Coldgunner Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Just fyi, but it's been confirmed the PS3 version runs at 3/4's of the res compared to the 360. That explains the softness. I can't see them gaining much performance in 180 lines of pixels less than the 360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 and also confirmed that TR did NOT make the multiplayer. It's by some other company. If you guys didn't know lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 and also confirmed that TR did NOT make the multiplayer. It's by some other company. If you guys didn't know lol http://www.threewavesoftware.com/Threewave...ostbusters.html You sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 What's new :p You can have games looking as gorgeous as Uncharted 2 and people still bash the PS3 as inferior when it is clearly lazy development teams just doing the bare minimum amount of work to get their multiplatform game to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 To be fair, it's easier when you're only releasing a game on one platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOC Veteran Posted June 16, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 16, 2009 and also confirmed that TR did NOT make the multiplayer. It's by some other company. If you guys didn't know lol Yes, Threewave did it. :) http://www.threewavesoftware.com/Threewave...ostbusters.htmlYou sure? TR is Terminal Reality Ayepecks not Threewave. Just in case you thought that's what Razorwing meant. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 To be fair, it's easier when you're only releasing a game on one platform. So? No one said it wasnt hard im just getting sick of people bashing the PS3 as an inferior console graphics wise when its clearly lazy development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger.Girl Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 So?No one said it wasnt hard im just getting sick of people bashing the PS3 as an inferior console graphics wise when its clearly lazy development. It couldn't be that Sony was lazy and that they couldn't make a video game console that was easier for game developers to program for in a PS3, Xbox, PC market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Yeah because Sony intentionally sabotaged itself and made a console where it would be really difficult to squeeze power out of it............... None of the Sony 1st party developers seem to be having any problems with it, Polyphony, Naughty Dog, Guerilla Games, etc.. etc.. Its easy to blame Sony because its cool to hate Sony, try hating on these lazy ass developers and maybe you might start to see some proper multiplatform games that match up. FYI i dont have a PS3 before anyone pulls the "but youre a fanboy" comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 16, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 16, 2009 It couldn't be that Sony was lazy and that they couldn't make a video game console that was easier for game developers to program for in a PS3, Xbox, PC market. They wanted to try other tech, the CELL being newly developed. You can't exactly attribute that to being "lazy". Some of the graphical results on the PS3 for only 2-2.5 years on shelves is pretty impressive. The price of PS3 dev kits in the beginning was the biggest issue coupled with all the missing SDK features, but they're vastly cheaper nowadays (since GDC especially) and we know more feature filled (trophies/in-game XMB/in-game music/etc). I think the point nowadays is the PS3 has been out for years, some of the developers that are still producing large inconsistencies between platforms are going to get criticized. There's too many examples of multiplatform titles being 1:1 or 95% the same for devs to hide behind "everyone else is struggling". I guess luckily the devs producing noticeably inferior titles nowadays tend to be those releasing the poorer/more average titles. Ghostbusters is the biggest named title in a while that's had noteworthy differences, not just different textured pavements. Important games like COD/Burnout/EA sports franchises etc, are pretty much identical cross platform now. I guess it's better to get the game than not (Valve syndrome), and as I've said many times the only people who will argue about differences like this are hardcore gamers that have probably already made up their mind what copy they are buying before anything like this is unveiled. They'll just be looking for satisfaction in justifying their purchase of game/console, hence the attacks on the platform creator more than the developers for a poor port. Most gamers going into shops will just buy Ghostbusters based on brand name/some reviews they might have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Good thing Sony paid for the Europe exclusivity... lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger.Girl Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 First party developers really don't have a choice, Sony can have awesome exclusives and that's fine. When you get the same game rolling out on 3 platforms (I wouldn't include Wii in this case different game, different developer) its easy to see how PS3 will end up on the back-burner. Making such optimizations for the PS3 can easily be looked at as making your developers jump through a series of hoops. This can be seen in many cases and GTA stands out in my mind as a prime example. Sony may not have been "lazy" but they might have taken a poor gamble. Regardless developers shouldn't come along after the fact the PS3 was released and complain about the architecture of the system, a console should be as friendly to developers as possible and the PS3 is clearly not. Owning a 360 and a PS3 and having every time a multi-platform game is released being followed by purchasing the game for the older of the two consoles because the older cheaper one performs better "lessens" my perceived value of the PS3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Why is it Sonys fault that third party developers dont want to waste time optimising their builds for the PS3, the games that are developed on the PS3 have very minor differences mostly in lighting and textures, First party developers do have a choice Sony doesnt hold a gun up to their head and make them create a stunning looking game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 16, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 16, 2009 First party developers really don't have a choice, Sony can have awesome exclusives and that's fine. When you get the same game rolling out on 3 platforms (I wouldn't include Wii in this case different game, different developer) its easy to see how PS3 will end up on the back-burner. Making such optimizations for the PS3 can easily be looked at as making your developers jump through a series of hoops. This can be seen in many cases and GTA stands out in my mind as a prime example. Sony may not have been "lazy" but they might have taken a poor gamble. Regardless developers shouldn't come along after the fact the PS3 was released and complain about the architecture of the system, a console should be as friendly to developers as possible and the PS3 is clearly not.Owning a 360 and a PS3 and having every time a multi-platform game is released being followed by purchasing the game for the older of the two consoles because the older cheaper one performs better "lessens" my perceived value of the PS3. You need to pay attention to more important multiplatform games before making a molehill out of this. Multiplatform games shouldn't increase your perceived value of a console, exclusives should. If you own a 360 and PS3 you're clearly going to have to be interested in exclusives or else it's pointless you owning both consoles in the first place. The fact this whole generation is based on multiplatform is to allow people in less fortunate positions to get a gaming console and enjoy 70-80% of the games on the market. There is much less of a need to own both a 360 and PS3 this generation than there was last generation, as as an Xbox owner the PS2 was being flooded with 3rd party exclusives. The most hardcore of us though typically own both, it's because of the exclusives or features of one console - I can tell you right now not one person on this forum will own both if they genuinely have no need for both, there's a lot of showboating of hate/criticism/dislike, but 99% of us with both have just reason to want to own both - That's usually exclusives causing that. You might have a preference for your 360, but you know when you buy it there's games you won't experience on it, and vice-versa for PS3 owners. Which is why I say everytime people start arguing over issues like this it's with fully loaded arguments based on the fact they've already made their mind up what console they're buying the multiplatform game on beforehand. Nothing wrong with that, typically you're going to buy multiplatform games on the console with most of your friends, or whatever copy you can get cheaper. Or if you're an achievement ######, always the 360, or PS3 trophy ######, always the PS3. Developers choose to become multiplatform, if they can't code for a console they should either a) Get help/expand developer base/outsource b) Do a Valve (not release at all) c) Delay the release of one of the versions till it's up to par, or every version until they're all up to par However 95% of the time none of the above is needed as the differences are that small you'd only notice them if you were searching based on knowledge. If the transparency between differences is high enough the experience both gamers get on seperate platforms will pretty much be identical. It's only if you're talking noticeable frame rate dips, or large discrepencies in textures/graphics. Multiplatform games are more about developer skill/knowledge than the power of the console which is why you get a backlash from people if your only addition to the topic is something alone the lines of "console x sucks lol". When you get genuinely dysmal ports, like The Orange Box, my point of fully loaded arguments is put the test, but that's because the transparency isn't high, it's low because of how bad TOB PS3 ran. If you're a multiplatform owner in a position like that, it's of your best interest to buy on the 360 regardless of your reasons to want the PS3 version as your enjoyment will be impacted by poor framerate. Unless price may enter the equation and you save a decent amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 Is it Ironic that my first time playing I already crossed the streams? LOL.. show you how much I love GB. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumdogmillionaire Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 picked up my copy! i hate the best buy logo printed on the cover though. ughh. just put the insert in, no need to change the cover art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger.Girl Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 *I will cut it due to length* My point is I want to play Ghostbusters and that this game is not up to par with the PC and and Xbox counterparts and is something someone should care about (someone like Sony). Maybe it is lazy stupid developers but I didn't buy a PS3 to feel sorry for it because its a poor misunderstood piece of hardware with lots of potential. Last I checked PS3 is not marketed as an after thought of developers with a slew of poor ports. I have owned a 360 for years and play most my games on it. I bought PS3 for a Blu-ray player and Final Fantasy (and now that reason is gone). I don't understand how a newer more expensive console can have these flaws. I never bought a console in the past and looked back and said to myself "The console I bought 2 3 years ago does this better." That is my gripe as maybe a more casual gamer who wants the best for their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 And they wonder why pc'ers pirate games...... so far lately, all console ports for pc have been shafted of patches, glitchy or unplayable, and receive no support for downloadable content; whereas the console versions get everything. So why should I pay the same price for something that isn't of the same quality, and wont get another look at once you have my money? Until PC'ers are treated the same, most will likely download everything. Valve provides great support and has great profits. Activision and other companies just port a game over and forget it... I mean, what about guitar hero 3.... there is still no downloadable content! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOC Veteran Posted June 16, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 16, 2009 Ghostbusters has launched on Steam btw, in case anyone still wants to get the PC version (minus multiplayer remember). The new Riddick game was also added. Along with Morrowind and Oblivion GOTY's in case you didn't see my other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 The game is awesome guys. loving every bit of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doli Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Booooooo, multiplayer only for PS3 and X360... The movies are ok but I grew up watching the cartoon "The Real Ghostbusters" so I guess the Wii and PC version would be a nice combo of a movie and cartoon mix. Man if they had this intro for the Wii version that would be :laugh: Edited June 16, 2009 by Doli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted June 16, 2009 Global Moderator Share Posted June 16, 2009 I actually rented this game! Can't wait to play it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad. Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Gonna get started on it sometime this week, really looking forward to it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unrealistic Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Just played the first two levels. It's quite awesome and very funny if you liked the old movies. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 16, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 16, 2009 After all that discussion about multiplatform games on the previous page, they were playing a pre-release version that had lowered textures. That and the mip mapping doesn't turn off at the same distance as the 360. http://boards.polycount.net/showpost.php?p...mp;postcount=33 Not really sure if that means the retail build is better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts