Bayonetta Whos Fault is it for the bad port?

[QUOTE="skyrender4"]The link is not biased and is a simple, straight-up technical comparison. It's fine and all if you paid the same price for a CLEARLY (not even close) inferior version and enjoyed it, but people have a right to not be OK with this swindle.KapG

you created a new screen name just to troll on the ps3 boards with regards to bayonetta?

seems that way...

go troll elsewhere

It might be all of the above. I'm thinking Platinum Games just wanted to make Bayonetta only on the 360 but Sony wanted a piece and hired Sega to port it.

gago-gago

[QUOTE="Arctic_Grillz"]We should still be grateful that it made it on the ps3. zaphod_b

It might be all of the above. I'm thinking Platinum Games just wanted to make Bayonetta only on the 360 but Sony wanted a piece and hired Sega to port it.

gago-gago

[QUOTE="zaphod_b"][QUOTE="Arctic_Grillz"]We should still be grateful that it made it on the ps3. Shielder7

The developer.

Whether or not they had wanted to do a PS3 version, it's no excuse to do it half-assed in comparison to the 360 version imo.

Stop whining you big baby. Be happy we got the game.

Stop whining you big baby. Be happy we got the game.

brickdoctor

this what happens when u build a game up based off of diffrent hardware *360* and then port it to a diffrent system games that go third party need to be built seprate

I don't really know how the game industry works & I haven't played either the 360 version or ps3 version yet. I own a wii, and I am still deciding whether I should buy a ps3 or xbox 360. I really want to play Bayonetta, so that sways me a bit more to 360 side.

As far as I know: if the publisher stops sending checks to the developer than the developer pretty much has to pack up their bags and cancel the game. The developer doesn't have the money to make major independent decisions without the publisher's approval in the contract. The publisher ultimately calls the shots and the developer doesn't have tons of options (unless the developer is the also the publisher).Platinum games couldn't have made a ps3 version unless they were being funded to do so by Sega in the first place. It was probably contracted that they do the 360 version only. I don't think it was because platinum games was lazy or didn't want to do it. Sega knew what they were getting all along.Sega made a business decision to make a ps3 port 'on the cheap' or as an afterthought to maximize profit. Apparently they didn't care that it was inferior. I don't think Sony can take any of the blame. Of course this is all speculation, not fact. And it is my view of how it works.

I don't think a bad port is the problem. It's just not a good game to start with.

NeoMerlin

Lol, how could it be Sony's fault? Why is that option even available? They have nothing to do with the game.

Anyway, while it's completely playable, and still an incredible game, it is annoying how Sega are just covering their ears and acting like nothing's wrong. Any other publisher would have started on a patch or something by now.

amsfm6

[QUOTE="amsfm6"]

Lol, how could it be Sony's fault? Why is that option even available? They have nothing to do with the game.

Anyway, while it's completely playable, and still an incredible game, it is annoying how Sega are just covering their ears and acting like nothing's wrong. Any other publisher would have started on a patch or something by now.

Eazy1891

Yeah honestly, who cares. The port isn't even as bad as they said it would be.

King-Tigre

Lol, how could it be Sony's fault? Why is that option even available? They have nothing to do with the game.

Anyway, while it's completely playable, and still an incredible game, it is annoying how Sega are just covering their ears and acting like nothing's wrong. Any other publisher would have started on a patch or something by now.

amsfm6

We should still be grateful that it made it on the ps3. Arctic_Grillz

have ps3 owners sunk this low to accept this kind of behavior from companies, lol.

[QUOTE="Arctic_Grillz"]We should still be grateful that it made it on the ps3. mushi799

have ps3 owners sunk this low to accept this kind of behavior from companies, lol.

[QUOTE="Arctic_Grillz"]We should still be grateful that it made it on the ps3. mushi799

have ps3 owners sunk this low to accept this kind of behavior from companies, lol.

[QUOTE="Arctic_Grillz"]We should still be grateful that it made it on the ps3. mushi799

have ps3 owners sunk this low to accept this kind of behavior from companies, lol.

[QUOTE="amsfm6"]

Lol, how could it be Sony's fault? Why is that option even available? They have nothing to do with the game.

it is annoying how Sega are just covering their ears and acting like nothing's wrong. Any other publisher would have started on a patch or something by now.

Shielder7

[QUOTE="King-Tigre"]

Yeah honestly, who cares. The port isn't even as bad as they said it would be.

ViewtifulScott

[QUOTE="King-Tigre"]

Yeah honestly, who cares. The port isn't even as bad as they said it would be.

ViewtifulScott

Sega is at fault.

Honestly, through all the Internets speak of how 'omgz bad port' of bayonetta, it really isnt that bad. Its not great, but its not THAT bad.

Hasnt everyone learnt yet that the Internet over-exaggerates things?

Definitely Sony's fault. If Sony had did their part with the dev kits then the OTHER console wouldn't be chosen as the main developing console this gen. There's so many things that Sony could have done right..like start paying for exclusives, it'll help in the development of games, as well as make the PS3 much more of a must buy (which would make it's user base larger, therefore developer support would follow like the PS2 days). Also, they shouldn't have gone the cell route. There's already news the PS4 wont even have Cell tech in it, but a multicore CPU much like it's competitor. Just be happy Sega or Platinum Games even released it for the PS3, because it easily could have been an exclusive for another console.

To be honest Microsoft, Right In Japan some games that are going to be really popular are snapped up by microsoft for big money and said that they have to come out on that console, to try and incourage the Japanese to buy Xbox which is riducualsily unpopular , for example star ocean the last hope and tales vesperia. Now Bayonetta was going to be huge in japan and I recon that microsoft must of paid producers to produce it on the xbox then port it

Definitely Sony's fault. If Sony had did their part with the dev kits then the OTHER console wouldn't be chosen as the main developing console this gen. There's so many things that Sony could have done right..like start paying for exclusives, it'll help in the development of games, as well as make the PS3 much more of a must buy (which would make it's user base larger, therefore developer support would follow like the PS2 days). Also, they shouldn't have gone the cell route. There's already news the PS4 wont even have Cell tech in it, but a multicore CPU much like it's competitor. Just be happy Sega or Platinum Games even released it for the PS3, because it easily could have been an exclusive for another console.

gamer082009

I dont have any idea of what SAGA is...so I dont knowlightleggy

LOL I just noticed I did that. Oh well Just go by the main body.

How do people find out what frame rate a game is running at, at a specific time???

[QUOTE="mushi799"]

[QUOTE="Arctic_Grillz"]We should still be grateful that it made it on the ps3. Symphonycometh

have ps3 owners sunk this low to accept this kind of behavior from companies, lol.

There was a huge one over this exact subject in the Platinum boards.

360 owners just sat and watched as the "inferior" version divided the PS3 userbase into "it's fine, the game isn't that bad" and "this is ridiculous, we shouldn't be taking this crap."

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"][QUOTE="mushi799"]

have ps3 owners sunk this low to accept this kind of behavior from companies, lol.

Scianix-Black

There was a huge one over this exact subject in the Platinum boards.

360 owners just sat and watched as the "inferior" version divided the PS3 userbase into "it's fine, the game isn't that bad" and "this is ridiculous, we shouldn't be taking this crap."

It's a bunch of crap. The pause screens take no more than 1-2 seconds to load, same for some items. The only noticably long loads are between chapters or w/e, or when you die in a boss fight and it has to reload all over again. But even those are no more than 40-50 seconds. People are lying and exaggerrating.

It's a bunch of crap. The pause screens take no more than 1-2 seconds to load, same for some items. The only noticably long loads are between chapters or w/e, or when you die in a boss fight and it has to reload all over again. But even those are no more than 40-50 seconds. People are lying and exaggerrating.

BudFudlacker09

who cares...nobody will be talking about the game within a few weeks anyways....

It's a bunch of crap. The pause screens take no more than 1-2 seconds to load, same for some items. The only noticably long loads are between chapters or w/e, or when you die in a boss fight and it has to reload all over again. But even those are no more than 40-50 seconds. People are lying and exaggerrating.

BudFudlacker09

[QUOTE="amsfm6"]

[QUOTE="NeoMerlin"]

I don't think a bad port is the problem. It's just not a good game to start with.

NeoMerlin

Yep, all of the critics across the world are wrong. What was every one of them thinking?

:D That's why Twilight is such a good book. Thanks for reminding me! I'll know better than to have an opinion of my own from now on and just get my thoughts spoon fed to me.

But I am still perplexed about this game for two reasons. 1) what makes this game so much better than DMC? I love DMC and then this comes out and DMC runs rings around it critics say... I think it just has a lot to do with the sex in the game and the story doesn't even make sense. 2) Why did they force a port around the same time if it wasn't ready? shouldn't they have just waited and released it later?

who cares...nobody will be talking about the game within a few weeks anyways....

tryfe_lyn

It's funny though, I've played games where the port difference was readily apparent (Fallout 3 comes to mind) but I have also read many reviews for games that cited specific technical issues, and when I actually bought and then played that game I didn't encounter them at all. I've often wondered why that was - I usually try to see if there was a patch or update when I boot up the game for the first time and in a bunch of cases I noted that there wasn't, so I have no reason to believe I was playing a game that was in any way different than the one that was reviewed. It makes me wonder if in some cases the reviewer was not reviewing based on the final shipped game, but on something they had prior, or even if (don't laugh) they have some issue with their machine or set up. Unlikely I know, but I still don't know why this is.

Agreed Merlin... I hated the game too. and I see what yo did there with Twilight... ;)

But I am still perplexed about this game for two reasons. 1) what makes this game so much better than DMC? I love DMC and then this comes out and DMC runs rings around it critics say... I think it just has a lot to do with the sex in the game and the story doesn't even make sense. 2) Why did they force a port around the same time if it wasn't ready? shouldn't they have just waited and released it later?

baller72

I was considering a delayed release a little bit. My assumption was that they had done a lot of marketing for Bayonetta. I went to a friends house to watch a UFC fight and bayonetta was a sponsor. When I opened up a gaming magazine at the library, first page there was a huge bayonetta ad. I guess in the video game business marketing is very important as far as sales go. It would seem to me to be a major reason that a developer needs a publisher in the first place. So if they release the ps3 game later they lose some of the momentum they gained from marketing. And if they market it again later, it costs twice as much, and marketing is very expensive. That's how my thought went, but I would revise it if I learned more. As far as gamers go however, they would have been better off if they had taken the time to do the port correctly. They could have waited and released both versions later. But time is money in business and the investors do not want to wait for the returns on their investment. Besides the problems with the port were well known after the Japanese launch, but they didn't do squat to improve the north american ps3 version (over the japanese ps3 version) when they had a few months to do so. i think it was suspected there were problems at E3 even, 6 months prior to the release. So I don't think they wanted to do anything with it.

I played the 360 verion not the PS3 so I don't really how bad it it. If anyone is to blame about this, it's everyone.Developer and pubishershould tried to work together for a better port or release it later when they can fix it. People need to understnad that Sony haveQA for3rd party who tested games and approved for it to release in this condition. Sony could have disapprove and ask them to fix but Sony want the same release date as 360. So, everyone is a fault.