Ghostbuster's Image Quality Suffers on PlayStation 3

[Aura Guardian]

So Valve was right? Anyway who cares about graphics? Aside from Sony that is.

 

[asinann]

I assume that is a PC thing. And the thing with PCs is the tech is constantly evolving. Where the consoles are kinda stuck at a certain point that no one will be able to break through the glass ceiling (until the next next gen comes along)

It is a PC thing, to a degree. The PS3 really isn't setup as an HD Encoder with how it's currently setup. But, an analysis was recently done on the performance of the newest Intel i7 Extreme vs the Cell Broadband for HD encoding, and the Cell is still way out ahead. Does this have anything to do with games? Not currently, as far as I can tell. Does this mean the Cell is a better overall solution for Desktop use? Absolutely, emphatically, 100% no. As I said originally, the Cell does SOME things, extraordinarily well, ahead of it's time really. But, it's certainly not a General Purpose Processor, like most/all of Intel's chips.


Morne

I can only assume that most if not all games are coded using the intel chip though. And they have to make the program think in the way of the cell which would be kind of unnatural. (I apologize for the layman terms). Isn't it possible that it has just as much to do with the software that is hindering the power of the cell (as well as it being so new and devs are trying to wrap thier grey matter around it).

Devs actually have a special "developer kit" PS3 that lets them build the game using the correct hardware.

 

[squid5580]

I assume that is a PC thing. And the thing with PCs is the tech is constantly evolving. Where the consoles are kinda stuck at a certain point that no one will be able to break through the glass ceiling (until the next next gen comes along)

It is a PC thing, to a degree. The PS3 really isn't setup as an HD Encoder with how it's currently setup. But, an analysis was recently done on the performance of the newest Intel i7 Extreme vs the Cell Broadband for HD encoding, and the Cell is still way out ahead. Does this have anything to do with games? Not currently, as far as I can tell. Does this mean the Cell is a better overall solution for Desktop use? Absolutely, emphatically, 100% no. As I said originally, the Cell does SOME things, extraordinarily well, ahead of it's time really. But, it's certainly not a General Purpose Processor, like most/all of Intel's chips.


Morne

I can only assume that most if not all games are coded using the intel chip though. And they have to make the program think in the way of the cell which would be kind of unnatural. (I apologize for the layman terms). Isn't it possible that it has just as much to do with the software that is hindering the power of the cell (as well as it being so new and devs are trying to wrap thier grey matter around it).

Devs actually have a special "developer kit" PS3 that lets them build the game using the correct hardware.

Yes but correct me if I am wrong but aren't those kits just software programs designed to trick the intel to think like the cell? And wouldn't it make more sense to use a computer built completely around the cell to begin with. That way (which it seems to me is the biggest problem) is things aren't getting lost in translation.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Its not available on the PC either. Its just Ps3, Ps2 and PsP.

Uh...PAL country here. It's just coming out later here for the PC.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

What you're forgetting is the paltry amount of RAM in both systems, is still vastly below par, even for a small OS and _just_ games. My GPU in my PC has more RAM on it, than the PS3 or 360. Some people have more RAM on their GPU than both machines combined.

then you have no idea about operating system design

i'll ask you to take a look at how well linux runs on way less ram in command line only AND even serve webpages, enough to take a slashdotting and still live. the amount of ram needed in a dedicated system is minimal as it has one specific task. they don't need tons of ram to do what they need to do cause of lack of bloat

to give it a good comparison in other terms think of it like this

a console is like a drag racing car, it needs to go very fast in one direction and one direction only and drive on one type of surface only

a pc is like a hummer and it needs to drive in various directions and go thru a variety of different terrain and perform well in all the task

so you can't really compare the ram needs of the two as they are designed for really different tasks

 

[HyenaThePirate]

This ultimately is and will continue to be the PS3's achilles heel...

Most developers simply arent willing to put in the time or effort to learn the PS3's more intricate system for development, so most third party titles simply develop the game on PC architecture or Xbox 360, and then outsource the porting of the PS3 version to a "fourth party" porting developer.

Unfortunately, by this time, they are more interested in meeting a release date than providing a polished, quality Port, so these fourth party porters cut corners and rush their work, and once they get the game to a reasonable degree of being able to "run" on the PS3, they send it off for printing.

Until Sony decides that it must either push these fourth party developing companies doing the ports of games to a higher standard of quality, the original developer agrees to delay the game as long as it takes for the PS3 version to be maximized, or just simply takes the option to release the PS3 version months after the other versions hit stores (as some companies have), You can expect this sort of thing to continue.
I honestly believe this is why "timed exclusives" exist... the game gets to come out as an "exclusive xbox title" then releases on the PS3 months later when the port is polished. Throw in a couple new weapons, a new playable character and a few new maps and nobody will ever be the wiser...

 

[Zer_]

I assume that is a PC thing. And the thing with PCs is the tech is constantly evolving. Where the consoles are kinda stuck at a certain point that no one will be able to break through the glass ceiling (until the next next gen comes along)

It is a PC thing, to a degree. The PS3 really isn't setup as an HD Encoder with how it's currently setup. But, an analysis was recently done on the performance of the newest Intel i7 Extreme vs the Cell Broadband for HD encoding, and the Cell is still way out ahead. Does this have anything to do with games? Not currently, as far as I can tell. Does this mean the Cell is a better overall solution for Desktop use? Absolutely, emphatically, 100% no. As I said originally, the Cell does SOME things, extraordinarily well, ahead of it's time really. But, it's certainly not a General Purpose Processor, like most/all of Intel's chips.


Morne

I can only assume that most if not all games are coded using the intel chip though. And they have to make the program think in the way of the cell which would be kind of unnatural. (I apologize for the layman terms). Isn't it possible that it has just as much to do with the software that is hindering the power of the cell (as well as it being so new and devs are trying to wrap thier grey matter around it).

Devs actually have a special "developer kit" PS3 that lets them build the game using the correct hardware.

Yeah but the PS3 SDK is a piece of ass. The compiler stinks.

 

[danosaurus]

How come most games seem to be fucked up somehow when they go to the PS3, the most recent examples are Prototype and this...

Sony purposefully made the console hard to develop for. I can't argue with their logic, because there's none to argue with.

Wait, I thought the PS3 had better graphics than the 360?

Actually, I've noticed that several PS3 games have terrible anti-aliasing in comparison to both the PC and the 360. I don't know if that applies to every game, but the few I've played have had that problem.

You'd think, with all that processing power that they'd actually use it...

Heh, venting more PS3 hate than usual...

I'll just cut to the chase. Sony's made some terrible decisions.

Agreed - I remember seeing videos of what PS3 games were meant to be, prior to the consoles release.
So far, I've seen nothing that even comes close to impressing me. (Save for maybe LBP)

 

[antipunt]

Dude I'm honestly really confused. Years ago, I was told the Ps3 had better graphics (what it was banking on), but all I've been hearing about since is how 360 graphics look better. I mean, WHA?!

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

What went wrong? Speaking to Joystiq [http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/17/ghostbusters-on-ps3-lags-behind-360-version-developer-explains/], a Terminal Reality rep said, "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."

Translation: "Yes, the 360 version does have much better graphics, but here's a very convenient excuse as to why it's a-okay for the PS3's to be worse."

I mean seriously, that's his excuse? "Oh that's cheating because the 360 is shown in a resolution that the PS3 version can't display in"?

 

[LordSphinx]

Yeah, Fanboy alert. Everyone watch out. See, whereas, this dude is trying to push you to purchase a 360 with his thinly veiled bash on the PS3. I simply provide you with the details of both machines.

Yeah everyone, Morne is absolutely right, I don't provide any source for what I say, and he is THE truth *rolls eyes*. I do prefer my Xbox360 or I wouldn't have bought it, and I am not trying to hide it. But I've supported what I just said with interviews with people who know what they are talking about. And in the end, my final advice is choose your console according to the exclusives, that's not a one-sided statement that a crazed fanboy would make. But on the technical aspect, the PS3 is NOT stronger than the Xbox360, that's what Sony's marketing wants you to believe.

Cry me a river about the ills of being a developer, when you are one. Until then, I'll say whatever I please. 1st parties from Sony manage just fine. 3rd parties, fall asleep at the wheel.

BTW, I *AM* a developper, and I speak frequently with loads of people in the industry. Does that mean that you will finally stop saying whatever you please, as you suggest? Cuz right now, I think that it would be a blessing.

 

[Taerdin]

I have it on my ps3 and umm... it looks fine to me. I'm not saying its not worse than the xbox360 version, but I don't own an xbox, and unless I have a friend whos a giant prick and brings his 360 and his highdef tv over and laughs at me while I play my ps3 version this doesn't matter to me at all. It looks fine on the ps3, it plays perfectly, I'm enjoying it, ps3 owners dont care... this seems more like the kind of story only 360 owners would care about in that they can point and laugh bwahaha our ghostbusters was better. Umm... just sayin

 

[squid5580]

I assume that is a PC thing. And the thing with PCs is the tech is constantly evolving. Where the consoles are kinda stuck at a certain point that no one will be able to break through the glass ceiling (until the next next gen comes along)

It is a PC thing, to a degree. The PS3 really isn't setup as an HD Encoder with how it's currently setup. But, an analysis was recently done on the performance of the newest Intel i7 Extreme vs the Cell Broadband for HD encoding, and the Cell is still way out ahead. Does this have anything to do with games? Not currently, as far as I can tell. Does this mean the Cell is a better overall solution for Desktop use? Absolutely, emphatically, 100% no. As I said originally, the Cell does SOME things, extraordinarily well, ahead of it's time really. But, it's certainly not a General Purpose Processor, like most/all of Intel's chips.


Morne

I can only assume that most if not all games are coded using the intel chip though. And they have to make the program think in the way of the cell which would be kind of unnatural. (I apologize for the layman terms). Isn't it possible that it has just as much to do with the software that is hindering the power of the cell (as well as it being so new and devs are trying to wrap thier grey matter around it).

Only multi-platform titles. 1st party developers actually use engines/software developed for the PS3. It's the reason for the discrepancy in quality. Not that the 360 has DX10-like capabilities, but that the PS3 utilizes an entirely different API (OpenGL-esque), than what MS and Co. use. So, I guess another problem with PS3 developement, is taking OpenGL in directions it's never gone before, and utilizing it properly with regards to the PS3 architecture.


Morne

Huh I thought I had mentioned that the 1st party developers were probably using different hardware vs 3rd who are using the same thing we are using to discuss this (only thiers probably puts our to shame). I did think it but I guess my fingers missed the message. Since you really can't deny 1st party games look damn good (for the most part). To me it seems Sony should eat the loss and get the hardware needed (the same tech thier 1st party uses) and give it to the big 3rd party devs. Let them play with it and figure it out. And even offer them some of their 1st party employees to help with the team split that is required to make a multi console game. This is a perfect world scenario though.

 

[squid5580]

I assume that is a PC thing. And the thing with PCs is the tech is constantly evolving. Where the consoles are kinda stuck at a certain point that no one will be able to break through the glass ceiling (until the next next gen comes along)

It is a PC thing, to a degree. The PS3 really isn't setup as an HD Encoder with how it's currently setup. But, an analysis was recently done on the performance of the newest Intel i7 Extreme vs the Cell Broadband for HD encoding, and the Cell is still way out ahead. Does this have anything to do with games? Not currently, as far as I can tell. Does this mean the Cell is a better overall solution for Desktop use? Absolutely, emphatically, 100% no. As I said originally, the Cell does SOME things, extraordinarily well, ahead of it's time really. But, it's certainly not a General Purpose Processor, like most/all of Intel's chips.


Morne

I can only assume that most if not all games are coded using the intel chip though. And they have to make the program think in the way of the cell which would be kind of unnatural. (I apologize for the layman terms). Isn't it possible that it has just as much to do with the software that is hindering the power of the cell (as well as it being so new and devs are trying to wrap thier grey matter around it).

Only multi-platform titles. 1st party developers actually use engines/software developed for the PS3. It's the reason for the discrepancy in quality. Not that the 360 has DX10-like capabilities, but that the PS3 utilizes an entirely different API (OpenGL-esque), than what MS and Co. use. So, I guess another problem with PS3 developement, is taking OpenGL in directions it's never gone before, and utilizing it properly with regards to the PS3 architecture.


Morne

Huh I thought I had mentioned that the 1st party developers were probably using different hardware vs 3rd who are using the same thing we are using to discuss this (only thiers probably puts our to shame). I did think it but I guess my fingers missed the message. Since you really can't deny 1st party games look damn good (for the most part). To me it seems Sony should eat the loss and get the hardware needed (the same tech thier 1st party uses) and give it to the big 3rd party devs. Let them play with it and figure it out. And even offer them some of their 1st party employees to help with the team split that is required to make a multi console game. This is a perfect world scenario though.

No worries, you may have said it, and I just read it wrong. Either way, many of Sony's 1st parties have been quite open with their code, and the tricks they employ. Insomniac, for example, has the Nocturnal Initiative, which is simply a think tank for sharing source code for their engine, with any/all developers interested, not only to teach, but for tips as well. The information goes both ways. Problem is, 3rd parties need to have the motivation to do so, and it doesn't appear they do at this time. (Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but as I said, it's the 3rd parties who need to prove themselves to ME, now. Not the other way around).

Sony has been quite forthright, with information, since they kinda got caught with their pants down this gen. They came in with their noses quite firmly up in the air, and have been brought down several magnitudes of notches since then. Problem is, 3rd parties aren't reciprocating to that humbling. Nor, honestly, do they have to. I think some feelings were bruised with how Sony went about this generation. I myself, don't care, because, the games I bought the machine for, are in no way in any fear of being axed. But, I'm sure Sony and the 3rd parties do. It's up to them to reconcile those issues. They're adults though, and should be acting as such, not slinging inflammatory and ultimately weightless threats against each other.


Morne

See that is where I disagree. I don't think Sony has learned the humility lesson as of yet. It seems to me that they still maintain the "hurry up and wait" mentality and that they keep using these future projections as thier only platform. As for myself I am a very impatient gamer. If a game gets delayed by a week I am pissed. The logical voice in my head says you know it is for the best. All the other voices scream NOOOOOOOOOOOO MUST HAVE NOW. Hell waiting for the 24th is killing me and I just preordered the game a few days ago (Overlord 2). That to me is the biggest disconnect. That I can have a game now or I can wait a year and get a bit better (sometimes like Alone in the Dark) game or if they are released at the same time it is Sony that usually has the inferior version.

At this point though I think Sony needs them more than they need Sony. Anything worth doing is worth doing well. And it seems to me that when a 3rd party has a hiccup like this (minor as it was, it took me a while to actually realize the differences) it not only hurts Sony but tarnishes the devs reputation as well. And lets face it. The industry revolves around 3rd party development. And if a 3rd party has to delay thier launch because they need to tweak the PS3 versoin while the 360 has been optimized they have a choice. Either lose more money holding back the 360. Or lose money by releasing the 360 version while tweaking the PS3 and by the time it is ready alot of people who wanted it for the PS3 will have already bought it for the 360. And I don't know too many gamers who have the funds to spend another 60 on the same game because it has this extra feature (like Joker in the Batman game).

BTW I am confused. This should have devolved into a flamewar long before now