The PS3 for this generation is definitely weird, the graphics and performance can vary so much from being insanely awesome to piss poor quality. I also find a trend which shows the more impressive a game looks on the ps3 the better it performs, whereas the duller one actually performs a lot worse. I really don't know what's so special about Bayonetta's engine that would cause such a drama.
The Game Technology discussion thread *Read first post before posting*
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
djskribbles
Legend
Who knows, it could be several things. This is essentially Platinum Games handing over the porting duties to Sega which I would assume is never a good thing.
I still hope they improve the PS3 version (the framerate and screen tearing more specifically) by the North American release.
I still hope they improve the PS3 version (the framerate and screen tearing more specifically) by the North American release.
Well he can answer himself but I feel like you missed his point. He would do his best as Sega may have done which would not have save him to see his work and efforts qualified as "bad port".
What if you don't think it's a bad port, but rather a noble effort retro-fitting an engine that may not have been that solid to begin with?
The engine might be solid...for 30fps like most engines seem to be. 60fps is a rarity that many games don't even try to achieve and there are fewer of them that run at 720p.
Offtopic:I would consider it quite an achievement if RAGE can run on these console at 60fps and in 720p.
Offtopic:I would consider it quite an achievement if RAGE can run on these console at 60fps and in 720p.
I don't think depending all of the transparancies...however dmc 4 after all not seems so different on both. ps3 had even more specular effects.Just played the PS3 demo. Ok, so I admit I get aggravated when studio after studio gets thrown under the bus as having done a bad portBut I won't post why it's hard to do a heavy overdraw game at 60fps on PS3. Instead, I'll play the other side and assume it's a bad port like everyone else. So:
1) we need 60 fps
2) we need lots of overdraw
3) we need the overdraw bits to maintain their detail
4) we need the overdraw bits to linger on screen a long time with said detail
Given that, how do you guys propose to solve the above scenario on Bayonetta even though the 360 has an order of magnitude more bandwidth to the frame buffer for transparencies compared to the PS3? I normally wouldn't ask, but since it's already been binned as a bad port with such confidence, that means I presume you guys know of a solution. I'm sure you know that Edge wouldn't help here, and that you can't use low res buffers for transparencies and still maintain detail. So how would you fix this bad port?
Last edited by a moderator:
Then tone it down? It's an action game, Kamiya's promised 60fps, which he can't really deliver anywhere (and can't even deliver half of that on PS3). There have been 720p games at 60fps. Maybe not with so much on the screen at one time, but that's sorta the point. Hell, DMC4 came pretty close, across both platforms -- but then it might be too much to expect other Japanese developers to have Capcom's chops this gen.
You end up with a game that is not the same. It's one thing if it slows down to the point where it becomes unplayable but before the analsys most people on other boards were fine with the way the game played and I suspect since the majority of people who will play the Japanese version of the game they likely won't care because they don't own a 360.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clearly not. But you're arguing that what we have is particularly worth protecting. This is supposed to be the evolution of action games, going off Kamiya's own hype. He's promised 60fps. Which is more important for an action game in this vein? The flashy special effects or 60fps?
For one, this is B3D, nothing is ever 'good enough' graphically, which is why we argue over such things. And what I'm saying is that Platinum Games may not be such a solid developer, technically. I won't argue whether they have art design and gameplay design chops, though. Suggesting we should give them a break because 'no one else is 720p and 60fps', well, then you're just agreeing with me. And they should have realistic expectations. Other developers made the resolution sacrifice because they thought 60fps led to an improved experience. Personally, I'm not sensitive to FPS at all (in fact I believe I may be legally blind to it) but we do have the game's designer promising 60fps (pretty much the only graphical promise made by him).
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Idol
Legend
I carefully read his post again: so is the point (maybe Joker can clarify) that the actual PS3 Bayonetta is the best port the PS3 is capable of, or the best port SEGA is capable of?
If it is the latter, I am interested in his thoughts about facing this scenario (of course assuming he is not working at SEGA, porting the actual Bayonetta :smile
. This would help to judge the quality of the PS3 Bayonetta port (good decisions/bad decisions/nothing left to decide).I would agree that 60fps is more important and like I said the easier thing to do would have been to go sub-720p which is something I'm fine with if it yields a better running game. There is a chance that things have improved. Someone who played the retail game believes that the game is now 45fps PS3 and 55-60fps on 360 though I do remember reading many comments how the game was 60fps on the 360 until the analysis. Then again I don't know what would have needed to be done in order to achieve a steady 60fps? You say tone it down but by how much and to achieve parity.
I can say I have few worries for GOW3 seeing that many people don't seem to notice problems with framerates as long as the stay at 30 or above. IW were correct. Add motion blur and I'm sure I will see post saying the game runs at 60fps.
Last edited by a moderator:
I just want to hear what you guys suggest to fix it
Think about it, normally if you point to someone and say "man he is an idiot", you presumably have a reason to think that and the people around you will also be curious to know why. So...we have yet another studio deemed 'bad', presumably that means you guys have a reason to think that, and I'm curious to know why and what your solution to the problem would be.Let's simplify the equation then. Assume they have the worlds greatest console engine. Even Naughty Dog and Guerilla games humbly bow in it's presence (they of course didn't, but just for the sake of simplifying the argument). Now, with said Engine Of Perfection (tm), they still need to effectively do large blend lookups on a 1280x720 screen multiple times at 60fps, and they don't have ~250gb/s of bandwidth at their disposal. So, suggestions?
AlStrong said:
Low res textures only look bad up close, further away they still look ok (unless the savagery of QAA has been unleashed upon them, in which case they are all perma-mangalated). Effects with low res buffers on the other hand always look bad, especially the edges, unless they disappear real quick. Take the game Infamous, a most excellent game that I completed fyi, but it has lingering transparencies and they look really bad because they are low res. However they can get away with it because there is no other version of that game to be compared to, so they can't be called a bad port.
Which takes us back to Bayonetta. It's versions will get compared, so the low res route alas is not an option if one wants to avoid being called a 'bad port. So what did they do wrong and how would y'all have fixed it?
It is really easy Joker:
The answer you are looking for is that one of the hurdles for the port is the title is using graphical approaches that are strengths on one platform and a weakness on the other. Less an issue of porting and more of a design issue that would require rethinking some of the game design rather than simple technical fixes.
The answer you are looking for is that one of the hurdles for the port is the title is using graphical approaches that are strengths on one platform and a weakness on the other. Less an issue of porting and more of a design issue that would require rethinking some of the game design rather than simple technical fixes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Idol
Legend
Ah, okay...thanks for clarifying. So it is common knowledge that this stuff causes serious trouble when porting to PS3...why did they include it into their game?
This makes me curious: they want to multiplat; they know that this causes massive problems on the PS3; but nevertheless include things the PS3 is not capable of to make porting a pain in the ass ...this is what I call 'bad decision'.
I mean, everyone would call them stupid, if they for instance force a hard drive and then struggling to port this from PS3 to a hard drive less XBOX360, while arguing about the missing capabilities of the latter...
They developed the game for the 360, it's unclear when Sega got involved to handle the port.
Billy Idol
Legend
So this would be the answer: if the game was designed as XBOX360 exclusive first it really makes sense that they used the special magics of the ol' BOX, while not thinking about porting this to PS3 - thanks for the info!
Maybe this scenario holds true for most of the 'bad ports'!?
joker454 said:
That's not really a simplification, but an attempt to construct a biased argument: 'the only way to run this ideal engine is to exploit this advantage the 360 has over the PS3'. Well, if that's really the case, then there's nothing you can do. But that's fallacious reasoning. You could construct other contrived scenarios that say that a game could only be run on the PS3 and claim such a thing constitutes your 'ideal engine'. Fact of the matter is that this isn't an ideal engine; whatever choices they made for the 360 may have been the wrong ones. So that's why I called it a noble effort on Sega's part -- they may be stuck trying to extract milk from a stone.
On top of that, we're clearly not graphics programmers so your attempt to appeal to authority won't find many respondents (well, when this was posted in the Console Games forum), but you're still heavily missing the point. The point is, even for a game that was essentially designed to be exclusive on 360 (which is what I hear) it doesn't run that great. It's the same thing as with the Ghostbusters port months ago: why are we setting up a game that isn't so solid technically in its best case as a paradigm? Or is this a weak attempt to say 'none of you are graphics programmers, stop talking about graphics'? If that's the case, B3D is the wrong place to have that discussion, I feel.
marcus_rocks
Newcomer
The answer is simple: How does the God of War 3 team do it? and that game looks much better than Bayonetta, all at 60fps unlocked. I don't want to talk down Bayonetta but that is simply the truth.
There are always advantages and disadvantages in every hardware. The PS2 fillrate is a lot higher than that of the PS3. If we just try to nitpick s.th, we sure can find it, like low-res particle effects. There is no game that you can say it can best every other game, even Crysis still cannot render water splash properly (it looks freaking bad). But what really matter is the visual impact in the end.
Now how to fix it in the case of Bayonetta? Why don't we utilize the advantages of the PS3 via the Cell? like using the Cell to have more filter effects on the textures, just like team Ninja did it on Ninja Gaiden Sigma 1 and 2 (by the way they confirmed that they used the Cell to have more effects on the textures when NGS1 came out. I can't find the reference now because it was in one of the interview videos). Team Ninja did not have to lower the texture resolution to have better looking textures than the 360.
The answer is simply that there is really nothing on parity in multi-platform games. It is just that we need to utilize the advantages of each platform to have good multi-platform games.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty much..
I honestly believe at this point some developers are holding back the 360 build to achieve parity.
Similar threads
