Upcoming Castlevania's 'lead' console is PlayStation 3, Konami producer says

Awr no. Som1 maid aa coment thet waz a jokeee. I dun get it.

Seriously, you think I was disrespecting Sony. Heck to the no.

Will someone explain to me why some games look worse on the PS3 than they do on the 360? I've heard Assassin's Creed II is an example and was wondering "why" the other day.
Is it because they made the 360 the "lead" console? Or something else?

Usually, that's the reason. It's far easier to develop for the Xbox (not to mention cheaper), so they make the Xbox their lead platform and just slap a port to the 360, but the PS3's non-standard architecture doesn't like that.

Other times, it's the game engine that doesn't like the PS3.

Now that the PS3 user base is over thirty million, people won't put up with lazy ports anymore.

Wow, I meant "slap a port to the PS3". Whoops.

Sometimes more time is spent on one console or the other. If the 360 is the "lead" platform then that's sometimes the case that it'll run a little bit better. In terms of AC2, I've seen it on both consoles (don't own it though) and it looks basically identical. I've seen Bayonetta look a bit better on 360 and I've seen Dragon Age look a bit better on PS3.

In the end both consoles have a massive amount of good games, it comes down to exclusives like Uncharted 2, Demon's Souls, Gran Turismo 5, God of War 3, Metal Gear Solid 4... does 360 have any exclusives besides Halo series and Gears of War 2 anymore?

I'm sure its easier to port to 360 than the other way around to PS3, who cares. Regardless this hopefully will take Castlevania back to how it was on PlayStation 1.... Symphony of the Night, what a masterpiece that game was.

They've still got Fable, PGR, Forza, and the Rare portfolio.

I really do wonder if IW spent more time on the 360 version of MW2. After all, it was publicized as a 360 exclusive.

From what I've read, the 360 is a lot like a PC so there's a familiarity there amongst a lot of Dev's.

There's also the issue with the architecture. The Cell is a complicated (and powerful) piece of machinery so it's going to take some time to figure out how to utilize it to it's maximum capabilities. Take a look at Uncharted 1 and 2. Naughty Dog has been working exclusively with the PS3 and the difference is mind blowing basically because they've had time to figure a lot of things out.

Also, from what I understand the PS3 has an inferior GPU so immediately the XBox will look and work better for games where developers are not quite familiar with the PS3.

So, the reason why they're focusing on the PS3 first is to make sure that it functions properly. Like Bradwart said in an earlier post, it's easier to port from the PS3 to the XBox. Not so much the other way around unless they are extremely familiar with the PS3.

The PS3 GPU isn't inferior, it's different. The 360 handles AA very well, but the PS3 handles advanced texture and particle filtering better. Plus, smart developers send some of the load to the Cell's SPU's.

@Shadow

It's hard to say. IW spent more time on the PS3 version of CoD4, so...

You have developers like Rocksteady and Vigil Games out there, creating quality games that are graphically impressive and identical on both consoles.

I'm not taking anything away from those two developers, but if they can do it.. there's really no room for excuses from anyone else.

If you can't create a product that is identical on both systems, then don't do it on both systems. Bayonetta for PS3 never should have been released in its current form. If it was so terribly difficult for them to work on the PS3, it should have just been a 360 exclusive.

In short, if you can't hack it, don't do it. Quit your job as a video game developer and make Leapster software. Or just make your games 360 exclusive.

@Bradwart

Yea, I'm kind of hazy on how the GPU's are different. I just remember reading that some Dev's were currently more keen on the 360 GPU because of immediate visual results.

Although, I'm sure that's about to change because they're figuring out how to offload certain calculations to the SPU's without a noticeable delay in the rendering.

Ultimately I think that the PS3 will out perform the 360 graphically, but I'm really interested to see what happens with the 360 and it's 3 CPU's and the Cell. I'm skeptical of Epic saying that they've maxed out the 360.

Myth: The cell makes games look better. Reminds me of the time my brother tried to convince me his version of crysis was better looking than my crysis because he had a quad-core and I had a dual-core despite the fact I had a GTX285 and he had the 4870. Guess who went crying to mommy. He's a major Ps3 fanboy as well : /

As far as I'm concerned the reason PS3 games look better is because of blu-ray and I've yet to hear a single convincing argument explaining how or what the cell has to do with making games look better.

So...many...answers...
-head explodes-

@Bigfat

"Hard" is a relative term.

The 360's GPU is more forgiving, and easier to work on, or so people claim. I suspect having DirectX makes all the difference.

However, the RSX will support 3D with a firmware update, and all PS3 developers get the PhysX toolset for free.

If you can offload the calculations to the SPU's, that frees up the GPU for other calculations, such as SSAO, which makes games look better.

And look at the games. Are there any games that look as good as Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 on the 360? (hint: no).

Myth: Bluray makes games look better.

Bluray discs hold data. That's it. It's the hardware that makes the games look better.

Don't believe me? Put all of Crysis on a Pentium 4 machine without a graphics card and try and run it.

"Sony is in no way shape or form responsible for how hard they made the PS3 to develop for."

Whats the expression? A good carpenter never blames his tools? We are a results driven culture not an excuse driven one.

@Bradwart

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Killzone has that infamous 'I feel like I'm aiming in water' so that they could properly render the scene before you got there and the 'we wanted the weapons to have weight' excuse is a bunch of BS mainly because they hadn't figured the Cell completely out yet.

I think that was a myth. Killzone 2 doesn't seem to have any problems, and the guns are a fairly accurate representation.

Or how about compressing all those pretty textures and models from Uncharted 2 onto a 6.8gb DVD and see how much of the quality you'll retain.

Also SSAO is in Gears 2 if I'm correct so it's not exactly a PS3 exclusive or something that even the most demanding of 360 games have a hard time with.

No one said it was a PS3 exclusive. But it's easier to implement with the Cell taking the load off of the RSX.

Well, since the 'high precision' controls option pretty much removes any 'weight' issues on the guns, and the game still runs amazingly......

Let's consider that little myth busted.

I would like to point out that the graphical similarities between PS3 and 360 are so much closer this generation than they were last. PS2 and XBOX had a HUGE gap in graphics and performance. But people will do whatever they will to make their purchase justified. Plus I buy all my games on 360 because of (slightly) better grapics, better performance, better controller, better online, no mandatory installs or slower loading, and because I'm an achievement whore. I still love my PS3 for blu-rays and good ol' MGS4 but that's about it. And back on topic, I can't wait for this game!

Awww, it's a mini Tmac.

*ruffles Psych's hair*

Adorable!

Very few PS3 games require an install these days. Why does everyone think all games require installs?

Oh, and Scottish? Crysis was on one little DVD-DL. Your theory is bullshit. Blu-ray's advantage is in uncompressed cutscenes and audio.

Except it's not an inferior tool. It's a different tool. All it takes is a little work and you'll pull more performance out of the PS3 than you could ever squeeze out of the 360.

@Bradwart

The whole cut scenes and the audio makes sense to me but I'm wondering why when I'm playing the GOW Collection that some scenes are definitely downgraded. Those look like they're rendered 'in engine' which makes me curious.

@Ezio

I didn't realize that they have the precision aiming in KZ2. Was that there from the beginning? Because when I played it, I never saw that option and I traded the game in only after a couple months. Was I blind (very possible) or was that patched in?

The High Precision Controls patch was later.

Bigfat, could you TRY to structure something coherent? Please?

@Brad
Right, PC games are the same as 360. It's not as if PC games are heavily compressed and require installation because of this.

@BigFat
The whole carpenter doesn't blame his tools is crap. It's more like a carpenter blaming someone else's tools which are encased inside a rubix sphere while his friend naughty dog gets the 5 and over jigsaw puzzle. I'd be like fuck that too and straight back to my own tools.

How did Naughty Dog get it easy? Do you think they have some magic PS3 exclusive guide? Oh, wait, you're just a 360 fanbot.

[Edit: Let's keep it civil] It's not exactly surprising the games Sony fund the most end up looking the best (Uncharted 2, Killzone 2). Too bad everyone else gets left in the dark which you would've noticed if you've been paying attention the last 3 years. Jeez, you're well known for not being the brightest tool in the box but c'mon.

If Bradwart isn't the brightest tool in the box....

What does that make you, Scottish?

Unable to light up at all?

Actually, I thought it was the ones that are developing exclusively for the PS3 instead of dividing their manpower between two systems.

Surprising how if you only devote your time to one gaming system and it's specific architecture, you're going to get more bang for your buck. Unbelievable, I know!

In terms of loading and installs on PS3, I was pointing out that games usually have an annoying install or if they don't, ridiculous loading. Case in point Fear 2 had no install but loading was 3 times longer than on 360. Blu-Ray is a horrible format for games and is why I believe that games on future consoles will probably resort to flash media cards. I would also like to mention I come to Joystiq almost everyday to keep current on teh interwebz and gamez and such, however I rarely comment on here. I do read comments occasionally and some are funny and witty and are usually up or downvoted according to how funny they are or by making one side of an argument coincide with the people who are voting. But there are a few commenters that stick out including you Mr. Bradwart. You comment more than anyone else that I've seen and I was just wondering if you actually get around to playing any games at all. I notice you own both consoles as well so there is plenty to play. I know you are busy all the time bashing one said console and praising another, but why not try playing these great games. I also know there's not as many games on the console you support more, but once you put aside that great hate of yours, you may find many games worth playing. I myself still hate PS3 for many reasons but I still have one and bought MGS4, UC2, Flower, LBP and a few more. I, however, won't go online and annoy or belittle other people into thinking something is a superior product when it clearly is not. I apologize for my little rant and bid you good day sir.

'Little'? My god, that wasn't little.

Load times are not an issue when the game is properly coded. It's poor coding that results in long load times. If it were Blu-ray, why does L4D2 take extremely long to load?

The difference is, Naughty Dog is offering to help other companies utilize the hardware. If they had to spend money, they spent it well.

Psych,

You have to remember that Bluray is a new technology. I remember having a new CDRom on my computer and 5x speed was awesome. Then it went to DVD and 2x was great. Give the tech time and they will come up with faster readers and writers. It's always been this way :S

I'll stick with the PS3 version of this game...god of war 3.

Seems like the xbox fanboys are out in full force and ignorant as ever..

Before getting into any of the below I would like to state 1 simple fact, who actually cares ? Why is there this whole thread of xbox fanboys trying to belittle the ps3 ? Doesn't it clearly state that both versions will look exactly the same ? So what difference does anything else make ?

Read below, if you want to, its up to you:


If its done first on the ps3 they use the spe's and build with the cell structure in mind.

If the 360 is lead, then the port is really simplified to the ps3 if you ignore the spes because the cells cpu xenon is a triple core IBM /Sony cell ppe, to put it simply. Also development for the 360 is much easier because of the directx api -- the ps3 I would assume uses a modified version of the opengl library.

Then there is Anti-Aliasing, a lot of the reasons why the ps3 version generally looks slightly worse is down to anti-aliasing.

If the 360 uses 620p resolution it can do 4x MSAA without a real hit.. It cant use this at 720p it can do this because of a 10MB edram daughter card..

This just shows you how short sighted Microsoft are, its basically enough to get free MSAA on Standard Def tvs. HiDef they upscale the image, but what you actually see in most games like halo3 etc is 620p.

Anything above 620p and the daughter card is basically useless, the 10MB edram is just too small and cant cope, so games at true 720p the 360 has to drop MSAA.

Sony however, have the Cell and an Nvidia gpu.
The spes can be made to do practically anything, so software companies are using the cell to create their own software AA, and because the load can easily be offloaded to the spe's it can be done easily on the ps3.. With the 360 well it will hit performance however you look at it.

KillZone 2 uses MSAA Quincunx (multisample anti-aliasing) @720p -- The 360 would probably choke trying to do that.. It just cant handle that sort of level of anti-aliasing at true 720p..


read here : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-anti-aliasing-effect-article?page=1

This will explain everything and if you read to the last page, the hint is very clear the 360 will soon be suffering big time exactly because of this. Take a look at The Saboteur demos previewed. Also have you wondered why there are so much more actual 1080p games on the ps3 ? -- God of War 3 will be actual 1080p.

Why do the 360 fanboys get so rabid in these matters ? Just accept the simple facts, it could never pull off killzone 2 and it could never pull off uncharted 1 & 2, the ps3 is the more advanced of the two and that has been obvious from day 1.

Also the most shocking of it all is that this article is from Eurogamer, if you read the veiled message, its simply saying the 360 will have an incredibly tough time trying to graphically compete with the ps3, because developers are producing better software rendered anti aliasing..

Game, Set and Match Sony -- It pays to think ahead..

Also the ps3 was not lead platform for ghostbusters, the company in charge happened to be ex-microsoft employees.. Amazing how the graphics improved with a simple patch after the damage is done, which proves it had nothing to do with memory / texture size or anything else other than incompetence and possibly underhanded dealings.

If you cant beat em, try to make them look bad - its the Microsoft way..

^ Thanks for that long technical post.

@Ricochet:
Sony owns Naughty Dog Studios. They report directly to Sony. Insomniac Games, however, is a 3rd party studio that works exclusively on making games for Sony. Both studios also maintain very close relationships with Santa Monica Studios (Sony first-party), which is bringing God of War 3 over in March.

Also, for the guys who complain about Blu-Ray being slow, that's because the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is a first generation drive that runs at 2x. A 4x Blu-Ray drive is already faster than the 12x DVD drive on the 360 due to the difference in bandwidth:
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek

It is now 3-4 years AFTER the PS3 has entered the market and the current Blu-Ray standard is 6x read speed. If Sony were to replace the Blu-Ray drive on all existing PS3s to the current standard, well, that would literally be the end of any load time complaints.

@ McDuck:
Ah, that explains why Killzone 2 looked fantastic. I mean, considering how brown and dull Killzone 2 usually is, it has some of the most brilliantly colorful weapons effects I've seen to date. There's that Killzone 2 trailer played to an opera song that exemplifies what I mean.

Thanks for the article, McDuck. Good read.

Just felt like adding my two cents. Killzone 2 did suffer from in-game lag with every form of input, including shooting and menu navigation, because vsync is on and the game has to render everything before it can move on. Thus, it is always a couple extra frames behind. Guerilla Games did program the game for things like smoother, momentum-infused aiming, weighty jumping, etc, but did not intentionally create the few extra frames of lag; the gamr is catching up.

"High Precision Control" adjusts the controls side of things, but doesn't change the graphical settings that cause the additional input delay. Thus, the people whom this annoys, it still annoys.

Some people never noticed or were bothered by it, but it's certainly noticeable by people like me, who have played zillions of shooters on PC over the years. This problem occurs on the PC whem your setup isn't up to the job of rendering the game in real-time. It creates a lag in the aiming, just like Killzone, but in everything else as well, like menu navigation, which killzone has as well. It is fixed by stepping the graphics quality down a notch or two, or upgrading your hardware.

Guerilla Games wasn't bs'ing when they said they wanted the game to "feel weighty," however, it only addressed half of that weighty feel; the part the programmed in. The part they didn't is due to vsync, and they won't admit to that.

Part of me honestly believes it's Sony unwilling to budge from the E3 trailer, so they forced GG to keep vsync on to avoid screen tearing.

Poor McDuck, wrote such a long post for nothing. I'm surprised you were upvoted.

"God of War 3 will be actual 1080p."

Yet, the devs themselves said it would run @720p with VARIABLE framerate running at 40fps average. Dante's Inferno will run at a solid 60fps, BETTER than Gow3 @the same res.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dantes-inferno-analysis-blog-entry

God Of War 3 is native 1080p and yes the framerate is variable, so do a little bit of research before you post ignorance..

According to the devs:

"God of War III was first discussed by Cory Barlog at a God of War II launch event.[17] He revealed that the game would run at full 1080p HD resolution" wikipedia

http://www.slicegaming.com/news/776/god-of-war-3-scans-reveal-1080p-native-no-load-screens-and-your-typical-gow-minigames/

You were saying ?