Ghostbusters PS3 patch is close to 720p, but no cigar
by Griffin McElroy 
{ Aug 31st 2009 at 1:20PM } 
The Eurogamer-hosted blog has a few enormous image comparisons for the pixel-counters among you. We're not experts on visual fidelity (What's an alias? Why must it be anti'ed?) but we do know that we are owed. Does one penny per missing pixel sound fair to you?
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
KeenCommander @ Aug 31st 2009 1:23PM
You were honestly expecting them to get it flat perfect? I'd think if it was that easy they'd have, you know, had it right in the original release. Seems like a bit big of an issue to just be fixed in a patch.
Womble @ Aug 31st 2009 10:17PM
"If you look at first party games kz2 and uncharted 2 are testament to the power of the spes"
As already mentioned, several times, both games took years to develop, with tens of millions of dollars from Sony, using engines written specifically for the hardware.
There are very, very few developers in that position.
There is nothing in either game that could not be done on the 360, given the same budgets.
Each machine has their tradeoffs, and all the specs in the world won't change that. Killzone 2 and Uncharted both cleverly play to the PS3's benefits, and downplay the console's weaknesses. (Do you see any HDR in Killzone 2? No, no you do not. And does it maintain 30FPS? No, it doesn't. And how's the draw distance and transparency effects in Uncharted?) You may be able to make the RSX in to some dream video hardware by looking at specs, but not on the actual screen. And it's the screen that counts.
IF (if!) you have a three year schedule, and you are owned and funded by a company that wants your game to sell its console, then yes, you can spend all that time and money to make a game that uses every bit of the console's ability. Otherwise, you have to live in the real world, and use cross platform or shared engines, middleware, and put up with the difficulty that is SPE development in general.
sc00by_y00 @ Aug 31st 2009 10:42PM
ok womble and 360 games ie halo 3 has had millions pumped into its development and comes no where near close to quality of killzone 2, what was it running at ? was it 640p ?
yes yes we get it your a 360 fan, that cant see past your rose tinted glasses for all things 360, lovely great brilliant congratulations..
Womble @ Aug 31st 2009 10:53PM
"yes yes we get it your a 360 fan, that cant see past your rose tinted glasses for all things 360, lovely great brilliant congratulations.."
Actually, I own all three consoles, and love my PS3.
I just can't stand fanboys and their BS, as they prance around the internet making stuff up, making stupid claims they can't support.
Halo 3 does different things from KZ2. It does some things that KZ2 doesn't even try to do (like 4 player co-op, interactive films, HDR lighting, large draw distances, huge environments, variety of game environments, lots and lots of overdrawn graphics (glass, particles), fantastic vehicle fights, a rock-solid framerate, etc.).
If you can't see value in what Halo 3, and you can't understand why it does things the way it does, then that's your problem. If you're too hung up on comparing screenshots, that's also your problem.
Buy yourself an Arcade mate. That way you can play KZ2 _and_ Halo, and you'll be a happier chappy, and you won't feel the need to be a fanboy about one particular console.
sc00by_y00 @ Aug 31st 2009 10:57PM
Why dont you read what you just wrote, then understand why you are full of shit..
Womble @ Aug 31st 2009 11:37PM
"Face it first party games are better on the ps3 and its indicative of only one thing and that is when it comes down to it the ps3 is more powerful end of story.."
Bloody fanboys. So insecure, so bitter, always dumbing down the argument.
And PS3 fanboys are the worst of the lot.
Buy a 360 as well mate, have some fun on all consoles, get that chip off your shoulder.
sc00by_y00 @ Aug 31st 2009 11:54PM
a games console with 54% failure rate and less power than its competition ? no thanks would have to be a complete retard to do that..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44kHm5K7DpQ&feature=related
KeenCommander @ Sep 1st 2009 12:30AM
@sc00by_y00: Lesson: If you want to be an ignorant fanboy, you're supposed to get to the thread early when people are actually reading it. Of course, if you did that - you'd be downvoted to .5 hearts by now, so that may be your reasoning. Also don't whore your silly comments as replies to my post, to which they're not particularly relevant, just because it's the first post.
sc00by_y00 @ Sep 1st 2009 1:05AM
blame it on womble, he decided to take it to your comment .. I love the fact you singled me out im just a gigo garbage in garbage out, and since your reading this if you have the ps3 firmware 3.0 has been released officially woah it does a lot of updating and its looking good (restarted my ps3 4 times) wow thats wicked anyway later
Danie @ Aug 31st 2009 1:25PM
Looks like the visual quality of this game is more important that the game itself. It's not a good game anyway.
Ryguy226 @ Aug 31st 2009 1:31PM
While you are entitled to your opinion, may I ask why you felt this game wasn't good. Given it's source material and general attention to detail made this game heaven for ghostbuster fans, myself included. Even defined as a straight up shooter, it was fun, it very well could have been worse, so it definitely came as a welcomed surprise.
Eric @ Aug 31st 2009 1:37PM
It may not be the best game ever made, but god damn it it was fun and I felt like a Ghostbuster while playing it. Decent story plus the original cast you could not ask for more.
baby sea tuna @ Aug 31st 2009 1:42PM
It was pretty good, but way too linear. An open world, mission based Ghostbusters game would have kicked soooo much more ass.
Still, not bad for a licensed property.
Danie @ Aug 31st 2009 2:03PM
Well guess I'm not a GB fan. I mean I love GB movies. This game turn to be to boring for my taste after hour of gamplay and unlaughfull comedy. To many cut scene's and there is not much to do almost the same. I rent it for 360, also don't difference between ps3 demo version.
BananaBoat @ Aug 31st 2009 2:34PM
Oh, and this is the real video of the Cell processor in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuiA2j52rP8&feature=related
BananaBoat @ Aug 31st 2009 2:35PM
Damnit, I missed.
SmoothC911 @ Aug 31st 2009 3:07PM
@ BananaBoat
That's OK; I love Benny Hill!
sk8monroe81 (PSN--XBL) @ Aug 31st 2009 4:00PM
well you just dont expect a ps2 quality port to make its way onto the ps3 console.
they could have almost put this game on the ps2..
u want consistency on a port in some fashion.
sc00by_y00 @ Aug 31st 2009 7:32PM
bananaboat this is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44kHm5K7DpQ&feature=related
just watch the first 30 seconds
reversecycology @ Aug 31st 2009 1:25PM
Why are PS3 versions so inferior most of the time? Did they get a solid answer to this? Is it the Cell, Blu Ray, or just the PS3 itself? What's up?
dabamf @ Aug 31st 2009 1:34PM
It's the cell and other internal hardware within the PS3. Game companies are still trying to figure it out. Soon this will be a thing of the past as Naughty Dog is going to share its development libraries with 3rd party developers. If you have seen Uncharted or Uncharted 2, you'll know that's a good thing.
BananaBoat @ Aug 31st 2009 1:35PM
In general there are a couple of reasons. The first is that the PS3 architecture is more difficult to code for (according to numerous developers I shan't cite since this isn't wikipedia), and much more complex than that of the 360 or the PC. The second reason is that the 360 install base is larger, which means that more resources go into making sure that the 360 version of the game is up to par (even if it means that resources have to be taken away from the games PS3 development)
I don't know specifically why Ghostbusters was inferior on the PS3, but I'd imagine that the two reasons listed above are the likely culprits. When all is said and done, the PS3 and the 360 are almost dead even in terms of graphical power.
el serpiente @ Aug 31st 2009 1:36PM
Actual video of the cell processor in action....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgqTS3XcAuI
FeaturePreacher @ Aug 31st 2009 1:42PM
It could be the amount of ram available as Terminal Reality stated themselves, "The ps3 does have less available RAM than the 360".
http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/ps3-ghostbusters-56-xbox-resolution-not-75--$1305034.htm
Ballistic H @ Aug 31st 2009 1:52PM
@ dabamf: Insomniac has been sharing their development knowledge publicly since their beginnings on the PS3 and somehow, no dev is looking at their website for answers. If a developer can't get the same quality level as Resistance, Uncharted, Killzone 2, there's nothing else to say than they suck.
TexRob @ Aug 31st 2009 1:59PM
I am SO sick of people saying the cell processor is more powerful. You can't measure one factor of any complex system and expect it to relate to the end result. You could have a 1000hp motor in a car and give it four donut tires and it will perform worse than a car with 500hp and slicks. All this nonsense about it being hard to code for is also BS. I am not saying it's not true, but it's not like all developers are lazy. These systems have been out for YEARS, you can't claim the "still learning how to code for it" nonsense after all this time.
I own a PS3, and a 360, but the fact is the 360 does more with less because it's a balanced package. Microsoft most likely has Epic's forcing them to include more memory, and a GPU that puts more weight on polys/res than fancy tricks (AA, etc) to thank for this.
phinnvr6 @ Aug 31st 2009 2:06PM
When you look titles lately.. Started with Metal Gear Solid 4, then Killzone 2, and soon Uncharted 2 and Ratchet & Clank... You can see what the PS3 is capable of. Most companies don't spend the extra R&D time to figure it out but it seems like the Cell is very powerful and can handle a lot of stuff you would normally do in just the GPU. I guess once companies can figure out how to move tasks into all the cores of the Cell processor and GPU alike PS3 will shine more. It simply took about 2 1/2 years of the PS3 being out for devs to start to use the hardware effectively.
Wiizer ($299) Having BC On Your Launch Console? (Priceless) @ Aug 31st 2009 2:05PM
"All this nonsense about it being hard to code for is also BS. I am not saying it's not true"
I love these types of responses... Full of contradictions.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 31st 2009 2:09PM
Because in order to make your game work well on the PS3 you have to design it for the architecture and most devs are too lazy to do so. They'd rather do a slapdash port.
For example, as mentioned, the PS3 has less memory available overall. And so in order to make things work correctly, you have to design your game carefully to swap textures at the right times to minimize the memory limitations. Most devs would rather just downsample the textures to a smaller size instead because it only takes an hour to do so.
Rudy van DiSarzio, Jazz fusion guitarist. @ Aug 31st 2009 2:18PM
Actual video of Cell in action...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTKm3b0cmnM
Wiizer ($299) Having BC On Your Launch Console? (Priceless) @ Aug 31st 2009 2:23PM
OO, OO! Let me try!
Actual video of the cell processor in action....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etsd-Z5Fojo
BananaBoat @ Aug 31st 2009 2:26PM
Developers have been saying the PS3 is hard to code for ever since they first got their dev kits. It's not a matter of "oh they've learned the architecture by now, so it's fine". It is literally more work to code for the multiple (8 total, 6 available to devs I believe?) SPE's inside the PS3 than it is for the three cores (PPE's unless I'm screwing up the terminology) inside the Xbox 360. Even if it weren't more complex (which I believe it is, judging by just how many developers have complained) more work means more man hours, which means more cost to the company developing the game. Also, if a game is on a tight schedule, the 360 team is likely to be further along in development when the call comes down from the top that the game has to ship.
FeaturePreacher @ Aug 31st 2009 2:37PM
Rudy van DiSarzio, Jazz fusion guitarist,
That video is so apt.
el serpiente @ Aug 31st 2009 2:43PM
Actual footage from the offices of Terminal Reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjarLbD9r30
chrisredfield31 @ Aug 31st 2009 3:28PM
The reason why is that they code the game like it was a PC game and in doing so, doesn't use the system to it's highest potential. It's like CPU tasks go here, GPU tasks go to GPU, general RAM goes here, and so on and so forth. Take Uncharted for example, GPU tasks are split between the GPU and then finished off on the SPE. They may also be utilizing memory swaps to take advantage of 512mb combined instead of just 256. This opens up a whole new realm of possibilities. Poor developers like the one that worked on GB don't use what they have and instead take shortcuts and it turns out we have crappy graphics like this.
Most Playstation fans know, we have a very capable system and the proof of that is in games like MGS4, KZ2, Ratchet, Uncharted. It's totally capable if they specialize for the hardware. Some 3rd party games are starting to get it right, for instance we have Batman Arkham Asylum that is actually better looking (only slightly) to the 360 version. I recently tried out Dirt 2 Demo and the graphics there screamed next-gen to me. There was full Anti-Aliasing, just about 60fps, nice textures, that's just telling me the developer did a good job on it.
Rudy van DiSarzio, Jazz fusion guitarist. @ Aug 31st 2009 3:30PM
@FeaturePreacher
Yes sir, thank you sir.
Robert @ Aug 31st 2009 3:47PM
This 'hard to code for' stuff reminds me of back in the day with the Sega Saturn.
Mr Clickerson @ Aug 31st 2009 4:40PM
No... It's just the Cell... Too "weak" to process code like the tri core CPU in the Xbox. The Cell's single core is what breaks down the code for the SPEs, but the code must first be broken down and "optimized" so it doesn't bunch up while the core is bogging down trying to break it up.
Mr Clickerson @ Aug 31st 2009 4:48PM
However, when a game is "optimized" the Cell can be made to do some pretty amazing tricks that I wouldn't have expected. Where the Cell lacks in brute power, it makes up for with finesse.
As far as the GPUs, the RSX is the weaker of the two. The RSX is simply old technology... It was a GPU ripped from a video card that was on it's way out the door (the 7800GTX). You couldn't possibly dispute this- the specifications on the unified architecture of the Xenos vastly outweigh those of the non-unified (inferior) RSX. The Xenos was created using technology that is now the norm for the video card industry.
Womble @ Aug 31st 2009 7:40PM
"The second reason is that the 360 install base is larger, which means that more resources go into making sure that the 360 version of the game is up to par (even if it means that resources have to be taken away from the games PS3 development)"
In this case, however, the developer has openly bragged about their PS3 credentials, saying that they'd do the PS3 version "right". So it's been doubly embarrassing for them that not only was the original PS3 version so poor looking relative to the 360 version, but that this patch still doesn't bring the PS3 version anywhere near to parity.
The PS3 version in this case had at LEAST as many resources thrown at it as the 360 version.
"When all is said and done, the PS3 and the 360 are almost dead even in terms of graphical power."
Not quite. Overall, the machines are a fairly even match, but they each have strengths and weaknesses:
The PS3 has an advantage in terms of sheer CPU power IF (and ONLY IF) enough time and money is spent engineering to get the performance out of the SPUs. Some video-related work can also be done on the SPUs, but in most cases this means that AI, physics, path-finding and the like can be offloaded on the PS3. This shouldn't be overstated however, because the SPUs are not super-computers, and the 360 also has 3 cores, with two threads per core.
The 360 has an advantage in germs of sheer graphical power. The RSX is not really a raw match for the Xenos with its 10MB eDRAM. You can do MUCH more overdraw, more quickly, on the 360 than the PS3. This commonly means more particle effects, more translucency, more smoke. AA is more of a given, and hardware scaling to 1080p is essentially free.
Good looking/performance PS3 games are generally those that have a LOT of money thrown at them. They are tailored, even designed from scratch FOR and only for the PS3. See: Killzone 2 and Uncharted. (Not coincidentally, both developers owned outright by Sony.) These games are designed from day one to amplify the abilities of the PS3, and down-play the weaknesses. So, for example, you don't see huge draw distances and good HDR in Killzone 2. Nor do you see a lot of overdrawing when it comes to things like transparency effects (e.g. layers and layers of glass, and particles).
The flip-side is that the PS3 is usually at a disadvantage when it comes to games using cross platform engines. This is NOT due to developer laziness. (And claiming it is, is usually the mark of a lazy fanboy.) It's to do with the basic differences in system architecture. It's VERY expensive and time consuming to tailor an engine for the PS3, relative to the 360. Sony have openly bragged about how hard it is to develop for the PS3, and this sounds good in PR releases, but not if you're the one paying for development...
Extinction @ Aug 31st 2009 7:47PM
"The RSX is simply old technology... It was a GPU ripped from a video card that was on it's way out the door (the 7800GTX)."
You can stop making stuff up any time now. Preferably now.
Womble @ Aug 31st 2009 8:02PM
"Soon this will be a thing of the past as Naughty Dog is going to share its development libraries with 3rd party developers. If you have seen Uncharted or Uncharted 2, you'll know that's a good thing."
It's not as simple as that. Sharing code is one thing, but Uncharted 1 and 2 were specifically designed for the PS3, right down to mapping the PS3's memory spaces explicitly for the engine.
Naughty Dog could do that because they are owned outright by Sony, and have been given all the funds necessary to produce a console-selling game. The budget for Uncharted is enormous, even by AAA game standards.
Sony's mandate to Naughty Dog (and Guerilla Games) was simple: do what it takes to make brand-building games for (and ONLY) for the PS3. Make the games work with what the PS3 does well, and don't do the things where the PS3 is weak.
The important bit: the vast majority of developers are not owned by Sony. They have miniscule budgets in comparison, and most cannot afford to develop a PS3-only engine from scratch, with a schedule over three years. They have to use cross platform engines, middleware, anything they can get for their dollar.
sc00by_y00 @ Aug 31st 2009 9:51PM
first off Terminal reailities history is an important factor here :
Founded in 1994 by ex-Microsoft employee Mark Randel and former Mallard Software general manager Brett Combs
Its surprising how they were working on the ps3 engine for so long and managed to so royally screw it up and low and behold one of the founders is ex-Microsoft I wonder which platform he prefers.. Even more surprising the graphics can be improved with a patch ? The first time thats happened on a games console so far that I know of (increasing resolution of a game with a patch) how big is the patch exactly how come in the many years developing they were not able to come up with this patch which comes out a few months after launch.. Terrible just terrible.
@womble + clickerson
the cell 1 ppe 8 spes 1 spe is locked to give better yield, 1 spe used to be reserv
ed for the os but I think they have knocked down the requirements.
the cell ppe is practically the same as a core on the 360 tricore cpu it also has hardware hyperthreading..
The ps3 has 256 fixed for the gpu (ddr3) and 256 shared (xdr) between the cpu and gpu so yes you can use more than 256 for textures also xdr runs stupidly fast I think at 3.2Ghz.
http://www.guerrilla-games.com/publications/dr_kz2_rsx_dev07.pdf
gives you an idea of what the spes are capable of.. the spes are the key they can offload work from the gpu to the cpu and also handle physics / ai calculations this is why overall the ps3 is better.
If you look at first party games kz2 and uncharted 2 are testament to the power of the spes.
More info on the spes:
The SPU has a full float vector instruction set, it has 128 registers and it has 256KB of memory. That is sufficient to do very good skinning in an optimized manner (you can hold a lot of matrices in 256KB and 128 registers). The bandwidth for fetching data in & out of the SPUs is also very fast. A simple skinning system would just double buffer input vertices, skin then dump them out. The CON is that you need some memory to dump the skinned vertices to on their way to the RSX.
Bandwidth wise, if you skin 256 million vertices per second in uncompressed form (16 bytes each) you would 'only' use up 8GB/s out of the XDR's total of near 30GB/s.
Of course a the hypothetical 256 million skinned vertices per second is a humongous number that nobody will use in this generation. It's enough to overdraw every pixel on a 720p screen 4 times with 1 pixel wide triangles each one independently skinned at 60 frames per second :-).
"Just some food for thought, in order to render 1080p with 4X AA would require 7 passes on the Xenos, so even if the Xenos setup rate was 4 times faster than the RSX it would still be the underdog. While on the cover it seemed the Xenos would have been better at doing 1080p than the RSX, things are not what they appear when considering all factors. "
This is probably why so many more games on the ps3 are true 1080p :)
"An extra note about the implication of Cell in the GPU vs GPU equations.
------
If we assume that 360 games have an achievable limit of say on average 125mtri/s (based on previous discussion above) that figure is in fact only a maximum assuming very trivial vertex shaders. If vertex shaders are more involved say for example doing skinning the could would be lower.
Let's assume that doing skinning with 4 weighted matrices actually takes 16 GPU cycles (could be more or less than that, it would depend on implementation) the total triangle througput may fall as low as 7.8mtri/s on the Xenos. (Even if we ignore tiling and assume vertex shaders dominate all shader pipes we still get only 500m / 16 = 31.25mtri/s maximum)
On the PS3 however the Cell can jump in and do all of the skinning work itself, after all the Cell's SPUs excell at doing that kind of vector intensive-streamable-parallelizable processing. In fact I think you could easily do the skinning in 16 cycles per vertex on an SPU meaning one single SPU could do 200 million vertices per second.
Then by the time triangles reach the RSX there is nothing left for the Vertex Shaders to do so you get the full 250mtri/s GPU throughput on skinned geometry. Now which one sounds better? "
Womble @ Aug 31st 2009 10:47PM
"It simply took about 2 1/2 years of the PS3 being out for devs to start to use the hardware effectively."
Not so.
Uncharted was in dev for a full three years: 1 year of core group dev, then 2 years of full production.
They released in late 2007. The PS3, however, had only been released the previous year.
i.e. Uncharted was in dev before the PS3 ever hit the shelves. It was crated specifically as a Sony brand-building project.
So there was nothing "simple" about it at all.
It's the same story for Killzone, and Guerilla Games: another company owned outright by Sony, with dev that came before the PS3 was even released.
Expecting the same of other devs, is clearly nonsense. They simply don't have the multi-year schedules and enormous sums that Sony have provided to their in-house development teams.
Womble @ Aug 31st 2009 10:58PM
"Some 3rd party games are starting to get it right, for instance we have Batman Arkham Asylum that is actually better looking (only slightly) to the 360 version."
No it's not. Not sure where you got that idea from.
From Digital Foundry's video analysis:
" it's clear that the 360 has a marginal advantage in image quality, owing to the usual UE3 inclusion of 2xMSAA where there is none on the PS3"
There's nothing "slightly" better about the PS3 version at all. It's good that the use of the Unreal Engine 3 is improving on the PS3, but let's not get carried away and make stuff up.
sc00by_y00 @ Aug 31st 2009 11:09PM
@womble so what and whats your point ? Sony has games studios and doesnt pay multiplat publishers for exclusivity.
How much did microsoft pay for the dlc exclusivity for GTAIV ? was it 50 Million Dollars ?
Prove that it took longer to develop uncharted 1.. You have no proof do you ? Your shoving your opinion like its fact, further more looking at videos and screenshots there is a huge difference between 1 & 2 and thats what 2 years, so what about that then ?
Sony give us amazing first party games that have not been bested on the 360 and you moan about it why ? why are you bitching about bullshit ? what difference does it make ?
Face it first party games are better on the ps3 and its indicative of only one thing and that is when it comes down to it the ps3 is more powerful end of story..
Not THAT Matt @ Aug 31st 2009 11:52PM
I'm not sure I'd praise XDR's speed too much, as it's often used in place of memory bandwidth efficiency, or because the card it's used on isn't a contender without it (think ATI's current-gen stuff compared to nVidia's - nVidia does more with less, given how their architecture is set up. they don't need to rely on such high speeds to get things done), and IIRC it also gives up timing speed and the like for sheer clock speed. Think back in the day when the Pentium 4 ran at 3.06Ghz and the Athlon XP ran at 2.2Ghz and beat the pants off the Intel due to efficiency.
Regardless, I highly doubt the PS3 is at all limited (or benefitted) by the XDR use, if anything the ~2GHz that GDDR-3 uses probably would have been fine. It seems fully due to the lack of optimization for the PS3, which makes sense. Dual core technology has been out in PC's for four years, and just in the past couple of years have games actually taken advantage of these additional cores and produced results.
With that being said, I find it only ironic and fitting that the big-bad PS3 with it's fancy Blu-Ray, first-to-the-game 1080p and what-not actually looks uglier than the Xbox 360. If anything that depresses me, as we were looking forward to adding a PS3 to sit aside our 360 in the next few months.
I guess the PS3's nack for being difficult to develop for is suiting, since if I recall we also aren't good enough for the PS3 unless we pay for it, or whatever ridiculous soundbite Kaz Harai made.
But considering that Sony has consistently maintained an arrogant attitude, along with mis-predicting things this entire generation (including a hilarious article from last year suggesting that cross-platform games will look less good on the 360) I really don't feel bad for them. Why else would we have waited until this over-priced piece of metal and plastic dropped down to a more realistic $300 (since we're not buying one until the Slim comes out) to buy one? There are very VERY few exclusives either of us gives a darn about, the 360 has (in my opinion) better online play, Home is crap from what I understand... and why would I want to support a snooty company whose decade of dominance has gone to their head?
Sorry, but until Sony gives me back the $450 I've lost on Disk Read Error PS2's (one big-sized system, one slim), I'm not a huge fan of them. And fuck if trying to play a Blu-Ray movie in the PS3 breaks the system. Then I say we sue.
j.howlett @ Aug 31st 2009 1:27PM
i've played the demo on a standard def and a HD set. it looked fine to me before.
Rocks @ Aug 31st 2009 1:39PM
yeah, i guess i have bad eyes or something, because i sure as hell didn't notice enough to care either way.
Jayhawk_Jake @ Aug 31st 2009 3:42PM
You know, I played Ghostbusters on my PS3 when it came out (rented it). Not only was it a good game, but it looked fine! I don't understand the big deal. It's not like the game was broken or anything...