More pixels being patched into PS3 version of Ghostbusters
by Andrew Yoon 
{ Aug 26th 2009 at 10:45AM } 
The PS3 version of Ghostbusters was largely criticized for its inferior performance compared to the Xbox 360 version. Developer Terminal Reality told Joystiq, "The PS3 version ... is softer due to the 'quincunx' antialiasing filter and the fact we render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version." 25% fewer pixels? Unacceptable!
Atari is promising to redress the differences between the two platforms with a new patch for the PS3 version which is supposedly available right now. According to the Atari press release, the patch will offer an "increase in resolution to match that of Xbox 360" while offering "numerous other localization fixes."
Additionally, the Trophies for the game have been fixed. A glitch – caused when players from Europe and America played with each other – prevented the "Pay Day" and "Capture All Most Wanted Ghosts" Trophies (and subsequently, the game's mandatory Platinum) from unlocking properly. If bustin' ghosts with your international pals makes you feel good, it might be time to fire up Ghostbusters again.
Atari is promising to redress the differences between the two platforms with a new patch for the PS3 version which is supposedly available right now. According to the Atari press release, the patch will offer an "increase in resolution to match that of Xbox 360" while offering "numerous other localization fixes."
Additionally, the Trophies for the game have been fixed. A glitch – caused when players from Europe and America played with each other – prevented the "Pay Day" and "Capture All Most Wanted Ghosts" Trophies (and subsequently, the game's mandatory Platinum) from unlocking properly. If bustin' ghosts with your international pals makes you feel good, it might be time to fire up Ghostbusters again.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Paul @ Aug 26th 2009 10:49AM
eh, looks good enough. spend your time doing something else.
Rayonic @ Aug 26th 2009 11:57AM
But it's important to show that with enough time an effort, PS3 games can look just as good as Xbox 360 games. That's the power of Playstation!
/flamebait
Contract Killer for Hire (Will work for PS3 Exclusives) PSN: Manifest37 @ Aug 26th 2009 1:41PM
I'm confused.
Why would Atari need to reduce & filter from 720p/1080i when the ps3 pushes true 1080p? If the game were say 720p, there would be no need to reduce. This isn't a Wii port.
(not flame bait)
Is Atari just that stupid?
SledgeHammer @ Aug 26th 2009 2:18PM
The PS3 can nominally put out 1080p graphics.
However, it requires everything before that to run smoothly or else the framerate drops.
Most of the games are actually developed for a 720p definition because of a few reasons:
- the PS3 hardware has a few bottlenecks (video memory access is slower than on the 360 for instance)
- it allows them to have the same modeling and textures as for the 360 version, which has a wider installed base
- the code isn't very efficient for cross-platform projects. Most developers are used to Windows development tools (DirectX and co), which are almost the same as in the 360. The Cell processor requires another logic, while it's cheaper to use the old ideas. Besides, Sony hasn't got the greatest reputation for helping coders when they have a problem. Microsoft is much more in touch with their requests.
Short version: if the PS3 had been a massive hit at release time, it would have been the reference platform but now it has to share the spotlight with the 360 and, as a result, most games will look identical, if not worse, on the PS3.
For "real" exclusive titles, when the developers put the effort to think in a PS3 logic, results can be amazing, beyond what the 360 can achieve, but there are only a few examples of it.
Contract Killer for Hire (Will work for PS3 Exclusives) PSN: Manifest37 @ Aug 26th 2009 2:55PM
SledgeHammer, you should be a professor!!
You didn't take sides, you merely answered the question with facts.
Dip this man in honey & throw him to the lesbians!!
Hyams @ Aug 26th 2009 10:50AM
Nice to see developers own up to their mistakes, and work out a way to fix them.
More power to you, Ghostbusters developers.
Copland @ Aug 26th 2009 11:48AM
I haven't bought(played) the game yet, but if the developers really fixed the lame graphics I'll definitely buy it.
So, has anyone applied the patch.
I'd appreciate if joystiq could do a comparison on how the PS3 version looks
after applying the patch.
It would be a great preference.
phinnvr6 @ Aug 26th 2009 11:57AM
I agree. I don't own the game but it's good to see Atari address this. So Ghostbusters now runs at 720p on both consoles, that's cool. Halo 3 and Halo ODST can't even do that.
lochack @ Aug 26th 2009 12:00PM
@jonjon72 its the otherway around gears 2 has the better graphics over killzone 2.
Jack Tretton @ Aug 26th 2009 12:18PM
"I'd appreciate if joystiq could do a comparison on how the PS3 version looks
after applying the patch."
The game will play the same.
Chibi Chaingun - blackhivemedia.com @ Aug 26th 2009 12:46PM
@jack: You seemed to have completely missed the point.
Optimaximal @ Aug 26th 2009 12:56PM
@Chibi Chaingun
I think, sir, you are the one missing the point!
Chibi Chaingun - blackhivemedia.com @ Aug 26th 2009 1:43PM
On the subject of the article, nope.
Jack Tretton @ Aug 26th 2009 2:09PM
Actually, Chibi, you did. The OP won't play the PS3 version because of its "lame graphics," but will "definitely" buy it if the patch makes it prettier. Captain Obvious says the gameplay will be the same without or without the patch. I think the OP has his shorts in a twist because, ffffffffffuuuuuuuuuu, the PS3 version looks a little fuzzier than the 360 version, so what's the point of playing the game at all?
And he'll probably play it on a 27" SDTV to boot.
Chibi Chaingun - blackhivemedia.com @ Aug 26th 2009 4:33PM
He states he wants to see how the PS3 version *LOOKS* while compared to the patched-version. Whether or not it plays the same is irrelevant as that is not what this quote is asking for or he is basing his comment on.
So, you missed the point.
Copland @ Aug 26th 2009 5:17PM
At least what I wanted to say was,
I would appreciate a "graphics" comparison of the patched version of PS3 Ghostbusters.
I've played the demo for PS3 and I think the gameplay was good.
I was just pi**ed off of how the gameplay graphics looked so bad compared to the 360 version. Thats why I didn't buy it.
Special Agent Steve @ Aug 26th 2009 7:20PM
"So Ghostbusters now runs at 720p on both consoles, that's cool. Halo 3 and Halo ODST can't even do that."
Isn't that because Halo 3 and Halo 3 ODST aren't ON both consoles?
But it would be impressive if it did.
Storm Eagle [Resident Capcom Megafan] @ Aug 26th 2009 10:52AM
I think it's a little too late for that fix. I'll pick the game up when it hits the bargain bin, but not for PS3. I mean, I can understand a slight visual difference between the two but that is ridiculous. And it's usually the 360 that's lagging behind in the visuals...oh well.
captainprotonx @ Aug 26th 2009 10:59AM
Two words for you, Storm Eagle: Chameleon Sting!
copa @ Aug 26th 2009 11:00AM
"And it's usually the 360 that's lagging behind in the visuals..."
Not sure that's the case for multiplatform releases. From IGN's review of Arkham Asylum:
"If you want to start a flame war, the graphics tend to be sharper on the Xbox 360 when compared to the PS3"
But I'm happy with both systems in the graphics department, so yeah, who cares.
jonjon72 @ Aug 26th 2009 11:03AM
Actually its the other way around. Developers (ie EA) have just recently started to grasp and utilize the power of the PS3.
Now 1st party developers are another thing. Killzone2 and Drakes Fortune 2 are drop dead gorgeous. Nothing on my 360 comes close. When I go from Gears of War2 to KZ2, the visual difference is quite significant. Gears is pretty, KZ2 is just sexy.
Storm Eagle [Resident Capcom Megafan] @ Aug 26th 2009 11:03AM
@captainprotonx - Yeah, I haven't heard that A MILLION times...
@copa - No, I know. I was just speaking in general. I remember reading that about Batman. It made me happy because that's the version I got. :)
captainprotonx @ Aug 26th 2009 11:05AM
@Storm Eagle
Make it a million AND ONE.
Cody @ Aug 26th 2009 11:40AM
I agree with Storm Eagle. It is WAY too far into the PS3 lifecycle to be running into issues this big.
Way to own up to it, but it shouldn't happen in the first place.
My brother's development company is running into no such issues with their cross platform FPS.
Jampirow @ Aug 26th 2009 11:47AM
Screw Chameleon Sting, real men defeat Storm Eagle with the Mega Buster.
dark_inchworm (stronger than never, ever before) @ Aug 26th 2009 11:57AM
Not gonna name names - the culprits should be obvious - but I'm still chuckling about the PS3 obsessives who, before release, insisted that these images were nothing more than deceit.
It was almost as aggravating as the ol' "My game is better than yours, despite me never trying either of them"
Wes @ Aug 26th 2009 12:27PM
Wow, you couldn't have gotten it more wrong. It tends to be that always the 360 has better graphics in multiplatform games. Games like GTAIV, Madden, etc all run at higher resolution and with higher anti-aliasing. Most of the block busters the system to get it for is the 360. Epecially with GTAIV since you get two exclusive content packs like Lost and the Damned.
Nick @ Aug 26th 2009 12:50PM
You all have fun playing Batman on your 360s with slightly sharper graphics while PS3 owners will enjoy more gameplay with the Joker add-on.
eNrique @ Aug 26th 2009 1:13PM
GTAIV doesn't look better on the 360.
Have you looked at the explosions?
I know that the majority of multiplatform games look better on the 360 but there a a few major exceptions, like Modern Warfare and Burnout Paradise, Ridge Racer, Assasins Creed, Soul Calibur IV, Devil May Cry 4...
You could just have yelled
"LULZ PSTRE HAZ NO GAEMS LULULZ"
Wiizer ($299) Having BC On Your Launch Console? (Priceless) @ Aug 26th 2009 1:14PM
Maybe if more people owned both, they would see the PS3's graphics ARE actually better... I mean, compare the first party games above to all the third party games, and the 360 tends to hold the graphics back.
If not only by the sheer capacity that Bluray discs can hold, devs are obviously taking advantage of that to make some awesome games.
I'm not sure why someone would compare the graphics of a system released a year before another... It's obvious that the newest console would have better graphics, because they didn't shove it out the door as quickly.
But, it also depends on the games that are being developed. We can barely get Modern Warfare 2 and Halo to run at 720p! Most games can't even achieve 1080p yet.
Storm Eagle [Resident Capcom Megafan] @ Aug 26th 2009 1:17PM
Halo 3 runs at something like 680p. Just an FYI.
eNrique @ Aug 26th 2009 1:41PM
640p to be exact.
DeepFriedSushi @ Aug 26th 2009 4:51PM
and it also has split screen up to 4 players... you sacrifice on graphics inorder to include the feature and it was wholly worth it as halo3 is something you play with friends not all by yourself (kz2/uncharted/infamous) im guessing ps3 owners dont have any "real" friends.
Wiizer ($299) Having BC On Your Launch Console? (Priceless) @ Aug 26th 2009 5:36PM
DeepFriedSushi,
I doubt you have that many friends. If you'll have somebody read your comment history back to you (maybe your Mom and/or a relative you haven't scared off yet), you might be able to find out the reason why:
You're a douche bag.
Special Agent Steve @ Aug 26th 2009 9:29PM
Wiizer, a bit harsh don't you think?
Sympathie @ Aug 26th 2009 10:52AM
I still cant unlock Pay day.
Storm Eagle [Resident Capcom Megafan] @ Aug 26th 2009 11:06AM
MMMmmmm....Pay Day....*drools*
balls @ Aug 26th 2009 10:53AM
fail
Captain Planet [Planeteer | Power of Captain Planet] @ Aug 26th 2009 10:57AM
Yikes...surely the "cell" can do better than that for a Ghostbusters game.
Hyams @ Aug 26th 2009 11:02AM
Thing is, before it came out, the devs made a big deal about how the Cell was really helping them loads.
And the PS3 was the lead platform.
And Sony published the game in Europe.
Everyone was (quite rightly) expecting the game to look better on the PS3 ...
And then it released.
EGOvoruhk @ Aug 26th 2009 11:21AM
It's not the Cell, it's the "Reality Synthesizer"
sc00by_y00 @ Aug 26th 2009 1:50PM
EGOvoruhk no it is the cell as well, the spes of the cell allow for things like vertex shading etc to be offloaded to them so the more a developer can utilse the spes the better the game looks because most of the intensive fp calculations can be dumped onto the spes and the graphics card can be used to render the textures etc. The better they can utilise the spes the nicer the games look killzone2 and uncharted both use the cell spes quite heavily, and they really do look spectacular. Flower they used the spes to to deal with the physics of each blade of grass and I think to render them.
The problem with this game was and still is that Terminal Reality is owned by former Microsoft Employees.. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions, Gabe Newell is also a former Microsoft Employee, at least he has the decency to not create crap for the ps3..
SledgeHammer @ Aug 27th 2009 11:18AM
Please stop with the conspiracy theories.
EA Sports is run by a former Microsoft employee. Peter Moore. The guy who was the boss of the Xbox division. And who was previously a Sega employee.
Does that mean that EA Sports ports on the PS3 are inferior to the 360 version? In no way. EA has development tools that are cross platform and they have enough crews to get enough performances from both system. Dead Space looked great on a PS3, for instance.
Capcom, however, even if it's a Japanese company with strong links to Sony, switched to MT-Framework, a game engine which was originally PC centric. The 360 adaptation was easy, the PS3 less so and both Lost Planet and RE5 look better on 360, even if it wasn't as blatant for RE5.
Terminal Reality must have done something like Capcom. The game hadn't been fine tuned for the PS3 and the difference is, let's say, quite obvious. My guess is that even Sony realized the bad press it was giving them (it's their exclusive in Europe but it gets spanked by the 360 version) and sent a crew to do the work TR wasn't willing to do even after the exclusivity deal.
Damian @ Aug 26th 2009 10:58AM
I rented and loved the game , the graphics where fantastic and I dont remember them looking anything like in the screen captures ?
This must have passed me by as I knew nothing about this article previously . I have played completed and taken back to the shop and have recommended the game to everybody that I know is into gaming be it PS3 or 360 .
MaliceMajorE15 @ Aug 26th 2009 11:29AM
play the 360 version and be blown away friend. its not that the 360s version is better than the ps3 by doing anything special, its that the ps3 version is so poor. the 360 out put was already sub-hd and to reduce the resolution 25% of that is not acceptable.
sure you played the game and the graphics were functional, but you obviously have a very low standard. i paid 500 quid for hd gaming when i bought my ps3 and to see lacklustre attemps on your so called lead platform in light of what has been achieved on a port is downright disgraceful
Gervin @ Aug 26th 2009 11:00AM
Who cares about the pixels.... the game sucks no matter what.
captainprotonx @ Aug 26th 2009 11:03AM
These types of qualms are really for people who have the energy to run two monitors side-by-side, and play both versions simultaneously, and then blog their bitchtastic observations.
It's awesome that Atari is owning up to the "issue", but it wasn't a huge deal (the trophy fixes are definitely more important). It was just nice to get a quality game on a classic comedy franchise.
Damian @ Aug 26th 2009 11:04AM
Wasn't this released later on the 360 or something ? Are you sure this wasn't some pathetic fanboy who was a little pissed trying to have a bit of fun !
Ah well if you have a PS3 and don't at least hire it out then you are missing out on a fantastic game that looks nothing like it does in the above picture !
And yea I have both consoles and am a 34 year old man so I have no axe to grind with either party and frankly I find the arguments pathetic but having said that it was the same in the Eighties with Sinclair 48k's v Commodore 64's its just that the internet hadn't been invented so less tough guys hiding behind their keyboards !
captainprotonx @ Aug 26th 2009 11:04AM
DESTROY
The1stMJC @ Aug 26th 2009 11:07AM
I am in the middle of the game now and visually it doesn't looks as bad as that screen shot you guys show. I hope this doesn't interfere with my current save because the game is fun but not fun enough to play through these long levels again.