Samn9 Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 ^^^^it still comes down to the Developers plain and simple most the game makes have had a year + to learn how to code for the ps3 STOP MAKING FREAKING EXCUSES I think it is a combination of both the PS3's difficult architecture and the developer's lack of time, effort and money. I can forgive the developers because most of the time they cannot make a good port and still remain profitable. If they weren't profitable then they wouldn't be making games at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnzoFX Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 seems to me that bad ports are just that, bad ports. And it's just not worth it to the dev's to make "proper" "ports" Theres money/deadlines involved. It feels very useless to blame anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDQuiksilver Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Yes, CELL is just plain not a good design for game development. It may be powerful, and given time effort and talent a game can access a lot of that power. But good hardware shouldn't force that on a development team in order for them to get a good game out, especially since very few projects get that kind of time, money, and just plain talented individuals. So you're admitting that a very vague generalization was made.... again, bad hardware? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironman273 Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 So you're admitting that a very vague generalization was made.... again, bad hardware? :laugh: If you want to get all nitpicky, what I meant was the PS3 hardware is not optimized for being a gaming machine, so therefore it's a bad choice of hardware for a game console or more succintly, bad hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDQuiksilver Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 But the difference between a bad choice and bad hardware is quite different. But the clarification was nice. However, a bad choice noted by some and we have seen those who have been able to handle it. The long run will be interesting. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Its not as cut and dry as this. The CELL really isn't ideal for game code in any way shape or form. Doesn't make it a bad console but it certainly isn't beneficial and has hurt nearly every multiplatform title. And I wouldn't hold up Oblivion as some shining example either, it took a whole extra year. CoD4 still is a feat no matter what though Uh, wouldn't you think that part of that extra year had to do with Sony's hardware being a year later, as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danrarbc Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Uh, wouldn't you think that part of that extra year had to do with Sony's hardware being a year later, as well? The point was that there was a ton of extra development time for the port, regardless of the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted November 25, 2007 Veteran Share Posted November 25, 2007 Even with Oblivion, the extra dev time wasn't worth the longer wait imo for the tiny changes made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 What I mean is, since they didn't have the dev kits/final hardware, they couldn't work on the PS3 port until deep into the production cycle anyway. It's not like they started all three versions of the game at the same time, and added in an extra year for the PS3 version. This isn't a Stranglehold/UT3/GRAW kind of situation. That being said, I have no idea about how Oblivion looks/runs on the PS3, since I didn't wait and got the PC version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstanov Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Of course it's a bad choice, it's much easier to spread things out over 3 cores then it is to figure out how to get everything managed correctly and efficently over 8 spes. The optimization process to get the engine running properly must take months by itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts