Share this article:
 Digg.com Facebook Google Bookmarks N4G Gamerblips del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot.org StumbleUpon Did anyone else understand that? i am not buying this game anyway. i shall buy left 4 dead instead I wouldn't say that what they have achieved on the PS3 version is something to brag about! :lol:
They really need to chat with those Santa Monica boys and girls, whom managed to get God of War 3 running with AA, 1080P resolution and 60 fps.
Bow your heads in shame. :oops:
Anyway, this should be an entertaining thread. Particularly looking forward to the spec comparisons between the 360 and PS3. Always entertaining those.
Not. yes i understood it-its what ive known since they annouced the 360-ps3 the 360 IS the better out the two because of the way they made it"developer friendly"ps3's just a ball ache to develop for and has far,far,far4 less ram.
unlucky sony camp... :D yes i understood it-its what ive known since they annouced the 360-ps3 the 360 IS the better out the two because of the way they made it"developer friendly"ps3's just a ball ache to develop for and has far,far,far4 less ram.
unlucky sony camp... :D In your face! ps3 version is missing effects wen you use the proton gun on the enviroment, having played the ps3 version its still good despite some of its short commings, wii version ill get later in the year and 360 version ill have next week To put it simply, they ****ed it up.
With games like UT3, Mirror's Edge and other multiplat games looking the same on both consoles (not to mention games like Uncharted 1 & 2, Killzone 2, God of War 3 and other exclusives), there is just no excuse for this anymore.
This is the fault of the developers and not the PS3 itself. Laziness I say. How can he possible say you can't compare screenshots? Ofcourse you can, look at one, then look at the other. Saying that you'd need to uprez it by 25% and change the way the aaf is executed is ridiculous, a comparison is just that, trying to mimic another platform to make it closer defies the whole purpose of it
'yeah well it would look more like the 360 version if it was run on 360 hardware' i had read about this in the IGN review. its supposed to be just barely noticable in motion. still ordered this from ebay for the 360 because of the region exclusive shenanigans. only thing is the supplier has emailed me this morning saying activision has delayed the exports of the game and they'll not have them in until the weekend which means no bustin ghosts until next week :cry:
why is this website so bloody slow again. sort it out :x Yep they don't wana admit they fuked up so they blame the hardware!prfft next!? im waiting for the typical defensive PS3 reply from STD Grasshopper! Yeah, I read the reivew on IGN about the slight environment enhancements that the 360 sports, knowing that I could have one thats potentially slightly better brings out the worst quality whore in me :oops:
However, as posters above have noted, I don't know if I can be arsed to wait for the post for a 360 copy, I'll probably end up biting the bullet and trading in a load of old crap for it in gamestation tomorrow... there are lots of games on the PS3 and 360 that look exactly the same,how come all these games have managed it,yet this game hasn't?...if i was a PS3 player i would be a bit peeved Well thats one game on the "do not want" list. If they cant make the effort to make the game run as well on my PS3 as a 360, I dont think i'll put in any effort to go and get the game. There is no excuse for this shyt anymore, particularly now that other developers are managing to create games that are consistent across platforms. Xbox 360 Ram
* 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM
* 700 MHz of DDR
* Unified memory architecture
PS3
* 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
* 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz What a complete tit you are Taylor made!!! 'quincunx'
Try saying that after 10 pints of wife beater :lol: sony deserve the bad press after ****ing over the pal regions on this game.
I just wish the developers would come out and say what the rest of us know, but sony would sue the pants off them. does the PS3 really have less RAM than the 360, why would they do that with a newer machine? Yeah yeah. How does that explain the differences when shooting walls etc...?
As with nearly all multiplatform games, this is clearly better on the 360. Be it something in the detail, extra content or simply just its online, the 360 version is nearly always better.
I will wait to get the region free import next week, rather than buy it on PS3 this Friday. ghostbusters. :?
dont care what version is best. its clearly the 360 one. but its a weans game. the only good thing about it would be the cheesy riff of the theme tune blasting out. but if your so inclined you could just download the mp3. the films were half decent back in the day, mainly because of the actors. wouldnt waste a penny on the game though. wouldnt play it for free.
and whoever the johnny no name developer was, they obviously arent very experienced. Some of you are more obsessed with Grasshopper than he is with defending the PS3. He must laugh his ass off when he sees comments like this. In all fairness the people that are buying this game are doing so because they are fans of the GB franchise. I know that I don't particularly care about gameplay or graphics - I'm buying it because of the storyline and the fact that Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis lending a hand to the story. This doesn't effect me in the slightest. To be honest, would playstation owners wait longer for better quality game's ?
I wouldnt, and its not lazyness entirely.
Its just the ps3 programing codec is EXTREMELY hard to get to terms with. You Fa Quincunx! :D Well, not really. X360 has one big chunk of 512MB RAM and the PS3 has 2 smaller chunks of 256MB RAM. It's a different architecture but as we've seen with other multiplatform games (or exclusives) it's all about programming. Quim****!
sorry all lol They both have the same amount(512MB), difference is the PS3 gives half to the CPU and the other half to the GPU. On the 360 the CPU and GPU share their 512MB as they need to, so if the GPU needs more it can, and same goes for the CPU. You know, I think maybe cvg sees the ps3/360 fan boys as a pack of rabid snarling dogs, and have to keep throwing them a bit of meat to fight over everyday, into the escrement covered pit that they inhabit Now why does it not surprise me that you are not interested? Playstation 2 was also difficult to program for...
Anyway, look at Uncharted 1, that game was made at the beginning of the PS3 lifetime. That excuse just doesn't work anymore, they've had a LOT of time for ghostbusters and even made PS3 the leading platform for development. I just don't get it.
It doesn't really matter so much, the graphics aren't terrible and if I'll get the game at some time it'll be because I like Ghostbusters, but still, if other developers could do it, why couldn't they do it with Ghostbusters? In my opinion it's either laziness or incompetence. Especially when PS3 is not 'new' anymore. :? lol i didnt really care to be fair was never going to buy this anyway, i could smell the cheeseiness a mile away lol
id rather not spend an hour running around as fat, middle aged balding men :lol: Have none of you PS3 fanboys out there ever realised that the reason many multi-format games look the same on both, is due to the developer aiming for the lowest common denominator. (that's the PS3 by the way)
Those games are actually under using the 360 as a result!
I say well done to the developer for not letting Activision's money spinning exclusivity deal stop them putting in the effort to utilise the extra power of the 360. More than developer incompetence, isn't this just proof of how self-defeating the PS3's supposedly untapped power really is? Sorry to drag this up, but whilst we have a glaring example of it, its too tempting not to seize the opportunity.
I'm not excusing a developers' ineptitude if it were so. In the face of so many fine examples of multi-format games looking just as good on either console, its easy to suggest its just the developer who's at fault.
But is it, really?
Irrespective of the outcome, is it fair to blame developers when they need to wrestle with complex hardware merely to achieve a standard easily achieved elsewhere?
It seems to be an issue Sony and their fans use as it suits them; that there's some untapped reserve of incredible performance tucked away somewhere which justifies a 10 year lifecycle ("just wait til you see games in five years' time!!"); when the 360 version of a game performs better, simply blame the developers for being too lazy/incompetent to unlock the power of the console.
The problem is that whether the power is there or not, in the here and now developers struggle to make games run as well on the PS3 as they do on 360. Even the best developers in the world say the PS3 is a difficult console to work on. Is that really a sign of incredible processing power, or just poorly designed hardware?
Compounding this issue is the argument that some games are "only possible on PS3", suggesting only the raw power of the PS3 can handle such experiences. Notice on these occasions how such games are literally only on PS3, so whether they're possible on 360 or not will never be known. Convenient that.
I can't think of a single occasion where a PS3 game has been ported to the 360, let alone whether such ports made concessions in their performance. Stories such as this highlight the reality behind all the smoke and mirrors. No, they see the whole console vs console argument as a cash cow. Whose udders get bountiful with all the money milk from the advertising revenue they generate. Lazy developers again! It's a good job they're only programming games and not something important like aircraft systems or hospital equipment else we'd all be fcuked!!!
Of course the XBOX is easier to program it's a PC in a console box. »
because your a fanboy?
dont care what discrepancies there are between the 360 and ps3 versions...
if the game interested me, i'd get it - like i have done with GTA4, GRID, rainbow 6, skate and whatever other games were supposed to be "inferior" on the ps3.
just dont care. im not richard leadbetter, wanking over side by side comparisons.
have never experienced the "superior" 360 versions and therefore am oblivious to it. doesnt stop the games from looking fantastic to me. and they would still look fantastic to any (non-fanboy) 360 owner. Playstation 2
That's all I'm going to say to that. I know I'm repeating myself now. No it hasn't. Don't listen to 'TaYLoRMaDE.' He's rather phallate his xbox, rather than do his research.
Both 360 and PS3 have 512mb of RAM. The PS3 has 256mb dedicated system memory and 256mb dedicated graphics memory and is faster than the 360's.
360's 512mb of memory can be devided bewteen the 2 as developers prefer.
It's the PS3's CELL processor that makes the xbox's power inferior. It's just that developers arn't fully utilising it's full potential.
Apparently Killzone 2 only uses about 60% of the PS3's SPU. Just imagine how nice games will be when it's using all of it's power.
But back to the topic...I don't think I'll be buying the game on either console but I would get it for the 360 if I had to. Fanal Fantasy XIII? The PS3 has the same amount of RAM as the 360. However all of the 360 RAM is available for anything the developer likes but the PS3 has its RAM partitioned and so developers are forced to use it in the way Sony wants them to. Half of its RAM however is very fast. The other problem is the way the CELL works as it is a sequential processor rather than a Parallel processor. This does not explain though how other developers have managed to make the games look identical on both systems unless they have been restricting the 360 versions which I very much doubt. It's a pretty indisputable fact that the PS3 has more performance than the 360.
Sadly, it's not easily usable performance, and lots of it is wasted making up for the short-comings of the GPU.
The 360 GPU can render more pixels. The 360 GPU can shade more vertices.
The PS3 needs to keep the Vertex count sent to the GPU down so developers have to do more scene culling on the SPUs. Basically backface culling the geometry in software before submitting only the visible stuff to the GPU.
Unfortunately, that still doesn't fix the fact that the PS3 is behind in terms of fill rate, so often suffers in terms of screen resolution or anti aliasing.
It's also behind in texture memory.
The PS3 only really performs better, when you are using lots of SPU to generate geometry, or are doing so much with them on the gameplay / physics side that the 360 CPU cannot keep up.
It is possible to build something on the PS3 that cannot run as well on the 360. The fact is, that's not 90% of traditional game genres. So your a cashcow fanboy lol The game seems to be getting favourable reviews although there do appear to be some framerate issues on both versions and a mandatory 4GB install for the PS3 version despite the wonders of Blu-Ray.
I loved the films and original game back in the 8Bit days so I'll defo be picking it up. This coming from a guy who said GT5 was stealing ideas from Forza 3 haha! shutup! What the hell's a quimcunx anyway? I hope for the PS3 community, GT5 does pinch some ideas from Forza! Or you'll have a pretty generic GT experience, yet again.
I'm sure you'd love to be able to paint up your GT5 race car, wouldn't you??
I'm not a fanboy, I just base my games console choice on what I know about the systems, due to the fact I develop games on them for a living. It's a 5 pixel Multi-Sampling filter. Hit the space bar for a fussy digitized "GHOSTBUSTERS". well at least the C64 one did that. trying to get under the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man's feet was a right bugger though.
ah memories. :) lol okay mate we all hope the GT5 creator polyphony copy forza 3, we really do! 8) :lol: why dont some of you wait to play the game eh? ive been playing it all night and its great.....i dont know if the 360 version does look better but the ps3 one runs great and plays great. also these screenshots and head to head videos make it look very bright.....fine contrast etc on my samsung. Expressing some kind of divine right for Polyphony to be better than everything anyone else does?
I'd say it is you who's the fanboy here. does anyone else have the ps3 game yet? anyone want to give multiplayer ago? You know, it just occurred to me that we really haven't had a successful test of this equipment.
I blame myself. 'Are you, Alice, menstruating right now?' Yep, great game, great memories, and the marshmallow man was a bit "random" and a pain in the ar$e.
Oh, and if you thought the C64 speech was fuzzy, shit you should have heard the Amstrad version, sounded like a cross between a LW radio transmission and a cat being castrated...ahhh, the memories! :D 'Yes, it's true, this man has no dick' some divine right?! No, I know polyphony are better than everyone else, I play the games see pal! therefore i have right to cast jugdement! the only game Ive considered on the Radar of the GT series is project gotham racing 3! GT5 is gna piss over everything! and im glad their not rushing to release the game! 3 pages? To be expected mind you, the words 'PS3' and '360' were in the headline.
What have i missed :wink: ? Any chance we can steer this into an Amstrad CPC 464 and a Commodore 64 Ghostbusters game battle for a change?
464 FTW @ensabahnur
I remember completing that, i was so chuffed.
And you're right, that marshmallow man bit was a pain in the anus, you had to time it exactly right. :x see the citroen advert with the ghostbusters tune remade with car horns. got to laugh at the state of that. the main riff is faithfully reproduced though. As it has already been pointed out, the PS3 splits the RAM into two segments, and only 256MB is dedicated to graphics, while the 360 gives developers the RAM and lets them decide where and when to allocate.
However, I was under the impression that there were publicly-available (to the developers) tricks to allow that RAM allocation wall to be broken down. If that's correct, then either someone isn't in the know or didn't want to pony up for the code.
---
The other problem is that the PS3 has a minuscule amount of on-die RAM for the Cell Processor, while the 360 on-die RAM for the CPU is significantly larger. This larger RAM allows for programmers to save CPU cycles in having to call for parts of the programming on the 360, while the PS3 has to waste cycles making the same calls over and over.
It's akin to having to go to the well to get water--the 360 has a storage unit back at the house to where you can store what you need, thus saving trips to the well, whereas the PS3 must constantly trek out to the well every single time water is requested.
Granted, with the Cell Processing on the PS3, you've got eight people going to the well instead of the three on the 360 side, and you can easily dedicate a 'runner' to go to that well time and again. Problem is, that isn't efficient in any stretch of the imagination, and since code (and thus, other water fetchers) to overcome other inadequacies (RAM allocation) uses other CPU cycles, you're left with fewer people to get water, and a degradation in ability in comparison to the immediate competition.
And yes, there are ways to code around this, but it's kinda like the days of the N64 (if any of you are old enough to remember) where Rare, Factor 5, et al had to fine-tune (hand-tune?) code to get power out of the machine to make games comparable to the competition (PSX). Such actions take much more time than is available for development cycles and sometimes takes a skill set that isn't readily available. That's why you'll see games like God of War 3 and Heavy Rain looking like oiled-up hotness on the PS3, and third parties slogging watered-down ports for the life of the console--there's just not enough time or money for the third party companies (unless Sony underwrites their endeavors) to make it worth their while.
And if the Sony fanboi contingent here wants to get up in arms about all this, just know two things--one, I happily own a PS3 (and can accept it for what it is); and two, don't blame the 360 fanboi contingent--blame Kaz and his irresponsibility when Sony designed the hardware. There's a reason he was given a window seat in Japan, and that's because the hardware and software developers were walled off from each other when the PS3 was designed--something which has constantly kicked Sony in the mommy/daddy buttons (financially and otherwise) every time a crappy PS3 port shows up on the machine. Absolutely bugger all. Apparently the PS3 sucks, or is it the 360, I'm still not sure.
Everybody puts forward such strong arguments, there so convincing I keep changing my mind on which console rules the planet :roll: Agreed. PolyD would do well to copy some things from Forza, espeically vehicle damage, better AI, and vehicle painting/design.
And here's hoping that Forza 3's tracks aren't bland/generic crap like they were last time around. Cars were great (though off-scale in a few instances), handled great, but driving them through those tracks were painful on the eyes. :( Aye then there's the 118-118 ad with the one and only Ray Parker Junior himself. do you think these companies knew there was gonna be a Ghostbusters explosion this year? timed it just to cash in on that 25th anniversary. »
better AI and vehicle painting?
IT doesn't need better AI its the most realistic racing series around! they test every single car they game gives us and put the statics and dynamics into the game to make the vehicle realistic to its real world counterpart! thats what makes the GT series so good! you clearly didn't think that through! the damage is there in this one, you do realise this game had been in production since late 2004 yeah?! :lol: :lol: :lol: Yet the 360 has been claimed to be maxed out? »»
GT5 is the only racing game where a Bugatti handles like the fiat panda in your driveway. wheres the fun in that?
when cars crash, they take damage both visually and in terms of performance. in GT5 you dont have to brake in (or before, as is proper) the corners, you just ram into the guy in front of you! realizm FTW i gather? The 360 has 6 cores, the PS3 also has 6 cores available to the developers. 1 is dedicated to the OS and the other is disabled as it is only included to allow for greater chip yields due to a high manufacturing defect rate. The processor was never optimised for gaming either unlike the 360 cpu as has been designed to power multimedia devices like the new high end Toshiba TVs.
Apparently in some scenarios the 360 is more powerful than the PS3 but in others the PS3 wins out. Either way they are so close to each other it does not really matter and after all it is the games rather than the graphics that count. What a load of ********. Funnily enough I've be reading a lot about the new Microsoft built dev. engine that has been produced to replace the ageing and much used UE equivalent, and although the devs are unable to tell us just how much of a leap it is due to a NDA, they're promising that what we've seen so far on the 360 is 16Bit quality in comparison and seem very excited by it.
This seems to tie-in with what Microsoft have been saying recently in that we are about to see the next generation/level of games on the 360. Looks like there's going to be some graphically stunning games coming soon. what 'bit' is the ps3?
i mind that the was the key spec to judge a consoles power. megadrive had 16-bit emblazoned over it. saturn was 32, N64 had the bit number in its name! dreamcast was 128-bit i think...
where are we now? wow ever a kind of internet divine comedy vibe reading these threads sometimes.
After playing this for the last few days on the wii, i've come to the conclusion that this game was at least written for the fans, as the script provided and deftly performed by the original cast is a wash of fan service and references to previous films.
Basically its not a kids game, if anything it was made for guys in thier 20s and 30's who have fond memories of the movies and cartoon series from when they were children.
Gameplaywise its pretty solid and really fun.
Having only played it on the wii so far i have to say i was impressed at how well the wii controls work, (Pretty much how i imagined and wanted them too). Its a blast, destroying the environments and the ghosts is enjoyable and its worth playing just for the story alone. They have given up on bits now. All the current gen machines are 128 bit as far as I know. The same as the last gen. Technically I think they are all actually 64bit but don't tell anyone as they may get upset. The original Xbox was a 32-bit console (a Pentium III with a slightly customised Nvidia gfx chip).
Which goes to show how pointless the distinction is nowadays. The Xbox and the PS1 were both 32 bit consoles, world of difference between them. »»
I think its quite obvious that you have not experienced a lot of things!!
Tit /facepalm This may be a completely stupid question to the tech-heads around here, but I'm curious. For years I've heard how difficult Sony consoles are to create games on... why don't Sony make it easy?
Surely it's in everyone's interest that a machine is easy for developers to work with. I completely fail to understand why Sony make it such hard work, or don't work harder themselves to make it easier for coders. Recently I read that Valve won't ever bring out their games on a Playstation because it's so time-consuming, hard-work, and ultimately less profitable. PS3 in inferior port shocker!
:o
Who'd have guessed it! They did say recently it's deliberately so that it takes time to learn how to get the most out of the hardware, so that games get better and better through the life-cycle of the console.
Personally, I think that's ******** - you can still learn to get more out of a console with experience even if it's easy to develop for in the first place.
Whether or not that is the real reason, or if it simply comes down to their arrogance or whatever, I think it has seriously bitten them on the arse this generation. They got away with it last time because the huge sales of the PS2 meant there was a large enough market for it to be worth the effort for developers to get to grips with the hardware. Is that the case this time round? Seems Valve don't think so, and I doubt they're the only ones... It is probably down to the fact that the Cell was never designed primarily for gaming. It is a multi-purpose chip which has been designed to go into TVs DVD players, set top boxes etc etc. This seems to have made it overly complex especially when you factor in the fact that 6 of the cores are not able to work on their own, they have to be controlled by the PPE. The 360 on the other hand has effectively 3 PPE cores each split into 2 hardware threads which has been designed for gaming and gaming alone. The cell is very powerful at certain things but it is not too great at others and its complexity makes it hard to program. Nintendo took the other extreme and decided to follow a similar route to PCs by using a more powerful version of the Gamecube chip and a GPU with similar architecture but twice the power of the GC gpu. This means that developers could jump on quite easily (however many have chosen to be lazy). ^^
Yes, basically, Sony don't really design a games console. They R&D many cool bits of hardware, then put them in a console to push their manufacturing down so they can use the technology more widely.
That's the theory anyway. It's what they did with the PS2's "Emotion Engine", which they claimed was the future of CPUs and we'd see proliferating into many other uses (did that ever happen?).
Now they're saying the same things about the CELL.
They make the best of what Technology Sony Corp has funded and has a vested interest in. Microsoft designed a console around the needs of the developers, which you cannot knock them for. The game plays brilliant on my PS3 so i really don't give a monkeys how much blur it has compared to the 360. So all the fanboys who won't buy the game as the developer supposedly has given the PS3 an inferior experience are certainly missing out and i hope they will rethink their philosophy.
Afterall Busting makes you feel good! Oh, look what Activision have just said... :wink: just think, these people get paid to talk this crap?! Seems like a few devs they just cant get the best out of the PS3, but to say you cant compare them in screenshots without scaling them after saying that on the PS3 engine is rendered at 75% of the 360 wtf has scaling got to do with the resolution they achieve in a game? Maybe they want everyone to play Ghostbusters PS3 version on a 17" TV so it looks good. Madness. :arrow: You forgot to mention that Microsoft's console makes you buy a new one, or send it in to be repaired every year.
and yes im still pissed off about it. Xbox 360 Ram
* 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM
* 700 MHz of DDR
* Unified memory architecture
PS3
* 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
* 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz
from some tit up the page saying xbox was better.
the fact that xbox has 512 of gddr3 is so untrue.
its some other type of bolox, that actualy makes ps3s even faster if he wants to talk like that, ps3 is rouhly 4 tmes faster than an a xbox in the ram department. ps3 have sneakily ....in releasing ps3, ....secured blu-ray as a format, and xdr ram as the new standard. which they will know hw to use perfectly, and no one else will as theve got their heads up microsofts arses , and have done for years. 4 times faster in the RAM department? It hardly looks like it!
I have both a PS3 and 360, so I'm far less biased than yourself.
Currently I have about a dozen 360 games and, er, two PS3 games.
No matter what the technicalities are (and the PS3, according to most developers, is much more difficult to program), most multi-format games are better on the 360. 4 times faster in the RAM department? It hardly looks like it!
I have both a PS3 and 360, so I'm far less biased than yourself.
Currently I have about a dozen 360 games and, er, two PS3 games.
No matter what the technicalities are (and the PS3, according to most developers, is much more difficult to program), most multi-format games are better on the 360. It's developer lazyness again, after Ubishits turn with not porting Splinter Cell Conviction. I wasn't interested, anyway, so doesn't affect me.
And, @ Adam81uk, the game looked shit from the beginning. Only huge fans of the film will bother buying it. There's never been a good Ghostbusters game, and that'll continue for as long as developers start putting more effort in. i have 30 games for the 360 and 16 for the ps3. two games i have on both consoles. cod4 and NFS: pro street (only bought one myself).
cod 4 is decidedly better on the 360, with the controller and xbox live being superior to what the ps3 offers i the same departments.
but i must say i liked pro street (though i didnt like it) better on the ps3. mainly because i like using the analouges to controll it like an R/C | 
