"PlayStation 3 a "pain in the ass" to make games for"

[Super_Lilith]

WTF people? WTF?

A console should be as easy to develop for as possible because in the end, it is about making the best gaming experience possible:

The less resources you spend messing with technical BS to get things to run, the more you have to actually make and design the game content, who doesn't want that?

[Bligmerk]

why some of the sony hardcore think its laziness or lack of effort is beyond me, or better still lack of passion.

None of the above. Some think it is lack of ability.

WTF people? WTF?

A console should be as easy to develop for as possible because in the end, it is about making the best gaming experience possible:

The less resources you spend messing with technical BS to get things to run, the more you have to actually make and design the game content, who doesn't want that?

Except when the capabilities are so dumbed down, it limits the levels games can reach. This became very obvious with the Wii this year and it is starting to happen with the other casual game console.

[Centurion]

The PSX was easy to develop for & had a lot of tools, PS2 had C++ which developers moaned about which is basic code
now given PS3 is said to be easier to develop for then PS2, it does put into perspective how not a bigger deal it is, problem these days is devs use too many tools instead of programming, and moan when the tools don't work & they to do a little programming.

Artists use tools, level designers use tools.. Game engines require a great deal of programming. I'm sure there more than a little programming going on at these studios.

[jlippone]

Artists use tools, level designers use tools.. Game engines require a great deal of programming. I'm sure there more than a little programming going on at these studios.

Indeed, people do not seem to understand that games are not small IE Uncharted was ~2million lines of code.

Just the thought of doing a lot of that for SPUs and think about local memory, DMA transfers and so on while trying to do trivial tasks is not appealing.
I do know that PPU is there for spaghetti code, but it seems to be quite flawed cpu as well.

[Super_Lilith]

None of the above. Some think it is lack of ability.



Except when the capabilities are so dumbed down, it limits the levels games can reach. This became very obvious with the Wii this year and it is starting to happen with the other casual game console.

Something complex to work with does not entail it is more powerful, it just means it was badly designed.

I don't think it is too much to ask for something that is both powerful and easy to work with.

[Sub-stance1]

I won't debate that the PS3 may have "more to offer," but I do take issue with Sony's justification for it. I simply don't see anything positive about making things too difficult on developers.

[unicron7]

Still has better 1st party content being released at a faster rate than the competition. Something right is being done. 3rd party devs can accept it and move on, or just lose the sales revenue, which I know they absolutely will not do. It's 2011, complainers need to catch up, or talk to companies that have mastered the dev tools years ago.

[Soldier 95B]

Luckily, this gen, from what we have seen, 3rd party is just as good if not better than first party. The days of having "first party" or "exclusive" on the box means very little anymore. Sales and scores prove that.

[Sub-stance1]

Luckily, this gen, from what we have seen, 3rd party is just as good if not better than first party. The days of having "first party" or "exclusive" on the box means very little anymore. Sales and scores prove that.

That's true. 3rd party has definitely proved a lot this gen IMO.

[Sub-stance1]

Luckily, this gen, from what we have seen, 3rd party is just as good if not better than first party. The days of having "first party" or "exclusive" on the box means very little anymore. Sales and scores prove that.

That's true. 3rd party has definitely proved a lot this gen IMO.

[radgamer420]

at yet people LOL at devs who say this is only possible on the ps3 but agree with these kind of threads. hmmmmm

Maybe thats because the only developers saying "only possible on PS3" seem to be Sony owned developers.

[radgamer420]

Luckily, this gen, from what we have seen, 3rd party is just as good if not better than first party. The days of having "first party" or "exclusive" on the box means very little anymore. Sales and scores prove that.

This.^^

[unicron7]

Maybe thats because the only developers saying "only possible on PS3" seem to be Sony owned developers.

I want to see God of War III, or something equivalent to it on multiple consoles by a 3rd party dev. The same visuals or better. Until then, they are right. Every console is held back by some sort of hardware limitation that the others excel at. The PS3 has difficulty to program for, whereas the 360 has processing power and storage. Nobody likes to point those out though.... odd. Hmph. I'm used to the lame journalism though. It's good to read for a laugh or two.

As much as people would like to hope that 3rd party games have reached PS3 exclusive visual fidelity, they have not. Hoping and doing are two entirely different things. I remember back when Crysis 2 was supposed to bring on the pain, but it showed nothing visually striking that Sony exclusives haven't done better. Still waiting for the 3rd party stunner that people keep hyping up year after year which winds up ultimately falling short of expectations.

[Soldier 95B]

As much as people would like to hope that 3rd party games have reached PS3 exclusive visual fidelity

They are beyond PS3/360 exclusive fidelity, and have been for awhile now.

[unicron7]

They are beyond PS3/360 exclusive fidelity, and have been for awhile now.

I call bullshit. Still have yet to see a God of War III killer out there.

[radgamer420]

As much as people would like to hope that 3rd party games have reached PS3 exclusive visual fidelity, they have not. Hoping and doing are two entirely different things. I remember back when Crysis 2 was supposed to bring on the pain, but it showed nothing visually striking that Sony exclusives haven't done better.

Most of the big gaming sites disagree with you in their reviews as do many gamers. Crysis 2 was dubbed best looking shooter on any console by many reviews and by many gamers.

[Sub-stance1]

Most of the big gaming sites disagree with you in their reviews as do many gamers. Crysis 2 was dubbed best looking shooter on any console by many reviews and by many gamers.

Yea Crysis 2 is definitely a great looking game. Better than other shooter released on consoles so far.

[Soldier 95B]

I call bullshit. Still have yet to see a God of War III killer out there.

I call bullshit then too . Opinions will vary.

[D3seeker]

Something complex to work with does not entail it is more powerful, it just means it was badly designed.

I don't think it is too much to ask for something that is both powerful and easy to work with.

So complexity = bad design

= simply then for you

[Bigdoggy]

Infact if i had to put a finger on it, i'm most impressed by bioshock infinite's graphics, and that is a multiplatform game.

your confusing graphics with art direction. The graphics themselves in Bioshock Infinite are definitely not amazing, it's the art direction they took on that, that is what's making it looks so damn good. There is a big, big difference.

[Completely Average]

So complexity = bad design

Complexity absolutely = poor design.

Complexity has nothing at all to do with hardware capabilities, only how easy it is to access. There isn't one single smart, well thought out, logical reason why you would want to make programming more complex than it needs to be.

You don't gain anything from it, all you do is force developers to spend more time and money programing around your crappy design and less time and money on making good games.

= simply then for you

I would LOVE to hear you try to explain why you think hardware with more complexity is preferrable to the exact same hardware with less complexity.

[Completely Average]

your confusing graphics with art direction. The graphics themselves in Bioshock Infinite are definitely not amazing, it's the art direction they took on that, that is what's making it looks so damn good. There is a big, big difference.

Same could be said for almost any game though. Rarely are the "best looking" games also the most technically demanding ones on the hardware. In almost all cases they are the ones where developers took every technical shortcut they could find and focused on art direction instead.

From a technical point of view there are very few PS3 games that match the 360 launch game Kameo in what it's doing from a processing point of view. Paralax texturing, HDR + MSAA, and much of their lighting effects are in some cases beyond what PS3 games are doing, even exclusive ones that are "better looking" than Kameo.


On the other hand, you have people like Unicron7 who thinks that God of War 3 is the best looking game ever, despite it's flat, low res textures, very limited view distances and map sizes, and a lot of clunky geometry in the backgrounds. The animations are smooth and the characters look good, and that's what most people focus on. Same as Gran Turismo, which for several versions now has had great looking cars but really subpar scenery and lighting. Still people think it's the best looking racer because the developers worked so hard on making the cars look good.

[BoyBettaKnow]

I want to see God of War III, or something equivalent to it on multiple consoles by a 3rd party dev. The same visuals or better. Until then, they are right. Every console is held back by some sort of hardware limitation that the others excel at. The PS3 has difficulty to program for, whereas the 360 has processing power and storage. Nobody likes to point those out though.... odd. Hmph. I'm used to the lame journalism though. It's good to read for a laugh or two.

As much as people would like to hope that 3rd party games have reached PS3 exclusive visual fidelity, they have not. Hoping and doing are two entirely different things. I remember back when Crysis 2 was supposed to bring on the pain, but it showed nothing visually striking that Sony exclusives haven't done better. Still waiting for the 3rd party stunner that people keep hyping up year after year which winds up ultimately falling short of expectations.

Thing is, i personally think. if a company had as much money as Sony give to their first party studios you would see pretty much the same results on the otherbox. You can't really compare when you have a large team working on one dedicated platform to a studio that has to split resources up between platforms. Why should a developer have to spend more man hours on something than is needed?

It has nothing to do with talent. It's all about the money, baby.

[TGO]

Thing is, i personally think. if a company had as much money as Sony give to their first party studios you would see pretty much the same results on the otherbox. You can't really compare when you have a large team working on one dedicated platform to a studio that has to split resources up between platforms. Why should a developer have to spend more man hours on something than is needed?

It has nothing to do with talent. It's all about the money, baby.

I believe the most expensive games this gen are multiplatform, how much did Halo 3 cost to make? that was exclusive & that didn't even outshine multiplatform games, its got nothing to do with money, it helps but it's talent & hardware which make the difference

[BoyBettaKnow]

I think you could be right - saying that what about that too human? didn't that cost bucket loads. Also, wouldn't it make sense that a multiplatform game costs more, they have to make it over 2 maybe 3 or 4 platforms. Do they dedicate X amount of money that they would have have got if they were first party though? Genuine question.

no doubt talent does play a large part in it but i also beleive that it's down to the money as well.