Guerilla: PS3 Is Easier To Develop For Than People Think

[QUOTE="Episode_Eve"][QUOTE="Couth_"] Right. Technically Santa Monica has been working on God of War 3 since the first one came out (before GoW2) but obviously they couldn't start developing because the specs of the PS3 were unknown at that point. Most of the time is used to build the engine, then you can reuse that engine to dish out games at a faster pace

hiryu3

It did take 5 years to dev for, we know that much. Spent on the engine or whatever it hardly matters. It's a fact that PS3 games underperform at times due to devs havcing a hard time with the hardware.

I'll take there word for it over you pretending to work in a fictional software company, sorry.

Meh. I'll bet the average dev doesn't get the support from Sony that GG got to make that game. Of course it's going to be easier to make a game on the system. This is just more developer koolaid BS.

I case you didn't notice the only people who say it's easy are developers that have a close relationship with Sony. If it were really true then ok, but I really can't stand the developer fanboy spiel. It's complete nonsense.

Took them 5 years to make KZ2 and they are a first dev party. rybe1025

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

Same reason RE games always take 4-6 years to create.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]If that's true, why did they need almost five years for making ONE game? :| [spoiler] Just kidding :P [/spoiler] patriots7672

Same reason RE games always take 4-6 years to create.

When you have that much time, and such a high budget, and you have direct support from Sony, then sure... Of course its not that difficult to develop for it. I mean never mind everything about the circumstance that Guerilla is in are extraordinary compared to every other developer in the world.

sony needs to send out more comprehensive dev kits.... or maybe pay guerilla's guys to make one/ go teach other stupider studios to help.:shock:

When you have that much time, and such a high budget, and you have direct support from Sony, then sure... Of course its not that difficult to develop for it. I mean never mind everything about the circumstance that Guerilla is in are extraordinary compared to every other developer in the world.

XaosII

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.

lordxymor

[QUOTE="lordxymor"]

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.

Couth_

Because his comparison is ridiculous. Comparing old tech to new tech isnt valid. Programming always gets easier over time. Its just that it should be easier than what Sony has currently due to poor decisions they've made.

Even Itagaki himself has complained about the PS3 being needlessly complex.

Itagaki: "I think Xbox 360 is the best game console on the earth. It's better than PlayStation 3." When pressed as to why, he said, "PS3 has too complicated architecture."

"hard" is very subjective. You if have basic knowledge of how game development works, then youll know what you can and cant do with the system. A better word would be "complicated" because alot of the typical calculations(ai, physics, post processing) have to be offloaded to SPUs since PS3 has only 1 CPU core, and thats where things become complicated, you may know HOW to do it, but choosing what you can and cant offload efficiently, and then making it work within the 256MB RAM (i know it has 512MB combined, but it is partitioned, i have to say this to calm the fanboys :P ), can be complicated. This is most likely why exclusive games run better on PS3, because they are built for that system only, so the SPUs are factored into development, not so with multiplat games, where the 360 code is broken up, and offloaded to SPUs, then things have to be scaled back sometimes. (textures, lighting, missing objects, framerate, resolution) Again, for the fanboys, not ALL multiplats have to do this. so no need to pull out a list lol, but keep in mind not all devs and game budgets are created equal ;) And why would devs spend the extra time, money, and manpower to take advantage of the PS3 when sony shouldnt have made it difficult, or "different" in the first place??

Well, you spend that long making a game for it, I'd HOPE you'd find it easier than most. Plus, being under the Sony umbrella makes it easier to say that.

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.

BoutDat26

[QUOTE="Couth_"][QUOTE="lordxymor"]

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.

XaosII

Because his comparison is ridiculous. Comparing old tech to new tech isnt valid. Programming always gets easier over time. Its just that it should be easier than what Sony has currently due to poor decisions they've made.

Even Itagaki himself has complained about the PS3 being needlessly complex.

Itagaki: "I think Xbox 360 is the best game console on the earth. It's better than PlayStation 3." When pressed as to why, he said, "PS3 has too complicated architecture."

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="Couth_"]Everyone ignores the sensible posts like this. First party devs don't have trouble with it. mutliplat devs are having less and less trouble with it. lordxymor

Because his comparison is ridiculous. Comparing old tech to new tech isnt valid. Programming always gets easier over time. Its just that it should be easier than what Sony has currently due to poor decisions they've made.

Even Itagaki himself has complained about the PS3 being needlessly complex.

Itagaki: "I think Xbox 360 is the best game console on the earth. It's better than PlayStation 3." When pressed as to why, he said, "PS3 has too complicated architecture."

Here's some other stuff Itagaki said.

"Unfortunately I can't show off Ninja Gaiden 2 in present time, because it would make all other developers lose their motivation."

""The poolside games are so sexy that if you see them enough times, you might faint. When you see it, you won't be able to fight the temptation of wanting to play with the girls. You'll be able to experience the beach flag game, and it's so beautiful and so impressive that you'll be dreaming about it." Dead or Alive Xtreme 2."

"Tekken sucks. I don't know what you're talking about." - When asked about Tekken 6

I miss him so much.Seriously. His interviews were HILARIOUS. Even funnier was how people took him seriously.

Your quote is from 05, mine is from 08. Clearly Itagaki has changed his mind. lordxymor

No. They are two different points. He's saying that its easier to program than a Famicom. In the other, he feels that the 360 is easier to program for. Two sepereate statements that still gives credence to the point that the PS3 is harder to develop for than any other modern platform (hence the reaosn he compared the dificulty to older, less flexible systems).

At the end of the day, the PS3 is still unecessarily difficult to program for, regardless of how difficult a developer feels it is.

It's easier than the ps2. It may be the most difficult platform currently but it's not miles behind the 360, Wii or PC. Some developers blow the difference out of proportion. It's not unecessarily difficult, it's barely more difficult.

On a second though It's in fact not difficult enough. Had they follow through the path they originnaly planned, using 2 cells instead of 1 cell+gpu, Ps3 would be architecturaly on track with the next generation PC architecture. (And causing nightmares to developers everywhere.)

Let's just hope intel'll give us great compilers instead of making us "gouge our eyes out" like some Ps3 developers believe IBM makes them.