Well, if that's given then you already agree that only a lazy developer would decide to release the "full" version of a game on one console, and the half-assed imitation on the other.
- No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a dev to build a new version from scratch for the PS3. They're no doubt using middleware to translate assets. And asking them to do that is the same thing as removing all financial incentive to port at all. If that's your standard there simply wouldn't be any PS3 ports, because the hardware is so different.
Is it your contention they should dev for PS3 first and then port to 360 because that would be easier? Because, if that made sense to actually do, why aren't devs doing it? It's because the PS3 is a piece of ridiculously complex hardware. Devs just want to make a game, they don't want to jump hoops to get the hardware to complete basic tasks. Sony should keep this in mind while designing their next console. The more the dev has to fight the console the less time they can put into designing a game.
And how about you respond to "if sony had made the ps3 easy to develop for the problem wouldn't have existed.". This is the third time I've made this argument and the third time you've ignored it in favour of wether or not the devs are lazy or it's some other factor
Who's ignoring whom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Look, we can go back and forth like this all day. I stand by my opinion that anything less than an "A" effort for any reason is being lazy, so feel free to maintain that if something is too hard/complicated to do then it's okay to give up on it even if it's your job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Is it your contention they should dev for PS3 first and then port to 360 because that would be easier? Because, if that made sense to actually do, why aren't devs doing it? It's because the PS3 is a piece of ridiculously complex hardware. Devs just want to make a game, they don't want to jump hoops to get the hardware to complete basic tasks. Sony should keep this in mind while designing their next console. The more the dev has to fight the console the less time they can put into designing a game.
Once they made the commitment towards a multiplatform game, a non-lazy dev would've taken whatever steps needed to ensure that both versions of their game were superior products.
Apparently, the Bayonetta team didn't take those steps-- whether they should have started with the PS3 as lead console, or studied up on the architecture, or ask Insomniac for free pointers that they give out to anybody who asks, whatever it takes to DO THEIR JOB EFFICIENTLY did not get done. Period.
Why you two insist on blaming Sony for a dev being lazy I'll never understand, nor will I agree with. So you might as well just save the replies if you don't have anything else to say about why these devs aren't really being lazy for not doing the work they were hired to do.
Wait... what? You call Sony funding a bunch of 1st/2nd party devs out of their own pocket (a pocket that's well-documented to be losing billions per year, mind you) an example of them "shafting" their consumers?...
Well, I'm convinced now that Tea&cakes doesn't actually believe anything he's saying. He just defends Sony as a way of practicing his rhetorical skills. The truth does not matter to him at all. He has to find someway to justify spending all that money on his UoF bachelor's degree, as he's said so many times before.
Quote:
2: The ps3 is notoriously hard to develope for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tea&cakes
#2 has no bearing on this issue at all.
- See, it's blatant denials of reality and facts like this that make me question Tea's sanity. No sane man can make this statement and expect not to be called the Sony equivalent of Baghdad Bob.
Quote:
I just don't believe in giving excuses for failure...Sega hired the Bayonetta devs to do a job.
- Sega was also apparently happy with the result. And Sony certified the game for release. Everyone's happy except you apparently. And a 38 score on Famitsu is quite good. The game on PS3 is only overshadowed in comparison to the 360 version and probably still outshines most PS3 games. I wouldn't call that 'failure.'
Other games may look fine on PS3 because they aren't pushing the limits of what's possible on the console, or have an engine more conducive to what the PS3's capable of, or have limited their engine on the 360 knowing it would have to go over to the PS3. We saw this exact same phenomena with the recent Ghost Busters game, were they lazy too? Or is the 360 just easier to make look pretty. Occam's razor refutes you.
I laugh at your attempt to discount Sony making the PS3 hard to develop for as having no role in this entire fiasco. If it weren't for that, people wouldn't be porting in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tee
For the thousandth time, one has nothing to do with the other. The fact that some developers can create decent multiplatform titles on both consoles while the Bayonetta devs could not clearly shows that the was a lack of effort on the part of the Bayonetta team.
- Not necessarily true. You have to ignore many realities of development and the kind of engines that can be made to make this statement. It's probably true that if you try to push the bleeding graphical edge on the 360 that the PS3 won't be able to keep up. Not every developer need push their game to the same limit. Anyone who's seen Bayonetta in action knows this is a game that's as gorgeos as they come, with a pace of action that's lightning fast and contains tons of things happening at once.
Quote:
The "why" is irrelevant.
- Spoken like a true SDF member. The why is never irrelevant. The 'why' tells us where to place blame. In this case, it's squarely on Sony who controlled whether the hardware would be difficult or not, and consciously chose to make it difficult in order to make porting to other consoles difficult because it assumed devs would choose it again because it assumed it would dominate the market again--kinda like how the PS2 panned out, when devs said they'd peel back their own fingernails to make beautiful games on the PS2 because it had the market share, and some devs thought other devs were literally crazy for going through so much to make pretty games because the process was madness inducing even on the PS2. But that didn't work out the way they planned with the PS3, so being difficult ended up working against them.
Quote:
I mentioned Sony's financial commitments to the 1st/2nd party teams as a way to show you that Sony certainly is not out to "screw" their PS3 consumers
- You're right, Sony was trying to screw their competitors. But in the end they ended up screwing consumers because devs hate making games on their console. GG Sony.
Quote:
They've heard the complaints of the difficult-to-navigate PS3 architecture, and responded by making some of the best exclusive games anyone has ever played, on ANY console.
- That is, they have to pay devs to dev on their console rather than port to it, and make up the difference in development cost that it takes to actually make a game look great on the PS3 out of their own pocket. That's just paying for their own mistake in how they designed the console. The second you have to beg and plead and pay devs to make games on your console, you're worse than pathetic. You're a videogame-industry prostitute.
Quote:
the FACT that the devs are a bunch of lazy workers.
- This isn't fact by a mile. You really lose credibility with this statement. Please make a case for this being fact. Call up the Bayonetta devs and get a quote as to why the PS3 version looks worse, then call Sega and get their opinion why it looks worse, then we'll have some actual facts apart from you talking out of your ass about assumptions of laziness when many other factors -could- be at work and the assumption of laziness is little more than spin. It's obvious to reasonable people that if the console was less hard to dev for that it would look just as good as 360.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
In the end it really doesn't matter. Maybe you're right, maybe the devs were simply lazy, that doesn't change the fact that if sony had made the ps3 easy to develop for the problem wouldn't have existed. And again, in the end, the people that get screwed are the people who only own a ps3.
- Exactly. Nice way to cap the thread. The buck stops with Sony. They could've easily prevented this situation by creating a dev-friendly console. They chose not to. That is the heart of the current situation. Devs have to live within the constraints given to them. If the have a set amount of dollars to spend to port to another console, and that console makes things hard, it's not the devs fault in the least. Only Sony could've changed that dynamic by making the PS3 easier to dev on.
Once they made the commitment towards a multiplatform game, a non-lazy dev would've taken whatever steps needed to ensure that both versions of their game were superior products.
- That's not the way the world works, my friend. I know they didn't make you take a lot of math or business courses to get that english degree of yours, but I'm a former economics major and a former business major :P Real world constraints never include a 'anything it takes to get it done' clause. There's always a time and money constraint. The only thing that can affect that constraint is how easy or difficult the console itself makes it to dev on. Thus, Sony's fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Apparently, the Bayonetta team didn't take those steps-- whether they should have started with the PS3 as lead console, or studied up on the architecture, or ask Insomniac for free pointers that they give out to anybody who asks, whatever it takes to DO THEIR JOB EFFICIENTLY did not get done. Period.
- Or it just plain wasn't possible. Again, let's talk bleeding edge. Bayonetta is it. That's a huge lack of video memory to make up with mere 'programming tricks.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Why you two insist on blaming Sony for a dev being lazy I'll never understand, nor will I agree with. So you might as well just save the replies if you don't have anything else to say about why these devs aren't really being lazy for not doing the work they were hired to do.
- Your premise is flawed. Again, it's not just one dev. When you dev for PS3 first of course the game looks fine, you're working within that hardware paradigm. When you go multiplatform and the platforms are that different, then issues arise. And again, it was Sony's intention to make going multiplaform difficult in the first place to discourage devs from doing so, with the assumption that PS3 would own the market and devs would go there first. It was a calculated business decision by Sony for the express purpose of making ports difficult. But, it also makes ports TO the PS3 difficult, and they didn't count on coming in last place this generation. In other words: Sony's fault.
Besides, it's fun watching you twist in the wind to defend an indefensible position solely because you're a Sony fanboy to whom truth means nothing. That why you're Baghdad-Tee.
Well, at least Anenome' post saves me alot of type work...Kinda annoying though that he basicly took all my arguments and presented them alot beter than I did
Besides, it's fun watching you twist in the wind to defend an indefensible position solely because you're a Sony fanboy to whom truth means nothing. That why you're Baghdad-Tee.
For shame, Anenome. Why the ad hominem attacks? Didn't you recommend not doing so?
Pot, kettle!
Here's the central fact: if the PS3 is the lead SKU, the PS3 version typically looks/runs/plays better; if the 360 is the lead SKU, the 360 version typically looks/runs/plays better. If the Wii is the lead SKU, it sucks.
For the thousandth time, one has nothing to do with the other. The fact that some developers can create decent multiplatform titles on both consoles while the Bayonetta devs could not clearly shows that the was a lack of effort on the part of the Bayonetta team.
The "why" is irrelevant. Bayonetta didn't give it their all, case closed. But I'm sure this argument will go over your head again, so I look forward to you "trying again"!
So I guess the possibility that some things going on in the Xbox 360 version are just simply not doable in the PS3 version is heresy?
To sum it up pretty darn plainly, there are things the Xbox360 can do that the PS3 cannot, and vice versa. Hence why people just over-generalize that the systems are equal. So is it possible that this is just "one of those games"? I know how dare I think outside the box here...
__________________
Xbox360: DragonValiant Silence is golden, Duct Tape is silver.
DID YOU KNOW; The Portsmouth, UK Taxi driver license application is available in braille.
