Cross platform development and choice of 'Lead system' *Spinoff*

I read it more like a PR from the "old" days where stuff like this was commonplace, "we run all the hair on a SPU" kind a thing.

And yes, just what Criterion said was wrong

 

Nothing at all indicates that at all. If anything it is a console engine tailored for PS3 and then ported to PC. It also is DX9 but the brute force of PC HW is enough to handle the game easily.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/terminal-realitys-joe-kreiner

 

He all over the place in that interview:

So the engine comes from the PS2, yet he says:

And proceeds with some more PR bullshit

hrmpf

 

Someone must have really dropped the ball big time on the Ghostbusters video game because Ghostbusters is a Sony Pictures property and I can't imagine that Sony would willingly let their property look worse on their game system.

 

Maybe they just didn't have as much time nor money to spend on artwork to cover up 'flaws' due to limited tech/HW like in KZ2 as example to achieve prettier image. That game had a budget several times that of Crysis and CE2. And GT5 has most of it's budget put on the cars leaving a lot to be desired in several other areas. So there are compromises for each type of game.

But as said I need to watch that Eurogamer viideo and see what tech the game has. The environments from the limited videos I have seen are quite interactible with lots of physicalised stuff and breakable stuff.

Well it does use 8 HW threads if you have it. ~i7 owners can gloat or 2xQuad owners.

Otherwise I got the impression the engine is theirs/they have further developed it?

Tech comment above.

Dunno about consistency in graphics/gameplay tech but I've seen some shots from PC and it looks decent. Hows other games like these with more physics than usual and larger environments stack up perf wise?

http://www.abload.de/img/ghost_w322009-06-1722-5mu6.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/methimpikehoses/ghost_w322009-06-1820-30-36-18.jpg
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3207/70319066.jpg
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8748/59442666.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/ghost_w322009-06-1722-p76a.jpg

Not to shabby.

Might be as Joker says and it is PR BS, what was previously said about the PS3 status by the devs. heh maybe PR should be banned from B3D, positive or negative as both types can be and are equally controversial.

 

They have improved it over time I assume. Much like CoD games are built on the Quake III engine. Obviously the engine has been improved over time. And atleast it is true that it does scale over multiple threads/cores hence it can utilise an i7's all threads. So that part is correct but efficiency might be another thing!

So until I've seen the comp video is there some text based tech feature investigation regarding Ghostbusters?

Seems it's tech is ignored and the list the devs said about effects seems meaty especially if used richly.

 

This isn't true.
IIRC, Crysis had a budget of $20 million.
Sony's most expensive game ever produced is God of War 3 (still in production) with a budget estimated @ $40 million. Not sure about GT5 though, but I'm sure that Prologue covered, if not all, at least a huge chunk of development cost.

Killzone 2 figure is probably somewhere between 20 and 30 million dollars or if you want to really stretch it, euros. Game was in full production for only 18 months.

 

Not to shabby is just not good enough, i don´t think that we are seeing something spectacular compared to many of the other 360 vs PS3 games we have seen compared on Eurogamer, where other developers have been able to keep the PS3 version from looking like shit.

My Killzone remark was an example on what can be achieved if you use the lead platform to it´s fullest, and whats with the flaw and limited tech comment, it´s called strength and weakness and all consoles have them. Killzone 2 looks amazing because it plays to the strenghts of the platform, just like 360s game had to get around it´s weak points if it wants to look it´s best and not endup with a subpar HD resolution.

 

http://infernalengine.com/

All the buzzwords ever imagined.

 

I read contradicting info. From some places it is 20-30m others 50-60m some 40m dollars. Full production and "only 18 months" is only a part of the development time. Then add in bought third party software etc. Doesn't mather though since that still is large sums and enough time to plan and create good artwork to play on strengths vs weakness can do a lot for the image quality.

 

Thanks but really how much is used in Ghostbusters as those engine capabilities seems quite advanced with some heavy physics/animations.

 

No idea, my perspective is easy, whatever budget they had, whatever features they use, the screeenshots, the 7.5 graphic score on ign, nothing warrants what they ended up with on the PS3.

 

These 'infos' are just rumors coming from sources as dumb as the surfer girl. There's no official number for the KZ2 budget, while Crysis is said to have costed $20 million from the Crytek head guy's interview with IGN. So, it's simply wrong to assume that KZ2 had a production budget several times that of the Crysis.

And if you look at Uncharted which is also said to have costed around $20 million (which is more like an average cost for AAA title) I doubt it costs significantly more to create a good looking game on PS3.

BTW, I thought KZ2 was one of the most, if not the most technically impressive game in this console generation. Yes it's got good art direction, so is any visually impressive games, but it's always the base technology that enables the art to work as envisioned. And that's for all games.

 

Again, I think most of you took a lot of things out of context in regards to Terminal Realitys comments, which isn't unusual for enthusiasts in this industry.

They simply said that their engine is scalable. That means they moved it from PS2, to 360, to PS3, to PC, etc, because it can work with multiple CPUs, SPUs, etc.

Everyone is trying to paint this picture that simply isn't there, but I'm not surprised as gamers are always looking for the skeleton in the closet instead of simply reading what's right in front of their face.

Anyway, this isn't a discussion about "ghostbusters" so much as it is about misconceptions with lead platform development. I still feel that the term is just a buzzword that people have latched on to like they do so many other things in the industry. Frankly, the PS3 very well could have been their lead platform for Ghostbusters, but the reality is the engine itself just scaled better to 360 hardware, yielding better results. Why is that so hard to grasp for some folks?

 

Because people expect the necessary optimizations to make the end result satisfactory. Knowing the capabilities of the HW the end result is simply unacceptable

 

I'm not saying it's acceptable, I'm just saying that I can't understand why people are trying to find the "lies" in their statements when they are not there.

I'm also providing some thought as to why the PS3 may be the lead platform, but not necessarily the best version.

 

Well two things might have happened. Either the PS3 wasnt a lead platform or they didnt bother much with the PS3 version.

 

I bet someone said, "whats the point? Other than keeping the forum goers from lambasting us, what advantages do we gain by pouring extra resources into closing a visual gap that most gamers won't know exists."

"If GG poured all that hard work into making one of the most visually impressive games ever and yet produces average sales while other less impressive visual games can go on to sell millions, why waste the resources?"

 

There's forum wisdom that multiplat games should start on the PS3 and be ported to 360, largely in part due to Criterion's comments.

One hopes TR didn't wait until march-april 2009 to do the final optimization on their engine.

 

If GG had produced something along the quality of Terminal, they sales would have been far worse.