Can Sony help devs with ported titles?

[Butta]

I was just reading on IGN that the port of FEAR has a really low res look compared to the PC/360 version. It's surprising that this is still a problem! What is the problem here? Is it bandwidth or video memory?

Is there not something that Sony can do to alleviate this problem? How the hell did Sega manage to port VF5 intact from a system with 1GB of RAM and a 256-bit memory controller? Let alone the fact that they are increasing the res. for Virtua Tenis to 1080P!!!

What can Sony do to help this problem? Can they include SDK tools that transparently give access to XDR memory through a virtual memory space... or maybe something that would pull a percentage of textures from XDR thus eliminating memory/bandwidth restrictions... or maybe even purchasing tech form developpers such as Ninja Theory's NOA32 to be included in their SDK.

Then again, maybe the best solution is to get the scaler working properly such that games can be rendered natively at 600P and then upscaled to 720P (ala 360).

 

[DJ12]

Maybe they could light a series of fires under all the lazy dev's arses. That would help.

 

[assen]

One day I'll start my own forum, with blackjack and hookers, and "lazy devs" comments will be insta-lock material.

Not all devs are equally competent. Not all hardware is equally powerful. Everything is shrouded with so many layers of NDAs and company internal information policy, that any attempts to answer the question why this particular title exhibits this particular difference on platform X vs. platform Y can only rapidly descend into the console vs. console bickering, that, thankfully, leads to locking threads here.

 

[TheChefO]

I was just reading on IGN that the port of FEAR has a really low res look compared to the PC/360 version.

Is it a rendered resolution or texture resolution problem?

Texture res issue on ps3 has already been discussed here.

Render res should not be a problem as like you said there are even a few cases of 1080p not being a problem.

 

[_phil_]

hmm....sorry ....,IMO ,it's most probably a lazyness problem.

 

[Butta]

Render res should not be a problem as like you said there are even a few cases of 1080p not being a problem.

Oddly enough... the problem sounds more like rendered res the way it is described on the PS3 site.

While Day 1 has done a great job with the feel of the game, it unfortunately hasn't done so well with the visuals. All of the effects from the PC and Xbox 360 releases are here, like blurring when you enter slow-mo, particle effects aplenty, chips in the scenery from bullet holes and such, but it just doesn't look very sharp. To put it simply, the whole game is quite blurry. We're not just talking texture detail, which is indeed not very good, but the video looks like it's been rendered at a low resolution and then upscaled to HD. The framerate mostly holds steady, though there are a few blips or loading pauses here and there, but the main problem really is a lack of sharpness.

 

[Paul_G]

One day I'll start my own forum, with blackjack and hookers

You have your first member right here

 

[Todd33]

Oddly enough... the problem sounds more like rendered res the way it is described on the PS3 site.

Now the PS3 is upscaling...

I don't trust IGN.

 

[Acert93]

hmm....sorry ....,IMO ,it's most probably a lazyness problem.

Maybe they could light a series of fires under all the lazy dev's arses. That would help.

Lets grow brains, why don't we?

I am getting tired of having to read developers like ERP and Mr Floopy defend themselves -- and other game makers -- from such flippant comments from posters. Just post your darn game titles in your portfolio if you want to put your butt on the line.

The reality is that FEAR was developed on the PC (with the basic engine already working well on the 360 in 2005; see Condemned: Criminal Origins). The PS3 project has had a lot less development time, less mature tools, and a more difficult development environment to extract performance when trying to map your PC-developed software to the PS3 architecture. Toss in the fact that they are under a strong time constraint as well as a closing window for FEAR viability for sales and it doesn't sound like a trivial task to port FEAR.

I know I am not alone when I say I am tired of all the "lazy dev" comments from those unwilling to put their own rears on the line as well as the "that platform cannot do this" with not a grain of facts to back it up.

 

[archangelmorph]

Oddly enough... the problem sounds more like rendered res the way it is described on the PS3 site.

I blame it on two things:-

- Developer laziness to do anything more than "get it working"
- Lack of a big enough budget and too small a time frame to allow the care needed to develop a competant port..

After seeing how FEAR runs on on my PC at home I can confidently say that they could EASILY get the game to look even better than it does on PC, on the PS3..

If they wanted to..

Obviously they don't..

 

[Butta]

Lets grow brains, why don't we?

I am getting tired of having to read developers like ERP and Mr Floopy defend themselves -- and other game makers -- from such flippant comments from posters. Just post your darn game titles in your portfolio if you want to put your butt on the line.

The reality is that FEAR was developed on the PC (with the basic engine already working well on the 360 in 2005; see Condemned: Criminal Origins). The PS3 project has had a lot less development time, less mature tools, and a more difficult development environment to extract performance when trying to map your PC-developed software to the PS3 architecture. Toss in the fact that they are under a strong time constraint as well as a closing window for FEAR viability for sales and it doesn't sound like a trivial task to port FEAR.

I know I am not alone when I say I am tired of all the "lazy dev" comments from those unwilling to put their own rears on the line as well as the "that platform cannot do this" with not a grain of facts to back it up.

I agree with your point entirely... however, the purpose of my post is to figure out what Sony can do to alleviate this problem. It does not look good for Sony that 99% of ports are worse off. Can Sony not help resolve this issue by providing better tools? Such as what I mentionned in my post?

 

[TheChefO]

... Monitor?


I can't access the site (work-blocked) but do they mention the tv res/model/ability?

I don't recall seeing any next gen title and thinking "blurry" aside from ... well ...

anyway do they mention the tv? Did they have a side by side comparison? Spit on their glasses?

 

[Acert93]

I agree with your point entirely... however, the purpose of my post is to figure out what Sony can do to alleviate this problem. It does not look good for Sony that 99% of ports are worse off. Can Sony not help resolve this issue by providing better tools? Such as what I mentionned in my post?

The PS3 is like 3 months old on the market, and 3rd party titles have been using the PC or 360 as the lead SKU. Most of these titles were ported as a secondary item of concern due to the release date and smaller install base.

Sony is helping devs, but lets wait until fall 2007 before we freak out. By then many developers will have had a good taste of PS3 development. Look at Joker's posts where he notes the troubles they had--but also how 2007 is opening the window for them to begin digging deeper into the SPEs (which were used for trivial stuff in their quick launch ports).

Obviously if you are buying a 3rd party title these issues may be of a concern, but in general I think they are more of a blip on the radar. Anyone remember all the fussing about 360 AF in early 2006?

 

[Jacob]

Or maybe, you know... *gulp* the PS3 is just slower. Why does no one ever consider this possibility? I think it has to be considered when every single multiplatform title is worse on the PS3, even games that had been in development for a while like FN:R3.

Sony can provide tools to alleviate the problem, but they can't make the PS3 have more bandwidth or anything like that.

 

[Kryton]

Or maybe, you know... *gulp* the PS3 is just slower. Why does no one ever consider this possibility? I think it has to be considered when every single multiplatform title is worse on the PS3, even games that had been in development for a while like FN:R3.

Sony can provide tools to alleviate the problem, but they can't make the PS3 have more bandwidth or anything like that.

Is this flame bait? Go read the other performance threads if you want to argue that (consensus is they are almost equivalent). It's pretty much agreed here that the programming paradigm is quite substantially different for PS3 than 360/PC.

 

[nonamer]

Lets grow brains, why don't we?

I am getting tired of having to read developers like ERP and Mr Floopy defend themselves -- and other game makers -- from such flippant comments from posters. Just post your darn game titles in your portfolio if you want to put your butt on the line.

The reality is that FEAR was developed on the PC (with the basic engine already working well on the 360 in 2005; see Condemned: Criminal Origins). The PS3 project has had a lot less development time, less mature tools, and a more difficult development environment to extract performance when trying to map your PC-developed software to the PS3 architecture. Toss in the fact that they are under a strong time constraint as well as a closing window for FEAR viability for sales and it doesn't sound like a trivial task to port FEAR.

I know I am not alone when I say I am tired of all the "lazy dev" comments from those unwilling to put their own rears on the line as well as the "that platform cannot do this" with not a grain of facts to back it up.

Lazy management then.

 

[Jacob]

Is this flame bait? Go read the other performance threads if you want to argue that (consensus is they are almost equivalent). It's pretty much agreed here that the programming paradigm is quite substantially different for PS3 than 360/PC.

I know what the politically correct answer is, facts just happen to disagree with it in a continuous basis.

Now excuse me:

"Now you wouldn't believe me if I told you, but I could run like the wind blows. From that day on, if I was ever going somewhere, I was running!"

 

[Todd33]

Or maybe, you know... *gulp* the PS3 is just slower. Why does no one ever consider this possibility? I think it has to be considered when every single multiplatform title is worse on the PS3, even games that had been in development for a while like FN:R3.

Sony can provide tools to alleviate the problem, but they can't make the PS3 have more bandwidth or anything like that.

What about games that run better on the PS3, are you prepared to use the same logic?

Full Auto 2 runs better, with more effects and at 1080P on the PS3 than full Auto on the 360. So is the 360 just slower? Same goes for Blazing Angel I believe.

 

[TheChefO]

What about games that run better on the PS3, are you prepared to use the same logic?

Full Auto 2 runs better, with more effects and at 1080P on the PS3 than full Auto on the 360. So is the 360 just slower? Same goes for Blazing Angel I believe.

Full Auto2 is out on 360?

 

[TheChefO]

Lazy management then.

hey what about "Greedy Publisher"! Nobody likes those guys!

edit - Good point arkaerial