+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted December 6, 2007 Subscriber² Share Posted December 6, 2007 If you were to believe the hype, the PlayStation 3 version of The Orange Box is an unplayable mess. The man would have you believe that the game (which ran so smoothly on capable PCs and the Xbox 360) suffers from game-breaking frame-rates issues, resulting in what 1UP called a "slideshow." We ran the story, and the responses ranged from Xbox 360 owners laughing, to Sony fans cursing Electronic Arts for not being able to deliver a competent port.So when EA rang my phone and wanted to get a final copy of the game out to me, I was a bit skeptical. Having played much of The Orange Box on the Xbox 360, the last thing I really wanted to do was spend time playing a "broken" version of the game. I was assured by EA that really, it's not that bad. I had to see for myself. When the game arrived, I tore it open. I was convinced that after ten minutes of play, the game's flaws would be as obvious as had been reported; this would be the easiest assignment of my life. But six or so hours of playing Portal, Half Life 2, and Half Life 2: Episode Two, I have one question: What's everyone bitching about? Now before I go any further, I have to admit something -- if I were playing a game and the framerate dropped from 30 FPS to 29 FPS, I probably wouldn't notice. The Internet, it's equipped with some high-tech, top-secret military-grade cybernetic eyes; slight dips in framerates calls for 47 page threads on message boards, and our tips inbox being flooded with comparison videos. Really, I just don't get it. It should also be noted that I played through Half Life 2 and Half Life 2: Episode One on a sub-par PC, one that had me sitting through load times of up to a minute, and frame rate issues when I fired a pistol. But I'm not blind, just forgiving, and if the issue isn't seriously hindering my fun, then there's no need to release the hounds.After spending three minutes installing 400+ megs of initial game data on to my PS3 hard drive, I was ready to see what all of the fuss was about. I fired up Portal first, because my memories of the game still warm my cold heart. Visually, the first thing I noticed were the colors and the textures. While by no means ugly, they didn't quite "pop" as much as they did on the Xbox 360; everything seemed a bit muted. This is an odd thing to say, especially considering that most of the Aperture Science Centers walls are a clinical white, but it was definitely noticeable. I hopped about a bit, strafing and spinning around, trying to get the game to chug. I couldn't. It did appear that there were slight dips in framerate when making quick motions from left to the right (or when spinning around), but had I not been looking for them, they'd hardly be noticeable. Up through level seven -- I mean, uh, test chamber seven -- I didn't experience any noticeable issues with framerate or anything else that would hinder playability. In fact, Portal is just as an amazing and innovative an experience on the PS3 as it is on the Xbox 360 or the PC. But Portal, as it was pointed out to me, was not the main culprit. Portions of Half Life 2: Episode 2, according to 1UPs preview, were a disaster. The PS3 port had "technical flaws, which at best merely hinder gameplay and at worst make the experience downright unplayable." Well, that sounded like fun, and I couldn't wait.The good news: At no point did I run into anything that made the game unplayable. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to pinpoint a time where gameplay was hindered. [Editor's note: The next few sentences may contain spoilers, so brace yourself or skip the rest of this paragraph.] In "Chapter 2, This Vortal Coil," an intense sequence that has you fighting off an attack by a colony of ant lions from all angles, there are noticeable framerate problems. As the action heats up, there is a slight lag in the action; but did this make the "experience downright unplayable"? Most definitely not. Even the driving sequences in "Chapter 4, Riding Shotgun," which were supposed to be a slideshow nightmare, weren't an issue. Do I think that the vehicle controls are broken and ridiculous? Of course. But this was an issue with the Xbox 360 and PC version as well -- you essentially control the vehicle with first-person shooter controllers, instead of giving you a gas pedal and a break ... which would just make too much sense, apparently. One thing I have to mention are the load times. Despite dumping 400 some odd megs onto my hard drive, some of the load times still seemed brutal. While I don't mind waiting 15-30 seconds for the game to first load up (or even between sequences, as Half Life tends to annoyingly do), having to wait that same 15-30 seconds just to respawn or load your last check point bordered on unbearable. I guess the bottom line here is this -- if you own an Xbox 360 or a PC that can run it smoothly, you're probably better off picking up The Orange Box somewhere other than the PS3. The game does look slightly better on the 360, and I can't recall any noticeable framerate issues while playing through that version. Plus, achievements are always nice, if you intend to work for them. But for those who only own a PS3 and are concerned by reports of a lousy port, don't sweat it. The Orange Box is still one of the best values in gaming, and that isn't changed by slight technical issues I ran into on the PS3 (negligible framerate problems; Alyx Vance disappeared and then re-appeared on me once).Should PS3 owners be miffed that they're getting the "worst" version of The Orange Box? I guess they have reason to -- given the presumed power beneath the hood of Sony's console, there's no good reason why PS3 owners should suffer "sub-standard ports." But seeing as how The Orange Box doesn't really appear to fall into that category, there's no reason why they shouldn't be excited about the game's December 11 release. [Editor's note: I did not have a chance to spend any time with Team Fortress, beyond me starting up an empty room and running around. I'll be spending some time playing on an EA-hosted server next Monday, and if there's anything significant to report, you'll be hearing from me then.] Source: http://www.destructoid.com/stop-whining-ps...lax-57936.phtml At least things don't sound anywhere near as bad as they were made out to be... :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowRanger13 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Were the other reviews the final version of the game, because this one is of the final version... maybe they did some SPU optimization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seethru Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Should PS3 owners be miffed that they're getting the "worst" version of The Orange Box? I guess they have reason to -- given the presumed power beneath the hood of Sony's console, there's no good reason why PS3 owners should suffer "sub-standard ports." But seeing as how The Orange Box doesn't really appear to fall into that category, there's no reason why they shouldn't be excited about the game's December 11 release. I think part of the reason PS3 owners suffer through these ****ty ports is because the 360 and PC platform are so similar that developers can develop for one, and with minimal work, get it working on the other. PS3 is so much different, with a small installed base, that its not worth the time it would take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafter109 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I think part of the reason PS3 owners suffer through these ****ty ports is because the 360 and PC platform are so similar that developers can develop for one, and with minimal work, get it working on the other. PS3 is so much different, with a small installed base, that its not worth the time it would take. What planet did you come from? XBOX360 and PC are immensely different. First of all, the XBOX360 uses a Cell processor based on the PowerPC architecture used by IBM, Freescale and formerly, Apple (Due to the use of Motorola CPUs now under Freescale brand). Applications written for x86 or even x86-64 CPUs do not have binary compatibility with PowerPC CPUs. Applications must be modified and recompiled for the architecture on which the programmer desires that it run on. With that said, the XBOX360 is much closer related to the PS3 hardware wise that it is to the average PC, as the PS3 also uses a Cell processor with more cores. Now just to be sure we all understand, there is also no binary compatibility between the XBOX360 and the PS3 due to the fact that the development teams of each platform designed(or borrowed) their own operating systems. PS3 being a Unix/Linux based platform and the XBOX360 likely being an NT based platform, thus programs would need to be recompiled for their respective cpu and operating kernel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowRanger13 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 (edited) I think part of the reason PS3 owners suffer through these ****ty ports is because the 360 and PC platform are so similar that developers can develop for one, and with minimal work, get it working on the other. PS3 is so much different, with a small installed base, that its not worth the time it would take. Yes its harder to make a good port to PS3 from 360 then it is to PC from 360. But a lot of multi-platform games look just as good on both now so it proves there is no reason for them to do sloppy ports. You really think it's a small install base? Were at 6-6.5 Million and none of our major titles have been released. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and Gran Turismo are all known to be great sellers and system movers. I know PS3 won't over take 360 or Wii for total sales in 2008 but it's obvious with such big titles getting closer that it will sell better in 2008 then 2007. With that install base its more then worth it to spend some time and money on a good PS3 port. What planet did you come from? XBOX360 and PC are immensely different. First of all, the XBOX360 uses a Cell processor based on the PowerPC architecture used by IBM, Freescale and formerly, Apple (Due to the use of Motorola CPUs now under Freescale brand). Applications written for x86 or even x86-64 CPUs do not have binary compatibility with PowerPC CPUs. Applications must be modified and recompiled for the architecture on which the programmer desires that it run on. With that said, the XBOX360 is much closer related to the PS3 hardware wise that it is to the average PC, as the PS3 also uses a Cell processor with more cores. Now just to be sure we all understand, there is also no binary compatibility between the XBOX360 and the PS3 due to the fact that the development teams of each platform designed(or borrowed) their own operating systems. PS3 being a Unix/Linux based platform and the XBOX360 likely being an NT based platform, thus programs would need to be recompiled for their respective cpu and operating kernel. While it is true that PS3's CPU the Cell and Xbox360's CPU are both PPC he was right that it is easier for them to port from 360 to PC then from 360 to PS3. Xbox360 has three PPC cores when PS3's Cell has one PPC core and 7 SPUs. So running CPU code from 360 to PS3 is easy, but your making one core do what three cores were doing, this would be what you might expect from a sloppy port. To really get good performance on PS3 you have to optimize it to use the SPUs witch are very powerful but very different and very difficult to learn. PC and 360 both use Direct X, while PS3 uses OpenGL so there is more to do when it comes to graphics. Also Microsoft has a lot of tools to help easily port from 360 to PC. Edited December 6, 2007 by cloudstrife13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 This isn't directly related to the PS3 version, but am I seriously the only person alive that gets a bit worried when one of a game's major selling points is "good value"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NateB1 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 What planet did you come from? XBOX360 and PC are immensely different. First of all, the XBOX360 uses a Cell processor based on the PowerPC architecture used by IBM, Freescale and formerly, Apple (Due to the use of Motorola CPUs now under Freescale brand). Applications written for x86 or even x86-64 CPUs do not have binary compatibility with PowerPC CPUs. Applications must be modified and recompiled for the architecture on which the programmer desires that it run on. With that said, the XBOX360 is much closer related to the PS3 hardware wise that it is to the average PC, as the PS3 also uses a Cell processor with more cores. Now just to be sure we all understand, there is also no binary compatibility between the XBOX360 and the PS3 due to the fact that the development teams of each platform designed(or borrowed) their own operating systems. PS3 being a Unix/Linux based platform and the XBOX360 likely being an NT based platform, thus programs would need to be recompiled for their respective cpu and operating kernel. With the XNA framework, developers can literally compile the game for the PC, check another option, and compile for the 360. While most developers are not using the XNA framework now, Microsoft built the development tools in such a way that porting between the two requires minimal effort. The PS3, on the other hand, suffers from constrained memory bandwidth, a completely different architecture that is not suited for AI and other game-related computations, and thus requires a ton of effort to achieve playable framerates. This is why you see many games come out for PC and 360, and several months later, after numerous delays, the lower quality PS3 game comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 NateB1, no harm but you don't seem to understand how the XNA framework actually works. The reason most people don't use it is because it's too high level to get optimum performance out of the 360. It's great for hobbyists and small games, but not for things like the source engine. Oh and it's not a case of ticking a box and recompiling, there's quite a bit more to it than that (admittedly it's still a lot easier than porting from say the PS3 to the PC or vice versa). The reason you see so many games coming out for the 360 and the PC is because 1) Microsoft has been writing API's and SDK's for decades, they know how to write them so that developers can get the most from them with the least effort and 2) Their API's are all very similar, so DirectX on the PC will be very very similar to DirectX on the 360 (of course there are differences, but they're more subtle and generally will act the same way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NateB1 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 NateB1, no harm but you don't seem to understand how the XNA framework actually works. The reason most people don't use it is because it's too high level to get optimum performance out of the 360. It's great for hobbyists and small games, but not for things like the source engine.Oh and it's not a case of ticking a box and recompiling, there's quite a bit more to it than that (admittedly it's still a lot easier than porting from say the PS3 to the PC or vice versa). The reason you see so many games coming out for the 360 and the PC is because 1) Microsoft has been writing API's and SDK's for decades, they know how to write them so that developers can get the most from them with the least effort and 2) Their API's are all very similar, so DirectX on the PC will be very very similar to DirectX on the 360 (of course there are differences, but they're more subtle and generally will act the same way). I guess I misread something somewhere about the compile options for the XNA framework. Oh well. Also, I know the XNA framework is a higher level language - I never said anything to the contrary. I probably worded it wrong - I meant two completely different things - I know the XNA framework is separate from the development SDK for the 360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I think the new version of the XNA famework has better support for porting between the two platforms, that's probably where you got the idea from, but there's still a bit more to it than just flicking a switch and building for both (although if you design an application well enough, you could do such a thing - for all platforms). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imnotrichey Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 This isn't directly related to the PS3 version, but am I seriously the only person alive that gets a bit worried when one of a game's major selling points is "good value"? I dont think good value is the term used for the orange box. Terms I have heard is "best value." But yeah, I probably wouldn't pay 50 bucks for Portal by itself (too short) or HL2: Episode (probably would pay 30 for an expansion) but Team Fortress 2 is awesome! :) Its just selling any of these games by themself would be tough to do since they all have a con. Portal - too short Episode 2 - an expansion TF2 - no single player Episode 1- old expansion HL2 - 3 years old? cant remember when it came out but put them together, you have one heck of a box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forster Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Im willing to test how good or bad this is, say, in contrast to the 360 version. Anyone willing to buy me the PS3 version, send me a PM, and Ill post the results of the tests here for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted December 6, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 6, 2007 These articles really stink of damage control. For months we've been hearing how bad the performance is, and then suddenly one site last week or the week before says "don't worry, it's not as bad as you think", when clearly watching gameplay videos there is lots of noticeable fps issues. Then, with the recent Gamespot crap going on, everyone praises other websites out there for being reliable and honest ( one of them being 1UP) but now members on Neowin ignoring their advice/previews. Right.. If you really wanted to play Orange Box, you already have by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowRanger13 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 If you really wanted to play Orange Box, you already have by now. I do I do :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted December 6, 2007 Author Subscriber² Share Posted December 6, 2007 These articles really stink of damage control. For months we've been hearing how bad the performance is, and then suddenly one site last week or the week before says "don't worry, it's not as bad as you think", when clearly watching gameplay videos there is lots of noticeable fps issues.Then, with the recent Gamespot crap going on, everyone praises other websites out there for being reliable and honest ( one of them being 1UP) but now members on Neowin ignoring their advice/previews. Right.. If you really wanted to play Orange Box, you already have by now. Well this is a play through the retail copy. While it isn't up to par with the PC/360 copy, all I think the article is trying to show is that the mauling it got a month or two back isn't as justified with this build. If you read the article the author clearly points out that the graphics aren't as sharp and there is some slowdown. Compare that to the 1UP preview that said the game was unplayable. Link me to your gameplay videos, I want to how old they are, and see for myself how bad they look. I do have no intention of buying for the PS3 anyhow, I own the orange box on the PC - The only way to enjoy TF2. ps. I posted an article a few weeks back where even IGN said it's not AS bad as first reported - https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...=603434&hl= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted December 6, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 6, 2007 I can't remember the source of the article, but I remember it was you who posted it. It must have been two weeks ago now? That same day GameTrailers.com had new videos posted which showed the slow down. Let's face it, they are trying to make up for the damage made and recoup some of those sales. It's EA for goodness sake, they can't even port their own games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 What does it matter? The final game is playable and doesn't suffer those massive framerate drops, so why are people still bitching? If EA didn't port it right, it's all EA's fault for being lazy, but if EA DOES port it right, it's them trying to recoup lost sales? How are they supposed to win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted December 6, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 6, 2007 Of course it matters. Who wants to go out and spend ?40 on a broken/less performing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Yes but why does it matter now when it ISN'T broken? Am I going to be the only person here willing to give EA a single, solitary clap for NOT ****ing it up in the end? *clap* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted December 6, 2007 Author Subscriber² Share Posted December 6, 2007 Of course it matters. Who wants to go out and spend ?40 on a broken/less performing game. I think what matters is if you only have a PS3 this game IS playable and suffers from argubalyminor> issues compared to what it did a few months ago. I don't understand why you need to be soo critical DM in light of how BAD the game was a short while ago. Of course EA don't deserve praise/a toast in their name, they still let PS3 owners down - Well Valve argubaly let PS3 owners down not doing the port in house - but that's another issue. At least it seems they put some sorta effort in turning things around after the absolute grilling the game got. Of course all this belief of improvement from this article will be confirmed true or false when the reviews come in, but things look a lot more promising than they did a short while ago(Y)) - Back then this game would of been worth NO ones time... at least now PS3 only players can look to enjoy the Orange Box (or those with a crap PC/PS3). I'd still recommend a PC purchase of this game though as my first choice preference - (only ?25 through steam and dedicated servers for TF2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted December 6, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 6, 2007 I think what matters is if you only have a PS3 this game IS playable and suffers from argubaly minor issues to what it did a few months ago.I don't understand why you need to be soo critical DM in light of how BAD the game was a short while ago. Of course all this belief of improvement from this article will be confirmed true or false when the reviews come in, but things look a lot more promising than they did a short while ago (Y) - Back then this game would of been worth NO ones time... at least now PS3 only players can look to enjoy the Orange Box. With the recent Kane & Lynch crap over at Gamespot, I'm on the fence about beliving anything in most reviews/previews/play tests right now, so it's not just this version of Orange Box I'm being critical of. It stinks of damage control when you go from one week the game is "unplayable" to "minor issues" the next and I don't buy it one bit. A little suspicious don't you think? Not even an interview or article inbetween of them making progress. Just one extreme to the other (N) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seethru Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 What planet did you come from? XBOX360 and PC are immensely different. First of all, the XBOX360 uses a Cell processor based on the PowerPC architecture used by IBM, Freescale and formerly, Apple (Due to the use of Motorola CPUs now under Freescale brand). Applications written for x86 or even x86-64 CPUs do not have binary compatibility with PowerPC CPUs. Applications must be modified and recompiled for the architecture on which the programmer desires that it run on. With that said, the XBOX360 is much closer related to the PS3 hardware wise that it is to the average PC, as the PS3 also uses a Cell processor with more cores. Now just to be sure we all understand, there is also no binary compatibility between the XBOX360 and the PS3 due to the fact that the development teams of each platform designed(or borrowed) their own operating systems. PS3 being a Unix/Linux based platform and the XBOX360 likely being an NT based platform, thus programs would need to be recompiled for their respective cpu and operating kernel. Maybe I should have specified development platforms? I'm currently a programmer on a 360 title, developing for 360 is very similar to PC because of API's. There's a reason Valve didn't want to do this port themselves, can you think of why that might be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted December 6, 2007 Author Subscriber² Share Posted December 6, 2007 With the recent Kane & Lynch crap over at Gamespot, I'm on the fence about beliving anything in most reviews/previews/play tests right now, so it's not just this version of Orange Box I'm being critical of. It stinks of damage control when you go from one week the game is "unplayable" to "minor issues" the next and I don't buy it one bit. A little suspicious don't you think? Not even an interview or article inbetween of them making progress. Just one extreme to the other (N) Well, ok, that's you that's been affected by that individually. I don't think the whole gaming community should now think everyone (review sites/journalists) are ALL being "paid off", and are unreliable all of a sudden :laugh: I showed you in my first post that IGN reported a week or two back that things weren't as "bad" as they were first reported in 1UP's preview build. Also I wouldn't say it's one extreme to the other, the game obviously still suffers somewhat from a shoddy port... it just seems its not as bad as everyone thought it would be/or wanted it to be :rolleyes: Still I'll happily wait for some reviews from around the scene, I suspect this will get a 7.5-8.5 on average... give or take a little either way (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowRanger13 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 With the recent Kane & Lynch crap over at Gamespot, I'm on the fence about beliving anything in most reviews/previews/play tests right now, so it's not just this version of Orange Box I'm being critical of. It stinks of damage control when you go from one week the game is "unplayable" to "minor issues" the next and I don't buy it one bit. A little suspicious don't you think? Not even an interview or article inbetween of them making progress. Just one extreme to the other (N) Isn't going from "Slideshow" to "Minor problems" progress? One extreme to the other would be "Slideshow" to "Runs better then 360 and PC". They didn't say it runs better or even the same, they said it runs worse then its PC and 360 counterparts but it isn't a "slideshow" like other interviews called it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 It's not like EA sends out versions every week or something, it's not worth the effort, especially so close to the deadline. I mean how many previews have ever been completely playable months before the final release? There's always one or two that are fine, but there's loads that suffer all sorts of issues. Assassin's creed is a good example, previews had a lot of screen tearing and such yet the final code had no such issues. Not to mention the fact that all sorts of debugging crap was no doubt left into the preview released a few weeks ago that just slows things down (as a developer, I completely understand why this would be the case), stuff they wouldn't remove until they were finished with the code. Give them a chance, if you don't trust all of these articles, then you can't give preference of one over the other, but at the very least, if the final version IS ok, then don't just bash EA for the sake of them being EA, a little encouragement for when they don't **** **** up might actually encourage them to not **** more **** up in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts