PS3 Ghost Busters is shown to be seriously 'Texture Gimped' compared to the 360

L

lewchenko

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
284
I wanted to buy this game... I really did.

But having just read this article over at arstechnica.. there is no way Im going to buy the PS3 version.

Linky - PS3 version of GhostBusters is a generation behind the 360 from a graphics point of view.

I just dont understand how the developer (Terminal Reality) thinks they can get away with it ? Just watch the video on the link as well ... texture artifacting on the walls etc. Shoddy job indeed. What a crying shame.

We've all seen amazing games on the PS3 such as Uncharted/Killzone so its not a question of the PS3 being a worse console... Is this developer laziness or incompetence ?

In Europe, only the PS3 gimped version (with added bonus .. Wii graphics !) is for sale, with the 360 version delayed as part of a Sony exclusive.. Hmmmm... Just glad I didnt pick it up without reading some real player comments first! Lucky escape!
 
So you're going to pass on a PS3 game because it's missing "glowing ember" effects?
Good god, what has gaming come to?
 
disappointing. I pre-ordered the PS3 version. Looks like I'm gonna have to swap it for the 360.
 
another article saying that the PS3 version is 960x540 resolution.

http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/ghostbusters-ps3-960-by-540-360-720p-$1304198.htm
 
Thats just a shoddy job right there.. what were they thinking? IIRC Ghostbusters was supposed to be purely PS3 exclusive and then they changed it up.
 
lewchenko said:
Is this developer laziness or incompetence ?
Click to expand...

Has to be both.

The resolution is much lower and some of the effects and textures are gimped. I saw a Terminal Reality employee chalk it up to not having the PS3 dev kits as long. :rolleyes:

X360 ver definitely runs/looks better than PS3, although I've read both platforms have problems with tearing and frame drops. Let's face it, they aren't top shelf console developers.

The terminal reality guy said the PC version far and away runs it best, with the highest texture resolution etc. Another added benefit is it's half priced. The drawback is no mulitplayer support. :rolleyes:

$30 doesn't sound bad for the PC version. For a short novelty, I don't know if I'd drop $60 for the console copy, even if the PS3 version wasn't fubar'd. Technical issues aside, the game itself seems to be fairly decent for what it is.
 
Funny i thought i remember long ago they said ps3 was the console number 1 due to its so powerful... what a joke not even true 720p res :(
 
I find it hard to believe on the system that touted full 1080 graphics that devs get away with rendering at a quarter of that resolution, just above EDTV.
 
Yeah 720p isn't even a concrete standard this generation. I read some parts of Star Ocean 4 were only 510P !
 
Very few games beyond downloadable niche games actually run at high res, and most of your big name games like your halos and call of duties and whatnot are lower res than 720.

Looks like they made this as a pc/360 game which are so similar and easy to port to each other, and tacked on a shitty ps3 port. zzz lazy devs. Sucks to be a ps3 owner for lots of multiplat games.

Sony should really reconsider their "we'll make it hard for devs to program for the ps3" (Sony's words, not mine) strategy next generation.
 
My general rule of thumb: if it's multi platform, get for the PC. Afterall the consoles are nowhere near as powerful as my PC. There are some exceptions like GTA IV and Dead Space (bad control) but most multiplatform games are better on the PC than consoles including Gears of War.
 
Mortuus said:
Funny i thought i remember long ago they said ps3 was the console number 1 due to its so powerful... what a joke not even true 720p res :(
Click to expand...

This has what to do with this thread? The problem isn't the PS3's "power", it's the fact that the developer didn't have as long with the dev kit. The other issue the PS3 has is how difficult it is to develop for. When you have an experienced team, with time to get used to the dev kit, you generally get a quality product. This was obviously not the case here.
 
Technoob said:
Very few games beyond downloadable niche games actually run at high res, and most of your big name games like your halos and call of duties and whatnot are lower res than 720.

Looks like they made this as a pc/360 game which are so similar and easy to port to each other, and tacked on a shitty ps3 port. zzz lazy devs. Sucks to be a ps3 owner for lots of multiplat games.

Sony should really reconsider their "we'll make it hard for devs to program for the ps3" (Sony's words, not mine) strategy next generation.
Click to expand...
^^ Agreed.
Multiplatform releases suck for multiple reasons, as something always gets dumbed down to make it compatible with the other. Obviously, nobody want's to own all three consoles, but when you get this garbage out who even want's to buy it period.

However I think you have the following combination:
1) Lazy developer
2) PS3 has a learning curve. As quoted above, I think this is one of the reason you see first party titles outshine many of these cross platforms. They have the time, funds, and resources to put out a great experience for that particular console.
3) Software sales. The majority of the software sales I believes play into this. The wii received a unique version of the came compaired to the rest of the releases. Xbox 360 appeared to receive the most attention after that, followed by PS3, and finally PC. Hard to spend more money when the return on the investment would be less compaired to the other platforms and I'm sure this is off of NPD figures.

Either case I'm not purchasing any version as it appears this game was rushed out and I doubt the post support will exist at all.
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is the developers said the PS3 is the main edition they are marketing. (this was 6 months ago or more)
 
Doesn't the 360 have slightly better hardware than the ps3 though, hence the better graphics? Or are they about equal?

This doesn't bother me though since I'm not interested in that game. In most games the ps3 is on par or equal to the 360.
 
PS3 said:
Doesn't the 360 have slightly better hardware than the ps3 though, hence the better graphics? Or are they about equal?

This doesn't bother me though since I'm not interested in that game. In most games the ps3 is on par or equal to the 360.
Click to expand...

long story short, 360 has better gpu, ps3 has a superior processor. Both have 512 total ram. PS3 has 256/256 split, 360 has 512.

Anyway, anyone who's played uncharted or killzone knows that the ps3 lacks nothing in the graphics arena, it's just that very few non first party devs get enough out of it to make great multiplat games. It's just as much sony's fault as other devs. If only halo and fable looked any good on the 360 that would be a total MS failure for not providing enough dev tools or industry standard configuration for a broad cross section of devs to work with.
 
Last edited:
But... but... but...

VG247: Right. But the game will be coming out on the 360, it’s a simultaneous release. Did Sony insist it was lead?

MR : Personally, I want to show off our PS3 technology. 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.

VG247: Isn’t it the same for the 360?

MR: We’re running the same game for both platforms but if we made a PS3-only game, for example, you could double the amount of objects on screen that you’re seeing. The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3. We’re keeping the game the same over both platforms so we don’t want to take out any features.

VG247: So is the game scaled down because of the limitations of the 360?

MR : * snip * If we’re doing a PS3 only game however, we could be doing a lot more. We could be pushing a lot more on the screen.
Click to expand...
http://www.vg247.com/2008/04/28/sie...t-of-objects-on-screen-says-ghostbusters-dev/
 
Nah, that was back in April 2008. The fact that Sony owns the Ghostbusters franchise probably had something to do with those quotes.
 
Psychotext said:
Nah, that was back in April 2008. The fact that Sony owns the Ghostbusters franchise probably had something to do with those quotes.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes. that reminds me, gotta go gives sony some of my money for sweet sweet blu ray Ghostbusters. Can't wait to check it out on my ps3.
 
I read the (flawed) review over on arstechnica and ran out and bought it for the PS3 before all of this stff came to light. That in mind I played it for about 45 minutes this afternoon and enjoyed it. It seems a little re-hashy of the first film but it is still fun. It's possible that if you were to play the 360 version then the PS3 version the graphics would bug you but I have no problem with them. Ithink the game looks fine. The lipsyncing is a little off. That bugs me mroe than anything. If nothing else the game is engaging enough thus far that I am not noticing anything detrimental. I guess overall that's why I am playing it so it shouldn't stop someone form buying it unless they are more interested in graphics than story and gameplay.
 
I don't understand what all the fuss is about... if the game it shitty and/or the gameplay then who cares what console it looks better on? It wouldn't justify the money any more. If the gameplay is good, then the graphics could look like shit imo but at least i'd be playing a good game.

I also have a problem with the video of the PS3 version showing artifacting in one of the rooms. First of all, I can guarantee you there will be some artifacting in ALL versions, but perhaps not in the same place. And, he comes running back and forth in this ONE ROOM where nothing is happening at all. When you run by that room in the game you'd probably only briefly notice the artifacting and move on and never come back... so that's a rediulous thing to point out b/c almost all games have some artifacting at one point or another whether you notice it or not.
 
Technoob said:
Ahh yes. that reminds me, gotta go gives sony some of my money for sweet sweet blu ray Ghostbusters. Can't wait to check it out on my ps3.
Click to expand...
cool, let us know if the picture is vastly improved over the dvd version, im a bit weary of some of the older films (ones not filmed in full hd) being released on bluray with no enhancements.
 
The sad thing is that some people would actually think that a console is better than the other from such games, they don't know that the developers are the lazy bastards.

Anyway, regarding resolution talk, I don't think this generation of consoles can run most types of games in full HD mode (specially action games), I guess they'd suffer from frame rate issues and the game wouldn't be as smooth as it would be on a lower resolution. That doesn't bother me at all since I prefer performance over appearance (yes I know both at the same time would be awesome, but I just don't think this generation of consoles can handle it). Some games don't have Full HD resolutions but still look awesome and run great, such as MGS4, IIRC the native resolution for MGS4 was only 1024x768.
 
lol now THAT is amusing

maybe that's why sony wanted it released for PS3 first?
 
Something is seriously up here.

Even before Sony officially dipped its finger in the pot, the developers were saying that they preferred working with the PS3

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/2982.html

article said:
Everyone is interested in hearing more about the new Ghostbusters game, and the Videogaming247 blog spoke to Terminal Reality president Mark Randell to learn more about the promising action game based on the legendary movie franchise.

As it turns out, the team has opted to have the PS3 be the lead development platform for the game, and chances are, it might be a fuller experience on Sony's platform. Perhaps "opted" isn't the right word, though, as Randell pointed out that the new movie is the property of Sony Pictures. Randell also admitted to wanting to "show off the PS3 technology," and if they had made Ghostbusters exclusive to the PS3, it coulda been mighty interesting:

"We’re running the same game for both platforms but if we made a PS3-only game, for example, you could double the amount of objects on screen that you’re seeing. The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3. We’re keeping the game the same over both platforms so we don’t want to take out any features."

Randell goes on to say they "reserved one whole processor on the PS3 for Dolby Digital 5.1 sound," where they had to use only a part of one processor on the 360 to do that. He also reemphasized that they could be doing "a lot more" on screen if the game was PS3-only. All of this is very encouraging news to most PS3 owners, and it seems very likely that the PS3 version of Ghostbusters is going to be the one to get.
Click to expand...

The whole bit about the PS3's seven cores is just laughable...


... but the really concerning thing here is that the PS3 was the lead development platform. At a glance, you'd instantly think that this game was ported from the 360 to the PS3 and then watered down until it matched the 360's performance. I'm assuming that these versions were developed in parallel, with the PS3 version being the most far progressed at the time of demonstration. The 360 guys did a good job.
 
I think it's pretty clear the devs are full of shit. I wouldn't pay much attention to anything they've said in an interview.
 
ouch:

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."

75% of the resolution? That's terrible.
 
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.
Click to expand...
These guys should learn some stuff from REAL developers like Kojima Production's team or the developers of Uncharted!! Their mediocre game can't be even be compared to Metal Gear Solid 4 or Uncharted in terms of graphics, yet they're pretending like the PS3 isn't strong enough to show how "awesome" their game looks.
 
metallicaband said:
These guys should learn some stuff from REAL developers like Kojima Production's team or the developers of Uncharted!!
Click to expand...
Ironically MGS4 runs at sub HD resolution (still looks good though). Guerilla Games, Naughty Dog and Polyphony are the kings of PS3 development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top