Ghostbuster discussion - PS3's low quality and why Sony are publishing it.

[Neb]

That there's fightin' talk!

Technically each has advantages/disadvantages. Looking at the glut of content out for both at this time, we can expect similar results, though typically PS3 is at an IQ disadvantage in multiplatform titles with a little less AA or slightly rougher framerate, but all in all they are producing very similar results. Certainly one would expect a lot more parity between titles than this! It's almost as though the PS3 version is a PS2 port rather than XB360 port!

I thought I read PS3 was the lead platform...

 

[Scott_Arm]

They said they were porting from PS3 to 360. To me that means the PS3 is the lead platform. It would be kind of weird to lead on one platform and then put most of your development effort into the porting. And then you wonder why the visual quality on the lead is so much lower, and you're left with the options that they didn't have the technical know-how, or the PS3 was significantly more time consuming to work.

 

[Need 2 Know]

even if the PS3 was lead or it was a port from the 360 can anybody please explain to me why this has to be 1 of the worse 'so called ports' of a multi-platform we have seen.

 

[tha_con]

They said they were porting from PS3 to 360. To me that means the PS3 is the lead platform. It would be kind of weird to lead on one platform and then put most of your development effort into the porting. And then you wonder why the visual quality on the lead is so much lower, and you're left with the options that they didn't have the technical know-how, or the PS3 was significantly more time consuming to work.

Again, I think a lot of people are just assuming entirely too much when they say "lead platform", etc.

I don't think they put most of their effort into porting at all, it's probably completely opposite. A lot of development work went into the PS3 version, because it was harder to work for. Fortuneately for Terminal Reality, their engine scales well, so work that went into the PS3 version was easily moved to the 360 version, which in turn gave them more time to devote to getting more juice out of the 360 instead of worrying about complex "porting" or changing of code.

To close, I think we need to stop assuming that "lead platform" means that version will be superior. All it means is that team is dedicating the majority of their team to that platform in order to get it running well. PS3 was the lead platform for Burnout, but in the end both versions were extremely similar.

I think "lead platform" is such a broad term that many of us just simplifiy it to mean "this version is going to be best and / or equal". The reality is far different. I also think a lot of the statement made by Terminal reality were taken greatly out of context.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Again, I think a lot of people are just assuming entirely too much when they say "lead platform", etc.

I don't think they put most of their effort into porting at all, it's probably completely opposite. A lot of development work went into the PS3 version, because it was harder to work for. Fortuneately for Terminal Reality, their engine scales well, so work that went into the PS3 version was easily moved to the 360 version, which in turn gave them more time to devote to getting more juice out of the 360 instead of worrying about complex "porting" or changing of code.

To close, I think we need to stop assuming that "lead platform" means that version will be superior. All it means is that team is dedicating the majority of their team to that platform in order to get it running well. PS3 was the lead platform for Burnout, but in the end both versions were extremely similar.

I think "lead platform" is such a broad term that many of us just simplifiy it to mean "this version is going to be best and / or equal". The reality is far different. I also think a lot of the statement made by Terminal reality were taken greatly out of context.

But really, if you put most of your effort into the PS3, shouldn't it have at least equivalent results? Isn't that saying something bad about the PS3 if you put most of your effort into it and the 360 version turns out better?

 

[Need 2 Know]

But really, if you put most of your effort into the PS3, shouldn't it have at least equivalent results? Isn't that saying something bad about the PS3 if you put most of your effort into it and the 360 version turns out better?

agree, so what went wrong here. Any idea's ??

 

[tha_con]

But really, if you put most of your effort into the PS3, shouldn't it have at least equivalent results? Isn't that saying something bad about the PS3 if you put most of your effort into it and the 360 version turns out better?

Not necessarily. I think it speaks more to Sony's support than it does the Hardware itself. I don't think there's anything wrong with having very specified hardware. I do think it creates some hurdles for developers, and that is unfortunate, but it doesn't make the hardware bad.

While they may have put most of their effort into PS3, that doesn't mean it would have equivalent results. Terminal Reality isn't a huge studio, so I wouldn't expect them to break down their code and create new compression methods to achieve the same standard of texture resolution on PS3, especially with the road blocks they hit with multiple publishers trading hands (and they had nothing to say about it).

I think the project was just troubled by a lot of things, publishing, development time and size, etc. I don't think that should reflect negatively on the studio, or the platforms they developed for. Let the game be judged more by it's content and stability, more so than the technical details.

That's my take at least

Edit; Need 2 Know, read my posts j/k

I'm certain that "what happened" was related to multiple hurdles during the development cycle that the team simply could not overcome, and in the end they had to finally release the product. I'm sure with their next project we'll see (hopefully) improved results as the team learns more about PS3 hardware and begins to create new modifications to their engine specifically for the PS3 hardware. I just think at this time, for this project, they didn't have the time, or resources to do so.

 

[Toaddio]

Isn't there a video somewhere around here with the devs showing how many more physics there would be in the PS3 version? I remember cars dropping from the ceiling in a church or library. I think it was a library.

 

[Need 2 Know]

Edit; Need 2 Know, read my posts j/k

I'm certain that "what happened" was related to multiple hurdles during the development cycle that the team simply could not overcome, and in the end they had to finally release the product. I'm sure with their next project we'll see (hopefully) improved results as the team learns more about PS3 hardware and begins to create new modifications to their engine specifically for the PS3 hardware. I just think at this time, for this project, they didn't have the time, or resources to do so.

Thanks, ur theory clears up (for me personally) a lot of questions into how this came to be and how in the future Terminal Reality can turns things around.

EDIT: Since the recent discussions regarding the quality of the retail version of the Ghostbusters PS3 game, will the PS3 (only) owners still pick up their copy of Ghostbusters. I for 1 will not be.

 

[Mboojigga]

Ghostbusters on PS3 lags behind 360 version; developer explains

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/17/ghostbusters-on-ps3-lags-behind-360-version-developer-explains/

Richard Leadbetter – Director of HD consultancy Digital Foundry and author of Eurogamer's multiplatform comparison Face-off features – tweeted that playing Ghostbusters on the PS3 was like "time-warping back to the dawn of PS3 development." Ouch! That's especially painful to read considering the high hopes Terminal Reality – developers of the just-released Ghostbusters game – have for their multiplatform Infernal Engine.

Internet reports of a less-than-stellar PS3 version of the title originated at Lens of Truth on Monday, were later corroborated by Gamezine.co.uk and, following tomorrow's publication of Leadbetter's most recent Face-off feature, will be further corroborated by Eurogamer. Confusing the issue even further is the following quote from Terminal Reality's Mark Randel, who told VG247 last year, "We're one of the few developers who love the PS3 and have a great time with it. We have great technology for the PS3 and we want to show it off."

Instead of leaving it up to internet Matlocks, we asked Terminal Reality to comment on the controversy. A spokesperson for the developer told us, "For the record, the PS3 version [of Ghostbusters] is softer due to the 'quincunx' antialiasing filter and the fact we render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version. So you cannot directly compare a screen shot of one to the other unless you scale them properly. The PS3 does have less available RAM than the 360 – but we managed to squeeze 3 out of 4 textures as full size on the PS3."

So: is the PS3 "maxed out"? Or is Terminal Reality's engine – despite comments to the contrary – just not up to snuff on the PS3? With most recent multiplatform titles performing comparably, if not identically, on both the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles, we'd be inclined to agree with Mr. Leadbetter: it's like "time-warping back to the dawn of PS3 development" when PS3 games were routinely outperformed by their Xbox 360 counterparts. Let's hope the irony of the situation is lost on Ghostbusters' exclusive European publisher ... Sony. As well as the franchise's owner ... Sony Pictures.

 

[Need 2 Know]

^^ beat me to it Mboojigga

So can somebody please explain for all us 'less techincal' people what they mean.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Ouch! So even the devs admit its short comings!

Are there any PC shots out there? Is it a carbon copy of the 360 version or does the PC version have any benefits? Given the cut backs the devs have made because of the minute differences in available RAM on the PS3 compared with the 360, you would hope the PC version with multiple times the available memory would at least sport better textures.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

we render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version.

It's more like.. 75% horizontal res x 75% vertical res = 56.25% the screen resolution of the 360 version

 

[MazingerDUDE]

I just don't think that "lead platform" necessarily suggests it will be the superior version.

If the game was really lead on the PS3, the 360 shouldn't have gotten the higher res texture, more effects etc as it has of now, because all the graphical assets would have initially been built to fit in the PS3's budget if it was the lead sku.

 

[brain_stew]

Prepare for the lulz.....(thanks grandmaster)

360 Pic 1
360 Pic 2
PS3 Pic 1
PS3 Pic 2

What a disaster this is. This is an impressive foot in mouth job by the dev. I wonder how much of their boasting had to do with pressure from the exclusive contract.

PC shots for comparison at 1080p with max settings and AA forced through a config file hack. I believe its actually supersampling as it clears up the shader aliasing present on the suit. The first picture is in the same position as the console shot. You lot be the judge.

http://i41.tinypic.com/5x03ug.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/v40wlt.jp
http://i41.tinypic.com/vhvthu.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/2pp0r54.jpg

Edit: Ah crap, Tiny Pic resizes them to 1600x900, my apologies.

 

[obonicus]

So: is the PS3 "maxed out"? Or is Terminal Reality's engine – despite comments to the contrary – just not up to snuff on the PS3? With most recent multiplatform titles performing comparably, if not identically, on both the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles, we'd be inclined to agree with Mr. Leadbetter: it's like "time-warping back to the dawn of PS3 development" when PS3 games were routinely outperformed by their Xbox 360 counterparts. Let's hope the irony of the situation is lost on Ghostbusters' exclusive European publisher ... Sony. As well as the franchise's owner ... Sony Pictures.

Terminal Reality isn't a particularly good dev; the only reason anyone was even interested in this game is the IP attached to it. You can point to a whole bunch of PS3 versions that are worse off than the 360 version, even today, but nothing like this. I'd chalk it up to a dev not being up to the task of creating a multiplatform game. If you actually wanted to compare their relative potential rather than stoke the fire, you'd be better-off looking at an actually technically-impressive game, like RE5. Note: let's not talk about RE5 in this thread.

 

[Mboojigga]

Terminal Reality isn't a particularly good dev; the only reason anyone was even interested in this game is the IP attached to it. You can point to a whole bunch of PS3 versions that are worse off than the 360 version, even today, but nothing like this. I'd chalk it up to a dev not being up to the task of creating a multiplatform game.

Isn't that why the majority of people buy games because they are interested in the IP? It sounds more like you are trying to make excuses for them when the Dev has already made their own excuse as to why things happen the way it did AFTER talking about how good the PS3 is only to tell us today "oh its the ram that F us up"

Resident Evil has nothing to do with the Dev coming out and stating their reasons why the product is the way it is for the PS3 version.
Resident Evil wasn't all of a sudden a Europe exclusive just a month ago and how much did Sony know about any of this at all makes you wonder WTF?
Resident Evil's developers were not bragging about one or the other console about the advantages and stating in interviews on tv and internet that the PS3 was the lead sku for the "advantages"

 

[Iron Tiger]

"The PS3 version is blurred all to hell with Quincunx AA and the fact that it's running at only [3/4 of] 3/4 the resolution of the Xbox 360 version, but we still managed to squeeze out 3/4 the texture resolution. Eat it and be grateful, suckaz!"

 

[obonicus]

Isn't that why the majority of people buy games because they are interested in the IP? It sounds more like you are trying to make excuses for them when the Dev has already made their own excuse as to why things happen the way it did AFTER talking about how good the PS3 is only to tell us today "oh its the ram that F us up"

Please, no one on this board cares a whit for licensed games. If this were the Transformers 2 game would anyone care if the PS3 version was far worse? Would we even be waiting expectantly for the pixel-counters to give us the resolution? And what other excuse are Terminal Reality going to give: 'no, we're really not that not that good?' Of course they're going to blame the hardware! Or do you mean that people actually care for Terminal Reality (outside of Rayne, bless his texture-pack-making soul)? I guess we were really holding our breath for Metal Slug Anthology, or Spy Hunter.

Resident Evil has nothing to do with the Dev coming out and stating their reasons why the product is the way it is for the PS3 version.
Resident Evil wasn't all of a sudden a Europe exclusive just a month ago and how much did Sony know about any of this at all makes you wonder WTF?
Resident Evil's developers were not bragging about one or the other console about the advantages and stating in interviews on tv and internet that the PS3 was the lead sku for the "advantages"

Hold on. Of course Resident Evil doesn't have to do with any of that. But that's not what you were talking about. You were the one asking 'Is the PS3 maxed out?' To which I say, again, 'Why the hell would you even ask that based on the claim from a 3rd-string developer and not based on the other inferior PS3 ports by more technically-accomplished devs?' And as a recent example, I gave RE5, since it's possibly the best-looking multiplat game this gen so far and with many more problems on the PS3. If you were seriously interested in an answer, it seems like it'd be more sensible to ask that question, and not the one you asked. What's next? We take Haze's sub-par look and start to draw conclusions on the PS3's power from that?

 

[Mboojigga]

Please, no one on this board cares a whit for licensed games. If this were the Transformers 2 game would anyone care if the PS3 version was far worse? Would we even be waiting expectantly for the pixel-counters to give us the resolution? And what other excuse are Terminal Reality going to give: 'no, we're really not that not that good?' Of course they're going to blame the hardware! Or do you mean that people actually care for Terminal Reality (outside of Rayne, bless his texture-pack-making soul)? I guess we were really holding our breath for Metal Slug Anthology, or Spy Hunter.



Hold on. Of course Resident Evil doesn't have to do with any of that. But that's not what you were talking about. You were the one asking 'Is the PS3 maxed out?' To which I say, again, 'Why the hell would you even ask that based on the claim from a 3rd-string developer and not based on the other inferior PS3 ports by more technically-accomplished devs?' And as a recent example, I gave RE5, since it's possibly the best-looking multiplat game this gen so far and with many more problems on the PS3. If you were seriously interested in an answer, it seems like it'd be more sensible to ask that question, and not the one you asked. What's next? We take Haze's sub-par look and start to draw conclusions on the PS3's power from that?

I see your a bit confused. Why don't YOu read the link and see WHO
said those things. I simply linked the article. YOU need to ask THEM why are THEY asking that.