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

[-tkf-]

Could be that lately, 3rd party devs have gotten better at gimping their 360 ports to avoid this exact controversy. There were lots of these discussions when the PS3 first came out.

So you are saying that Ghostbusters pushes the envelope so much on the graphic side on the 360 that the developers werent able to copy that on the inferior PS3 console?

We know today, for a fact, that the PS3 and the 360 is more or less Equal when it comes to graphics power. The games prove it, there isn´t a game on the PS3 where you think"this couldn´t be done on the 360" and there isn´t a game on the PS3 where you think the same about a 360 version.

 

[2real4tv]

Could be that lately, 3rd party devs have gotten better at gimping their 360 ports to avoid this exact controversy. There were lots of these discussions when the PS3 first came out.

If this is true what stopping developers from releasing exclusives on the 360 that are over and above what the ps3 is offering. Because I haven't seen it but maybe that will change in the future I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[assurdum]

I had this thought earlier also. The last big fiasco I recall was GTA4 which looked poor on the PS3. However, the producer deflected it well by saying they preferred the PS3's version color palette more and as is such, the fanbase clinged to that and gave it a free pass. That was a prime example of good PR handling. This is quite the opposite.

GTA 4 on ps3 a big fiasco and poor yeah ... ok has less resolution or worse fps (ehm very hard to see a difference and ps3 vsync locked ever not on 360) but the dithering is missing on the ps3 thanks to FP16 ... 360 in some parts is really ugly for that. However I suspected ps3 version is just a porting and for a porting is not so bad.

 

[assurdum]

I don't think it does. In fact, it seems like it has worse effects.

No. The effects watching GT video seems really a little bit better on the ps3 (water, smokes etc) . But if the price is the 960x540p errr...who cares of the effects?

 

[obonicus]

No. The effects watching GT video seems really a little bit better on the ps3 (water, smokes etc) . But if the price is the 960x540p errr...who cares of the effects?

There's talk of stuff like how when you burn Stay-Puft with the proton pack, on the 360 you see embers and bits of flame, while with the PS3 all you see is a dark stain.

 

[2real4tv]

There's talk of stuff like how when you burn Stay-Puft with the proton pack, on the 360 you see embers and bits of flame, while with the PS3 all you see is a dark stain.

Not only on the state puff but on walls also there is a good example of that on the lensoftruth comparison

 

[gongo]

Sad to say PS3 is another of Sony's overhyped underperforming hardware, there is so much blame you can put on the developer IMO. They are paying console tax to Sony. Thank god i have dumped the low res budget hardware consoles (but mucho hype driven market) for the real tech deal - PC!

 

[obonicus]

Sad to say PS3 is another of Sony's overhyped underperforming hardware, there is so much blame you can put on the developer IMO. They are paying console tax to Sony. Thank god i have dumped the low res budget hardware consoles (but mucho hype driven market) for the real tech deal - PC!

Awesome! Maybe there's a bunch of people who would like to hear about your experiences.

 

[Phil]

Lol, given the topic title and some of the remarks in here, I was expecting PS2 level of graphics compared to KillZone like on 360! Apart from the blurred textures and the overall sharper look on the 360, it's not THAT bad. (All a matter of expectations I guess - and truthfully I was't expecting that much - or in other words, a larger difference)...

but anyway... I'm not interested in either.

 

[gongo]

You missed my point which is consoles are always budget tech, you pay for what you get and the idea of super packed processing power is daydreaming. If a quality high Ghostbuster you seek then get the PC version. Yes we know RSX sucks, what were we expecting from a circa 2005 tech in 2009? Yes we know Sony tried to sell you a diamond in a rough but i would think the amount of information floating around the internet, we should be ...well, more informed?

AND with the success of Wii, consoles' power are going to fall further back in the curve and to make up the marketing hole, we will be seeing more gimmicky talk about motion sensing gameplay.

 

[Neb]

Sad to say PS3 is another of Sony's overhyped underperforming hardware, there is so much blame you can put on the developer IMO. They are paying console tax to Sony. Thank god i have dumped the low res budget hardware consoles (but mucho hype driven market) for the real tech deal - PC!

Welcome to the green side of the grass!

But seriously I find it strange how every game looking worse on PS3 is called "badly ported" (even if PS3 is lead platform), "devs dont know how to milk the PS3", etc etc. Heh, I even remember how the devs boosted about PS3 being the platform with enough perfomance to realise Ghostbuster as it should look and how the engine was built for PS3.

Seems like architecture differences in work.

 

[Graham]

As stated in the first post, we were willing to give a bit of slack and let a valid technical discussion commence for this game, despite the face there are dedicated threads on the topic with strict rules governing their content.

Feel free to continue a civilized discussion there.

Could be that lately, 3rd party devs have gotten better at gimping their 360 ports to avoid this exact controversy. There were lots of these discussions when the PS3 first came out.

Sad to say PS3 is another of Sony's overhyped underperforming hardware, there is so much blame you can put on the developer IMO. They are paying console tax to Sony. Thank god i have dumped the low res budget hardware consoles (but mucho hype driven market) for the real tech deal - PC!

GTA 4 on ps3 a big fiasco and poor yeah ... ok has less resolution or worse fps (ehm very hard to see a difference and ps3 vsync locked ever not on 360) but the dithering is missing on the ps3 thanks to FP16 ... 360 in some parts is really ugly for that. However I suspected ps3 version is just a porting and for a porting is not so bad.

Awesome! Maybe there's a bunch of people who would like to hear about your experiences.

But seriously I find it strange how every game looking worse on PS3 is called "badly ported" (even if PS3 is lead platform), "devs dont know how to milk the PS3", etc etc. Heh, I even remember how the devs boosted about PS3 being the platform with enough perfomance to realise Ghostbuster as it should look and how the engine was built for PS3.

 

[catisfit]

I think it's more accurate they paid to get to release this game at the same time the Blu-Ray launched. I suspect Atari, or whatever's left of them in EU would have delayed anyway.

I seem to recall this started life under Sony but was dumped (reasons unknown), before Atari picked it up off the scrapheap?

I guess the return and the timed exclusive is simply to tie in with the 25th anniversary of the original release (alongside the blu-ray release), and the fact that the UK seems to be Ghostbusters mad (every other advert is using music or themes from the movie - 118, Citroen etc). Might as well cash in. Atari must not have had the resources to release it in Europe on time, and the previous Sony connection probably helped.

Oddly for a game of a movie, with such a chequered development, and with the graphical anomalies discussed above, it seems to be reviewing really well here.

 

[deepbrown]

I seem to recall this started life under Sony but was dumped (reasons unknown), before Atari picked it up off the scrapheap?

I guess the return and the timed exclusive is simply to tie in with the 25th anniversary of the original release (alongside the blu-ray release), and the fact that the UK seems to be Ghostbusters mad (every other advert is using music or themes from the movie - 118, Citroen etc). Might as well cash in. Atari must not have had the resources to release it in Europe on time, and the previous Sony connection probably helped.

Oddly for a game of a movie, with such a chequered development, and with the graphical anomalies discussed above, it seems to be reviewing really well here.

Wasn't under Sony, was under Activision.

 

[catisfit]

Wasn't under Sony, was under Activision.

IIRC it was under Vivendi until the Activision merger, at which point it was thrown out. The Sony connection I'm recalling was before that.

 

[deepbrown]

IIRC it was under Vivendi until the Activision merger, at which point it was thrown out. The Sony connection I'm recalling was before that.

God damn lol. Well Sony Pictures own the IP...so, yes, it is Sony in a way. Don't think SCE ever had a hand in it though.