Ghostbusters dev comments on distinct console differences
- Posted June 18th, 2009 at 18:13 EDT by
- 6,230 views
- 73 Comments
Usually, comparing the graphics of PS3 games with the equivalent 360 versions is an exercise in nitpicking.
Occasionally, however, a game comes along that looks dramatically different on one console. In this case, there are striking differences between both versions of Ghostbusters. The difference isn’t just visible to the eyes of graphics experts, either. Take a look for yourself:
Xbox 360 Ghostbusters vs. PlayStation 3 Ghostbusters
It gets more interesting, though. Joystiq boldly asked Terminal Reality to comment on the differences. A spokesperson relayed, "For the record, the PS3 version [of Ghostbusters] is softer due to the 'quincunx' antialiasing filter and the fact we render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version. So you cannot directly compare a screen shot of one to the other unless you scale them properly. The PS3 does have less available RAM than the 360 – but we managed to squeeze three out of four textures as full size on the PS3."
The resolution for the PS3 version is 960 x 540, while the 360’s resolution is 1280 x 720. As the image above shows, that’s quite the difference.
Even more interesting are the comments from more than a year ago by Terminal Reality. Ironically, the Ghostbusters IP is owned by Sony Pictures, and Terminal Reality said that led to the PS3 version being the leading version. They also said the PS3 "can do a lot more" and that development on the 360 was holding back the PS3 version.
So Terminal Reality initially says the PS3 can do a lot more but the 360 version was holding the PS3 version back, yet now the PS3 version is visually inferior? What's really going on?
Comments
-
-
-
DeanoIV |
MaterialBoy- 6:18pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 3
Does it really look that bad when being played on a HD right from your PS3? I'm getting the game tomorrow so I guess I'll find out but people seem to say it looks fine on their PS3. I'd like a genuine PS3 supporting site to do a decent HD comparison in motion so we can see just how different they are.
-
Two4DaMoney
- 6:18pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 4
You can take your first and...lmao.
No excuses Terminal Reality. Brush up on your skills.
-
Large_Tonberry |
Jon_Bright- 6:19pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 5
And yet exclsuives still manage to look stunning...Hmm. I think these developers need to learn from Naughty Dog.
-
-
-
thebrowncub |
thebrowncub- 6:31pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 8
Everytime I see something like this, I can't help but feel that the devs just got lazy.
-
-
timwaters2007
- 6:34pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 10
The game looks great on the ps3. I don't care if the xbox version is better. It's a great game regardless.
-
-
-
-
Sonyfanboy-uk |
Bloodfang-UK- 6:40pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 14
i call bs on that pic as i just ran that level on my ps3 via hdmi on my sony xbr3 42" tv.
and it looks like the left pic not the right one so i question there setup becuase the left spic looks godawful
-
-
steviej
- 6:44pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 16
This and 5 more current releases were compared today at eurogamer using their state of the art video capture devise.
It's clear developers exploite each consoles strenghts resulting in pluses and minuses for each console. The architecture is different so the result will be different. Not all developers can work on a product for 5 plus year (kz2, gt5). Adults will understand that developers have bills to pay and kids to feed.
-
-
-
Intervention
- 6:53pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 19
What's going on is the piddly amount of memory in the PS3. Oh I mean lazy dumb devs! On everygame that comes out.
-
-
-
kak828
- 7:03pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 22
well it's nice to see that whoever posted before i did got banned... but now all the "@1" post are directed at me >< wahhhh
anyways sigh.... i seriously thought the left side was the ps3 and right was 360 before i read the header =( wth did terminal reality do??? bonus cash under the table? sigh -
Brokentusk81
- 7:05pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 23
Why don't any multi-platform games look better on PS3 than Xbox360?!?! I know they "dumb it down" for the xbox360, but then how come multi's looked so much better on the original xbox than PS2? And this screen comparison seems to suggest the opposite! I'm never gunna hear the end of it from my dumb xbot friends. . .
-
GunTeng
- 7:08pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 24
Umm..simple answer for all this.
Designing on 360 & porting to the PS3...such a blunder. ¬ ¬
Lets hope the game is decent enough...visuals are just icing. Its tastes nice to begin with but very quickly becomes sickening as you begin to lose the taste.
But still....such a stupid blunder.
-
-
BruceBanna
- 7:10pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 26
Sorry but no way...
Im playing the game right now on PS3 in 1080p on a 52" Bravia X series and it in no way resembles the picture in this article.
-
Fiddlesworth
- 7:15pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 27
In other words, Terminal Reality are still crap developers and nobody in their right mind would want to use their middleware.
-
-
-
iberianpower
- 7:54pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 30
These screenshots are fake.I have seen both versions running side to side and the differences are nearly zero.Whatever methods used Terminal Reality the end result is pretty much the same.
Just look at the gametrailers comparision and say this isnt nitpicking ...
-
-
-
-
NeauxFear |
Shadeaux- 8:09pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 34
Its sad to see that even this far in the ps3/x360 gen its still a problem. I can understand issues in the beginning but now this thing shouldn't happen anymore. And who's to blame? Is it Sony for making a console that is just to difficult to work on, or is it the devs for not wanting to take the time to learn how th e ps3 works. Out of all third party devs I more impressed with EA. I've seen comparison pix of Madden they're doing a much better job keeping the both versions equal.
-
SolidDrake86
- 8:22pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 35
SH** developer. Seriously, just lazy. How many other ports look equal or better on PS3, and now the PS3 version might as well be a freakin Wii game it looks so soft and blurry.
-
Alpha2
- 8:23pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 36
Clearly there's a problem in terms of multiplatform games. you trying to do the same thing on both systems and someone's going to loose out and it's usually the PS3 because they're not taking to time to push the system. Regardless of what they said they simply didnt utilize the thing. They say they used an antializing filter but both games are still jagged so what the heII?
-
SolidDrake86
- 8:27pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 37
The more I look at the comparison pics here, it looks like fake Photoshop. I saw this a while back on some Xbot comparing Bioshock on PS3 and Xbox, and the PS3 pic looked horrible, just like this , all soft and blurry. But then Bioshock came out and I saw with my own eyes that it looked just a sharp if not better than the Xbox version. I use Photoshop almost daily, and this looks they just ran a Gaussian Blur filter over the PS3 pic.
-
timwaters2007
- 8:31pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 38
Let's just be truthful for a second. The fact is, unless optimised, the PS3 doesn't have the juice in the GPU and available memory to compete 100% with the xbox on multi-plat titles. That's why ps3 titles usually have missing textures and look blurry. Really, 9 out of 10 multi-plat titles look better on the xbox. Is this due to devs being 'lazy'? No, I don't think so. The PS3 is hard to develop for. You can name MGS4, Uncharted, and Infamous all you like, but when did those games simultaneously release on the PS2, Wii, PC, PS3, and 360?
At the end of the day, the differences are minor. If they mean that much to you then buy a 360. Simple. I have Ghostbusters for the PS3 and it looks great. It's a very good game.
-
TheDarkKnight
- 8:47pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 39
The Devs have failed miserably. Especially when you say "Oh, it was the lead platform"
-
markwesker
- 8:54pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 40
This is not about power of ps3 but the devs just not getting the most out of the ps3 development,thats all so no need for 360 fanboys like radgamer twisting things,plenty of multiplat games that are better on the ps3.notice it says less available ram not actually less ram then the 360,both have same amount just ps3 ram is split so there fault for not working round it.
Doesnt even look that bad,just lighter, so il just put the darkness up on my tv.
-
hillybilly |
apeh- 9:10pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 41
Im going to call fake, ive been playing at my mates house and it looks more like the pic on the left - it was not blurry at all in my eyes, and we were playing on a 42" 1080p enabled
-
DigitalBeast
- 10:03pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 42
@40 No, the PS3 actually does have less RAM than the 360. You seem to not know about the 10 MB for the GPU that the 360 has ;) As for the game being better on the 360, not so fast. Take a look at the gametrailers comparison. PS3 has loads of liquid bursting out of the tanker when blown up, and has a much better frame-rate during the flooding inside the building. And with a good TV, I think it would look well enough. Also, they may want to try Full RGB setting next time.
-
-
-
markwesker
- 10:51pm BST - June 18th, 2009
- 45
@42 news to me, since i aint a 360 fanboy i dont actually delve deeper into how the 360 works then brag over 10mb extra which is neither ere or there and where did i say GB was better on the 360 lol,read again.its not a argument its fact the textures or lighting look abit better on 360,nothing to do with gaming experience or ps3 power ,its the devs.
-
DigitalBeast
- 12:05am BST - June 19th, 2009
- 46
@45 Where did you see me talk about this GB? I simply stated the fact about the extra 10 MB of RAM. Also, I don't even have a 360 :) MGS 4 bundle here dude. No RROD and paid online play for me! ;)
-
Funeralfog |
blksabbath- 12:36am BST - June 19th, 2009
- 47
i can tell you the Ps3 version does not look like that
-
-
-
Advertisement