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

[liolio]

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.

I'm not sure it's forum wisdom if I remember properly Joker454 disagreed may Barbarian too (?).
And last Criterion comment makes the thing way clearly, it's not about leading on the 360 or ps3 it's about the way they chose to use cpu resources. The fact that they stated at some poiint that they lead on the ps3 seems irrelevant for the choices they did.
Theirs past comments sounds pretty "reducting" in regard to the explanation they gave to GranMaster.

EDIT

Obinocious I agree your comment but as I don't have much to add I won't pollute the topic with another post.

 

[obonicus]

I'm not sure it's forum wisdom if I remember properly Joker454 disagreed may Barbarian too (?).

That's why it's forum wisdom, as opposed to actual wisdom. It may actually be true, but undoubtedly the truth is a lot more complex than that.

And last Criterion comment makes the thing way clearly, it's not about leading on the 360 or ps3 it's about the way they chose to use cpu resources. The fact that they stated at some poiint that they lead on the ps3 seems irrelevant for the choices they did.
Theirs all comments sounds pretty "reducting" in regard to the explanation they gave to GranMaster.

This refers to earlier comments, not grandmaster's last interview. That one hasn't had time to percolate up and down the blog network and feed a whole new brand of fan-fueled misinformation.

 

[betan]

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?"

Well, we have been told many times the all powerful evil aka Sony does not allow inferior ports unless it's by Rockstar or something.

 

[obonicus]

Well, we have been told many times the all powerful evil aka Sony does not allow inferior ports unless it's by Rockstar or something.

I had forgotten about that part of the conspiracy theory, thanks. Yeah, according to that part of it only big hitters have the weight around to push out an inferior port, everyone else is cowed by bad PR and Sony pressure.

 

[Arwin]

I think after the latest Criterion interview it's easy to overlook that they made an important decision that helped the PS3 version. Sure they stress that they basically took a holistic view in that they designed a game that took into account all the limitations of all the three platforms, but the important difference with other multi-platform designers is that they included the PS3 as a consideration when designing their engine from the very start, and made the choice to design a game the way they did because the other available choices wouldn't have worked nearly as well on the PS3. This is the bit where they say that they're not going to thread various different jobs and then synchronise them, but simply leverage any and all resource available (in the case of PS3, both PPE's threads and all SPEs) for each task until completed and then move on to the next task.

Now I personally don't think this is the best way to do it on the PS3 at all! Neither is the choice to leave all graphics work to the GPU, although of course in some cases it is. But it may well be the best way to create a scaleable engine that works almost 100% identical on all three different platforms and has a code-base and production pipeline that is relatively efficient to manage. I reckon most of their code is basic c or c++ and that code is identical regardless of whether it runs on a quadcore, the 360's CPU or on one of Cell's SPEs.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

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.

How do you know if it's there or not? People are trying to paint the picture, because the evidence is too obvious. What are the chances? There have been several games said to have lead on the PS3 in the past, and some games were built on engines known to perform poorly on the PS3. The PS3 may not necessarily be the best version, but close parity has been achieved, and people were good with it.

Now just look at GB. We're not talking about the usual stuff like a lack of AA or slight dips in frame rate. This game has set a NEW RECORD of the lowest running res on the PS3, and yet it's still running like a dog with unstable frame rate and unbearable amount of screen tearings, not to mention lower res textures and missing effects. Considering how 'PS3 lead' games have been thus far, and see how this game performs so poorly compared to the 360 version, is it so hard to see why people suspect this 'lead platform' PR was nothing but BS?

 

[MazingerDUDE]

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.

Maybe you're new to the scene, but all this 'lead platform' PR started as some sort of quality assurance. That's why so many people feel that they have been lied to. It's not the best version people expect, but more like something close to parity, and the GB definitely isn't one.

 

[dobwal]

Well, we have been told many times the all powerful evil aka Sony does not allow inferior ports unless it's by Rockstar or something.

Given the success of the Wii and the fact that Sony titles that have been given high water marks for visual quality haven't produce high water marks in terms of sales volume, maybe Sony came to the conclusion that visuals aren't the name of the game this generation.

Based on the GB pics I've seen in this post. This is not a bad port, its not a great port but I don't consider it bad when looking at it from the perspective of a gamer.

Im sorry but looking at screen shots side by side is a poor way of measuring the difference in visual experience when playing the same game on the 360 or PS3. GB is probably the biggest gap I've seen between a 360 and PS3 port in a long time. Yet I've seen dozens of topic with pages upon pages of posts revolving around difference that from any practical point of view would be deem insignificant.

I know that most of these debates are just academic exercises in entertainment but alot times it goes into the realm of irrationality. The equivalent of two people arguing how much hotter 25 C is than 23 C as if they exist on opposite extremes of the temperature range.

 

[liolio]

I think that artistic direction wins by a huge margin against any technical prowess.
Between Sony have more (imhoà titles that qualify for my above statment, at some point it's really about money and how much a systemt costs.
I agree with "I don't remember which video game site" about E3 and relative editors strengths, Sony is the biggest player in this regard. They have a lot of high quality IP, they don't have adapt in this regard, eye candy are a "plus" /added value but it's already there but at this price it doesn't cut butter.
Sony doesn't have to change how they do thing, they know how to provide creative and brilliant people but price... (nothing to add here...) a thing that Nintendo doesn't even try to do and Ms has been pretty far to achieve. Sony / their horrid PR know and respect artists they know how to keep a brilliant team going, manage talent, have some clue about freedom, etc.
Price... I can't add anything more after years of nevertheless interesting talk and speculations.
KK may have a point Sony is failing on hardwre (on losing grip) but they know so much about content and peiople making it! The talk about Sony leaving hardware market xould make sense depending on how things are going no matter this is possible or not I wouldn't be scared about Sony succes as an editors, they are already the best out of the bunch imho keep brilliant people is not about money and Sony knows what it is about that's for sure.

 

[obonicus]

Im sorry but looking at screen shots side by side is a poor way of measuring the difference in visual experience when playing the same game on the 360 or PS3. GB is probably the biggest gap I've seen between a 360 and PS3 port in a long time. Yet I've seen dozens of topic with pages upon pages of posts revolving around difference that from any practical point of view would be deem insignificant.

This is usually very true, but this is really a particularly bad port. From what I've seen even flavor stuff like photos and newspaper articles are illegible in the PS3 version, and that sort of fan service/wankery is essential to a nostalgia IP like Ghostbusters. I even think that the reduced effects of the proton pack affect the experience significantly -- we know, from the movies, the sort of mayhem the proton pack causes. Leaving just a dark stain on the walls might make the experience underwhelming for those who care for the IP (which is who you're targetting with this sort of game).