Another Useless Article, Ghostbusters Fans Just Enjoy The Game.

Oh come on, look at the difference in texture quality on the walls ffs.

The 360 is much higher quality 720p or not/

And i've found out why.

If a game is written for 360, the way it handles textures etc is different from the way PS3 runs them.

And in making an engine that way, you harm the PS3 texture wise, Because of the bandwidth being misused.

I.E 360 when used correctly can have alot dedicated to texture throughput, but the same engine on PS3 runs just over half as what it should run at.

That's why the texture's were dumbed down.

To Darth Below.

Point is, PS3 code is stringent, has to be tightly coded, and the reason PS3-360 ports work so well is because of how good they are coded.

When it's 360-PS3, the reason it doesn't work is because 360 handles larger, sloppier code, and when ported to PS3, without using smaller chunks of data and throwing them on the SPU'S, it runs and looks worse. FEAR is the biggest example of this, and to an extent orange box as well.

Burnout/Res evil5/ are examples of good porting.

Either way, if you like the game, buy it for whatever system you have.

Excellent,we can finally come to a conclusion that the difference is merely in the contrast settings.

Lens of Truth was telling the truth the whole time sticking by their guns.

http://arstechnica.com/gami...

http://forum.beyond3d.com/s...

720p? sorry I played it at 1080p on PS3:) theirs something you can do to make the PS3 covet it to 1080p (Resistance 2 look beautiful in 1080p) how beautiful? I replay threw the game.

We apparently need 10 of these articles to make up for the bullshi-- that was spread as a result of the other articles, a pre release version with less resolution, either the Lens guys are f-ing up, or they are taking a beating just for the publicity---

gametrailers is biased with all there comparisons

For those of you that haven't seen the high resolution captures done by the guys at Beyond3d, this might change your mind:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/s...

Not to mention this quote from one of the main analysts:

"There is nothing wrong with MazingerDUDE's analysis of Ghostbusters. I mean, the difference is night and day and I have retail code for both. It's the worst cross-platform development I think I've seen in ages... like time-warping back to 2006."

Just get over the fact that the ball was dropped on this port and move on.

beyond3d

This is the guy that runs Digital Foundry. And I love this quote:

“There is nothing wrong with MazingerDUDE’s (the guy who uncovered the sub HD res) analysis of Ghostbusters. I mean, the difference is night and day and I have retail code for both. It’s the worst cross-platform development I think I’ve seen in ages… like time-warping back to 2006.”

Oh yeah about this too

you said
"that was spread as a result of the other articles, a pre release version with less resolution, either the Lens guys are f-ing up, or they are taking a beating just for the publicity---"

Really could you send me that link? Oh guess what there's no more proof cause they pull that thred! Cause they were lying.. The Lens of Truth was 100% the entire time!

Is it too much to ask, as a gamer, to have a source, or even 2, that is unbiased? I mean seriously, I find so little that fanboys agree on, why can there not be a site who is made up of ....oh i dont know....nerds that have integrity? Is it impossible--

oh well at least on N4G, Ghostbusters has gotten a LOT of publicity as a result, and doesnt Sony make money when 360 sells copies, (i seriously don't know but i figure they must make a little)

I dont plan on buying Ghostbusters btw, and my gamer sense is bummed when either side gets the shorter end of the stick, but why is there confusion about this non 720 rendered demo - versus a real 720p rendered demo, and are people reporting that the differences are still the same either way? it buh buh blows my mind

The only noticeable difference was brightness.

Crab you are correct, but your also incorrect, Brightness plays a part in any game.

The very early comparisons were so badly messed up, it was funny.

If a game is overly bright, it does infact make the textures look poor,washed out and lacking in detail.

No excuses for this game, purely a bad port.

when you can read something clearly on the 360 version.....and cant on the ps3 version....somethings wrong not the contrast or brightness .....its the game it self

What a bunch of fools. Oh well, this game is average at best. Its really short.

OKay so I have a question for the fanatics.

Is this the hardwares fault, or the developers fault?

Because if it's the hardwares fault, then please explain my current favorite game, Killzone 2 to me, and how the graphics don't look like that.
These devs were talking big, and they failed hard.

Edit: And about the video.

Ps3 version is much much lighter, and I personally don't like that.

u2 for calling me names -- but neither of you have done anything to explain the core problem with this whole thing----

Is the PS3 retail you and me version in 720p? Is it? Or is it the sub 540 res?

And if Lens of Truth used a sub 720 resolution game to compare-- you dont think everyone would be a little concerned?

So Zap (love the avatar) you are saying for sure that the retail PS3 is not in "real" 720p? Because I have heard that it is.

I only play graphics.

PS3 version is foggy and there is many tearings

Does it really matter if the 360 game looks a bit better than ps3 version? It proves nothing other than how the dev sucks at programming.

The 360 still hasn't produce a game that looks better than the killer ps3 exclusives like Gow3, UC2, and Killzone2. Not to mention that Alan Wake, the bot's last hope, looks mediocre facing up these titles.

Can anyone see the developers here are purely out of their depth. Lets all live with it as its very minor but shouldn't have happened. Anyhow, if Batman is any different and the 'Joker' exclusive hides the scaling or texturing in any way Sony should jusy give up ever supporting third parties, its silly as many developers have said both consoles produce almost on par results but both have slight strenghts and weaknesses to the architecture. Its always going to be like this but developers need to just come out and give the truth regardless of which console has a better version. If PS3 was the lead platform this company don't deserve to have work as MS have such good development tools that its lazy for them to even bother optimizing for the PS3 let alone xbox... Sony, kick them in the teeth and tell Phil where to go with Atari, lazy, purely lazy!

All this and everyones missing the point that in general this is a poor repetitive game with shoddy graphics on both consoles and it lasts for under 6 hrs. My advice, go watch the films.

First, the game is awesome, and not just for the fans, opps...sorry, it's awesome on the x360, and yes it is a terrible port, and anyone defending the PS3 version is a fanboy/nutjob, too bad cause no one should pay full retail for that hack job, and for those still defending....Bring a ruler, like the guy measuring bumpers in Forza3....lol

bring a ruler.

dropped the ball on this one. It will show in sales, better believe it. No ones fault but Sony's.

How can people say that the games look nearly the same when the devs of Ghostbusters admitted that the game is rendered at 75% of the resolution of the 360 version and 25% of the textures are reduced in size?

Guess this prover how reliable can be some Sony fanboys.
If they arrive to defend their console in such an evident case, guess where they can arrive in closer situations.

Read here the DEVS ADMISSION:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009...

"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 3 out of 4 textures as full size on the PS3."