Comparisons have become somewhat old, but a lot of you will know that the comparison involving the latest Ghostbusters game has been getting quite a lot of attention.
We recently reported that Ghostbusters on the Playstation 3 was looking significantly worse that it’s Xbox 360 counterpart. It was also reported on news sites that the PS3 version was only running at a resolution that was only 75% of the Xbox 360 version.
It seems that in reality, the truth is way worse. The question I have, is that I would love to know who we need to be blaming for such a bad job on the PS3, because we all know that it’s capable of much, much better.
So how bad is the resolution when compared? It’s not pretty.
As if 75% wasn’t bad enough, the resolution is actually a scary 56.25% of the Xbox 360’s resolution.
How on earth can this be? Let’s not forget that the Playstation 3 was apparently the lead platform. It would be fun to blame this on the Playstation 3, and then watch a flamewar break out, but let’s be honest here, there is no way in hell that the Playstation 3 couldn’t handle this game, so someone has done a very bad job indeed.
This coming from the people who said “We’re one of the few developers who love the PS3 and have a great time with it. We have great technology for the PS3 and we want to show it off.”
Sure, there are time constraints and all that jazz, but seriously, 56 percent?
There are finally some direct feed shots up as well, through the link below, check them out and see for yourself. The Playstation 3 shots looks atrocious and for the first time ever I would have to say that if you own both consoles that you should most definitely go for the Xbox 360 version. Minor graphic differences is one thing, but blurry low quality visuals that make the game look this much worse is another.
Who is really to blame here? We already discussed this topic on Episode 5 of The Lazygamer Podcast and Mark and Danny from QCF Design were able to shed some light on the subject. I still feel that a difference like this is unacceptable and a really bad reflection on the Playstation 3.
Tell us what you think by leaving a comment below.
Source: Gamezine
Last Updated: June 19, 2009
Abev
June 19, 2009 at 08:20
Its utterly unacceptable. If you own both platforms then get the 360 version, if you only have a PS3 then dont get it.
The only way shit developers will learn is if no one buys their product! :angry:
WitWolfyZA
June 19, 2009 at 08:27
So the RAM of the PS3 is insuffiecient then according to the developer… LOL okay!!! Why do the multiplat games always look so darn crap on the PS3???
I actaully wanted this game to look awesome on both consoles
janrik
June 19, 2009 at 08:35
Very bad for the dev.
And it is such a fantastic game. Short, but awesome fun.
Ruslan
June 19, 2009 at 10:04
Lazy devs or lazy PS3. Take your pick. Valve refuse to develop games for the PS3 citing its complicated. I think there is more to it. Why on earth would Sony develop a console so hard to develop for? Oh, I forgot. Its Sony we are talking about. :biggrin:
Atomic
June 19, 2009 at 10:40
hahahahahaaa…
HaaaHAAAhahahaaahaaaaa!!!!!!!!
56%… that’s classic!
easy
June 19, 2009 at 11:14
maybe you can elaborate why its classic?
spl0it
June 19, 2009 at 11:25
Fact is that the PS3 is a bitch to program for, Middleware can only get you that far
eXp
June 19, 2009 at 11:46
PS3 might be hard to program for, but surely a texture is a texture. If the Ghostbusters version was laggy, you could blame that on the PS3 Coding Complexity but surely textures know no coding, they just know how to appear on screen (if that makes sense) ? :silly:
WitWolfyZA
June 19, 2009 at 12:00
right…. :wassat: lol
Ruslan
June 19, 2009 at 12:33
Its simple, if you have lots of RAM you can apply crispier and higher res textures. If you lack the RAM you apply crappy textures which the PS3 version got. Easy. 🙂
easy
June 19, 2009 at 13:54
true… but what about gt5p, msg4, cod4 and others manage?
there’s no excuse for the quality of the ps3 version.