@ Squilliam

I think I'm usually very calm and orderly, I don't think the OP is turmoil at all. We're talking about games consoles afterall and not about more severe issues. Just a puzzling observation of contradiction from a muti-media hobbyist / tech enthusiast, intended as food for thought.

Loud_Hot_White_Box said: slowmo said: MikeB said: @ slowmo Ghostbusters finally hit home that leading on the PS3 will not fix it's terrible dev support I don't think Ghostbusters on the PS3 looks terrible, but IMO it's clear they lead development on the 360. One website compared an unfinished PS3 version to a more complete 360 version according to a developer, this would of course not be the case if development was lead on the PS3. IMO a truly PS3 lead game takes full advantage of Blu-Ray and the Cell processor and when finished is then ported to other platforms (making sacrifices to fit on DVD and cut other elements to draw less CPU performance). Or in the case of GB they couldn't implement all the textures to the quality of the 360 due to GPU and memory restrictions Right, PS3's limitations held the game to the level of those blurry screenshots.  Just about every other PS3 game says 'hi' and disproves that.

Yes Haze was a real stunner /sarcasm

Another impartial poster in the Microsoft forum, I assume you agree with MikeB's viewpoint then in singling out one population of fans for something every poster on here has done at some stage.

@ slowmo

Looking at Uncharted 2 for example, I don't think so. Plenty of comments from developers who are considered to be the best within the industry regarding system potential.

MikeB said: @ slowmo Could it be all the quotes you're providing are indeed bullshit like many people have told you before. Looking at Uncharted 2 for example, I don't think so. Plenty of comments from developers who are considered to be the best within the industry.

God Of War 1 to God Of War 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unchartered to Unchartered 2

Wrong again MikeB but keep trying.  If you're referring to the rubbish about developers having worked on both HD platform saying the PS3 is more powerful then I don't think Epic agree.

Nobody seems to consider the possibility that the PS3 team might have simply met more of their Tier X goals/Milestones than the 360 team at the time of the now infamous statement and it was only later that the project ran off the rails. Software development isn't manufacturing no matter how much everyone wants it to be. This kind of thing isn't that uncommon, especially when teams are ahead of schedule as it seems to breed complacency.

@ slowmo

No doubt God of War 1 and God of War 2 are amazing games and God of War 2 is surely more impressive technically than the first one (as IMO should be expected despite the shorter development cycle, due to being able to reuse assets, lessons learnt and maturing game engine).

But God of War was not made by Naughty Dog, they were talking for themselves not for the God of War developers. IMO Uncharted was the most impressive PS3 game back in 2007 and two years later huge technical gains have already been demonstrated (contributing to making it the visually best game so far, according to some like Gametrailers).

MikeB said: @ slowmo God Of War 1 to God Of War 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unchartered to Unchartered 2 No doubt God of War 1 and God of War 2 are amazing games and God of War 2 is surely more impressive technically than the first one (as IMO should be expected despite the shorter development cycle, due to being able to reuse assets, lessons learnt and maturing game engine). But God of War was not made by Naughty Dog, they were talking for themselves not for the God of War developers. IMO Uncharted was the most impressive PS3 game back in 2007 and two years later huge technical gains have already been demonstrated (contributing to making it the visually best game so far, according to some like Gametrailers).

Now you're talking about the context and intent of a statement.  The wording clearly implies they expect to be able to see bigger jumps in quality in their studio than was seen last generation by other studios on the PS2.  I'm saying that was the intent of the quote you've said and it isn't true when you take into consideration the two games I mentioned previously.  The step from Unchartered to Unchartered 2 is more like the jump from Gears 1 to Gears 2, impressive but not a huge improvement unless you conceed the 360 is only going to expand at the same rate too, mind you if thats not the case then it could be a contradiction too.

 

@Alephnull - I expect that is more than likely the case but the only reason I mentioned GB to start with is a claim was made regarding only 360 making contradicting statements yet the only group I've seen doing this for the last week as been Ps3 fans in the GB threads, which admittedly should have been closed and all discussion funneled into the first one opened on the subject.  This is the reason this thread has been started, it's so MikeB can attempt to stir up a Hornets nest to ignore the fact that one of his most prized quotes has turned around to bite him in the ass.  I'll leave the thread now and let it carry on in my absence as I'm sure it will, I've got nothing constructive to add now anyway as I honestly believe this thread is here for one purpose and it's not positive.

Loud_Hot_White_Box said: Squilliam said: Loud_Hot_White_Box said: Squilliam said: Loud_Hot_White_Box said: Which just leaves us with: no one who cares about such things could possibly deny that Blu-Ray video/audio is a fuckton better than DVD video/audio. Napster proved that most people were happy with 128kbit Stereo MP3s. Most people couldn't care less about the audio quality of Blu Ray. Most people don't give a crap about graphics.  That's a quote from you in another thread.  Looks like you would never weigh in on the issues in this thread, as they're irrelevant. Seems enough people care for you to dance a jig about Ghostbusters, though.  And to increase Blu-Ray sales quite nicely year over year during a mighty ass recession. Im getting the PS3 version of Ghostbusters... If I actually cared I would be getting it on Xbox 360 or PC since I have both a fast gaming PC and an Xbox 360 gaming console available. So how exactly am I dancing a jig? You didn't enter the GB threads with your patented faux-friendly PS3-needling comments?  Maybe I'm thinking of other threads.  Also, back to the point: it's seldom necessary or sufficient for "most" people to like or desire anything: the requirement for success could be 5% of consumers being interested, or 65%.  Whether 51% (most) happen to care, probably irrelevant. Most people will never buy video game consoles.  Oh, shut down the site, most people don't care.

I make those comments for the benefit of people like you. Do you feel honoured?

MikeB said: Legend11 said: The only reason the whole Ghostbusters thing blew up so much was because of comments made by Terminal Reality which basically implied that the 360 couldn't keep up with the PS3. What they actually stated was that if Ghostbusters would have been a PS3 exclusive they could have added a lot more (real game design changing differences) to the game, than the 360 would be able to handle. They actually implied they made sacrifices with regard to game design to better suit the 360 hardware. If it would have been a fully PS3 lead game, they would have pushed for twice the amount of onscreen activity and worry about the porting process to other platforms afterwards looking for workarounds (this was the case for most past Arcade originals, you don't worry about c64 conversion specs when designing an arcade game in the good old days).

The PS3 was the lead platform for this game so it makes no sense to me why they would suddenly get a lot more power if the game was exclusive.  What exactly were they ignoring on the PS3 that would have made it able to handle twice as many objects onscreen?  What did they have to sacrifice in order to help the 360 keep up?  Also being held back to me implies that the PS3 version should at least be able to handle what the 360 is doing.  If the PS3 is able to handle twice as much onscreen, etc, why not have it at least handle the same?

Proof PS3 was lead platform: http://www.psu.com/PS3-leads-the-way-for-Ghostbusters--a006207-p0.php

Legend11 said: MikeB said: Legend11 said: The only reason the whole Ghostbusters thing blew up so much was because of comments made by Terminal Reality which basically implied that the 360 couldn't keep up with the PS3. What they actually stated was that if Ghostbusters would have been a PS3 exclusive they could have added a lot more (real game design changing differences) to the game, than the 360 would be able to handle. They actually implied they made sacrifices with regard to game design to better suit the 360 hardware. If it would have been a fully PS3 lead game, they would have pushed for twice the amount of onscreen activity and worry about the porting process to other platforms afterwards looking for workarounds (this was the case for most past Arcade originals, you don't worry about c64 conversion specs when designing an arcade game in the good old days). The PS3 was the lead platform for this game so it makes no sense to me why they would suddenly get a lot more power if the game was exclusive.  What exactly were they ignoring on the PS3 that would have made it able to handle twice as many objects onscreen?  What did they have to sacrifice in order to help the 360 keep up?  Also being held back to me implies that the PS3 version should at least be able to handle what the 360 is doing.  If the PS3 is able to handle twice as much onscreen, etc, why not have it at least handle the same? Proof PS3 was lead platform: http://www.psu.com/PS3-leads-the-way-for-Ghostbusters--a006207-p0.php

hmmm if they stated that their lead platform was the ps3 why is it that the game looks like one of those EA ports back in 2007....I mean there are other game that used ps3 as their lead platform but still turned out fine like skate 2.