Lens of Truth Ghostbusters (Xbox 360/PS3)

Man that's worse than fallout , it's a crime to give the same rating to them.Atari should be ashamed , really ...to release such a inferior version , and it's not ps3's fault ( burnout anyone? CoD? anyone?) , its their incompetency's and only that. :x

I saw this earlier and now I'm a bit torn on what version I should get, its not game breaking but it is disheartening to say the least.

[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

You still didint give me my answer. What reviews. What just this one the TC linked to.

finalfantasy94

No I click on TC link and it gives me the sites comparison. It also give me meticritc and its 78 to 79. Doesint say every review site says it wins by a landslide like you were stating.

Wow that's just pathetic.

So what excuses are PS3 fanboys going to use this time? "The lazy dev", even though the PS3 was the leading platform?

Pretty inexcusable. The PS3 is their leading platform and they fail to make it as good as the 360s.

no excuses here, PS3 version is clearly inferior... Also there are no excuses for devs, they clearly are not familiar with Ps3 hardware even if it was the lead platform..

I'm sure we'll miss out big time with a game like Ghostbusters!!

Damn you bad textures

Well the devs said the ps3 has 7 cpu's so where am I suppose to believe that the ps3 was the lead platform? I just don't see effects being added to a port of a game, but I definitly can see effects being taken away from a port. I honestly don't believe that the ps3 was the lead platform.

The game was developed on ps3: that's a fact.
It looks worse than the 360 version: that's shocking.

This is how i look at it:

Multiplats: 360>PS3 in most cases

Exclusives: PS3>360 in most cases

ermacness

If you're just talking graphics, I'd agree.

The difference looked bigger in the pictures than in the video for some reason. In the video the major difference was that the 360 version looked a lot darker, which IMO made it look worse than the PS3 version.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"] like I said- go back to the original link. that kinda gives you your answer does it not?CwlHeddwyn

No I click on TC link and it gives me the sites comparison. It also give me meticritc and its 78 to 79. Doesint say every review site says it wins by a landslide like you were stating.

Im not being a tool. THe only huge difference according to IGN greg miller was the fire thing and marshmellow man damage. If you take a still pic and focus in yea you will see some little differences. If your focusing on the smallest things then your missing the whole point of gaming. Also motion and still pic are 2 very different things.

Because they expect to sell games to PS3 players. The idea that PS3 is too hard for those poor developers to program for is a really lame excuse and it needs to stop. Nobody is forcing them to make the game multiplat, that's their prerogative. If they want to sell to both install bases, and they want both sides to pay the same price, then they should deliver a game on par with each system... or dare I say optimized for each system. When the PS2 and Xbox had a multiplat game they took advantage of the XBox's strength to give not only an on par gaming experience as the PS2, but often noticeably improved the graphics to reflect the abilities of the superior hardware. Now that the PS3 has the power to improve upon 360 based graphics, all I hear is cries of sympathy for multiplat developers who are simply trying to do less and charge more.

santoron

Power of teh cell baby! :D

The cell is so powerful and awe-inpiring even Pro-PS3 devs can't unlock its mythical powah!! :lol:

The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.mmirza23

The playstation 3 does not have 7 processors.

So it's crap on PC (ridiculous system requirements and no online) and crap on PS3.

May as well be a 360 exclusive.

Wow that's just pathetic.

So what excuses are PS3 fanboys going to use this time? "The lazy dev", even though the PS3 was the leading platform?

SpinoRaptor24

PS3 owners won't have to make excuses over this one, because this isn't about the PS3's graphical limitations.

This is isn't a case of being "lazy"; it's justa case of pure failure on Terminal Reality's part. If they used the PS3 as the lead console and this is the result, then they obviously had no clue what to do with the PS3. Sony would have helped them work out some of the kinks had they asked for it, especially seeing (as has already been said before) as they own Paramount.

TR can't use "time" as an excuse either, because they've had plenty of development time to make this a top-notch game on all systems. The only thingin the back of my mind, and the reason why I actuallypre-ordered the 360 version over the PS3 version to begin with, was that this wasinitially in development back when companies were still trying to figure out how to work with the PS3. Now most developersknow how to work withit, but back then they were lost.

So a delayed game finally sees its release, and it has the problems of old. I can't say I'm entirely surprised. This game is one of the last remnants of that old era, and the proof is that most major releaseslook good on both consoles.

This does not look good for the PS3 nor will this end well.

Wow that's just pathetic.

So what excuses are PS3 fanboys going to use this time? "The lazy dev", even though the PS3 was the leading platform?

SpinoRaptor24

Yeah...it would be on the devs in this case. :|

Blaming Sony for making hard tech is starting to become irrelevant since most multiplat games look nearly identical (even if it's slightly better on the 360).

[QUOTE="mmirza23"] The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.readingfc_1

The playstation 3 does not have 7 processors.

Well im gonna have to go and say that this dev is lazy.

First the game looks worse on the lead platform, then dev says (at bottom of main post) the reason is because the PS3 has more cores and the 360 has less.

So it looks works because the 360 has less cores :|... this isn't 2006.

The excuses in the interview are just miserable considering what so many other devs have accomplished with the 360.

I'm left wondering if this dev would struggle on the PC. Seriously, I bet this dev would make a PC game that requires needlessly high specs to run for whatever it would be.

I just looked on Wiki to see what games Terminal Reality have developed... seriously, everyone can pretty much move on now.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Because they expect to sell games to PS3 players. The idea that PS3 is too hard for those poor developers to program for is a really lame excuse and it needs to stop. Nobody is forcing them to make the game multiplat, that's their prerogative. If they want to sell to both install bases, and they want both sides to pay the same price, then they should deliver a game on par with each system... or dare I say optimized for each system. When the PS2 and Xbox had a multiplat game they took advantage of the XBox's strength to give not only an on par gaming experience as the PS2, but often noticeably improved the graphics to reflect the abilities of the superior hardware. Now that the PS3 has the power to improve upon 360 based graphics, all I hear is cries of sympathy for multiplat developers who are simply trying to do less and charge more.

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

[QUOTE="GabeNewellsPie"]

Thats a really lame excuse and it needs to stop.

Why should some relatively small-time studio have to hire extra staff and spend more time and money on developing and optimizing for the PS3,all the while achieving the same end on the 360 consumes significantly less resources?

Not only is that uneconomical,its just totally illogical imo.

GabeNewellsPie

Then they shouldn't advertise they are using the PS3 as the lead platform to even the two version's look out.

Logic defies action.

The fact that they said the PS3 was the lead platform,and then spewed all this BS about how they were able to do this and that with the cell and its SPEs,while having to comprimise with the 360 version was all Sony's doing.

You see Ghostbusters is distibuted byColumbia pictures,which is a subsidury of ,you guessed it,Sony Pictures Entertainment. Sony was obviously trying to use this game to promote the PS3 plus the imminent release of Ghostbusters movie on Blu-Ray.The fact that its "timed exclusive" in EU terroteries complete with exclusive content goes someway to proving this.Except Sony have fell flat on their faces with this one.And after all the PR spin,PS3 owners will actually end up with the inferior version. :lol:

All the people who were using that snippet for hardcore ownage for months are probably feeling pretty sore after seeing how poor the ps3 version turned out. I wonder how terminal reality will explain the problems?

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

Wow that's just pathetic.

So what excuses are PS3 fanboys going to use this time? "The lazy dev", even though the PS3 was the leading platform?

Lionheart08

Yeah...it would be on the devs in this case. :|

Blaming Sony for making hard tech is starting to become irrelevant since most multiplat games look nearly identical (even if it's slightly better on the 360).

Because they expect to sell games to PS3 players. The idea that PS3 is too hard for those poor developers to program for is a really lame excuse and it needs to stop. Nobody is forcing them to make the game multiplat, that's their prerogative. If they want to sell to both install bases, and they want both sides to pay the same price, then they should deliver a game on par with each system... or dare I say optimized for each system. When the PS2 and Xbox had a multiplat game they took advantage of the XBox's strength to give not only an on par gaming experience as the PS2, but often noticeably improved the graphics to reflect the abilities of the superior hardware. Now that the PS3 has the power to improve upon 360 based graphics, all I hear is cries of sympathy for multiplat developers who are simply trying to do less and charge more.

santoron

[QUOTE="UnnDunn"]

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Because they expect to sell games to PS3 players. The idea that PS3 is too hard for those poor developers to program for is a really lame excuse and it needs to stop. Nobody is forcing them to make the game multiplat, that's their prerogative. If they want to sell to both install bases, and they want both sides to pay the same price, then they should deliver a game on par with each system... or dare I say optimized for each system. When the PS2 and Xbox had a multiplat game they took advantage of the XBox's strength to give not only an on par gaming experience as the PS2, but often noticeably improved the graphics to reflect the abilities of the superior hardware. Now that the PS3 has the power to improve upon 360 based graphics, all I hear is cries of sympathy for multiplat developers who are simply trying to do less and charge more.

mmirza23

Yes it does... One ARGUABLY better looking game(with more dev time/money/custom engine built around the strengths of the PS3 and avoiding all weaknesses/1st party dev communication) vs. 1000s of games hmmmmm lets see...(3rd party engine/ not as much money or time/ no communication/ not trying to work around the weaknesses)

Wow that's just pathetic.

So what excuses are PS3 fanboys going to use this time? "The lazy dev", even though the PS3 was the leading platform?

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

Wow that's just pathetic.

So what excuses are PS3 fanboys going to use this time? "The lazy dev", even though the PS3 was the leading platform?

Lionheart08

Yeah...it would be on the devs in this case. :|

Blaming Sony for making hard tech is starting to become irrelevant since most multiplat games look nearly identical (even if it's slightly better on the 360).

What the Lens of Truth were confused about was the resolution of the game. Was the PlayStation 3 version really running in high-definition at 720p? The answer is 'No.' We can confirm that the PS3 version of Ghostbusters is natively rendered at 960 by 540 pixels (three-quarters the resolution of 720p) with quincunx AA. The Xbox 360 version is actually rendered at 720p (1280 by 720 pixels) with 2xMSAA.

What is up with these developers? First the PC version has very high system requirement and no multiplayer, and now the PS3 version looks blurry and has worse textures then the 360 version, even through it the lead platform.

shame they only used the lens of truth on the 360 version. They will look jolly silly if the PS3 version actually looks better.

What the Lens of Truth were confused about was the resolution of the game. Was the PlayStation 3 version really running in high-definition at 720p? The answer is 'No.' We can confirm that the PS3 version of Ghostbusters is natively rendered at 960 by 540 pixels (three-quarters the resolution of 720p) with quincunx AA. The Xbox 360 version is actually rendered at 720p (1280 by 720 pixels) with 2xMSAA.

Tis a shame that they royally screwed up the PS3 version, because I would've got it. It would've fit in nicely with Ghostbusters on Blu-ray. I think they just bit off more than they could chew. They wanted to program the A.I., physics, etc, to the 7 SPU's, which would allow some stellar details in-game, but it seems that it didn't turn out so well for them. This is their first game on PS3, though, so I can't blame them too much. PS3 is a super complicated piece of technology, especially for first timers to the platform. I just can't believe Sony didn't help them seeing as they're involved with this, especially in Europe.

The thing is, if people do a little research they will find that Lens of Truth wasn't being all that truthful. It turns out the test images were done with the PS3 running off of component settings, not true HD resolution: Quoted from: http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/ghostbusters-ps3-960-by-540-360-720p-$1304198.htm

What the Lens of Truth were confused about was the resolution of the game. Was the PlayStation 3 version really running in high-definition at 720p? The answer is 'No.' We can confirm that the PS3 version of Ghostbusters is natively rendered at 960 by 540 pixels (three-quarters the resolution of 720p) with quincunx AA. The Xbox 360 version is actually rendered at 720p (1280 by 720 pixels) with 2xMSAA. wolfbat

Look around and there is another article stating the same thing and adding the bit about the component cable, though I can't find the link right this second.

Im not Surprised.. after all the 360 IS the best console. Ghostbusters just understand that is all.David_Dweedle12

thats why the ultra high system requirements for the PC version will blow even the 360's graphics away.