PS3 Bayonetta Isn't Looking So Hot

[John Funk]

PS3 Bayonetta Isn't Looking So Hot

Thus far, all Bayonetta footage we've seen has been from the Xbox 360 version, and there may have been a reason - reports from the "Feel Bayonetta" event in Japan say that the PS3 version doesn't look nearly as good.

The fact that Platinum and Sega have only been showing off the Xbox 360 version of Bayonetta had been setting off warning bells in the minds of a few PS3 owners - if the game was supposed to be equal on both consoles, why not show both versions? Unfortunately, it looks as though these fears might have a very real basis. 1UP went [http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175838] to the Sega-sponsored "Feel Bayonetta" event in "a velvety underground bar in the party capital of Tokyo, Roppongi," and got some hands-on time with the PS3 version of the game. Their report? It's not looking that great.

[blockquote]While the 360 version on display looked crisp and smooth, the PS3 version was very blurry and the framerate was all over the place. During one portion of the demo, a crazy scene where you are jumping off of falling parts of a giant clock tower, it was often hard to keep track of the action because of the graphical issues on PS3.[/blockquote]

The developers have been adamant since the beginning that the game would look equal on both consoles, so it's curious that, if 1UP is to be believed (and there's no real reason to believe otherwise), Sega would choose to demo what is reportedly a sub-par (or at least not-as-good-as-the-other-version) build as the first look at the PS3 Bayonetta.

With two months to go before the game ships in Japan in late October - and even longer before it hits shores in the States in January - it's no stretch to imagine that Platinum can bring the PS3 version up to standards before it launches, but time is ticking. Either way, producer Yusuke Hashimoto confirmed that there will be a demo released shortly, so gamers will get a chance to see how the versions stack up against each other for themselves.

Permalink

 

[GodsOneMistake]

Ouch, it's too bad the PS3 is so hard to make games for....

 

[Sparrow]

Oh, come on.

It can't be that hard compared to the 360, can it?

 

[jamesworkshop]

well iD's rage is having the same problems, nothing really matters until its actually released

 

[jamesworkshop]

Oh, come on.

It can't be that hard compared to the 360, can it?

Cevat Yerli (Crytek) called it a very challenging system (high end CPU, low end GPU)
Gabe Newell (Valve) called it a waste of time
John carmack (iD) Can't seem to get a stable 60Hz even after getting both PC/360 to do so with RAGE

Didn't Sony also state the programing was made harder intentionaly to assure that later releases would be of a higher quality due to the time needed to optimise fully the hardware

 

[similar.squirrel]

Weird. It seems exactly like the kind of game suited to the Ps3. Maybe it's just the Heavenly Swords similarity.

 

[Torque669]

Well ... Blu Ray is hard to copy games onto but they should be able to do it. Most other companies seem to do it well.

 

[StigmataDiaboli]

Im surprised with the PS3 having WAY better performance, and this is coming from a 360 fan boy.

 

[AceDiamond]

Oh, come on.

It can't be that hard compared to the 360, can it?

It's not necessarily that it's hard...it's simply that it's completely different from General Purpose computing that the PC/360 architecture excels at. As I said above, the PS3's GPU is literally there to draw lines on the screen. That's it. Whereas, the GPU in my PC pretty much does everything from rendering, physics, lighting, volumetric smoke/water, particle effects etc... When optimized correctly on the PS3, all of those functions should be running via the SPE's. Something completely foreign to some developers, and really, this kind of processor architecture hasn't been seen since the haydays of Cray Supercomputers.

Well the problem is that, for some devs, it is hard just because of the difference and the lack of time they have to adapt to it, or the unavailability of people who can work on it that do know how to work with such an architecture

Indeed they did. Some developers have understood that simply porting from General Purpose CPU architecture and dumping it on the Cell (forcing the GPU to perform all graphics functions, which is the biggest issue with optimizing for the PS3...the GPU only draws lines. The Cell's SPE's do everything else), results in a crap game, that barely functions. Others, haven't figured this out yet, and try to pass off crappy ports to consumers. As I said though, better to get the PC/360 versions.

Also I thought (and this is just a thought) that it was also done so that developers would be more inclined to making PS3 exclusives as opposed to ports. I remember haring it somewhere, could be entirely wrong.

 

[Megacherv]

Oh, come on.

It can't be that hard compared to the 360, can it?

Cevat Yerli (Crytek) called it a very challenging system (high end CPU, low end GPU)
Gabe Newell (Valve) called it a waste of time
John carmack (iD) Can't seem to get a stable 60Hz even after getting both PC/360 to do so with RAGE

Didn't Sony also state the programing was made harder intentionaly to assure that later releases would be of a higher quality due to the time needed to optimise fully the hardware

Remember that these people are all PC developers, with porting to 360 being easy as one-two-twelve, but yeah. At least Carmack and Yerli are trying though, which is a good thing to see. Newell's just being weak and not bothering, which is why I got a PC so I can still play Valve games (just completed Portal for the first time on the PC version a couple of minutes before posting)

 

[Snotnarok]

The PS3 is too big of a pain in the ass to develop for, I've tried to get multiplatform games on it and I wound up getting the lesser version every time. Assassins creed had major framerate issues and almost no color vs the 360 version, Armored Core 4 had no color at all, even Resident Evil 4 had some problems (they were very very very minor but I spotted it).

The system does wonderful with exclusives but it's rare to see the same on both systems in terms of multiplatforming. I think Soul Calibur 4 ran better, but it honestly makes me nervous buying anything that isn't exclusive on PS3 with the poor experience I had with 4 games in a row (non-exclusives). Games like Uncharted are mind blowing how good they look, I just wish they had the same polish for the multiplatform games.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

The power of the machine is only as good as how easy it is to develop for it.

 

[AceDiamond]

As for the second part there, man, if Sony did that simply to garner exclusives, I'd be pissed off at them, honestly. That'd be one of the first things this gen they've done that really pissed me off (I own a launch 60g, price wasn't a problem).

Well, even though I'm pretty sure I read this from someone who was being more of a wacked-out conspiracy-theorist, it does make sense in some fashion. Since making a direct port is difficult, the options would concieveably be

1. Make a version from the ground-up
or
2. Just develop for the PS3.

For a lot of studios, the latter would make more sense because they don't have the time, money, or people to do multiconsole development in the same way they'd be able to do PC and 360 development because those two are similar in architecture. It's one of the reasons Valve doesn't do PS3 development and had to outsource it for The Orange Box in the first place.

Again I'm pretty sure (surprising, I know) that this isn't what's actually going on but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

 

[ShadowKirby]

if 1UP is to be believed (and there's no real reason to believe otherwise)

Yes there is.... BIAS!!!

Joking, but you know somebody somewhere posted that in all seriousness.