Playstation 3 PS3 Ghost Busters is shown to be seriously 'Texture Gimped' compared to the 360

Blame Sony, not developers. Their hardware is a complete mess.

 

Wrong. When even EA and a myriad of others get it right on the PS3 it's definately the developers fault.

 

Mate, I can pretty much guarentee you that the fault lies with everyone other than the developer. Do you honestly think Terminal are happy with the end results? Here's an insider scoop for you: when a game ships and it's not the best it could be, then the developers will be the ones whining loudest. Ignore the PR rubbish that they're spouting about their PS3 tech for a second and just have a think about all the other facets that go into game development. Publishers dictate the whens and hows, not developers.

And it's not a case of "getting it right". Hardware demand varies massively from title to title.

 

So I should blame all of my Windows issues on Dell, Toshiba, Sony, HP and Gateway? Surely it's not Microsoft's fault for bad coding if Office or Internet Explorer runs like crap? It's easy to tag Sony since they have the more difficult hardware. But honestly. If a developer steps up to the challenge, it's THEIR fault if the end product is not up to standard. When Call of Duty 4 runs just fine in a Playstation 3 does Inifnity Ward not get credit? So why do we let X developer get a free pass because the platform is different, when X developer gets full credit for doing it right? PR Rubbish or not.

 

I'm guessing it's a small (or large) bug hindering something with the PS3 version.

 

It's not a "bug". The PS3 hardware design is flawed. I'm not a graphics programmer, so I can't quote specifics in this case but I know for a fact that the SPU system used by the PS3 is massively overhyped and actually ends up being more of a hinderence than an opportunity. Sony have had three chances at listening to developers and getting it right and every single time they produce ****.

Ghostbusters has no problem on the 360 and yet a massive problem on the PS3...and you think that's the developer's fault? No. It's Sony's fault. And subsequently, yes, it's to Microsoft's credit that studios can use their far superior tech and tool chain to create decent games.

 

If you didn't code for the PS3 Ghost Busters game, then you don't know exactly what is going on with the game and why it looks like it does.

If it was a hardware "flaw", then why do other games look excellent on the PS3?

If other games look gorgeous on the PS3, and only this game look underwhelming, obviously the developers of the game did something wrong with the PS3 version.

I don't even know how you can argue that this is Sony's fault for breaking Ghost Busters. There is obviously something really wrong with the code written for the PS3 version of the game.

 

That doesn't make sense though. Surely if it's a "flaw" in the hardware design, then every game studio would be having the same problem?

I've played a good number of multi-platform games on the PS3 and there are a wide range of problems. From one-off, minor textural problems (Dead Space, RE5) to games that are completely broken (Lost Planet), yet any game developed on the PS3 (exclusive or otherwise) seems perfectly fine. Have you not seen the Uncharted2 gameplay videos!? They look absolutely stunning.

[edit]
sui_winbolo - you took the words right out of my fingers..!

 

All you're demonstrating is a consumer perspective on an industry-wide issue. Are you telling me that you think that up to this point the developers of Ghostbusters have been unaware that there's a "bug" and now, after releasing publicity shots are saying to themselves "You know what, maybe there's a bug somewhere that's making the PS3 version look like dog ****!"

No.

The reality will be that they're in a dead-end. They need to axe something for the PS3 version because it simply cannot cope with the same through-put as the 360. Admittedly, textures are a bit of an obvious one so I can only assume they're desperate. We're having the exact same issue with a title at my place except rather than reduce one and not the other, they chose to reduce both - that way no body notices. But the fact remains, the reasons developers are having to cut corners on the PS3 is because of Sony's bad design. End of.

 

I've heard the PS3 is of bad design, but the fact is they did cut corners and it just looks bad on the developers part for releasing something so unfinished. They are the ones that cut corners to get the title pushed out there, they're the ones that should be blamed for releasing something that should have been held back until it could be properly fixed.

For instance, Bethesda had held off the DLC for the PS3 version of Fallout 3 for a reason, I'm sure a good chunk of that reason is trying to make it work properly on the PS3. A lot of PS3 players complained about this, I would blame the delay on the fact it's hard to code for the PS3. However, if Bethesda released the DLC for the PS3 the same time they did for the PC and 360, and it was buggy as ****, I would put the blame on Bethesda for releasing it too soon.

Ghost Busters on the PS3 looks like ****, they should have held off on releasing it so soon. It looks unprofessional and rushed.

I blame developers if they release an unfinished and buggy game. That's where I stand on this situation.

 

Did you read my other posts? Publishers decide when a game and any marketing material is released, not the developer. For all you know, Terminal could have been screaming at their publisher, telling them it's not ready, and totally ignoring them would be pretty much within the remit of most major publishers.

 

It's quite obvious that the PS3 would be able to cope with producing the same or similar textures to those on the PS3, since other developers have no problem whatsoever with doing this, only Terminal Reality have in this case for whatever reason. To suggest otherwise just shows how flawed your logic is.

The reason for the discrepancy between the visuals on the two systems probably lies in the fact that the game has quite obviously been rushed out the door before it was ready. Of course they knew about the issues before it went gold, but it's most likely that they weren't given the option of taking more time to improve it by the publisher, and since it's a well known fact that most developers find it harder to code for the PS3's architecture, the 360 version came out looking better.

It happens all the time in the gaming industry, and seems to be most prevalent among movie franchise tie-ins for obvious reasons (I'll draw your attention to E.T. for a historical example of this we're all familiar with) It's just that in this case, instead of a shoddy control system or uninspired gameplay, it's the visuals that have suffered, but only on the PS3 for whatever reason. I'm not going to bother speculating about what this reason might be because quite frankly I don't see the point, mostly because I'm not the least bit interested in the game, but also because anyone who wasn't involved in the development of the game clearly doesn't know what they're talking about (including me).

 

You should read some PDFs from Sony Santa Monica, Insomniac, or Naughty Dog. SPEs are fine, it's the developers that don't use them properly.

 

You're right. I know nothing about game development, so I should just shut up, right?

I'm just telling it how I hear it. You go and find a developer who isn't being held at gunpoint by Sony and you ask them just how fun developing for the PS3 is.

When are consumers actually going to support developers rather than throwing them in the stocks every time they're unhappy with a product? It just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the processes involved.

 

Obviously the PS3 is tricky to use, but when first party developers release coding/technical documents, as well as Sony releasing middleware engines that allow developers to offload a lot of the GPU and traditional CPU work to SPEs and use them effectively, I find it hard to believe developers can STILL believe it's like "ZOMGWTFSOHARD" when they have all of this code and documents handed to them.

 

The majority of developers don't use Sony's middleware because, obviously, it's not cross-platform. So they rely on external middleware or their own tech. We know Terminal have done their own tech because they won't stfu about it.

All I'm saying is that if the publishers weren't on their case, I have no doubts that Terminal would have turned it around, eventually. So yeah, tricky hardware and time pressures has lead to a poor product. I still wouldn't blame the developer. But I'm hardly going to.

 

Er, actually the Phyre Engine IS cross platform (PS3 and PC), which means if it works on PC, it can also be easily ported over to the Xbox 360 with little work (or at least less work than it takes to go from 360 to PS3).

 

Fail. I'm not even going to bother.

 

Clearly it's fail for pointing out that middleware provided by Sony is cross platform, how dare I contradict you.

 

Pointing out that PC "can also be easily ported over to the Xbox 360 with little work (or at least less work than it takes to go from 360 to PS3)", quite frankly, makes you a misinformed retard.