Ghostbusters Gameplay Performance and IQ @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
2FA
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
58,616
Ghostbusters Gameplay Performance and IQ - Who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters! That’s right; a brand new video game marks the re-release of the feature film on Blu-ray. We’ll take this game, which pays homage to the feature films perfectly, through our gauntlet of video cards to see what kind of value and gameplay experience you can get. We’ll also see if the stories are true about this being a multi-core CPU aware game using CPU-based Physics.

Ghostbusters proves to us that games can employ gameplay-physics and effects-physics all calculated by the CPU, leaving the GPU free to handle what it is designed for: Graphics. NVIDIA has a vested interest in PhysX, and they push it rather aggressively. A Quad-Core CPU is vastly underutilized in a lot of games, since the focus has been on graphics, and video cards have become so powerful. GPUs are so powerful, in fact, that designers are looking for something more to do with them. NVIDIA and AMD both want general-purpose computing to be done on the GPU, and that is great. But NVIDIA wants to push PhysX on developers and consumers to sell more NVIDIA-based video cards, not to improve gameplay based physics.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, surprisingly cool engine. Looks nice as well, hah.
Nice analysis, I definitely think that the CPU can play a role in physics processing...this game is perfect evidence of that.

Might need to pick this up one day.
 
To HardOCP Editors, it is possible to get multisampling AA in the game, you just need to use the compatibility bit trick that is done with UT3 (and some use it on Mass Effect) on Ghostbusters. It's 00000145 or 00000045, both work. Nhancer is the quickest way to activate this option. Game looks beautiful that way, although nolonger relevant to the article. It was a great article BTW, good to get some in-depth coverage of the game's engine and finally some PC news on how it looks - afterall, most of the news and debate out there has been how the PS3 renders at 75% of the Xbox 360's resolution with reduced textures and effects.
 
Spare-Flair said:
To HardOCP Editors, it is possible to get multisampling AA in the game, you just need to use the compatibility bit trick that is done with UT3 (and some use it on Mass Effect) on Ghostbusters. It's 00000145 or 00000045, both work. Nhancer is the quickest way to activate this option. Game looks beautiful that way, although nolonger relevant to the article. It was a great article BTW, good to get some in-depth coverage of the game's engine and finally some PC news on how it looks - afterall, most of the news and debate out there has been how the PS3 renders at 75% of the Xbox 360's resolution with reduced textures and effects.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen the nhancer bit, but with these up-front gameplay evaluations, we shy away from hacks and focus on the game that shipped in the box the way the developers intended it to be.
 
Nice review. I wouldn't have minded seeing how the CPU is affected when a second GPU is dedicated to PhysX. It would be interesting to see what's left for the CPU's.

Dedicated GPU-based PhysX technology did keep one of my 8800 Ultras off of EBay I suppose. A single 285 is now the video card. SLI with the 8800's was, for me, more trouble than it was really worth for light-duty gaming. So instead of buying a second 285 I tried the mismatched approach, splitting video & PhysX duties between the 285 and the 8800.

For the games that use the dedicated 8800 GPU for PhysX, my dual core system performs noticeably better than without, and very stable. I'd just as soon push off the next complete system upgrade for as long as possible (since games are what pushes my comp the most and I really don't get to play that often anyway), and this capability certainly hepled do that. When I do get to play, I want it to perform well. So I'm a fan of the dedicated GPU for PhysX as an option. An 8800 or later series GPU can be a cheap and effective PhysX-processing upgrade without requiring any SLI support on the motherboard, just a second slot.
 
djiliff said:
Nice review. I wouldn't have minded seeing how the CPU is affected when a second GPU is dedicated to PhysX. It would be interesting to see what's left for the CPU's.

Dedicated GPU-based PhysX technology did keep one of my 8800 Ultras off of EBay I suppose. A single 285 is now the video card. SLI with the 8800's was, for me, more trouble than it was really worth for light-duty gaming. So instead of buying a second 285 I tried the mismatched approach, splitting video & PhysX duties between the 285 and the 8800.

For the games that use the dedicated 8800 GPU for PhysX, my dual core system performs noticeably better than without, and very stable. I'd just as soon push off the next complete system upgrade for as long as possible (since games are what pushes my comp the most and I really don't get to play that often anyway), and this capability certainly hepled do that. When I do get to play, I want it to perform well. So I'm a fan of the dedicated GPU for PhysX as an option. An 8800 or later series GPU can be a cheap and effective PhysX-processing upgrade without requiring any SLI support on the motherboard, just a second slot.
Click to expand...

Ghostbusters doesn't use PhysX. It uses its own physics engine which is calculated on the CPU.
 
Mark_Warner said:
Yeah, I've seen the nhancer bit, but with these up-front gameplay evaluations, we shy away from hacks and focus on the game that shipped in the box the way the developers intended it to be.
Click to expand...

attempted control panel forcing and ini editing count as how the game shipped? i understand what you're trying to say, but the articles wording makes it seem as if there is no workaround.. while in fact the UT3.exe/nhancer thing works 100%. it looks GREAT with functional AA btw (i dont have the game, ive just seen shots @guru3d) :)
 
I'd be curious to see what happens to the CPU usage graphs when the process affinity is altered to use one, two, three and the tested four cores.
 
__hollywood|meow said:
attempted control panel forcing and ini editing count as how the game shipped? i understand what you're trying to say, but the articles wording makes it seem as if there is no workaround.. while in fact the UT3.exe/nhancer thing works 100%. it looks GREAT with functional AA btw (i dont have the game, ive just seen shots @guru3d) :)
Click to expand...

If we can make it work in the Control Panel, we'll use it. My thought is that that counts as "out of the box", because the video driver is required to run the game anyway. I'm just not into installing special crap to get AA working.

We considered the INI setting, but since it isn't actually AA and it adversely affects the clarity of textures in the game, we decided against it.
 
fair enough. im certainly on the same page regarding the graphical enhancements, i mean since its certainly capable of it, the game should simply support an AA setting...or at the very LEAST the drivers should recognize it. but personally, i dont mind going out of my way if it means a prettier picture. im one of those gamers who spends half the time running around staring at the scenery, exploring every area etc :D
 
It's a console game - you could barely tax the gpu's running at the silly 25*16 res. These reviews are very much a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

As for cpu physics - half life 2 has cpu physics - what made the cpu physics in this game so special? Do you have any methodology for judging the quality and amount of physics effects? Without that it's too subjective.

The only thing you can say with some certainty is if the game runs fine on a puny console cpu, then your test machine's 3.6ghz quad core is overkill.
 
I have an aging Alienware with a Pentium D 830 3.0Ghz nothing less than a core 2 duo is supported.I can play Crisis and any other PC game. I even recently upgraded my video card to a 2GB 4870 sapphire card. Ia m more interested int he story and seeing it as a 3rd movie and not a game. I wonder why the in game physics cannot be done on a Pentium D? It would seem this game is more CPU dependent then GPU. Meaning you need a newer and beefier CPU and the graphics card does not matter that much as your tests show.:eek:
 
sbuckler, the CPU physics of the Infinity engine are a bit more impressive (technically and aesthetically) than anything I've seen in a PC game so far, including Havok in HL2:Ep2 and PhysX in Mirrors Edge. [H]'s Viddler account has a few demonstration videos out at http://www.viddler.com/explore/HardOCP/videos/
 
sbuckler said:
It's a console game - you could barely tax the gpu's running at the silly 25*16 res. These reviews are very much a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

As for cpu physics - half life 2 has cpu physics - what made the cpu physics in this game so special? Do you have any methodology for judging the quality and amount of physics effects? Without that it's too subjective.

The only thing you can say with some certainty is if the game runs fine on a puny console cpu, then your test machine's 3.6ghz quad core is overkill.
Click to expand...

Of course, you mustnt consider the higher display resolutions, higher texture resolution and special effects that are only on the PC version.
Otherwise your point wouldnt be valid.
Oh wait...
 
Spare-Flair said:
To HardOCP Editors, it is possible to get multisampling AA in the game, you just need to use the compatibility bit trick that is done with UT3 (and some use it on Mass Effect) on Ghostbusters. It's 00000145 or 00000045, both work. Nhancer is the quickest way to activate this option. Game looks beautiful that way, although nolonger relevant to the article. It was a great article BTW, good to get some in-depth coverage of the game's engine and finally some PC news on how it looks - afterall, most of the news and debate out there has been how the PS3 renders at 75% of the Xbox 360's resolution with reduced textures and effects.
Click to expand...

I've tried every way to get AA working and I have to see any impact on the game. The only impact I can get is killing performance when playing with the ini. Every other method, from changing the exe, to playing with compatibility in nHancer, has had no effect at all for me.
 
Second game now where gaming on ATI cards has better CPU multithreading on a quad. Nvidia is pushing core 0 to the max and letting off on other cores.
 
No mention in the review of the horrible mouse acceleration that makes it damn hard to aim accurately without your crosshairs flying across the screen?
 
mj007 said:
No mention in the review of the horrible mouse acceleration that makes it damn hard to aim accurately without your crosshairs flying across the screen?
Click to expand...

Have you disabled all mouse acceleration in Windows/mouse driver?
This is known to make it much worse.
 
thanks for the video card performance... its much better than 3dmark fiasco, in fact i stopped using their benchmarking tools altogether since they do not represent gaming performance in most cases.

also... the tidbits about the gameplay itself was nice... more of that is great! i'd like to read a little "review" in the performance analyzation.
 
bigdogchris said:
Second game now where gaming on ATI cards has better CPU multithreading on a quad. Nvidia is pushing core 0 to the max and letting off on other cores.
Click to expand...
This needs some further explanation. I didn't see how peaks, valleys, and one core being loaded more than others amounted to anything particularly notable. The gameplay was smooth in all cases according to the article and in my personal experience it's butter smooth on my rig (in sig). I was glad to see that the cores were being put to work by the game engine and the in game visuals suggest that there is some real work being done by the CPU.

Basically, my question is how do you come to the conclusion that CPU multithreading is better using one graphics card or the other if there aren't any noticable in game performance issues?
 
Nenu said:
Have you disabled all mouse acceleration in Windows/mouse driver?
This is known to make it much worse.
Click to expand...
It's still crappy with it turned off. Using a really high polling rate and moderate DPI setting helps a little bit if you have a mouse that supports it. It feels like when using a M&KB the game doesn't turn off the aim adjustments that would normally be there when using a game controller. I tried using an XBOX 360 controller and didn't feel comfortable playing the game. Looking around and aiming was a pain in the ass.
 
I got this game back when it came out and I have mixed feelings about it.
First, the graphics are really just not that great. With maxed settings, the texture quality is just not what I would expect out of a modern title. The level design and art itself is well done, especially at the end of the game.

Baddies are VERY repetitive, reminiscent of DIablo II, where the same models are used for different badguys of different levels, and the only difference is color and attack type.

However the cpu physics, even on my Q6700, is very impressive. There are these golems that are constructed out of books that are found in the environment and are completely interact-able before assembling into the golem.

In terms of the gameplay, it was very repetitive. Fun and nostalgic, but very repetitive. Also, while the voice acting of Winston, Ray and Egon are spot-on, Peter's, though done by Bill Murray, is TERRIBLE. He delivers like he is still Steve Zizzou, far too deadpan for the normally over-the-top character of Peter Venkman.

Ultimately, it's a good thing the game is as cheap as it is, and if it were on sale for $20, it would be more appropriate. Worth the nostalgia factor, but not as a stand alone game.
 
mj007 said:
No mention in the review of the horrible mouse acceleration that makes it damn hard to aim accurately without your crosshairs flying across the screen?
Click to expand...

Same complaint here.......it is so frustrating!
 
Sipster said:
Same complaint here.......it is so frustrating!
Click to expand...

I would suspect that with such a serious issue, Mark did not experience it. So please let's see what Mark can share before assuming all users have the same problem as yourself. We all know PC games can differ across platforms.
 
mj007 said:
No mention in the review of the horrible mouse acceleration that makes it damn hard to aim accurately without your crosshairs flying across the screen?
Click to expand...

The mouse acceleration wasn't great, but it wasn't that bad for me.
 
Its ok for me too after a little tweak.
Using Razer Deathadder, set to 1000Hz, 1800dpi, master sensitivity set to 4 on X, 1 on Y, all other sensitivity settings on max.
Windows acceleration set to zero.

Edit::
ignore that, the real Deathadder settings are: 1000Hz, 1800dpi, Win pointer speed 4, Acceleration 0, all other sensitivity settings on max.
Windows acceleration set to zero.

tbh before playing this game I didnt realise how tune-able this mouse is, I didnt need to adjust the sensitivity before.
 
Last edited:
bigdogchris said:
Second game now where gaming on ATI cards has better CPU multithreading on a quad. Nvidia is pushing core 0 to the max and letting off on other cores.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we are not sure if this is because of the game/driver/video card or because of Win7's innate ability to dynamically balance the load of threads on cores. Win7 is supposed to handle scheduling of threads across cores better than Vista.
 
tesfaye said:
This needs some further explanation. I didn't see how peaks, valleys, and one core being loaded more than others amounted to anything particularly notable. The gameplay was smooth in all cases according to the article and in my personal experience it's butter smooth on my rig (in sig). I was glad to see that the cores were being put to work by the game engine and the in game visuals suggest that there is some real work being done by the CPU.

Basically, my question is how do you come to the conclusion that CPU multithreading is better using one graphics card or the other if there aren't any noticable in game performance issues?
Click to expand...

Indeed, as I noted above, it is hard to make that assertion all things considered. There might be extreme cases in some games where it is obvious, other times it may not be. As we evaluate more games using performance monitor between AMD and NV cards, we'll have a better picture painted. This is a case where, the more games tested we can show, the better conclusions to this topic can be made.
 
My fps in this game are so bad, I've given up playing it after a few levels. I have a AMD 5200+ and I'm guessing the CPU based physics are just crushing it :(
 
Fun game, performance is more than playable on my rig, it is just great. The control needs to get used to.
 
alg7_munif said:
Fun game, performance is more than playable on my rig, it is just great. The control needs to get used to.
Click to expand...
This.

My daughter loves this game (6yo) and the only reason I haven't finished it yet is because I won't play it without her. I'm really enjoying the game, it only took me about 30 minutes to adjust to the controls, but I won't say the very very slight lag isn't there. At least it's not like Dead Space before turning off V-Sync (did they ever fix that?).
 
Nice Ghostbusters review i like this game something different for a change.

ghost_w322009-06-2421-41-02-34.jpg
ghost_w322009-06-2512-05-09-09.jpg
 
tesfaye said:
This.

My daughter loves this game (6yo) and the only reason I haven't finished it yet is because I won't play it without her. I'm really enjoying the game, it only took me about 30 minutes to adjust to the controls, but I won't say the very very slight lag isn't there. At least it's not like Dead Space before turning off V-Sync (did they ever fix that?).
Click to expand...

My daughter (5 y.o.) likes to watch this game too.
 
Ok. A short game with NO multiplayer?

And Multiplayer is key for a game like this.

Are they going to add multiplayer in a free patch?

If not. I will not buy.

Disappointed.

Apparently, not gonna call...
 
HvyMtl said:
Ok. A short game with NO multiplayer?

And Multiplayer is key for a game like this.

Are they going to add multiplayer in a free patch?

If not. I will not buy.

Disappointed.

Apparently, not gonna call...
Click to expand...

The devs said something along the lines that they wanted to concentrate on multiplayer on the consoles and will not be making it for the PC. Hence the lower price. I guess it makes some sort of sense, as with the 360 and PS3, they don't have to host the games or run the servers...
No DLC that the others are getting either...

EDIT: Here's the quote from ThreeWave:
ThreeWave said:
"Multiplayer for the PC version of Ghostbusters is something that Threewave and Terminal Reality always wanted to do. However, our focus was on making the console version the best that they could be - an experience that allows multiple players to re-live and re-fight many of the themes from the movies. When we looked at the resources necessary to pull off multiplayer on the consoles and the PC, it became a question of what could we do and still be excellent in our execution. We couldn't do all versions with multiplayer simultaneously with the resources that we had available - there was simply too much to do. Something would have to suffer. Therefore, we kept our focus on making the console versions deliver on the promise of being an integral player on the Ghostbusters team."
Click to expand...
http://news.bigdownload.com/2009/06...comment-on-lack-of-multiplayer-in-pc-ghostbu/
 
Last edited:
Mark_Warner said:
If we can make it work in the Control Panel, we'll use it. My thought is that that counts as "out of the box", because the video driver is required to run the game anyway. I'm just not into installing special crap to get AA working.

We considered the INI setting, but since it isn't actually AA and it adversely affects the clarity of textures in the game, we decided against it.
Click to expand...

Just thought the nhancer bit deserved mentioning in the article to inform PC gamers of how it is possible (that is what makes the PC version most distinct from the console versions afterall - the possibility of much better graphics). You could have just mentioned the possibility of AA but explained that it wasn't out of box and therefore would not be demonstrated in your benchmarking.
 
thanks brent and mark.. great read and hoping the 9.7s come out soon so i can utilise cf.
 
Derangel said:
I've tried every way to get AA working and I have to see any impact on the game. The only impact I can get is killing performance when playing with the ini. Every other method, from changing the exe, to playing with compatibility in nHancer, has had no effect at all for me.
Click to expand...

You must be doing something wrong. Did you remember to hit the override under options in nhancer? Otherwise, the compatibility bit doesn't come up. Also, hit the manual activation checkbox and manually activate it from the taskbar.

nhancer.jpg




Regarding the mouse issues - it's as if the devs forgot that the mouse =/= analog joystick and the damn controls have been programmed to have a deadzone!!!

The sensitivity sliders are useless if there is a pre-programmed deadzone for analog control. That is the issue of why you can't use mice on consoles but in reverse! (unless you buy that special chip and get another PC to calculate mouse movements to compensate for built in deadzone - that's what serious Xbox Live gamers who prefer using mice online do)

In typical mouse usage, I use my mouse very little. Then when I hit that magical deadzone boundary, the view just zooms way to the left or the right or up and down. It's playable, but feels like garbage! Ghostbusters is a short game. If it was a longer game or had PC multiplayer of compelling replay value, I would consider getting a Gamepad for playing this on PC. It's a fantastic game and I really like the innovative gameplay. For the short length, I can deal with the terrible mouse acceleration/deadzone issue but if I really wanted to play it long-term on PC, I suspect an analog joystick would be neccessary as this is yet another crappy console port.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top