Why does the Ps3 **** so bad when it comes to multiplats

If it really was so much powerful than the xbox 360, then we'd not see 90% of the games looking better on the xbox 360. Lazy developers is not a good excuse, because the same developers port games to the Pc and the graphics are enhanced.

So, I don't see Ps3 being this monster console, the only thing that I acknowledge is that it does have the merit to have such great teams like Naughty Dogs and Guerrilla. That's why we won't see many games that look great on the xbox 360, because of the lacking of qualitative 1st party devs, except some rare exceptions.

Do you people remember the previous gen? The ps2 was the wekest system of all, still they managed to give birth to something like God of War 1-2, which STILL holds up well and it's even better than some of the current gen's titles.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=12463

FIRST OF ALL, Know that the extreme MINOR differences you are talkinga about aren't even wotth noticing.

-----------------------

To answer :

PS3's harder to exploit than the 360, unless you have the talent and time.

That's why there are some amazing looking games on the system like MGS4, Uncharted, Uncharted 2, Ratchet, etc.

Heck, right Now Killzone 2 is considered by many websites/gamers the console graphics king.

The Problem for Sony is the 360 is a dream to work on, and devs port games from that to PS3. IT's understandable, but thems the breaks.

Difference isn't noticeable when you're playing, devs are lazy.

You can't use the excuse about porting to PC because PC by far the most powerful platform and it's very easy to develop for.

When a dev is working on a 360/PS3 game, 360 gets priority since it has a higher install base, simple as that. If you look at the games that actually gave a crap about PS3(Burnout Paradise, Mirrors Edge, etc.) you'll notice it looks as good or better than the 360 version.

Not to mention Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 looks better than anything 360 has to offer.

P.S - Where's your sig from, TC?

If it really was so much powerful than the xbox 360, then we'd not see 90% of the games looking better on the xbox 360. Lazy developers is not a good excuse, because the same developers port games to the Pc and the graphics are enhanced.

So, I don't see Ps3 being this monster console, the only thing that I acknowledge is that it does have the merit to have such great teams like Naughty Dogs and Guerrilla. That's why we won't see many games that look great on the xbox 360, because of the lacking of qualitative 1st party devs, except some rare exceptions.

Do you people remember the previous gen? The ps2 was the wekest system of all, still they managed to give birth to something like God of War 1-2, which STILL holds up well and it's even better than some of the current gen's titles.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=12463

aia89

Lens of truth is notoriously biased..

And lazy devs may not be a good excuse to you, but it is the reason. Programming for PS3 is more time consuming. Since devs want to get the titles out at the same time they do concessions on the PS3 games.

Difference isn't noticeable when you're playing, devs are lazy.

You can't use the excuse about porting to PC because PC by far the most powerful platform and it's very easy to develop for.

When a dev is working on a 360/PS3 game, 360 gets priority since it has a higher install base, simple as that. If you look at the games that actually gave a crap about PS3(Burnout Paradise, Mirrors Edge, etc.) you'll notice it looks as good or better than the 360 version.

Not to mention Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 looks better than anything 360 has to offer.

It's all in the developers as much as you don't want to believe it. Games that are built on the 360 and ported to the PS3 have to be done right. The architectures are completely different an some things like shaders and lighting have to be done differently. Some thigs don't even get ported over because the development team just couldn't figure it out leaving a buggy ps3 version. But look at call of duty 4. IW built the PS3 version from the ground up along side witht the 360 version. They are identical. They did it this way because they didn't want the ps3 to have a crappy port.

Difference isn't noticeable when you're playing, devs are lazy.

You can't use the excuse about porting to PC because PC by far the most powerful platform and it's very easy to develop for.

When a dev is working on a 360/PS3 game, 360 gets priority since it has a higher install base, simple as that. If you look at the games that actually gave a crap about PS3(Burnout Paradise, Mirrors Edge, etc.) you'll notice it looks as good or better than the 360 version.

Not to mention Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 looks better than anything 360 has to offer.

P.S - Where's your sig from, TC?

urdead18

It's southern Italy, my hometown. The place is called "Badisco" in the Salento area ( Apulia region )

Besides, Multiplatform games aren't the best way to measure a consoles performance. It's all about optimization.

PS3 has the same power as 360 but is harder to develop for. Most third party developers dont have that extra time to make the game looks as good on both consoles.

Difference isn't noticeable when you're playing, devs are lazy.

You can't use the excuse about porting to PC because PC by far the most powerful platform and it's very easy to develop for.

When a dev is working on a 360/PS3 game, 360 gets priority since it has a higher install base, simple as that. If you look at the games that actually gave a crap about PS3(Burnout Paradise, Mirrors Edge, etc.) you'll notice it looks as good or better than the 360 version.

Not to mention Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 looks better than anything 360 has to offer.

PS3 has the same power as 360 but is harder to develop for. Most third party developers dont have that extra time to make the game looks as good on both consoles.

PAL360

then I don't understand why Sony would make a console harder to develop for. Really, I see many devs complaining about it, I don't think they're all crazy, are they?

FIRST OF ALL, Know that the extreme MINOR differences you are talkinga about aren't even wotth noticing.

-----------------------

To answer :

PS3's harder to exploit than the 360, unless you have the talent and time.

That's why there are some amazing looking games on the system like MGS4, Uncharted, Uncharted 2, Ratchet, etc.

Heck, right Now Killzone 2 is considered by many websites/gamers the console graphics king.

The Problem for Sony is the 360 is a dream to work on, and devs port games from that to PS3. IT's understandable, but thems the breaks.

SolidTy

The differences between multiplats are so minimal in most cases that the average gamer doesn't even notices them. It's only fanboyswho make a big deal out of thiswhen they want to bash the PS3.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

PS3 has the same power as 360 but is harder to develop for. Most third party developers dont have that extra time to make the game looks as good on both consoles.

aia89

then I don't understand why Sony would make a console harder to develop for. Really, I see many devs complaining about it, I don't think they're all crazy, are they?

They PS2 was even HARDER to develop for...strangely enough, over time, engines surfaced and life went on.

And you know that the MAN WHO CREATED THE PSOne, PS2, PSP, and PS3...Ken Kutaragi, is known as CRAZY KEN? Right?

The PS4's design will be most likely, LESS CRAZY, since KEN is gone from SONY.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

PS3 has the same power as 360 but is harder to develop for. Most third party developers dont have that extra time to make the game looks as good on both consoles.

aia89

then I don't understand why Sony would make a console harder to develop for. Really, I see many devs complaining about it, I don't think they're all crazy, are they?

The difference between most multiplats is in minimal, so who cares?IronBass

Difference isn't noticeable when you're playing, devs are lazy.

You can't use the excuse about porting to PC because PC by far the most powerful platform and it's very easy to develop for.

When a dev is working on a 360/PS3 game, 360 gets priority since it has a higher install base, simple as that. If you look at the games that actually gave a crap about PS3(Burnout Paradise, Mirrors Edge, etc.) you'll notice it looks as good or better than the 360 version.

Not to mention Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 looks better than anything 360 has to offer.

[QUOTE="aia89"]

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

PS3 has the same power as 360 but is harder to develop for. Most third party developers dont have that extra time to make the game looks as good on both consoles.

urdead18

then I don't understand why Sony would make a console harder to develop for. Really, I see many devs complaining about it, I don't think they're all crazy, are they?

Valve and Activision did complain, as far as I remember.

Less sovelware... so they made it harder to develop because of this? this sounds a bit ridiculous. if they don't want shovelware all they need to do is not make this games land on ps3, that's it.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]The difference between most multiplats is in minimal, so who cares?Animal-Mother

I think Splinter Cell on PS3 was FAR WORSE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bue5axGx-zI

[QUOTE="aia89"]

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

PS3 has the same power as 360 but is harder to develop for. Most third party developers dont have that extra time to make the game looks as good on both consoles.

SolidTy

then I don't understand why Sony would make a console harder to develop for. Really, I see many devs complaining about it, I don't think they're all crazy, are they?

They PS2 was even HARDER to develop for...strangely enough, over time, engines surfaced and life went on.

And you know that the MAN WHO CREATED THE PSOne, PS2, PSP, and PS3...Ken Kutaragi, is known as CRAZY KEN? Right?

The PS4's design will be most likely, LESS CRAZY, since KEN is gone from SONY.

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][QUOTE="IronBass"]The difference between most multiplats is in minimal, so who cares?BloodyFalcon007

I think Splinter Cell on PS3 was FAR WORSE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bue5axGx-zI

The differences really are not that noticeable, unless the game is boring enough to keep a close watch on the ground textures, then you might see something.

[QUOTE="urdead18"][QUOTE="aia89"]

then I don't understand why Sony would make a console harder to develop for. Really, I see many devs complaining about it, I don't think they're all crazy, are they?

aia89

Valve and Activision did complain, as far as I remember.

Less sovelware... so they made it harder to develop because of this? this sounds a bit ridiculous. if they don't want shovelware all they need to do is not make this games land on ps3, that's it.

Valve and Activision definitely complained. Gabe Newell pretty much said he hates the PS3. I never heard about that less shovelware thing, but if it true, then that's a stupid excuse.

The nature of a multiplat is one version gets the majority of the attention and the other versions get far less attention. Thats how they make the same game on the different consoles without breaking the bank. However because of this the consoles that get the cut and paste version usually have flaws that the main developed console does not have. This is how multiplats have been throughout all of the gaming generations. The Xbox got the inferior version of MGS2 even though it was a more powerful system then the PS2, because it was a port. At the end of the day the 360 and PS3 multiplats are exactly the same in people's homes gameplay and visual wise and don't even justify a different score. I mean I think it's funny how MS fanboys make a huge deal about one Jaggie that the PS3 version has that can only be seen at 500X zoom. The games are closer then ever quality and gameplay wise for ports this gen. compared to others. Exclusives is what show off what a console can do, not multiplats.Javy03

Difference isn't noticeable when you're playing, devs are lazy.

You can't use the excuse about porting to PC because PC by far the most powerful platform and it's very easy to develop for.

When a dev is working on a 360/PS3 game, 360 gets priority since it has a higher install base, simple as that. If you look at the games that actually gave a crap about PS3(Burnout Paradise, Mirrors Edge, etc.) you'll notice it looks as good or better than the 360 version.

Not to mention Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 looks better than anything 360 has to offer.

P.S - Where's your sig from, TC?

The nature of a multiplat is one version gets the majority of the attention and the other versions get far less attention. Thats how they make the same game on the different consoles without breaking the bank. However because of this the consoles that get the cut and paste version usually have flaws that the main developed console does not have. This is how multiplats have been throughout all of the gaming generations. The Xbox got the inferior version of MGS2 even though it was a more powerful system then the PS2, because it was a port. At the end of the day the 360 and PS3 multiplats are exactly the same in people's homes gameplay and visual wise and don't even justify a different score. I mean I think it's funny how MS fanboys make a huge deal about one Jaggie that the PS3 version has that can only be seen at 500X zoom. The games are closer then ever quality and gameplay wise for ports this gen. compared to others. Exclusives is what show off what a console can do, not multiplats.Javy03

And while it's true that exclusives show what a console can do, they do NOT show what the other console can NOT do, because of the very fact that they are exclusive, so ultimately in terms of comparisons, they actually prove very LITTLE. Add to this that this has been, more than any gen before, the generation of the multiplat and that exclusives have less of a presence than ever...

Besides, Multiplatform games aren't the best way to measure a consoles performance. It's all about optimization.

Zero_epyon

Besides, Multiplatform games aren't the best way to measure a consoles performance. It's all about optimization.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

PS3 has the same power as 360 but is harder to develop for. Most third party developers dont have that extra time to make the game looks as good on both consoles.

aia89

then I don't understand why Sony would make a console harder to develop for. Really, I see many devs complaining about it, I don't think they're all crazy, are they?

If it really was so much powerful than the xbox 360, then we'd not see 90% of the games looking better on the xbox 360. Lazy developers is not a good excuse, because the same developers port games to the Pc and the graphics are enhanced.

So, I don't see Ps3 being this monster console, the only thing that I acknowledge is that it does have the merit to have such great teams like Naughty Dogs and Guerrilla. That's why we won't see many games that look great on the xbox 360, because of the lacking of qualitative 1st party devs, except some rare exceptions.

Do you people remember the previous gen? The ps2 was the wekest system of all, still they managed to give birth to something like God of War 1-2, which STILL holds up well and it's even better than some of the current gen's titles.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=12463

aia89

Besides, Multiplatform games aren't the best way to measure a consoles performance. It's all about optimization.

Zero_epyon

my game collection consists of probly 20% multiplats and 80% exclusives.....i care about multiplats right? their graphics are really all the same no matter what system so you really cant compare that together, oh xbox 360 pays for online? well honestly thats really all that has to be said about multiplats

I wasn't aware that PS3 developed it's own games...

my game collection consists of probly 20% multiplats and 80% exclusives.....i care about multiplats right? their graphics are really all the same no matter what system so you really cant compare that together, oh xbox 360 pays for online? well honestly thats really all that has to be said about multiplats

eo_the_shaman

[QUOTE="aia89"]

If it really was so much powerful than the xbox 360, then we'd not see 90% of the games looking better on the xbox 360. Lazy developers is not a good excuse, because the same developers port games to the Pc and the graphics are enhanced.

So, I don't see Ps3 being this monster console, the only thing that I acknowledge is that it does have the merit to have such great teams like Naughty Dogs and Guerrilla. That's why we won't see many games that look great on the xbox 360, because of the lacking of qualitative 1st party devs, except some rare exceptions.

Do you people remember the previous gen? The ps2 was the wekest system of all, still they managed to give birth to something like God of War 1-2, which STILL holds up well and it's even better than some of the current gen's titles.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=12463

delta3074

yeah, but even if they released Bioshock over one year later, the game still doesn't look at par with the 360 one, although it doesn't look as crappy as Fallout 3, but still I don't see the advantage of spending all those extra money. That's why I think Sony did it wrong this gen. Basically it keeps "living" thanks to its good 1st party games, otherwise I don't see why someone would buy a ps3 over the 360, considering the difference in price.

I wasn't aware that PS3 developed it's own games...

rogerjak

yeah, but even if they released Bioshock over one year later, the game still doesn't look at par with the 360 one, although it doesn't look as crappy as Fallout 3, but still I don't see the advantage of spending all those extra money.aia89

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]

I wasn't aware that PS3 developed it's own games...

aaronmullan

The cell talks to me sometimes, it tells me to do things..

Blame the devs and PS3 for being so hard to use.

In comparison vids on sites, while some PS3 multiplats outdo 360 ones, the majority of 360 ones outdo the PS3 multiplats due to being in HD, have AA and better textures along some other graphical features. You have to be blind not to see a difference.

This link I posted proves that some PS3 multiplats aren't in HD or don't have AA, which fixes those jaggies for a better picture quality.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

Blame the devs and PS3 for being so hard to use.

In comparison vids on sites, while some PS3 multiplats outdo 360 ones, the majority of 360 ones outdo the PS3 multiplats due to being in HD, have AA and better textures along some other graphical features. You have to be blind not to see a difference.

This link I posted proves that some PS3 multiplats aren't in HD or don't have AA, which fixes those jaggies for a better picture quality.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

mitu123

yeah, but ps3 owners will still defent their console at any cost, even if facts speak against it.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Blame the devs and PS3 for being so hard to use.

In comparison vids on sites, while some PS3 multiplats outdo 360 ones, the majority of 360 ones outdo the PS3 multiplats due to being in HD, have AA and better textures along some other graphical features. You have to be blind not to see a difference.

This link I posted proves that some PS3 multiplats aren't in HD or don't have AA, which fixes those jaggies for a better picture quality.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

aia89

yeah, but ps3 owners will still defent their console at any cost, even if facts speak against it.

[QUOTE="aia89"]yeah, but even if they released Bioshock over one year later, the game still doesn't look at par with the 360 one, although it doesn't look as crappy as Fallout 3, but still I don't see the advantage of spending all those extra money.IronBass

the ps3 version of fallout 3 is considerably worse then the pc and xbox version. I have had this game on every platform pc,xbox,and ps3. Yes i bought this game 4 times as i had a couple of problems with it. The ps3 version has a lot more freezes and frame rate drops still. It has less draw distance and has more jaggies. I love my ps3 and most ppl on this board know i prefer ps3 before i buy anthing for xbox 360 but in this case fallout is a lot worse on the ps3 then the xbox. Another thing is the ps3 still does not have any dlc as bethesda likes to tease them to death with it.

The only multiplatform game I've seen that is noticeably worse on the PS3 is Tony Hawk's Project 8.

wow i cant believe you people still believe games are inferior on ps3 . they used to be when the ps3 first launced to 2007 but after that there is no mdiffrence betwwen the two

The only multiplatform game I've seen that is noticeably worse on the PS3 is Tony Hawk's Project 8.

GeoffZak

that's just one of the many.

And many ps3 games suffer from aliasing, which I hate, but

the official excuse is that developers are lazy.