By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Ghostbusters LEADs on PS3 - But graphically superior on 360.

International Douche on 15 June 2009
MontanaHatchet said:
Methinks it's because Twesterm was working on the game.

...

*I'm just kidding, don't ban me!*

Anyways, I think it's funny that you made your account called "International Douche" and started right off on the site with an incredibly obvious agenda.

"Both versions are getting the same score for graphics because the overall package is solid on each platform."


Paranoia that everyone is a fanboy = member of VGchartz for too long.

Point is this, everyone complained that multiplats looked better on the 360 cos development lead on that console. We now have a game that was lead on the PS3 and it still ever so slightly looks better on the 360.

 

I demand an explanation, or sever crow eating from numerous PS3 fanboys who claimed this wouldn't be the case.

 

I fail to see the "agenda" in asking for an explanation to a valid question. You're only saying that cos you interpret it as a fanboy post, which is pretty unfair really.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 15 June 2009

One thing that can happen is a game developed later ends up working with an improved engine, and graphics are tweaked and updated and improved. I believe Dirt on the PS3 is supposed to be an upgrade over Dirt on the 360, for example. In the case of Virtua Fighter on the 360, its graphics were updated over the PS3 version. Bioshock saw spots also where that is similar. Same with Oblivion regarding the PS3 vs the 360 version.

The PS3 and 360 are in the same CLASS graphically. Why people expect there not to have this happen is absurd.



MontanaHatchet on 15 June 2009
International Douche said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Methinks it's because Twesterm was working on the game.

...

*I'm just kidding, don't ban me!*

Anyways, I think it's funny that you made your account called "International Douche" and started right off on the site with an incredibly obvious agenda.

"Both versions are getting the same score for graphics because the overall package is solid on each platform."


Paranoia that everyone is a fanboy = member of VGchartz for too long.

Point is this, everyone complained that multiplats looked better on the 360 cos development lead on that console. We now have a game that was lead on the PS3 and it still ever so slightly looks better on the 360.

 

I demand an explanation, or sever crow eating from numerous PS3 fanboys who claimed this wouldn't be the case.

 

I fail to see the "agenda" in asking for an explanation to a valid question. You're only saying that cos you interpret it as a fanboy post, which is pretty unfair really.

I'm saying you're a fanboy because your name has "Douche" in it and one of your first posts is attacking PS3 fans and the PS3. I don't really care about the graphics contest anyways, since I mostly play the 360 and most multiplatforms look better on it. Being the "inferior" version of a multiplatform game comes down to more than graphics though. It can also include framerate hitches and longer loading times. It's very possible that the PS3 version will look worse but play better (we really don't know until we play it).



 

 

International Douche on 15 June 2009
richardhutnik said:
One thing that can happen is a game developed later ends up working with an improved engine, and graphics are tweaked and updated and improved. I believe Dirt on the PS3 is supposed to be an upgrade over Dirt on the 360, for example. In the case of Virtua Fighter on the 360, its graphics were updated over the PS3 version. Bioshock saw spots also where that is similar. Same with Oblivion regarding the PS3 vs the 360 version.

The PS3 and 360 are in the same CLASS graphically. Why people expect there not to have this happen is absurd.


True to an extent but here we have a game that is released similtaneously on both consoles. Most those listings had massive gaps between releases.

I'm not disputing the games being in the same class at all. They are 99.99% the same, but they aren't equal. I'm just saying if it was lead on the PS3 shouldn't it be 99.99% the same but in favour of the PS3 and not the 360 as most multiplats are for the 360.

Surprised nobody picked up on it, everything else seems to be. 



AnarchyWest on 15 June 2009

Oblivion is lead on 360 and the PS3 port version looks better



Around the Network
International Douche on 15 June 2009
CGI-Quality said:
richardhutnik said:
One thing that can happen is a game developed later ends up working with an improved engine, and graphics are tweaked and updated and improved. I believe Dirt on the PS3 is supposed to be an upgrade over Dirt on the 360, for example. In the case of Virtua Fighter on the 360, its graphics were updated over the PS3 version. Bioshock saw spots also where that is similar. Same with Oblivion regarding the PS3 vs the 360 version.

The PS3 and 360 are in the same CLASS graphically. Why people expect there not to have this happen is absurd.

They're similar, but not in the same class. The things that can be/can't be achieved on each still exist. For instance, AA and texture mapping rely heavily on the GPU and RAM. This is why many 360 multiplats have an advantage on their PS3 counterparts. The 360's GPU is better for AA (anti-aliasing) and the way it shares it's RAM with the CPU and GPU usually provide sharper results in the texture mapping area.

However, the PS3 can do things with physics and animation that can't be achieved on the 360. So in a sense, they're similar, but not the same.


My god you have changed. A very balanced and true explantation.

I suppose that would explain it, you can't really tone down physics because it would affect gameplay but textures and the odd graphical effect can be. That would fit in with your explanation and explain why the developers said that it could have been better if developed purely for the PS3.

Interesting...



markers on 15 June 2009
International Douche said:
Skeeuk said:
douche nice alt account.

some differences there definatly. the missing effects that arnt on ps3 version ie. the smoulders god knows why its not in.

i dont think anyone will say one looks better than other. the devs did say if it was exclusive they could have packed much more on screen with ps3 only, so my only guess is that they didnt lead completly on ps3 and had to complete game with dvd in mind.


What has DVD got to do with it, stick to the topic.

360 uses dvd's, so dvd has everything to do with this. ps3 could of been lead platform but that doesnt mean they didnt lead on the ps3 with the 360 disc limit in mind.



_mevildan on 15 June 2009

The amount of debate arising from the differences of a black gouge and marshmallow skin is quite amazing.



International Douche on 15 June 2009
AnarchyWest said:
Oblivion is lead on 360 and the PS3 port version looks better


This is a myth, when the PS3 version was released with superior graphics the Xbox 360 also received a free update to make the games equal graphically. It didn't lead on either the PS3\360 but x86\PC code.



gebx on 15 June 2009
AnarchyWest said:
Oblivion is lead on 360 and the PS3 port version looks better

 

ahah, yeah cause it was released a year later.... same as Bioshock



Proud Member of GAIBoWS (Gamers Against Irrational Bans of Weezy & Squilliam)