PS3 News: Inferior Multiplats Still Plaguing The PlayStation 3 - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Inferior Multiplats Still Plaguing The PlayStation 3

I really thought we had left this behind in 2007 and while the trend is certainly on the decline as developers gain a firmer foothold with the complex PlayStation 3, it still exists. There are some unfortunate recent examples.

Borderlands is the first; if you hadn't noticed, the PS3 version has scored significantly lower than the Xbox 360 version around the Internet (8.5 for one, 8.0 for the other according to GameSpot), and it's clear the PS3 version has some issues. Gearbox Software has promised a fix and we're not doubting that promise, nor are we doubting that eventually, the two versions might be nigh-on identical but the fact remains: the 360 version is better. Then we've got Bayonetta; the 360 version scored a perfect 40/40 from Famitsu but the PS3 version scored two points lower, and this is likely due to the fact that Sega had to handle the port. Obviously, it's still a great game (we're not disputing that), but by this time in the generation, the two versions should absolutely be identical. There's just no excuse. Platinum Games should've created both versions simultaneously like most studios do with most multiplat titles, and that didn't happen.

Thirdly and lastly, while we don't have any critical feedback just yet, we are questioning Bioware's Dragon Age: Origins, which is slated to arrive on November 3. We just heard the PS3 version was pushed up to release alongside the 360/PC versions and while this is exciting in one respect, it's worrisome in another. Bioware isn't exactly checked out on PlayStation hardware (they remind us a little of Valve, although at least Bioware makes an effort), and in an effort to appease PS3 owners after announcing a delay, I'm afraid they're rushing an inferior version of Origins out the door. Look, I hate to point this out, but it seems clear to me that PS3 exclusives are the best of the best; one can make the argument that Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and Killzone 2 are the finest games of the generation, and if you don't like a few of those choices, just wait until God of War III and Gran Turismo 5 next year.

Furthermore, more than a few people have said the 360 is holding the PS3 back, in that if developers have to make a multiplatform game (and they almost always do if they wish to make a profit), they have to compensate for the 360's lacking in the hardware department. The more we see the industry advance - almost exclusively through the PS3; just look at Uncharted 2 - the more we're inclined to believe that. However, it's also true that 360 exclusives are the best of that system's library; Gears of War is a perfect example. At the same time, designers know it's easier to make a game for the 360 and they're still producing inferior versions for the system that has the most capability. I'm sorry, but this seems just...wrong. You know? In so many ways, the PS3 proves this is no longer 2007 but there's this one last stitch in the system's side it needs to remove.

10/25/2009 11:11:07 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (123 posts)

rogers71
Sunday, October 25, 2009 @ 11:28:08 PM
Reply

As long as Infinity Ward and Treyarch can keep up the good work with the COD franchise, I will be happy buying those games and PS3 exclusives. They are definitely head and shoulders above the rest of the field.

Last edited by rogers71 on 10/25/2009 11:29:18 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 8:02:56 AM

As much as i am with CoD these days, I'm have to say those two companies know gow to make multiplats shine on both consoles. They're identical.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

HOODGE
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:50:25 PM

Hey Banky what's your YouTube account? Mine is hoodge1. Yup I'm a member of the Trey (PS3) Brotherhood. I've been owning that little nerd MLD lately. Just started making vids to counter the Xbox 360 weebol Republic as I like to call it. MLD is fail everytime he makes a vid. He's so irrelevant it isn't even funny.

As for other members on here, come check out my vids. Our group of guys for PS3 is around 11,000 members. MLD's weak group of 360 nerd herds is around 1500. We own these guys everytime they speak. The only thing MLD clings onto is Halo Sales and 360's console lead which is diminishing rather quickly. He has no other ammo against the PS3.

I don't just focus on owning MLD. I focus on factual information and there is so many topics to talk about in concerns to the PS3. 360 I believe will repeat itself like it's first brother the Xbox. So again my account is (hoodge1). Come check out my page Blanky and send me a friend request. Anybody else in here wanna get in the fun, come join us. Trey4Life...

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Sunday, October 25, 2009 @ 11:28:43 PM
Reply

In a word, it's called laziness. Very prevalent through many industries.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:49:47 AM

Speaking of which..
GeneralMLD on YouTube called Polyphony Digital:

Lazy

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

www
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 7:02:12 AM

Fluffer I co-sign. It's just laziness and unwillingness BUT I don't blame them though, I could imagine being in a programmer's shoes, I don't think I'd love to work myself out just to get the best out of the complex PS3 whiles I can have it easily done on the 360.

Now let's take it the Xbox 360 never existed, we'll definitely have more games looking like Uncharted 2 if not better.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:44:29 AM

Very true, www. I can understand why they would want to stick with what they know, and keep working with what's familiar, as long as they are continually trying to push it and get every last drop of performance out of it. Taking on new challenges is definitely not for everyone. ;)

Last edited by fluffer nutter on 10/26/2009 9:45:59 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

convergecrew
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:09:38 PM

Another thing its often called is: perceived ROI.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frylock25
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:15:19 PM

Taking on new challenges is definitely not for everyone. ;)


sounds like valve? ;)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Buckeyestar
Sunday, October 25, 2009 @ 11:32:04 PM
Reply

I'm more confident in BioWare than you seem to be, they've never let me down. The way I see it is that their progress with the PS3 probably went better than anticipated and allowed them to bump up the release, there's no indication they are rushing it out.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:08:16 AM

...what has Bioware done on the PS3?

Agree with this comment 7 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

NightHawk17
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:26:14 AM

what would the couple of weeks had done to better the game?

And the same could be said for Kojima Productions before they released MGS4, what games did they make for the ps3 prior?

Let's just wait and see before we put Dragon Age Origins down, i mean we all gotta start somewhere right?

And most of the time the problems described aren't even noticeable by most people until some smart alec says one is better than the other, like the bayonetta

Last edited by NightHawk17 on 10/26/2009 12:27:17 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

ExhumeART
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:26:23 AM

I think he means in terms of quality dealing with games produced by the company, not necessarily for any specific system, but as a whole, and I have to agree. Bioware has always been trusty, and their games deliver what was promised. If they do mess this one up, it'll be a huge set back for them, as this is their first project on the PS3.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:55:34 AM

What are you talking about? Kojima Productions has a very long history with PlayStation hardware, right from the start. For nearly 15 years.

Bioware has little to no experience with such hardware. That's all I'm saying.

Agree with this comment 11 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

NightHawk17
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:15:01 AM

i'm talking about the ps3 hardware, cause that's what you mentioned

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:02:18 AM

@Nighthawk

I think its kinda unfair to compare Kojima Productions to Bioware. The main reason is that Kojima Productions have been a strong supporter, at least gamewise, to sony platforms while Bioware never made a game for any sony platform, at least to my recollection.

Second thing is that Kojima productions focused on the ps3 when they made Metal Gear Solid 4, in other words, the game is exclusive. The amount of work they put in to that game is completely for the ps3. Bioware is releasing a multiplatform game and on another platform where they dont have any experience in. You cant really compare work for a multiplatform game to an exclusive game. Theres a big difference when you look at an exclusive game by a game studio, as seen in MGS4 and Uncharted 2, compared with a multiplatform studio. Theres just no comparison between those games. I dont know if Bioware is handling the port of this game themselves or passing it over to another developer. If they do, then i have more respect for them than platinum games. I will not pay full price for a half assed port of a game. I apologize to sega, but if a developer sets out for a multiplatform game, they should've worked on it themselves to make sure both versions are identical down to the very last pixel or whatever it is.I hope you crank out another valkyria chronicles on the ps3.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LowKey
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 5:03:52 AM

Actually Ben I think he meant that production of DA on the PS3 went better than planned.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

mastiffchild
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 8:38:38 AM

For a start Gioware have been vocal in their support of the PS3 dev they've done with DA so lets give them a chance, yes?

Secondly the reason GS downmarked the PS3 Borderlands was noting to do with the quality of what was on the disc-the versions are identical and Gearbox did a good job there. No, the issue is an oline one whioch is, to my knowledge already fixed and never a problem to me and many others anyway.

Thirdly, Vayonetta, the PS3 version was NEVER going to be as crisp as the 360 version as it's not even being made by the people who made the game(ring any bells-Valve/EA/TOB?). Platinum are REALLY lazy and never wanted to do the PS3 version themselves and how would Sega expect to maych what the game's creators did? Led on 360 and ported by an outsider? Not a good recipe is it?

That saod even then the differences are TINY and under the poor circumstances I feel Sega have done as well as can be expected. I've played the Japanese demo quite a lot and, tbh, I feel Kamiya has been really lazy with a lot of the game. He's basically made DMC lite with added tits and crazy and it's a bit phoned in on the level and gameplay design fronts for my liking even if artistically it's a good game.

Whatever, not even the reported slowdown isbad or that prevalent(happens at odd times though)and certaibnly not bad enough to make yopu buy the 360 version if, say, you prefer the DS3 to that awful lump they make us use on the 360!

So, yes, it's lazy but, really, isn't tha bad and Borderlands had an online issue while DA:O isn't out yet. It's a far cry from the days when every port was awful andf the onl;y really poor thing is that developers are sometimes refusing to lead on the PS3 which is the best way to get great games for both platforms-it's not a secret and , yes, when they won't do this it's insulting to ALL gamers as the games which perform best on both platforms tend to be developed PS3 first.

They'll have to keep sharpening up, mind, as with the influx of amazing exclusives way in excess of what a 3rd party game has ever offered on any platform PS3 gamers just son't NEED to buy dodgy multis anymore. Fact is, though, that they aim for parity and 90% of the time hit the mark.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

zee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:08:33 AM

Excuse me Ben but isn't PS3 hardware totally different than what it was in PS1 or PS2. Yes, Kojima has been with PS brand for years but that doesn't mean that the next-gen consoles are based on old tech. As for BIOWARE, lets just wait and see what they have done with the PS3 version.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:49:21 AM

At those who are confused,
What Ben meant was that Kojima Productions have a long history with working with PlayStation hardware and the staff from SCE that understand such hardware. He understands that MGS4 was the first release designed and produced to work in the PS3 but the R&D involved goes a lot deeper than just that. Not trying to poke holes in people but that's pretty blatant with what was typed.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:05:10 AM

@zee

As fluffer-nutter said, some of the history Kojima has with Playstation goes to his ability to work with Sony's people. However the PS3 is different from previous Playsation hardware - obviously. But, PS2 featured a multi-processor design (the EE) that used multiple FP math/vector units and a single general purpose processor core along with a specialist GPU. The model of programming the majority of your game code using the general purpose instruction set and then programming physics, particle effects, sound and other math intensive stuff on the math/vector units was set on the PS2. The PS3 follows this general model. So a programmer or designer used to breaking up their game into different types of workload or running things in parallel on the PS2 is a little ahead of the game on the PS3.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:06:27 AM

i personally dont think its fair to put Dragon Age in this category for a few reasons!

the first being it isn't released yet.

then we dont even know why it was supposed to be delayed to begin with! not to mention what was 2 weeks going to do for the team anyways, if it was a significant problem im assuming they would need more than 2 weeks.

next in the interview on the playstation blog bioware and the devs were prominent that the ps3 version well the console version would be and run the same on all consoles! i have no doubts that bio ware can make it work. if they wernt satisfied with the product they would delay it instead of bringing the release date up like they have done! this is a clear sign they are happy with the end result and they have accomplished what they wanted with the ps3 version.

my guess is the reason for the delay is they ran into a snag and pushed it back a couple weeks. along the lines they polished it up and said hey we can still get this out alongside the other versions.

im really looking forward to this game! and yes something could be wrong in the end result but i have faith and in there interview they sounded really good and had high hopes for the game!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:34:20 AM

mastiff: That's entirely untrue about Borderlands. You can ask Arnold, if you wish. And it doesn't matter what the root cause of WHY Bayonetta is inferior on the PS3; I know WHY it is. The point is that it IS, and it shouldn't be.

Thirdly, I'm not saying I won't give Bioware a chance. What I'm saying is they have little to no experience on the PlayStation platforms, they have always developed almost exclusively for the PC and 360, Origins WAS delayed on the PS3 (causing no great confidence on my part), and they have a team that does NOT exactly specialize in PS3 hardware. Remember when Valve said they need more "PS3 guys" to really produce a good PS3 game? Say what you want, but I'm fairly certain Bioware isn't much different.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SHADOW [Moderator]
Sunday, October 25, 2009 @ 11:35:05 PM
Reply

Bioware are true professionals to even mention them in the same sentence as Valve (in this regard obviously) seems wrong to me.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 9 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:50:42 AM

and valve arent?
they only created one of the most highly praised games even to today.
hell, every single game they release leaves gamers needing to change their pants.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 9 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 1:21:21 AM

no mr no name sir, they aren't true professionals. They talk trash all the time, like 8 year olds.

Agree with this comment 13 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:04:49 AM

I believe he meant that bioware are at least trying to make a ps3 game instead of just sitting on HIS fat ass saying the ps3 sucks because its too hard for us to develop for it. Yes, they all sit on Gabes fat ass.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

LowKey
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 5:08:15 AM

I call him line world lol, and you are absolutely right. Valve is a bunch of 8 year olds whos mouths go into action before thier brains do.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 6:52:46 AM

meh they make fantastic games thats all that matters.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

SHADOW [Moderator]
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 8:11:29 AM

Valve do make great games but when I said true pros I meant in the way they carry themselves. I don't think that they've ever said anything bad about anyone. Especially the doctors. They just go about their business, and are always there to provide a level of candid insight that is rare from game makers. I simply don't think it's fair to compare them to Valve (who's head douchebag has gone out of his way to make himself look and sound like a moron) before their game has even released. If anyone in the industry deserves the benefit of the doubt I think it's Bioware.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 7:11:14 PM

Thank you Shadow. I'm glad somebody said it.

My ONLY concern about Dragon Age is DLC. I don't want a Fallout 3 repeat.

Last edited by King James on 10/26/2009 7:12:40 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 @ 7:01:54 AM

i use to think the same way about gabe, you should watch last weeks epp of good game on the ABC website.
they had a interview with gabe, and gabe sat down with one of the fans and went through his mods.
just from that interview i learned more about him as a person and more so as a developer than in the years ive been following valve.
he might shoot his mouth off a little too often and say some incredibly arrogant things, but hes no idiot he knows what hes doing.
watch it, you will know what i mean.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Oxvial
Sunday, October 25, 2009 @ 11:36:16 PM
Reply

I will never forgive sega for lose time in a horrendous port instead of just give us Yakuza 3 and Kenzan.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

G_Wurm
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:01:54 AM
Reply

Here's footage of ps3 DA:O. Skip to 7:04. Runs flawlessly.

http://www.gamespot.com/shows/today-on-the-spot/?event=today_on_t
he_spot20091020&hd=0

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 7:21:47 PM

Good find. Pop-in looks like a problem though.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Byakko2009
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:07:46 AM
Reply

The question is: Do I purchase a proven inferior piece of hardware to play a slightly superior piece of software? Personally I say no. To each his own, but I'm no graphics whore by any means, so I'd rather have my software than suffer the indignity of a broken hardware that won't play said software.

This trend won't continue for much longer as I anticipate Sony will probably start cracking their whip when they have the user base to do so. For now though, I say we should look to what I say are bigger games, like Tekken 6 and Final Fantasy 13 where both versions are virtually identical. Expect 2010 to really change the game when Sony's install base gets too large to ignore.

@Oxvial

You can't really blame Sega; it was the original developers who pawned their problem off on them and expected Sega to handle it. I feel you though, I'd rather have Yakuza 3 sooner, but I don't think Bayonetta is the culprit there.

Last edited by Byakko2009 on 10/26/2009 12:08:44 AM

Agree with this comment 16 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:25:03 AM
Reply

hey I was just jabbering about this last week, seems I was heard. It's a real pity though because then the xbots can still look down on the PS3 hardware. The whole thing is just assbackwards.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:15:22 AM

think of it this way. they have time to crap on the ps3 because:
1. Their xbox 360 is broken, as microsoft expected and set aside an ass load of money to "fix " it.
2. They have no games to look forward to. Hell, even halo odst didnt sell much for a halo game. also for those who are going to try and correct me about upcoming 360 games, multiplatform games dont count because ps3 will have them. And this is my opinion, i dont see any 360 exclusive games that i want to get in the near and possibly further future. Microsoft is just a no show right now.

*How about that, i just used the "It has no games excuse" that xbox fanboys always use when i described the 360.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

King James
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 7:16:27 PM

But John if you take away CoD: Modern Warfare 2 and Assassin's Creed 2? What will they brag about?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 @ 10:57:34 PM

@king james,

Well....they'll still have facebook and twitter. damn, were really missing out huh.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

therabbitkinge
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:37:05 AM
Reply

Its really a pain that we've yet to drop this trend...

I feel disrespected in a sense, its as if devs are saying "f*ck it just make a PS3 version as well"

I mean come on YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WERE PORTING WOULD CHUG BECAUSE OF YOUR FAILURE TO DEDICATE TO IT!

Its a shame because they act as if they had no idea this would lead to defects in ports and they should've (as Ben noted) made the games all together instead of banking the buck after the fact!

And quite frankly im tired of having half made games on CD's and then having to wait for a patch to have it completed! If this continues we'll end up with half made games waiting for a patch that'll complete developement for them...

GET BACK TO WORK DEVS AND STOP BULLSH*TING THE GAMERS!

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:53:03 AM
Reply

the solution is simple.
every single game is exclusive to one system or the other.
that way no one needs to worry about getting the inferior version because theres only one.
where this would hurt sales in the early run, it will adjust itself fairly quickly.
and we all know 360 exclusives have no problems selling well.

or even better, make each version of a game for a particular platform.
have 1 team working on one platform and another working on the other and so on.
like what capcom did for resident evil 5.
yea, it would cost more money, and take longer but given the quality resulting it i think its well worth it.

Last edited by ___________ on 10/26/2009 12:55:38 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:59:32 AM

You could argue that the ps3 got an inferior re5 too. Frame rate sucked and the textures had a lower res.

Re5 was such a dissapointment.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:22:50 AM

Thats how infinity ward handle modern warfare and modern warfare 2. I know i read somewhere that they put their best developers on the ps3 version since they knew it was harder and the rest worked on the 360 version. The main thing here that seperates them from the rest of the multiplatform studios, they worked on it at the same time and not completed one version and decide to work on the "port". granted that square enix is doing it this way with FFXIII, but FFXIII wasnt even supposed to be multiplatform but the money hungry bastards at SE couldnt ignore Microsofts big'ol bag o' money and decided to sacrifice the quality of their game. Before they other people say that SE isnt sacrificing quality, i believe they are by moving multiplatform, I would like to point you to Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, and Metal Gear Solid 4. They are all in a league of their own and showcases what the ps3 is capable of which kicks any other game to the corner.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 6:51:41 AM

i really could not tell the difference between both resi titles.
but yea it was a massive disappointment i wish capcom would just go back and do a remaster of resi 4.
everything the same, just with HD visuals and trophies.
but if you want the best version of resi 5 the PC version is so much better.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 12:57:26 AM
Reply

This is why I rarely buy games from 3rd party devs that I'm not familiar with. I'm sick of paying full price for crappy xbox ports. I say if the games ported then mark it down. Its bs to expect us to pay the same amount of money for an inferior copy. Screw these lazy ass devs. They can keep their crappy games.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

godsman
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:24:04 AM

I'm still upset that GTA is inferior for the PS3. The developers cover up their inability to push the PS3 by saying, they like the blur in PS3 version.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:23:54 AM

yes, and i like a lower price for a piece of crap port. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 1:15:06 AM
Reply

Yo I just saw the Dragon Age Origins commercial and there is no PS3 logo.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:08:50 AM

That happens a lot...too damn often. Don't you know you're supposed to jump in?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:43:56 AM

well it wasn't one of those ones that Microsoft runs where they put their logo at the end as if it's an exclusive, it was just Bioware's commercial.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PSNclaw18
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 6:35:16 AM

Also, have you noticed that most game commercials, when they show the game cases at the end, put the 360 in front of the ps3 version? I've seen this happen twice now in week. (different commercials)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

mastiffchild
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:20:04 AM

MS really used to get third party games ads to do that. They also used to use them as their own ads with the disingenuous words "available on Xbox 360" at the ads end(they did it to no purpose with RE5 and SF4 inparticulsr and IDK how much Capcom were involved in it but there was NO mention in the UK of the better selling PS versions).

I do know what you mean and, yeah, it does still go on but these days it's just as likely to be the PS3 box in front of the 360 and PC one-Sony must have at least said a little something to people!

As for the crappy ports-IDK why devs haven't all cottoned onto the fact that both consoles get a better finished game if they lead on PS3 and then do the 360 game rather than the sloppy and less effective other way round. Not any kind of rocket science is it?

Obviously there's the odd exception(take a bow of shame Ghostbusters!)but most games that go PS3-360 in development are ample evidence of the wisdom of this approach.

As the quality of exclusive PS3 titles contunies to rise and multis lad even further behind the pressure drows on these devs to at the very least get the dev order correct. What's gonna happen in 2010 when 360 tutles like AW and SC:C make the mutis look inferior to even 360 exclusives though?

Sure LP2 and RE5 might still be on a near par but when all other multis are way behind what console gamers get from their exclusives we might start to see true optimised versions of multiplat games for both xconsoles as right now, and with the desire for parity, we get games hobbled by the weaknesses of both platforms and with none of the individual strengths either!

Last gen the PS2 and it's gamers were so secure in first place that devs giving a gfx edge to the more powerful Xbox1 on their multi plats wasn't an issue and the sooner we get back to real versions debeloped solely for a console by dedicated teams the better.

I know it's less likely as the console war would prolly finally see which console had more poke but surely, if the games got better for both and closed the gap on exclusives on both platforms we'd all be better off, no?

Personall;y I couldn't care less if, saying this happened, it turned out people could really get more out of the 360 than the PS3-at least we'd get a game that was the BEST it could possibly be on both consoles. It certainly didn't hurt Sony or MS last time out and I fail to see why, apart from a few fanboys on one or the other side getting their noses put out, it should be any issue to gamers. With exclusives like Halo and Gears and ME on one side and MGS4, U1 and 2, VC etc,etc on the other I don't see multi quality really affecting sales of either from now on in.

Put simply, the only way multi plats are getting as good as U2 is if they have dedicated teams for each platform in future. Bots and droids arguing over which is the sronger console atm with multis as the evidence is laughavle and will remain so until the shackles of parity and 360 lead development are fully shaken off in favour of actually making the BEST GAMES these devs can make!

If we're all being denied games of real quality because MS(or, I suppose, Sony)are pressuring developers NOT to make one or the other console look bad then that company is just hurting the whole industry in terms of moving forwards and at some point when all exclusives start diappearing over the quality hill asomething must give, no?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 1:25:15 AM
Reply

Crack in Time is what everyone should be salivating 'bout

Not these dumb third party games.
Well that's how I feel 'bout it anyway

Note: I do like third party games, Mini Ninjas for example, great buy!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:26:42 AM

damn, i went to the video store twice to rent it for ps3 but was always checked out. they only had one copy for ps3 and at least a dozen for the 360 and they were still all there. Im not about to get it for the 360 cause i wants myself another platinum trophy.

I dont see me buying it though as theres other games i want to get, and a single player, no online replayability just doesnt make my list this time. Once i get a job then this all goes away.

Last edited by johnld on 10/26/2009 3:27:58 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

furbiesmustdie
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 1:57:06 AM
Reply

the orange box/ halflife 2: episode one - there's a section where you have to shoot bits of elevator as it rains down on you but the ps3 version lags so much it's near on impossible. i wish valve would top being a b**** already and just at least TRY to release games for all platforms.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

DarthNemesis
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:15:03 AM
Reply

This is why i do not buy multi-platform titles.I refuse to settle for an inferior version of a game because I should not have to.I am fine just playing PS3 exclusives (which are far better than any multi game that I have played this generation and i still need to get into games like Valkyria Chronicles,Dsigaea 3 & finish KZ2 and inFamous.It's cool though,because I get to save money and I don't play games as much as i used to do.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

godsman
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:22:41 AM

Don't take your words so easily, PS3 exclusives are enough to drive you into bankruptcy and out of personal time.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:23:32 AM

I am trying to stay away from multi-plat titles...

Off topic:- Found a store selling cut price games. Unchartered 2 is selling at an unbelievable price of $50. I guess below the usual RRP :)

Going to pick it up on Friday :)

Q!

"i am home"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:48:40 AM

Don't buy Unchartered 2, it is a Chinese ripoff of Uncharted 2.

Agree with this comment 13 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:29:44 AM

hahaha, unchartered 2. i guess he doesnt read your replies world. But anyway, 50 bucks was what i paid for UNCHARTED 2 during launch day. Gotta love my fry's.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:47:58 AM

Damn Chinese.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:25:59 PM

banky, you aren't allowed to make fun of yourself

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:37:43 PM

Uhhhh whatttt haha.
Chinese? What is this.

Besides... I make fun of Asians in general, duh.

Last edited by Banky A on 10/26/2009 10:39:09 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:49:30 PM

Lol WorldsEnd... I have never been good at spelling generally :)

Q!

"i am home"

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

godsman
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:20:59 AM
Reply

There are games like Ninja Gaiden 2, and Tales of Vesperia that suffer no reduction in visuals after the port. This just shows that the majority of the developers just don't need all that power to make a good game. Only a handful is really pushing the hardware.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dancemachine55
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:29:24 AM

Ninja Gaiden 2 wasn't ported, it was exclusively developed for the PS3 under Sigma 2 which is why it still looks good, if not better.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:31:15 AM

yes the sigma series is a completely different game in the eyes of its developers so they work on it as a completely new game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dancemachine55
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:27:39 AM
Reply

This is something I'm incredibly passionate about.

THE 360 MUST DIE SOON!!! Its tech is so far behind the PS3 that they had to create a camera with more ram and power to share the load (I'm speaking of Natal of course)

Don't get me wrong, Gears looks amazing, but we've all seen Batman and the Unreal Engine 3 tech on PS3 as well. It's games like Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and MGS4 that prove the PS3 is superior to the 360 and proves that it alone is a TRUE next-gen console.

Then you get Xbots coming along arguing that the reason PS3 versions of multiplat games suck is because the PS3 hardware sucks and doesn't have the RAM power and yadda yadda...

If Sony hadn't taken this step to make the PS3 different, then games like the ones I mentioned above would look no different to 360 exclusives, but the fact is they do!!!

So to all developers, if you want to make quick money and an average game, stick with 360 and multiplat development.
But if you want a reputation for creating the greatest game ever or being the most talented developers around, try making a PS3 exclusive, and watch the money roll in over time.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:38:15 AM

i have to disagree with you on this man. There has to be competition for sony on here. consumers benefit from competition. Without it, innovation wont really be the primary concern. It'll be just, "yeah, thats good enough, noones even doing it" attitude. Without the 360, Sony could've introduced the ps3 at a price that was even higher than the 600 starting price. so competition is healthy for the videogame industry. Once the difference between exclusive and multiplat games are obvious, which i believe they are, then developers have no choice but to step up or face the very vocal and growing crowd of gamers. Oh and if you think that the Wii is a direct competition, All is lost for you. just pick up your old ass gameboy and believe its the same thing quality as the games sony is putting out right now. oh and dont forget your helmet.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wage SLAVES
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 4:16:44 AM

@john

I agree with you most of the time but on this situation its the competition that is holding us back...

True though, we wouldn't have PSN yet or a store but the 360 is like a burnt out dead weight now. Not giving any competition any more...it sole purpose is to be a thorn at our side.

Last edited by Wage SLAVES on 10/26/2009 4:19:14 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Byakko2009
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 5:27:59 AM

Thing about Microsoft is they use anti-competitive tactics to bully out the competition. They've done little in terms of being a real competitor. Just look at their PR; it's all trash talking and gaining support of third parties through checks. As far as online gaming goes, I digress. Think about how long PC gamers have enjoyed online gaming before Xbox even existed.

Personally, I believe Online gaming was a natural progression and consoles were bound to have it. I've said this before, but you really have to think about it. Online gaming has been a long time coming for consoles, now is just the perfect time to bring it to fruition. PS1 (to a lesser extent) has tried it, and after that we had the Dreamcast. I just don't believe that there wasn't a single mind at Sony that didn't once think "Shouldn't we pursue online gaming?". MS simply wanted a controlled network service that would gain them mass profits (which it has) through making the Live network totally theirs. It was never their intent to be competitive; rather they saw the success of the PS2 and thought they could one-up Sony with a fixed service. They claimed they wanted to handle Live and its servers because "Third parties don't know what they're doing." and as a result EA went with Sony and the PS2's network. Truth be told, it's been all about profits from day one for MS - unfortunately for them they can't bully Sony like they have the open source community.

Arcades were also starting to adopt network play, and one could argue that the real competitor would be Arcades. Arcades should get the credit here - not MS - because critics would often times compare consoles to some of the Arcade hardware out there. Tekken Tag was the first game to be graphically superior on a console, then Arcades stepped it up and made even better hardware.

If MS deserves credit for anything, it should be holding the PS3 back and ruining this gen with multiplats. Historically, multiplatform games were never huge and usually made up a small sum of the market. Looking back, the only multiplats were the usual sports titles and other popular franchises. If you ask me, I'd like to go back to when everything was exclusive and multiplats were generally sports titles. Guarantee you nobody was complaining much in the PS1 and PS2 era.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 5:40:57 PM

I believe MS could disappear and there would be no negative effects on gaming. If the ps3 were all there is, the game developers would still have to compete with each other for our money. So they would continue to innovate.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 5:54:31 PM

Sony may not though tes. If the PS3 were the only HD console out there sony may not feel the need to enclude some or most of the features the PS3 has. I think competition is great but I don't like how MS competes. So I'm conflicted. On the one hand, we have the Sony console we have because Sony wanted to offer a better alternative to the xbox. On the other the xbox has ruined many mutliplat games.

Sigh...I don't know why i want. :P

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 6:18:08 PM

You have a good point Jawknee, but I disagree with the 360 being an HD console. It's a rushed to market console that just happened to be powerful enough to get some hd juice out of it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 @ 10:59:09 PM

All i said was competition is needed. i never said anything about underhanded/cheapass tactics

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BigBoss4ever
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 4:08:35 AM
Reply

i am so mad that this is the case. I was so excited about Bayonetta and now it seems that I will be forced to buy the 360 version.

if the same happens to FF13 next year between 360 and ps3 version, i will be really really pissed!

Last edited by BigBoss4ever on 10/26/2009 4:16:35 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 8:59:23 AM

It shouldn't. Squreenix is a better dev then Gearbox and Bioware. Also they've been working on the ps3 version for sometime already. Even though I'm irked it's going multiplat and may not be as big and advanced as some of us were hoping for because of the crapbox, I'm sure the ps3 version will be fine. If not out shine the 360 version.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

elass0wyp0
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:11:38 AM

You really shouldn't pick it up on 360 if it isn't as good on PS3. That's sort of what they want you to do.

If a developer can't take the time to develop properly for your PS3 brothers, then why continue to reward them with 360 sales. A sale is a sale, they don't care about the console war.

In this case they can use the argument that 360 sells more with their "installed user base", when in reality they may not have done so well had the consumer had 2 identical products to choose from.

In this example, they are only really giving you one choice and your taking it with a smile, right up the...

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Imagi
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 6:26:53 AM
Reply

It really grates me, their is no excuse now for any PS3 version to lag behind the 360 nowadays. It all falls down to the developers, either being lazy or not commiting enough resources into learning how to tap into the PS3's hardware, though those reasons are really one the same.

They should make any game the best that the hardware can give, but so far the PS3 seems to be a second thought port once the work has been done. Feed them SPU's they are hungry after Naughty Dog gave them something to really sink their teeth into.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 7:29:44 AM
Reply

This is why most of my game will be PS3 exclusives.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

JackC8
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 7:36:42 AM
Reply

I think the whole subject is exaggerated. I read reviews where they say the PS3 version has graphical glitches - then they show a side-by-side comparison. I don't see it. Do they look slightly different? Yes. Does one look better and the other worse? No. And if I can't see it in side-by-side photos, there's no way in hell I'm going to notice anything while playing the game. I think reviewers like to point out any flaws in the PS3 version, while conveniently failing to mention that the 360 version has just as many problems. Like Fallout 3 - people who have played the 360 version say it's got at least as many bugs as the PS3 version.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:19:42 AM

In some games there is a visible difference, and in some games there is now. Actually, you have to be a really picky person to make anything out of most of the graphical differences between versions of a game.

Just to take one example, frame rates. A game running at 30 frames per second is running at the same frame rate as TV and 6 frames per second faster than movies use. I seldom hear people complaining that the TV or movies suffer terrible frame stutter and what not. However if you get an otherwise identical game with one version running at 60 frames per second and the other at 30 frames per second you will hear a chorus of complaints about frame stutters or low frame rates on the version running at 30 frames per second. And it doesn't matter if the game is locked at 30 frames per second or now, some graphics whore at Beyond3D will post a frame by frame analysis and bleat on about it. Yet to the ***VAST*** majority of gamers it really doesn't matter. Yes, before the first person shooter crowd chimes in, I know FPS games need 120 frames per second because your preternaturally fast reflexes require you to be able to experience 12 frames of action during your reaction time, rather than 6...whatever.

As an example, Uncharted 2 runs (I believe) at 30 frames per second. Still looks eye wateringly good though, doesn't it. For every developer out there, take this as a given, 30 frames per second (locked) of eye wateringly good visuals will beat 60 frames per second (with a few drops) of pretty darn good visuals.

But, a lot of developers believe that 60 frames per second is where it's at, and target that at the expense of effects and quality, even resolution.

But, the thing is, people are not really that picky, the only ones that are are rabid fanboys with too much time on their hands and access to the graphics nut cases at Beyond3D. Prior to the PS3 every PS2 game ran at 30 frames per second progressive (at best) or 30 frames per second interlaced (normal). So why are we suddenly supposed to believe that 60 frames per second 720p is the absolute minimum or it's just teh suck?

The whole thing is a false comparison that is intended to favor another console.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

www
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 7:57:59 AM
Reply

I've done programming and its not easy. So I take it I walk into the studio and the Director tells us, "we have to make this multi-plat game but we all know the tech on the 360 is easier to comprehend, so let's get to work". What do you think we programmers,designers will do, we'd start work on the easy one FIRST, the 360.

Now Uncharted 2 makes Gears 2 look bad, ND were able to use the PS3 to the max basically cause it wasn't a multi-plat.

The 360's existence alone is to blame, simple.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 8:47:17 AM

Uncharted Drake Fortune made Gears 2 look bad. It's funny, my xbot frend who finally decided to get a ps3 won't admit Uncharted 2 looks and performs better then anything he's player thus far. He tried to tell me Gears looks better. When I ask how his response is, "i don't know, it just does".

Im so done with multiplat games. Batman AA was an exception, only because I love the Batman universe so much. Final Fantasy XIII will be the only multiplat I buy in the forseeable future. If Squeenix botches this, I'm REALLY done with mulitplats. They're just not worth the money.

Last edited by Jawknee on 10/26/2009 8:53:36 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

www
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:25:36 AM

Your friend is an Xbot and its his nature not to admit, just like all other fanboys.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Orvisman
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:06:42 AM
Reply

Yep. Makes you wonder how M$ft is doing it this gen. Is M$ft paying developers to not enhance the PS3 versions of multiplat games?

In every other gen, I recall developers going out of their way to boost the graphics for a multiplat game for the console with the most horsepower, specifically Xbox versions of games compared with some PS2 versions.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 @ 10:35:35 AM

MS eats babies and kicks puppies, too. They're to blame for the economy and are why my favorite sports team is playing like crap this year.

Seriously people... the problem is not MS, no matter how much you want to hate them because you love your PS3 so much. The problem lies with the software developers. THEY are the ones who aren't devoting the time to create better PS3 versions of the game. If they wanted to get the game to take advantage of the PS3's strengths, they'd do it. Many times, they don't. That's not the Xbox 360's fault and that's not Microsoft's fault. That's the developer's fault.

Regarding Dragon Age, I think Ben's right to show some concern. BioWare hasn't experience with the PS3 and now is moving up the release date to coincide with the PC and most awful evil piece of electronics ever made in this entire world. It very well could be the better version but without any history and the hasty release date to appease people crying about the PS3 getting shafted, it's not a stretch of the imagination to think there could be cause of concern about the port.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:07:37 AM
Reply

Borderlands are, as far as I can see, without bugs since the last patch, who was released the day before the game was released here in norway, so Gearbox do not deserve to be used as an example in this article based on Borderlands. The game runs smooth now and has done so since launch day for me.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:53:38 AM

A developer shouldnt have to patch a game to fix problems so soon if at all. These issues should be tested and worked out before release. It shows laziness and an unwillingness to go the extra mile to make both versions identical from the start. You may have had the patch ontime for release in you country but many didn't.

Last edited by Jawknee on 10/26/2009 9:56:02 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:10:31 AM

no if they are willing to keep working on the game to fix bugs, and listen to user feedback after release that shows faith in the game, and respect for the buyer! i praise devs for doing patches and such even 5 months after the games released!

its the games that come out and never get patches that irritate me! operation flashpoint is rediculous! the servers are horrible and still not fixed! this game shoulda had a patch day one, actually jawknee this is one exception that this game should have been relased later! codemasters beides dirt 2 is failing miserably as of late!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:57:13 AM

Feed back and a response is ok with me. I'm just saying graphical problems and frame rate issues should be worked out before release. It seems the "release and patch later" mentality is making some devs lazy. It's like they figure it will go unnoticed and if it doesn't then they'll patch it.

Release and path later is a MS tatic. They've been doing it for decades with their op systems. Seems some devs are taking notes.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 7:40:53 PM

Borderlands did not have any "graphical problems and frame rate issues", it was a problem with the friends list that according to Gearbox (on their forums) they could not have discovered in their development environment, and I see no reason not to believe them since they identified the problem so fast and quickly released a patch.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Zorigo
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:09:40 AM
Reply

this is quite interesting realy as i often think, how many games are coming out this year and im getting like what, 2 or 3, some are very good but most are quite cack.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Gone
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:22:27 AM
Reply

This just makes me enjoy exclusives even more. Developers are weak if they can't match what first party developers are doing.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

DarkManX
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:35:33 AM
Reply

Im typing this on my PS3 so that is sweet lol...seriously tho Ihave come to the conclusion I will no longer buy multiplats, there is no reason too. Look at all the stellar exclusives coming out for the PS3 that alone is why...oh i will buy Red Dead Redemption and any other Rockstar multiplat only because they own in my opinion lol

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

frylock25
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:55:50 AM
Reply

i still do not understand what the deal is with makin the games equal. when it was PS2 and xbox the xbox was clearly stronger and got better looking multiplat games. not that i gave a crap cuz that brick of a controller i never touched that system. why the hell do i have to play a game on my PS3 that has to look the same as the weaker system?!?!? it wasnt this way 5 years ago...

i cant say i will not buy another multiplat game cuz that just punishes a good game developer. though i will not waste my time buying a game that scores under a 9 and is mulitiplat. there are always exceptions to the rule but with all the exclusives comin out why play the crap.

this generation is really stupid and i dont get it. i understand the ps3 was a lot of money but the 360 is so clearly a piece of crap.

how many people does it take for a class action lawsuit against m$ for the rrod?

Last edited by frylock25 on 10/26/2009 9:57:51 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gone
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:00:12 AM
Reply

Speaking of multipats, Netflix has been confirmed for the PS3.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

frostface
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:03:28 AM
Reply

I just don't understand why any dev would want to create a game based on an inferior model when you can create something phenomenal using the most up to date and advanced technology at your disposal(other then the motivation of making more money from a wider audience by making multiplat games). If I'm spending my hard earned money I want the best. Why would I spend my money on what I know is inferior when for the same price I can have the cream of the crop? How is making a weaker game pushing the envelope in regards the gaming experience we're now coming to expect (Uncharted 2 set's the bar now). Make the games with the best technology and if the other competition can't keep up then let them be left behind. Survival of the fittest, keep up or feck off!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 11:00:55 AM

Because it's easier. Less work involved. Many devs stopped taking pride in their work this gen.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

darxed
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:14:47 AM
Reply

Just a note about Bayonetta, Famitsu reviews for different consoles are handled by different reviewers, so the scores don't mean that the PS3 version is inferior, Maybe if the PS3 reviewers reviewed the 360 version, the scores would be the other way around.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:28:05 AM
Reply

i personally dont think its fair to put Dragon Age in this category for a few reasons!

the first being it isn't released yet.

then we dont even know why it was supposed to be delayed to begin with! not to mention what was 2 weeks going to do for the team anyways, if it was a significant problem im assuming they would need more than 2 weeks.

next in the interview on the playstation blog bioware and the devs were prominent that the ps3 version well the console version would be and run the same on all consoles! i have no doubts that bio ware can make it work. if they wernt satisfied with the product they would delay it instead of bringing the release date up like they have done! this is a clear sign they are happy with the end result and they have accomplished what they wanted with the ps3 version.

my guess is the reason for the delay is they ran into a snag and pushed it back a couple weeks. along the lines they polished it up and said hey we can still get this out alongside the other versions.

im really looking forward to this game! and yes something could be wrong in the end result but i have faith and in there interview they sounded really good and had high hopes for the game!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 11:18:02 AM
Reply

The problem is this.

PS3 and 360 have difference strengths and weaknesses. A developer uses the strengths of a platform when developing for it. When it comes to graphics, the strengths and weaknesses guide the choices a developer makes with regard to their graphics engine.

A developer can sacrifice any of three things - frame rate, resolution or image quality in order to squeeze their game onto a platform. Many developers have chosen - for their PS3 ports - to sacrifice image quality. Some devs seem to also have sacrificed the frame rate, giving up on locking their frame rate and allowing their game to drop frames.

Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages and a game that is targetted at one may not easily translate to the other.

The ability of the Cell to supplement RSX on the PS3 is an important capability, as Uncharted 2 shows. Many of the best PS3 games have used this technique. On the flip side, the 360's free (well, low cost) anti-aliasing unit provides an important function at little or no performance cost to the developer. Just this ability to perform low cost anti-aliasing of the final image allows titles on the 360 to appear 'better' when compared to an otherwise identical game on the PS3. The use of Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic filtering do make a difference to the image quality of a game. Good use of both can make an otherwise identical game look as if it has far more detailed textures on one platform compared to another - even if the textures used are identical.

For me, this is where we get back to the issue I ranted about earlier - frame rate. To perform at 60 frames per second, you have to render and post process twice as many frames per second than at 30 frames per second. The price for doing that could be not implementing an anti-aliasing pass, or skipping the anisotropic filtering - or worse. This is the mistake I think that many developers are making with the PS3 'ports. I think it needs to be quality over quantity as long as you can lock at 30 frames per second, quality over quantity should be the norm. A varying frame rate will annoy players, so instead of claiming 60 frames per second, and allowing dropped frames. Developers really ought to lock the frame rate at 30 if they cannot maintain 60, and use the extra processor budget to boost image quality. IMHO of curse.

It's always about the trade offs. One thing I have noticed about some recent ports is that the PS3 versions use low quality anti-aliasing methods. Instead of improving things by doing an anti-aliasing pass, this may in fact be harming things. I often wonder whether the developer would have been better taking the hit of going to 30 frames per second in order to afford the processing budget of better AA.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 1:15:14 PM
Reply

Like a lot of people here, I primarily buy 1st party exclusives for my PS3. 3rd party games aren't why I bought a PS3. The majority of games I'll be buying this winter are PS3 exclusives: White Knight Chronicles, God Of War 3, MLB '10: The Show, Heavy Rain and Gran Turismo 5 among them. Also, FFXIII was designed first for the PS3. The multi-plats like BioShock 2 and Mafia II should be fine.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

isaya85
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 1:32:41 PM
Reply

I'm not the kind of guy to sit around and complain there's so many games that I didn't think was up to par and got my money back, gamers don't realize the power we have, stop supporting the crappy ports send a message to these devs that we're not going to tolerate this incompetence, I think the sooner we realize this the sooner things will get better

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 2:04:09 PM
Reply

Honestly, i think Ben jumped the gun on adding Bioware's DA:O to this list. Just my 2 cents though

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:05:19 PM

i agree! the game is shaping up nicely and bioware wouldnt have moved it back up in release date if they thought there was a problem, or inferior! they just are not those type of devs!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:00:01 PM
Reply

In all honesty, I really wish some of you would not put words in my mouth. I DID NOT "include" Origins as an example; I merely listed it as a POTENTIAL example.

There's no way to misinterpret this fact if people would just pay attention and read.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:08:05 PM

i read it! i liked the article pretty brutally honest! but Dragon Age isnt out yet it may or may not have problems. wether thats the case its mention is almost useless, considering its release is still well i guess a week away! i dont think putting words in your mouth Ben was the intention of anyone, well i speak for myself anyways. but more or less just pointing out until release its title shouldnt be in this article! You did "include" it in the article which is what the hoopla is about.

i know what you were trying to point out but, it came off as negative, wether you were doubting Dragon Age or not, including its name in this article states that!

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 10/26/2009 3:10:47 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:26:48 PM

hey man I'm with you, there's nothing wrong with speculation based on past experience.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 3:40:43 PM

past experience from what? Ben said himself bio-ware has not developed for the PS3 before. there fore there is no past experience for this dev on the ps3 hardware.

the point being made is dragon age isnt out yet, this article started out and should have pertained to games we have all played. Bayonetta gets a pass becus it has atleast been reviewed, but the person who reviewed the 360 version probably didnt review the ps3 version either so... bringing up dragon age is irrelevant.

i will say though the article in general was good and brutally honest which i liked, and will agree on the fact that inferior multiplat titles should also be irrelevant. This article should have never had to touch base on this subject! but thats where we stand in the industry unfortunately, STILL!


Last edited by bigrailer19 on 10/26/2009 3:45:05 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:19:31 PM

you're stupid.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 10:52:24 PM

Lol WorldsEnd!!!

Q!

"i am home"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 @ 10:06:29 AM

haha you're funny!

o-well, critiscizing is all over!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Bandit King
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 4:45:37 PM
Reply

Ben are you just voicing your frustration with this issue or was there another reason for this? I ask because even the developers know they are being lazy, its no great secret that the 360 version of most multi-plat titles look/runs better. The thing of it is though, is how good do those games actually look to begin with? Boarderlands graphically can't hold a candle to Killzone 2 (yes I know the games both use very different visual styles). As for Bayonetta graphically the game is not that far removed from the last generation, it can't touch Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry 4. I am not making excuses for these devs though as I automatically think less of each of them when this happens. Bayonetta especially is a confusing subject as Kamiya has worked exclusively on Playstation all last gen, and as a Japanese developer he should know where his bread is buttered. What I think is, Bayonetta was originally going to be an Xbox exclusive but as time went on Microsoft just was not interested, thus when Sega picked it up they mandated a PS3 version, to sell the game in Japan but by that time the game was too far along to incorporate the PS3 into the development cycle and thus the port. Still I wonder why Kamiya and Platinum games would do this as they should know that Xbox is like swine flu to Japanese gamers, and that PS3 still does better everywhere but America, seems short sighted. It will be interesting to see how the game sells over here because with PS3 fans tasting sour grapes (many I know have removed it from their wanted list) and 360 owners waiting for Mass Effect 2 and Splinter Cell I doubt Bayonetta will grab their attention either.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LittleBigMidget
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 5:32:18 PM
Reply

This is why I started buying only exclusives.Xbox is holding us back from true next gen games. Think of what games like Batman:AA,Brutal Ledgend, or GTA could've been if they were exclusive.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Metal Head
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 7:18:08 PM
Reply

They better not screw up with Final Fantasy XIII. Oh I forgot it needs to be identical to the xthing ,otherwise xbots will be offended. So what's new about crappy multiplatform games.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

to_far_apart
Monday, October 26, 2009 @ 9:44:11 PM
Reply

The eyes don't lie. Just look at the differences/similarities between games on Xbox360/PS3. If PS3 can dish out games like MGS4, Killzone 2, Unchartered 2, we clearly see superior development. Now let me clarify, I'm not saying that games like Gears, Halo are no great developed games, I'm talking superiority in animations, graphics, etc. If game producers would focus on each system, individually, then you would see the PS3 hardware shine. But unfortunately that's not happening, so we'll continue to see crappy ports. I mean if Valve even mentions they don't have the right tools to develop a PS3 game, it shows that if they do make one they want to tap the potential, not port it over like these other games have. the 360 is just holding the PS3 back, and it shouldn't be, developers should develop for each system individually.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 @ 10:40:57 AM

The 360 isn't holding the PS3 back. Developers who don't want to do the work and use the PS3 to its full ability are the ones holding the PS3 back.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, October 29, 2009 @ 2:44:57 PM

therefore the 360 isnt letting the industry push forward its holding it back! your disagreement you stated actually agrees with what he said, funny how that worked!

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 10/29/2009 2:45:36 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LittleBigMidget
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 @ 4:34:44 PM
Reply

I'm starting to back away from Sqaure Enix. How is FF13 suppose to you 100% of the PS3 if its on the uhhhh, the err that Box thing.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Friday, November 06, 2009 @ 9:08:25 AM
Reply

"therefore the 360 isnt letting the industry push forward its holding it back! your disagreement you stated actually agrees with what he said, funny how that worked!"

Actually, my disagreement didn't state that at all. Developers (those who develop software for consoles) are the ones who're holding back. THEY are the ones who, when it comes to developing software for the PS3 haven't been working as much as they should to take advantage of the PS3. The developer has the choice to make a game which can fully utilize what the PS3 does. MS, the 360, etc. has no say in how a company decides to develop software for Sony's machine.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Monday, November 09, 2009 @ 2:11:12 PM
Reply

<<<but by this time in the generation, the two versions should absolutely be identical.>>>

IMHO, by this same token, then EVERY PS3 version should have already been much better by now.

Thank all of the lazy developers for it not being so.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

What do you think of the Destiny beta?
It's awesome! Can't wait for September!
It's only good, but I'm having fun.
Eh, it's okay, but I expected more.
It sucks, period.

Previous Poll Results