW

23rd Nov 2007, 18:38	#11
Cupboard I'm not a modder. Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Bury St Edmunds/Durham Uni Posts: 1,848	I suppose that it terms of fairness it would be comparable to play an FPS on either the PS3 or 360, so it would be nice if M$ and Sony somehow made their consoles talk for a bit of cross platform multiplayer. For them it would have the incentive of making console gaming in general more popular. Although that said, this palaver is clearly not the way to do things. __________________ i7 920, 8800GTS 512, 6GB Corsair all in an Intel DX58SO; 3*320GB RAID5; CM Stacker Samsung Q45.

23rd Nov 2007, 12:17	#3
mmorgue Supermodder Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Mos Eisley, in the bar... Posts: 378	With the likes of COD4 and Resistence which play very nicely and look great, you have to wonder why something like the Source engine couldn't be ported over and run at near PC speeds/quality. Sure, the programming for the PS3 is far from a walk in the park, but others have done it. Strange...

23rd Nov 2007, 12:53	#4
Cobalt Multimodder Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Surrey, UK Posts: 248	I guess it could be something particular to the shorce engine that makes porting difficult. COD4 and Resistance aren't good examples because both games were made with the PS3 in mind from the begining.

23rd Nov 2007, 13:33	#6
chrisuk Modder Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maidstone, Kent, UK Posts: 57	Lets all remember for a moment that the 360 is based on the same API as the PC, so porting is and always has been relatively easy from a developers point of view, well, the PC to 360 ports anyway. But why should we stop agreeing with the PS3s development problems. The PS2 was exactly the same, and SOny haven't learned anything. This is where Sony have failed, by making exotic hardware decisions and not being able to back them up with a good development kit, every developer is starting on the back foot. The Xbox didn't suffer from this, and the 360, while having exotic-ish hardware, has excellent development tools and a relatively similar environment to the PC. It's a shame that people won't admit that Sony have completely destroyed their platform this time round, consumers are voting with their wallets and developers are by constantly whining and providing, to be honest, non spectacular to down-right-nasty games.

23rd Nov 2007, 17:16	#8
themax Hypermodder Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 925	They shouldn't have ported it to PS3. I like the console, but I don't like it when a port is half-assed. I'de rather buy it for PC and 360 if it's target for that console, than have them waste their budget, time, and complaints doing it for the PS3. I'm just fine with Insomniac, Inifity Ward, Epic, Ubisoft, and the rest who atleast seem interested in developing for new platforms instead of running back to the easy breezy methods. I'm not saying Valve is wrong for developing on a platform they are familiar with, that being the PC. The 360 makes porting between both very easy, so it's expected. But Epic seems to also prove Valve's complaints are unfounded and that as long a developer is willing, it can be done with PC --> PS3, or better yet, developng both from the ground up. I know it saves money to just port, but considering CoD4 has already hit 3 million copies sold as a Multiplatform at 50-60$ a copy 3 million sold multiplatform more than makes up the costs of developing it for all 3 It's not Halo 3 money seing that Halo 3 is 360 sales so far, and soon to be PC but still 3 million any way you slice it as a Multiplatform title is great.

23rd Nov 2007, 23:03	#13
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,476	strange.... the PS3 is insanely powerful.... strange that valve did not use it for their advantage..... __________________ *Renegade X - 0.40 Release!* <---- CLICK!

23rd Nov 2007, 23:08	#14
[USRF]Obiwan Ultramodder Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 1,220	HL belongs to pc. FT consoles... __________________ Mascleta: "The most accurate simulation of thunder, humans can simulate..." The answer is 42, so... whats the question again? If you know what 'Peek' and 'Poke' represents, then you are probably as old as me.

23rd Nov 2007, 23:12	#15
proxess Victim of AdvancedModernCapitalism Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The town of Love, Funchal Posts: 600	Pretty normal I guess. Half assed port for a half assed console. As mentioned above, Sony have to learn to make it simpler for developing. Valve are pc game developers anyhow. __________________ Netbook: Asus eeePC 901; 12Gb SDD; Custom Ubuntu 9.04 Minimal Compiz Standalone. Laptop: Intel Centrino Duo T5500 1.66ghz; 2048mb RAM; ATI Mobility Radeon x2300; Hitachi 120gb iPod Classic 120GB; Maxtor 160GB External; Ubuntu 9.10 x64 and Windows 7 x64.

24th Nov 2007, 12:34	#18
inflatable Minimodder Join Date: May 2006 Location: Netherlands Posts: 49	Great PC FPS developers like Valve, ID, and Epic should stay far away from the consoles.. They should just focus on the the PC, which is still by far the best FPS platform arround.. If they do not, the PC will suffer.. Just look at what happened to UT3, the game's GUI sucks balls on the PC because it's clearly designed for a console, that's a clear sign of bad console influence.. Really, just forget about the consoles, they're obsolete already anyway compared to the latest PC tech (especially bad for the PS3 which is barely a year on the market), so who cares.. There's more in life then just money (that's the only reason they port to the consoles), like making the best FPS games arround on the best available platform.. __________________ Asus P5B, Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB OCZ DDR2 800Mhz, Asus 8800GTS 640MB

25th Nov 2007, 01:04	#20
Kipman725 When did I get a custom title!?! Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,753	ps3 is poor for the source engine which was orignaly designed in an era of single core 32bit CPU's. Porting the source engine is just silly as the PS3 is a dying console anyway. __________________ Sn45g game server mod My Electronics Site Hardware: 3400+ Sempr0n, 1GB RAM, 1.28TB local storage, x1950pro,Razer Viper,M$ comfort curve 2000,L70S + 17", Fujitsu 17" CRT Audio: HD-650's, PE congress amp, Sound Blaster AWE64, Soundblaster 24bit