Developers Or The Console: Who To Blame For PS3 Multiplats Poor Performance?

do you guys think we should fault the developer for what could be a hardware limitation?

I mean, the recent IGN Madden 08 review had me thinking, why the gaming media (except GS) is so hard on PS3 titles holding them to X360 standards?

anyway, what do you guys think, is it right to score the titles less because of the hardware?

do you guys think we should fault the developer for what could be a hardware limitation?

I mean, what do you think of the recent IGN Madden 08 review? do you think it's right to hold PS3 games to X360 standards?

Mystery_Writer

could you imagine if first wave xbox games looked like second wave ps2 games? the xbox would have been dead in the marketplace.

Marketing.

The same reason why PCs weren't "next-gen" when "next-gen" consoles arrived.

blame CanandaTHETRUEDOZAH

:lol: The truth!

Anyway. To the subject, EA's expressed that they haven't had much time with the PS3 as they have with the 360 in terms of development time of the systems. Being as the 360 has been out longer, equals more time with that system. So in that case, yes, the developers is at fault not because they don't know the system, it's just they haven't had much time with it.

Now is the PS3 to blame for it? Yes and no. It's a complex system that's been given to the developers. By next year I'm willing to bet we'll see multiplats that are equal to each other between the 360 and PS3. A couple years later, as always, we'll see more frachises go exclusive to a platform. Which one, we don't know.

blame CanandaTHETRUEDOZAH

Ok you got a box and its kick ass

Then you have something that can be a box but first you have to make it believe its a box before you can use it as a box.

So its Sony's fault.

Ok you got a box and its kick ass

Then you have something that can be a box but first you have to make it believe its a box before you can use it as a box.

So its Sony's fault.

HPPL3

That made 0 sense. Are you sure you're able to take on the internets?

As it was recently announced. The devs have had 3 1/2 years experience with 360, 1 1/2 max for PS3. Its neithers fault really, just give them time and the games will be many times better than they are currently. ;)snorlaxmaster

The original ps2 had a 1 1/2 year start on the original xbox. Then Max payne was launched for all consoles, and the Xbox had an equal port to the pc. Explain that.

As it was recently announced. The devs have had 3 1/2 years experience with 360, 1 1/2 max for PS3. Its neithers fault really, just give them time and the games will be many times better than they are currently. ;)snorlaxmaster

exactly. we got too used on blaming someone for everything. this is not the case here, it's just a simple case of lack of experience. didn't the first madden titles for the 360 also run at 30fps?

As it was recently announced. The devs have had 3 1/2 years experience with 360, 1 1/2 max for PS3. Its neithers fault really, just give them time and the games will be many times better than they are currently. ;)snorlaxmaster

heck call it 10 years fro 360 dev experience since you are throwing numbers around. 1 1/2 years since the PS3 was release. it was delayed more than a year and devs been working on it for more than year before that.

Hardware in ps3 is not suitable for games. thats the bottom line. it's best to use it for some number crunching stuff like the folding at home.

Its the console and nobody wants to admit it!

RAM LIMITATIONS, BLUERAY TROJAN, FANBOY DENIAL, WAITING FOR POWER THAT WAS NEVER THERE TO BEGIN WITH TO BE UNLOCKED AND HORRIBLE GAMING CPU FTMFW!!!!

[QUOTE="snorlaxmaster"]As it was recently announced. The devs have had 3 1/2 years experience with 360, 1 1/2 max for PS3. Its neithers fault really, just give them time and the games will be many times better than they are currently. ;)_Peoples_Champ_

The original ps2 had a 1 1/2 year start on the original xbox. Then Max payne was launched for all consoles, and the Xbox had an equal port to the pc. Explain that.

the EA devs said themselves that dealing with new technology makes everything even harder. both ps2 and xbox used hardware very commom at that time.

blame CanandaTHETRUEDOZAH

??? At least spell it right...

As it was recently announced. The devs have had 3 1/2 years experience with 360, 1 1/2 max for PS3. Its neithers fault really, just give them time and the games will be many times better than they are currently. ;)snorlaxmaster

So I guess that sets the Waitstation 3 clock two years ahead before its $200 more technology catches up to the 360. Outrageous.

[QUOTE="snorlaxmaster"]As it was recently announced. The devs have had 3 1/2 years experience with 360, 1 1/2 max for PS3. Its neithers fault really, just give them time and the games will be many times better than they are currently. ;)JiveT

So I guess that sets the Waitstation 3 clock two years ahead before its $200 more technology catches up to the 360. Outrageous.

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

do you guys think we should fault the developer for what could be a hardware limitation?

I mean, what do you think of the recent IGN Madden 08 review? do you think it's right to hold PS3 games to X360 standards?

SIP_YEK_NOD

could you imagine if first wave xbox games looked like second wave ps2 games? the xbox would have been dead in the marketplace.

Maybe this will end the argument.

"Guys, I have been seeing lots of folks talking about how they are going to be getting the shaft on PS3. Once and for all, let me say, CoD4 on the PS3 is going to KICK BUT-TOCKS!

We have had some of the most talented developers in the world working on the PS3 version since day one. Before they had anything to work with with CoD4, they were taking CoD2 and bringing it over to the PS3. This gave them a massive understanding of how the PS3 hardware works (and only took them a few months). As soon as CoD4 was ready to be under full development, that team began optimizing the game for the PS3. Which was in month 4 or 5 I believe.

We just blew Sony's socks off at E3. They wanted to know why all 3rd party games didn't have console parity like we do. They are EXTREMELY excited about CoD4 for the PS3.

Stay tuned for updates on special CoD4 luv on the PS3.

and yes, PS3 version has 60 FPS minimum."

http://www.charlieoscardelta.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=10494Yes, the official site for the game.

Conclusion: If time and effort are put into games for PS3, everythings good. These guys know what they're doing.They wanted to make sure the PS3 didn't get a crappy version if a great game, which has been happening a lot.

60 fps

do you guys think we should fault the developer for what could be a hardware limitation?

Mystery_Writer

If you design a 360 game, then port it over to the PS3 without optimising it, of course it will not perform as good. The PS3 has a very different architecture than the 360. On the other hand, if you design a PS3 game and port it to the 360, you will see the same situation happen.

However, if a developer DOES decide to optomise a game while porting it to the PS3, it will certainly beat the 360. Take a look at the PS3 and 360 versions of Oblivion, a game that was optomised for both consoles. The PS3 version looks better, even GS stated that in one of their graphics comparisons.

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

do you guys think we should fault the developer for what could be a hardware limitation?

I mean, what do you think of the recent IGN Madden 08 review? do you think it's right to hold PS3 games to X360 standards?

SIP_YEK_NOD

could you imagine if first wave xbox games looked like second wave ps2 games? the xbox would have been dead in the marketplace.

that's a very good point

Maybe this will end the argument.

"Guys, I have been seeing lots of folks talking about how they are going to be getting the shaft on PS3. Once and for all, let me say, CoD4 on the PS3 is going to KICK BUT-TOCKS!

We have had some of the most talented developers in the world working on the PS3 version since day one. Before they had anything to work with with CoD4, they were taking CoD2 and bringing it over to the PS3. This gave them a massive understanding of how the PS3 hardware works (and only took them a few months). As soon as CoD4 was ready to be under full development, that team began optimizing the game for the PS3. Which was in month 4 or 5 I believe.

We just blew Sony's socks off at E3. They wanted to know why all 3rd party games didn't have console parity like we do. They are EXTREMELY excited about CoD4 for the PS3.

Stay tuned for updates on special CoD4 luv on the PS3.

and yes, PS3 version has 60 FPS minimum."

http://www.charlieoscardelta.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=10494Yes, the official site for the game.

Conclusion: If time and effort are put into games for PS3, everythings good. These guys know what they're doing.They wanted to make sure the PS3 didn't get a crappy version if a great game, which has been happening a lot.

60 fps

CR00K

OK it takes all the most talented developers and all that effort to make a game on par with the 360 version? What ever happene to the Xbox 1.5 ?????

Come on you're supposed to be kicking the360s ass. How long does it take?

do you guys think we should fault the developer for what could be a hardware limitation?

I mean, the recent IGN Madden 08 review had me thinking, why the gaming media (except GS) is so hard on PS3 titles holding them to X360 standards?

anyway, what do you guys think, is it right to score the titles less because of the hardware?

Mystery_Writer

A little bit of "A" and a little bit of "B"...

In the hands of talented devs and given enough time the PS3 has a chance to shine for certain titles. But the PS3 has some glaring limitations that can hold it back as such as the GPU and the RAM which hinders most multiplat games. With that being said you do have some sloppy devs that will push out a title unoptimized and buggy as hell to cash in on a quick buck. So basically the PS3 will only see good performance from the best of the best devs and unfortunately the best are the minority of the gaming world!!!

As for critics being "harsh" on PS3 reviews, we must all realize that the PS3 was hyped as a supercomputer that could make the 360 look like the Wii by comparison....period!!! Its almost been a year since launch and the gaming community as a whole has not seen anything remotely close from the PS3 to toppling the performance of the 360. This is why its completely unacceptable for a system to be hyped as a gift from the gaming gods to be outperformed and outclassed by a "obsolete" system, the reviews are justified...

Game On...

blame CanandaTHETRUEDOZAH

You sir, win this thread.

EA says that can't get good performance.

Infinity ward says they get equal performance.

who do you think is right?

It's the PS3's fault....actually Sony's fault.

Sony made a console that is not developer friendly at all. It's not designed for games, but actually for pushing high numbers.

As for critics being "harsh" on PS3 reviews, we must all realize that the PS3 was hyped as a supercomputer that could make the 360 look like the Wii by comparison....period!!! Its almost been a year since launch and the gaming community as a whole has not seen anything remotely close from the PS3 to toppling the performance of the 360. This is why its completely unacceptable for a system to be hyped as a gift from the gaming gods to be outperformed and outclassed by a "obsolete" system, the reviews are justified...

FatalDomain

but don't you think, by now, reviewers should know PS3 is an inferrior console, and stop being harsh on its titles?

I mean, it's not like developers did NOT want all pro football & madden to run at 60 fps. From what it seems, it's obvious the hardware wasn't up to the task.

do you guys think we should fault the developer for what could be a hardware limitation?

I mean, the recent IGN Madden 08 review had me thinking, why the gaming media (except GS) is so hard on PS3 titles holding them to X360 standards?

anyway, what do you guys think, is it right to score the titles less because of the hardware?

Mystery_Writer

no, as a matter of a fact, i think that it takes away from the sole purpose of gaming. Hardware doesnt make the game fun, gameplay does.

[QUOTE="FatalDomain"]

As for critics being "harsh" on PS3 reviews, we must all realize that the PS3 was hyped as a supercomputer that could make the 360 look like the Wii by comparison....period!!! Its almost been a year since launch and the gaming community as a whole has not seen anything remotely close from the PS3 to toppling the performance of the 360. This is why its completely unacceptable for a system to be hyped as a gift from the gaming gods to be outperformed and outclassed by a "obsolete" system, the reviews are justified...

Mystery_Writer

but don't you think, by now, reviewers should know PS3 is an inferrior console, and stop being harsh on its titles?

I mean, it's not like developers did NOT want all pro football & madden to run at 60 fps. From what it seems, it's obvious the hardware wasn't up to the task.

Believe it or not, some people still think that the PS3's issues are solely because of lazy devs and have nothing to do with hardware limitations....Of course those individuals will never admit that the PS3 is inferior by its own standards set by Sony.

Game On...

blame CanandaTHETRUEDOZAH

pshh dont start a war with canada, or the cavilry will ride south...literaly i dont think we have tanks....jskjsk canadian forces rule were just small....but high tech, wiht our soon to be new airforce of JSF haha