Guerilla: PS3 Is Easier To Develop For Than People Think

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4881.html

It's the common developer refrain whenever a new PlayStation launches: "damnit, this is too hard!" But some designers are saying it really isn't that bad, including one studio who just produced one of the most impressive video games in history.

According to Examiner.com, Guerilla Games have said that the PlayStation 3 is actually "easier" to develop for than the PS2. This may come as a surprise to many, and they're obviously not implying that the PS2 is more "complicated" (at least, we don't think they are), but... Well, let's allow Guerilla Managing Director Hermen Hulst explain:

"If you are native to PlayStation, our tech director doesn't say it's particularly difficult. It's specific, but it's not difficult like PS2 was difficult - PS2 was difficult to crack, but PS3 didn't take us a long time to get up and running."

Added Development Director Arjan Brussee:

"I actually think PS3 is a simpler architecture than some of the other consoles; you just have to have a certain mindset on how to address it. I think the Cell-based processor with the SPUs and the super high speed DSPs that you can throw all your calculation tasks at gives us a model that's way easier to program for, even for junior programmers, than the general purpose multi-core type of architecture, which the PC and Xbox 360 have."

It's always interesting to see how developers respond to the PS3. We're starting to notice a trend, though: the devs that have really taken the time to focus on designing a piece of software for Sony's machine seem to have concluded two things: 1. the PS3 is one hell of a capable console, and 2. it's not quite as difficult as other devs would have you believe. Heck, he just got finished saying that it may not be as complex as either the PS3 or 360! This bodes well for the future, as we expect more designers to become more and more comfortable with the PS3 as time goes on.

If that's true, why did they need almost five years for making ONE game? :| [spoiler] Just kidding :P [/spoiler] IronBass

lol I was gonna call you an idiot. but then i noticed the spoiler.

as we all know, GG built the engine from the ground up for the game. that's why it took 5 years. it was engine dev time and game dev time.

If that's true, why did they need almost five years for making ONE game? :| [spoiler] Just kidding :P [/spoiler] IronBass

Well after 5 years, I'd hope it'd be cake walk for them. :P

Killzone 2 didn't take 5 years to develop people just inflate it.

Killzone 2 didn't take 5 years to develop people just inflate it.

Gxgear

I honestlly don't care what Sony first parties (or second)have to say about the PS3. They have funding from Sony and they have no choice but to say positive things, there opinions are irrelevant and will be taken with less than a grain of salt.

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

Killzone 2 didn't take 5 years to develop people just inflate it.

Couth_

I honestlly don't care what Sony first parties (or second)have to say about the PS3. They have funding from Sony and they have no choice but to say positive things, there opinions are irrelevant and will be taken with less than a grain of salt.

ActicEdge

I honestlly don't care what Sony first parties (or second)have to say about the PS3. They have funding from Sony and they have no choice but to say positive things, there opinions are irrelevant and will be taken with less than a grain of salt.

Yet multiplats are almost always worse on the PS3.

Weird...

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I honestlly don't care what Sony first parties (or second)have to say about the PS3. They have funding from Sony and they have no choice but to say positive things, there opinions are irrelevant and will be taken with less than a grain of salt.

IronBass

He knows they get paid but he asked for proof that they are paid to say things. Its nothing new because microsoft does this as well but fanboys like tp pretend they dont.

I honestlly don't care what Sony first parties (or second)have to say about the PS3. They have funding from Sony and they have no choice but to say positive things, there opinions are irrelevant and will be taken with less than a grain of salt.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I honestlly don't care what Sony first parties (or second)have to say about the PS3. They have funding from Sony and they have no choice but to say positive things, there opinions are irrelevant and will be taken with less than a grain of salt.

djsifer01

:| Its completely irrelevant for me to prove my theory, I'm not wrong. Sony funds there games, that's common knowledge. They aren't going to say negative things about the console they are being funded to produce games on by the company who produces that console. This is just common sense. You can be paranoid if you want and pretend that the devs are talking out of pure earnest and truthful intentions but that obviously isn't the case. Especially when you have funding from the console producer and a ridiculously huge pool of resources. Let's not be naive here.

I'm sure Sony's first party developers would make a statement like that.

Doesn't mean it's true.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I honestlly don't care what Sony first parties (or second)have to say about the PS3. They have funding from Sony and they have no choice but to say positive things, there opinions are irrelevant and will be taken with less than a grain of salt.

djsifer01

They're first party. :|

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]What makes you a expert on the subject? How do you know they being paid to say certain things. Give us some facts to prove your theory.Ultramarine777

He knows they get paid but he asked for proof that they are paid to say things. Its nothing new because microsoft does this as well but fanboys like tp pretend they dont.

Where did I say they are paid to say positive things? I said they aren't going to slam the console of the company who is funding them. Am I wrong? You think they would talk trash about the PS3 in a public interview even though Sony is fully funding their game? Come on people, really :|

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I honestlly don't care what Sony first parties (or second)have to say about the PS3. They have funding from Sony and they have no choice but to say positive things, there opinions are irrelevant and will be taken with less than a grain of salt.

ActicEdge

:| Its completely irrelevant for me to prove my theory, I'm not wrong. Sony funds there games, that's common knowledge. They aren't going to say negative things about the console they are being funded to produce games on by the company who produces that console. This is just common sense. You can be paranoid if you want and pretend that the devs are talking out of pure earnest and truthful intentions but that obviously isn't the case. Especially when you have funding from the console producer and a ridiculously huge pool of resources. Let's not be naive here.

I understand what your saying and I know they are paid but by saying they are being paid to say positive things you are saying the console is bad so the developers have to lie about it. And Btw what is there to talk trash of the PS3? let me guess ,no cross game voice chat and low sales yea.

Yet multiplats are almost always worse on the PS3.

Weird...

choffy

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]What makes you a expert on the subject? How do you know they being paid to say certain things. Give us some facts to prove your theory, otherwise your statement is irrelevant.Ultramarine777

:| Its completely irrelevant for me to prove my theory, I'm not wrong. Sony funds there games, that's common knowledge. They aren't going to say negative things about the console they are being funded to produce games on by the company who produces that console. This is just common sense. You can be paranoid if you want and pretend that the devs are talking out of pure earnest and truthful intentions but that obviously isn't the case. Especially when you have funding from the console producer and a ridiculously huge pool of resources. Let's not be naive here.

I understand what your saying and I know they are paid but by saying they are being paid to say positive things you are saying the console is bad so the developers have to lie about it.

I never said that they are paid to say good things. Why would Sony waste the money doing that? GG obviously has the sense not to insult their parent company money involved or not. All I said is that when they are FUNDED by Sony, they aren't going to say bad things about anything relating to that company, its just common sense. Also, I never said GG was lying, I said what they say is irrelevant because only one answer will come out of their mouth regardless of whether that answer is the truth or not.

[QUOTE="choffy"]

Yet multiplats are almost always worse on the PS3.

Weird...

Dilrod

Yeah..... I love KZ2 but when you have like what, 200 people working on one game and loads and loads of support from sony, yeah it's going to be a lot easier than say a third party developer.

They had insomniac, naughty dog, sony santa monica AND the top SCE departments helping them out with the tech, I'm pretty sure all my school projects would be a lot easier if I even have one of those departments helping me out.

Still, good job GG. Just prove it by delivering killzone 3 quickly.

To anyone talking about how the engine took most of the time off the top of my head Dunia and CryEngine 2 both look better and took less time.

Anything is easy with 60 million dollars....Tobin09

yet its still more difficult by a wide margin to develop for then the 360 is.

yes its easy, $60 million budget, 5+ years of development time, 200+ in the development team, easy_SWAG_

NYEAH! INFLATION FTW!!

yes its easy, $60 million budget, 5+ years of development time, 200+ in the development team, easy_SWAG_

:lol: lol

MS can put down 50 Million to make to a dev team to make an entirely new engine built for 360 to produce top notch graphics, too bad theyd rather spend that money on an exclusive DLC

[QUOTE="Couth_"]

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

Killzone 2 didn't take 5 years to develop people just inflate it.

Episode_Eve

I think its crazy how you guys seem to think a game just magically appears on a disk for you to play lol. Heck the Unreal engine is up and running so whyhadn't Epic release Gears III already? Why will it take 2 years to make? Better yet why 2 years to make Gears 2 and still have glitches galore and texture popin? Yall guys just make me laugh. Yall do know that the Unreal engine was being worked on for about 3-4 years prior to Gears right? Or do yall really think it took the 1 year that the 360 had been on the market to make the Unreal Engine?

Itagaki: "One more thing I would add is that I don't think that developing for the PS3 is hard at all." -08/27/2008

If you have any insight in development you know how the Ps3 architecture makes it harder, but console developers are used to 'close to metal' coding for more performance.