I just wanted to ask this question. As we have seen what the PS3 can do with it's exclusives being graphical marvels, is it now the developers fault if the port of a game isn't at least close to the other? Because obviously the hardware isn't lacking, or is it because they are still haveing trouble with it? I wouldn't think that though as they have had many years to understand the system.

So what is the reason the PS3 still get's bad ports, especially from well know developers?

What bad ports is the ps3 still getting? Your going to have to do better than that.

Well, Red Dead Redemption recently. There was also bayonetta, and I don't know what I have to do better at. Are you implying I am bashing PS3? That's a laugh.

Bayonetta was a bad port. But Red Dead Redemption isn't a bad port at all. It is slightly inferior to the 360 version in some points, but both are close enough. The main reason why it looks like it does is because they re-used the same engine they used for GTA IV, which performed better on the 360 for the most part.

The PS3 version still looks and runs very well, even if there are a few non concequential drops in quality here and there.

In order to get perfectly identical versions of a game on the 2 systems, they would have to create 2 unique engines (one for each console) to take advantage of their own unique strengths. Which is not really sound from a business standpoint, when a single multi-platform engine can get results close enough for a fraction of development time and money. So we're left with game having to go through porting processes which as we all know makes the ported version not look exactly on par with the lead version.

Ports have gone a long way over the last year and most games now run almost identical to each others in most cases, bar only a few small differences that you must really look for and nitpick to notice at all. 

At this point, I think this whole debate has now become no more than a e-dick joke that has ran its course.

More or less it's because exclusive games are designed around taking advantage of the hardware. First you have a whole team dedicated to making sure the code is efficient and gets the most out of the hardware, then the other part you have games like Uncharted and God of War which are linear that makes it much easier to use more resources, than an open game like inFamous, GTAIV, or the recent Red Dead Redemption.

Multiplatform games are multiplatform to get the most money, making teams designed to get the most out of porting the game to specific consoles would cost more than just a general team that can make the game run on both consoles at a satisfactory rate, Infinity Ward was one of the few teams I can list off that would make a dedicated team for each platform so their games would run the same no matter what, but they're an exception to the rule plus had the means to do so unlike many other companies.

it is depndnt on lead platform. i am disppointed in how RDR performs on ps3 becaus its a game i care about, but its no biggie, games tht matter to me perform bettr on ps3 (ff13, racing games, battlefild bad company)

That makes sense. I heard RDR was going over budget. Is there any truth to that? And if there is, could that be a reason they didn't really take the time to make a better port.

Also just a general question if a multi plat game is made, if it turns out bad on one system it's more because they just wanted to get it out there and make a profit?

each time you post i imagine your avatar typing with his nose....

Well the budget thing was apparently from an interview with a rockstar employee, as long as it wasn't faked (which rockstar would have publically retracted it if it was I'd guess) then yeah they went way over budget.

You need to remember that games this generation have outragous budgets, its all been about reducing costs as best they can, reusing engines, short games with multiplayer focus, short games split into 3 60 dollar games, reusing resources from past games, so skimping on a port to the other console wouldn't be out of the question, add to this the PS3 is not friendly to developers unlike the 360 which runs DirectX so multiple reasons for bad ports usually dealing with budgets and time, not really that they're wanting to push it out there, they practically have to or go belly up like so many other companies this generation, its the cost of making a pretty game.

I have Red Dead Redemption on the ps3 and I can say it was'nt a bad port. It's such a great game,I really don't care if it slightly runs better on the xbox360. The ps3 doesn't get nearly the bad ports it used to. It's actually a rare thing these days.