1Up writer Matt Leone has been spending plenty of time with Bayonetta... maybe TOO much but who can blame him? Anyways, not only is he playing the Xbox 360 version, but the PS3 one as well and has some disturbing news. Remember a while back when there were reports of the PS3 version being crappy? Looks like not much has changed. He's even included a video showcasing the uglies.
Quote:
Over the past two days, I've spent about 12 hours split between the two versions, and I've ended up very disappointed the PS3 game. All the complaints you may have heard -- that it looks faded and blurry, and struggles through its framerate -- are true, and more significant than I've seen in any PS3/360 game in recent memory. The 360 version runs into occasional light framerate issues, but nothing that really affects the game. The PS3 version feels sluggish for the majority of the game -- at least, when put side-by-side with the 360 one.
Looks like the PS3 version was shot using the ole "petroleum jelly lens trick". In closing, if you're going to buy this game in January, buy the 360 version.
The PS3 verison is blurry, less detial on screen, and suffers from low/stuttering FPS issues. Almost looks more like a PS2 game when compared to the 360 version IMO.
This company should be ashamed for releasing such an inferior product on the PS3.
Well, it's a simply fact that it's far harder to get the same graphical quality out of the PS3 as equivalent quality on 360. I'm sure Baghdad-Tee will deny this, but it's true. The PS3 graphics card is not as good as the 360. Thus, it takes more effort to achieve parity. This is also why developers are largely choosing to dev on 360 first and port to PS3, and I don't blame them. They hated deving on the PS2 also, but it had the installed base to die for, so they had no choice. So, if you're going to push the bleeding graphical edge on 360 and try to achieve parity on PS3, and release deadlines loom... Yeah.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
For what seems like the thousandth time on these threads, this is a blatant case of lazy developers not bothering to go outside their Microsoft coding safe-zone.
And LOL @ the predictable Anenome troll. It's so hard for Killzone 2 and LBP to look better than anything the 360 can represent, right? Gimme a break, it comes down to a devs' chops, and not some imagined "gimping" of a console. If there's anything negative you have to say about one of the Big 3's hardware shortcomings, the first major culprit is the craptacular 360, and the closest second is the severely under-powered Wii.
And please keep regurgitating that fabled "PS3 has an inferior graphics card" BS, shows how little you know about actual game development! There no such thing as a "better" graphics card in regards to 360/PS3 comparisons, and the fact that you've bought that load of bull from the latest MS fanboy rant you've read somewhere online is nothing less than typical.
But far be it from me to try to speak some sense on these boards, maybe you should take a few computer graphics cards and figure it out yourself!
For what seems like the thousandth time on these threads, this is a blatant case of lazy developers not bothering to go outside their Microsoft coding safe-zone.
And LOL @ the predictable Anenome troll. It's so hard for Killzone 2 and LBP to look better than anything the 360 can represent, right? Gimme a break, it comes down to a devs' chops, and not some imagined "gimping" of a console. If there's anything negative you have to say about one of the Big 3's hardware shortcomings, the first major culprit is the craptacular 360, and the closest second is the severely under-powered Wii.
And please keep regurgitating that fabled "PS3 has an inferior graphics card" BS, shows how little you know about actual game development! There no such thing as a "better" graphics card in regards to 360/PS3 comparisons, and the fact that you've bought that load of bull from the latest MS fanboy rant you've read somewhere online is nothing less than typical.
But far be it from me to try to speak some sense on these boards, maybe you should take a few computer graphics cards and figure it out yourself!
Since it's impossible to argue with a brick wall (and quite futile);
Quote:
For the PS3
The graphics processing unit, according to Nvidia, is based on the NVIDIA G70 (previously known as NV47) architecture. The GPU makes use of 256MB GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700MHz with an effective transmission rate of 1.4GHz [3] and up to 224MB of the 3.2GHz XDR main memory via the CPU (480MB max).
and for the Xbox
Quote:
Graphics 500 MHz ATI Xenos, The GPU package contains two separate silicon dies, each built on a 90 nm process with a clock speed of 500 MHz; the GPU proper, manufactured by TSMC and a 10 MB eDRAM daughter-die, manufactured by NEC. Thanks to the daughter die, the Xenos can do 4x FSAA, z-buffering, and alpha blending with no appreciable performance penalty on the GPU.[3] The GPU also houses additional capabilities typically separated into a motherboard chipset in PC systems, effectively replacing the northbridge chip.
Now the reason people argue one video card is better than the other...(x360)The console features 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700MHz with an effective transmission rate of 1.4 GHz on a 128-bit bus.(PS3)The GPU makes use of 256MB GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700MHz with an effective transmission rate of 1.4GHz.
So people do basic math and conclude that a 512 meg video card is better than a 256 meg video card.
****** oh and LBP a game that xbox couldn't handle... are you insane? ******
__________________
Xbox360: DragonValiant Silence is golden, Duct Tape is silver.
The statement below is true,
The statement above is false.
How is this news? A 360 version performing better than the PS3 version? Honestly, this is so normal now a days it shouldn't even be considered news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
It's so hard for Killzone 2 and LBP to look better than anything the 360 can represent, right?
You know that LBP was ported to PSP proving that the PS3 wasn't needed in any way shape or form for that game to be created. I played LBP on both the PSP and the PS3 and the gameplay is just as good on both systems.
****** oh and LBP a game that xbox couldn't handle... are you insane? ******
I'll respond to this fabrication first. If you show me where I stated the 360 "couldn't handle" LBP, you win a prize. I'm pretty sure I've been saying the exact opposite the entire time-- mainly that any good dev can make great graphics happen on either console.
As to your elementary 256 > 512 argument, you're not serious are you? Like Anenome before you, it just shows your pure lack of understanding game development if you pick a "better" card based on some arbitrary numbers. How about factoring efficiency, performance, utility, and a host of other factors like processing architecture/interaction with the CPU when discussing who has "better graphics".
The short answer-- neither console outperforms the other. The ONLY conclusion you can draw concerning a comparison is that exclusive PS3 games are looking much more graphically impressive than exclusive 360 games-- which as I said before is more due to good development than a better hardware setup. Maybe some of you need to study up before passing off blatant ignorance as some kind of infallible truth.
As to your elementary 256 > 512 argument, you're not serious are you? Like Anenome before you, it just shows your pure lack of understanding game development if you pick a "better" card based on some arbitrary numbers. How about factoring efficiency, performance, utility, and a host of other factors like processing architecture/interaction with the CPU when discussing who has "better graphics".
The short answer-- neither console outperforms the other. The ONLY conclusion you can draw concerning a comparison is that exclusive PS3 games are looking much more graphically impressive than exclusive 360 games-- which as I said before is more due to good development than a better hardware setup. Maybe some of you need to study up before passing off blatant ignorance as some kind of infallible truth.
- Even if the PS3 was technically capable of better graphics--a point I do not concede--if the effort vs payoff curve is significantly different, and MS's is far steeper, meaning that less effort produces much more payoff, then what good was it for the PS3 designers to create hardware with an imaginary long-tail that isn't worth putting the effort into?
Let's imagine that both PS3 and 360 had $1 million for the Bayonetta team to spend making the graphics look as good as it can on each system. That's a fair metric, and probably not too far off from the truth of what actually happens. If the result is that the PS3 can only look as good as the 360 if you spend $3 million, and might look a bit better than 360 if you spent $5 million (assuming still just spent $1 mill on 360), why would any dev company bother? Sure, porting to PS3 may create difficulties in themselves. Blame Sony for choosing arcane, non-standard hardware. If you still think the Cell is genius rather than fatally flawed, I got a bridge to sell you.
And this is exactly what we see, time and time again. PS3 graphics get to the 'good enough' point and it's shipped. And 360's 'good enough' point is just better looking on average. Lazy development? Or difficult development. The latter is far more reasonable a conclusion. Frankly I'm insulted on behalf of the devs for you to call them lazy. Bayonetta is amazing, and could not have been produced by lazy devs.
And while it may be possible to occasionally overcome your video card having half the memory of your opponent's, it should be quite obvious that you're going to work a hell of a lot harder to achieve that. You should be mad that Sony initially believe it didn't need to put a graphics card in the PS3 -at all-. Man, what a debacle that would've been if that decision stayed, the PS3 would've failed outright as devs flocked to the 360 in service of their own sanity. So, Sony buys a decent card to put in, last minute, but goes cheap on the memory. Thus, they're screwed for the whole generation. And that also is exactly what we continue to see.
So, Tee, if I'm completely wrong, if the PS3 card is so much better, and it's easy to achieve graphical parity, why are so many devs having this problem? Your accusation of laziness falls apart when it's not just one or two, but a pattern showing its face across the entire industry.
And if you blame ports, perhaps you should ask yourself why devs are choosing to dev on the 360 first and port it to PS3 second instead of the other way around. The only ones who don't are the ones Sony sends a dump-truck full of cash to their doorstep. It's pathetic.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
So, Tee, if I'm completely wrong, if the PS3 card is so much better, and it's easy to achieve graphical parity, why are so many devs having this problem? Your accusation of laziness falls apart when it's not just one or two, but a pattern showing its face across the entire industry.
And if you blame ports, perhaps you should ask yourself why devs are choosing to dev on the 360 first and port it to PS3 second instead of the other way around. The only ones who don't are the ones Sony sends a dump-truck full of cash to their doorstep. It's pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
For what seems like the thousandth time on these threads, this is a blatant case of lazy developers not bothering to go outside their Microsoft coding safe-zone.
I'm beginning to see Grumsh's point about arguing with brick walls
It's simple, Ane. Devs who are used to working with a PC will flounder when they have to deal with anything not branded with MS's code, and it's well-documented that 360 devs use the shortcut of working on a similarly-setup PC before doing anything with a real console. Just like MS needing a year-long headstart to combat the PS3's better hardware/better features, they need their PC-marketplace presence to combat Sony's better exclusive software development, it seems.
These devs would have just as much trouble as PC devs porting over to the Mac or any other Linux-based console as they do with the PS3. But somehow only when the PS3 version gets shortchanged these lazy developers.
The bottom line here-- if you wrote the code on the lead console for ease of porting, the PS3 version will be easy to port to. If you catered to only the 360's strengths when coding, then OF COURSE the PS3 version will be difficult to port to. OF COURSE there will be a pattern, because a lot of devs are not only incompetent at being efficient, but LAZY when they discover they should've kept multiplatform development in mind while going through their 360-phase. This should be common knowledge, but I really do get tired of explaining it over and over again on these boards.
The second bottom line-- nobody has any trouble making brilliant PS3 titles. The key is that people only seem to have trouble when porting from PC/360. So, kids, what logical conclusions can you draw from this?
So, blah, blah, blah, blah... MS completely outmaneuvered Sony by making the 360 hardware similar to the likely development platform: the PC. Sony = pwned. Gotcha.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
So, blah, blah, blah, blah... MS completely outmaneuvered Sony by making the 360 hardware similar to the likely development platform: the PC. Sony = pwned. Gotcha.
Read my blog. I don't know why you're on the side of corporations like Microsoft over console owners who are getting shafted by lazy devs, but you clearly are. Do ya own stock in MS, or are you just shilling because you're bored?
BTW, some people (myself included) see this as the 360's biggest weakness. Why buy the 360 version and pay for XBL when you can just get the PC version with better graphics, free multiplayer, and mod-support (usually), more HDD space, no expensive add-ons, etc.?
Seriously, why is it a "plus" for you that the 360 is little more than a less-powerful gaming PC with all the limitations of a console?
But now we're getting off topic. Yes, the PS3 Bayonetta sucks, and yes-- it's because of lazy developers. Those are the facts here, and it seems even you won't bother to dispute that.
BTW, some people (myself included) see this as the 360's biggest weakness. Why buy the 360 version and pay for XBL when you can just get the PC version with better graphics, free multiplayer, and mod-support (usually), more HDD space, no expensive add-ons, etc.?
Because some of us are smart enough to use Macs and not to run shitty Windows... PC gaming's biggest flaw.
