The PS3 and multiplatform games, what's up with them?

[Cowabungaa]

Hello there fellow Escapees, I've got a little question for you.

I recently downloaded the Mafia 2 demo on the PS3 and loved it to bits. But a few hours ago I downloaded the same demo for the the PC (note: my PC is quite the fumbled together wreck) and was just startled by the difference.

I know console games usually lack anti-aliasing, so I turned that off in the PC demo as well, but it still looked míles better than the PS3 version. Colours were fuller, the framerate was smoother, it was pretty much plain better.

I noticed this with Red Dead Redemption too. While I can't compare it with the 360 version, the PS3 version suffers from plenty of framerate issues. Horses in the distance move like they're wooden puppets, it looks plain awful. And quite some time ago I heard about Bayonetta suffering from similar issues on the PS3.

Now I wonder; why is this? I remember hearing an explanation about how developers aren't very used to the PS3's rather unique architecture, but the console is nearing it's 4th birthday. Can't say it's still brand-spanking new and alien.

So why is this still happening?

 

[gardyna]

hmm i heard somehvere that the ps3 handles it´s graphics both through the graphic chip and a procecor wich is diffrent from other consoles and the pc (i´m not sure on this but i heard it from a freind) or something about how the ps3 works diffrently than the other consoles again i´m not sure just my speculations

about bayoneta the game looked realy realy good and i never noticed the infamous framerate issues(i did the optional download from disk)

i have watched a lot of pc/ps3/360 comparison videos and everytime i just can´t see enough difrence i graphics so that it makes a difrence to me

 

[Juk3n]

when dealing with x360 and ps3 crossplatform launches, you gotta take 1 key thing into consideration.

The games are developed primarily on the WEAKER system, where it uses the WEAKER system to it's fullest extent, and then it is ported to the more powerful system. Why? for obvious reasons, it's easy to port up, then to port down. And companies don't spend the money or take the time to OPTIMIZE the game to the new system, all they do is make sure it runs and BAM, straite to print. All the polish went on optimizing it for the weaker system. Notice how PS3 exclusive titles look quite abit better than 360 exclusives. Thats becuase when companies are developing soley for the ps3 they have a lot more to work with, alot more space and a bit more power.

If we ever see a port of Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 to the 360 you can bet your ass they wont look as good. Sad really, big companies should take a little more pride in their porting, making sure to get the most out of every platform they release on. Especially with the budget for the AAA titles.

 

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

when dealing with x360 and ps3 crossplatform launches, you gotta take 1 key thing into consideration.

The games are developed primarily on the WEAKER system, where it uses the WEAKER system to it's fullest extent, and then it is ported to the more powerful system. Why? for obvious reasons, it's easy to port up, then to port down. Notice how PS3 exclusive titles look quite abit better than 360 exclusives. Thats becuase when compan ies are developing soley for the ps3 they have a lot more to work with, alot more space and a bit more power.

If we ever see a port of Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 to the 360 you can bet your ass they wont look as good.

What this guy said.
You get a complementary song.

 

[TPiddy]

It's because developers who make multi-platform games can't afford to tailor their code to the PS3 to get it work well with the architecture. They would have to hire multiple dev teams to optimize the code for each platform. 360 and PC are relatively interchangeable so that appeals to devs who want to save money, and then they need to decide whether the extra effort is worth it to get more sales on PS3. Most don't and you just get a port.

 

[TimeLord]

snip

I'll pay you any amount of money right now if you don't sing!

 

[Delusibeta]

I would imagine that it's due to the fact that Microsoft owns DirectX. Mafia 1 was primarily a PC game (apparently the PS2 port was a shambles), and as I understand that the PC version of the Mafia 2 demo is *slightly* superior to the 360 version (ignoring PhysX, where the PC romps away, but only if you have a meaty enough graphics card).

 

[Royta]

As stated before, it's mostly because nearly every game made today (that is ment to be used crossplatform) is going to be made for the xbox360.
Because it is graphically the weaker system compared to the PS3. A fullpowered Xbox game can be ported to the PS3 by simply throwing the 'port to ps3' switch (well not THAT easy).
But if a PS3 game were to be ported to a Xbox360 one would have to adjust the graphical power, the amounts of detail and maybe even have more then one disc since the game was made with the capacity of the Blue Ray in mind (such as FFXIII).

Now the reason why PS3 games get the shaft. Porting, and with that I mean porting well, is hard. Each system has different hard and software to make things happen. Some games turn out good because ports are done well (Resident Evil 5, Street Fighter etc).
Some ports are done very quickly and aren't adjusted to the PS3 well enough. Think Bayonetta. This caused insane loading times since it used a xbox way of thinking in a ps3, which just doesn't work.
It's like asking a Dutch guy to get you a cup of coffie while you ask it in Hungarian. It takes a bit longer.

Most of the above I learned from reading other comments btw, so bare with me. There's an insane technical level above all this that I will never understand.

So yeah, the biggest reason 'this' is still happening is lazy dev.teams that are so glad they finally finished their game. They just want to get it over with, do a quick 5 minute port to the PS3 for an extra buck and off to Wendy's.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

It's all about optimisation. It's obvious that the PlayStation isn't the problem, as Uncharted 2 looks brilliant, (as good as any xbox game I've played.) I think it's got something to do with how the pipeline system is so different, that developers don't utilize it properly, thus having to reduce the quality of the game, instead of improving the quality of the optimisation.

 

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

snip

I'll pay you any amount of money right now if you don't sing!

Can't beat my, can't beat my, no one can beat a my gamer rage!
I don't want to be a noobie!

 

[jamesworkshop]

Hello there fellow Escapees, I've got a little question for you.

I recently downloaded the Mafia 2 demo on the PS3 and loved it to bits. But a few hours ago I downloaded the same demo for the the PC (note: my PC is quite the fumbled together wreck) and was just startled by the difference.

I know console games usually lack anti-aliasing, so I turned that off in the PC demo as well, but it still looked míles better than the PS3 version. Colours were fuller, the framerate was smoother, it was pretty much plain better.

I noticed this with Red Dead Redemption too. While I can't compare it with the 360 version, the PS3 version suffers from plenty of framerate issues. Horses in the distance move like they're wooden puppets, it looks plain awful. And quite some time ago I heard about Bayonetta suffering from similar issues on the PS3.

Now I wonder; why is this? I remember hearing an explanation about how developers aren't very used to the PS3's rather unique architecture, but the console is nearing it's 4th birthday. Can't say it's still brand-spanking new and alien.

So why is this still happening?

The problem is that the PS3 uses an asymetric processor consisting of one central processor and 7SPE (one is locked as it is used for copy protection) to do most of the work the CPU and SPE both use different code paths and shaders unlike the 360 and PC processors that have less cores (360 has 3 and PC has 2-4) but each core uses the same code path.

The PS3 is not easy to work with because the type of code needed doesn't run anywhere else it's not soo much a question of difficulty but the fact that developers have tight deadlines and simply don't have the time to maxmise for the system.

Uncharted is not possible on the 360 because the PS3 has far more power available but if it had been created for both, the 360 would have likly been the better system since developers don't have the time to program two individual code paths they will create the 360 version because its faster to do so and then simply rewrite as little code as possible to fit it into a PS3 version.

PC versions often benefit since even a low end system will have 4 times the amount of system memory 512mb vs 2Gb and on top of that 512mb of videoram directly on the graphics chip which due to larger case sizes are clocked at much higher frequencies since temperature is not as big a concern, graphics card in laptops even sharing the same name as a desktop componet are massivly underclocked too avoid heat.

PC Games store Data on hardrives which have far greater data speeds than the 2x bluray drive in the PS3 (the 360 also tends to be faster).

PC versions require little specialised programming because you do not access the hardware directly but instead work with windows API's like DirectX, it is no harder to program a Directx 9.0c game on a 6800, 7900, 8800, 9800, 260, 480 graphics card they vary wildly in power but all understand the same language.

The PC and PS3 are nearly the complete oposite enviroments the PS3 likes specific code to maximise performance whereas the PC likes due to massively fluctuating hardware setups use an interpreter like directX to talk to the hardware for them.

PS3 is difficult but is extremly effecient in its use of power

PC is simpler but is an extremly ineffecient platfrom both in coding and having between 20 to 40 programs other than your game fighting over the same system resources.

PS3 punishes lazy programmers, PC programmers are quite lazy because performance is not a function of well optimised code but a continually evolving hardware race.

The PC enviroment solves everything with brute force spending 18 months rewriting code is a waste when in that time graphics cards are going to be twice as fast then when you started.

 

[Tattaglia]

Hello there fellow Escapees, I've got a little question for you.

I recently downloaded the Mafia 2 demo on the PS3 and loved it to bits. But a few hours ago I downloaded the same demo for the the PC (note: my PC is quite the fumbled together wreck) and was just startled by the difference.

I know console games usually lack anti-aliasing, so I turned that off in the PC demo as well, but it still looked míles better than the PS3 version. Colours were fuller, the framerate was smoother, it was pretty much plain better.

I noticed this with Red Dead Redemption too. While I can't compare it with the 360 version, the PS3 version suffers from plenty of framerate issues. Horses in the distance move like they're wooden puppets, it looks plain awful. And quite some time ago I heard about Bayonetta suffering from similar issues on the PS3.

Now I wonder; why is this? I remember hearing an explanation about how developers aren't very used to the PS3's rather unique architecture, but the console is nearing it's 4th birthday. Can't say it's still brand-spanking new and alien.

So why is this still happening?

The problem is that the PS3 uses an asymetric processor consisting of one central processor and 7SPE (one is locked as it is used for copy protection) to do most of the work the CPU and SPE both use different code paths and shaders unlike the 360 and PC processors that have less cores (360 has 3 and PC has 2-4) but each core uses the same code path.

The PS3 is not easy to work with because the type of code needed doesn't run anywhere else it's not soo much a question of difficulty but the fact that developers have tight deadlines and simply don't have the time to maxmise for the system.

Uncharted is not possible on the 360 because the PS3 has far more power available but if it had been created for both, the 360 would have likly been the better system since developers don't have the time to program two individual code paths they will create the 360 version because its faster to do so and then simply rewrite as little code as possible to fit it into a PS3 version.

PC versions often benefit since even a low end system will have 4 times the amount of system memory 512mb vs 2Gb and on top of that 512mb of videoram directly on the graphics chip which due to larger case sizes are clocked at much higher frequencies since temperature is not as big a concern, graphics card in laptops even sharing the same name as a desktop componet are massivly underclocked too avoid heat.

PC Games store Data on hardrives which have far greater data speeds than the 2x bluray drive in the PS3 (the 360 also tends to be faster).

PC versions require little specialised programming because you do not access the hardware directly but instead work with windows API's like DirectX, it is no harder to program a Directx 9.0c game on a 6800, 7900, 8800, 9800, 260, 480 graphics card they vary wildly in power but all understand the same language.

The PC and PS3 are nearly the complete oposite enviroments the PS3 likes specific code to maximise performance whereas the PC likes due to massively fluctuating hardware setups use an interpreter like directX to talk to the hardware for them.

PS3 is difficult but is extremly effecient in its use of power

PC is simpler but is an extremly ineffecient platfrom both in coding and having between 20 to 40 programs other than your game fighting over the same system resources.

PS3 punishes lazy programmers, PC programmers are quite lazy because performance is not a function of well optimised code but a continually evolving hardware race.

The PC enviroment solves everything with brute force spending 18 months rewriting code is a waste when in that time graphics cards are going to be twice as fast then when you started.

Hey, I didn't know any of that. Great post. +5 Wacky Points (WP) to you.

 

[Frapple]

Few generalisations I've noticed;

PS3 suffers from terrible AF [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropic_filtering] compared to the 360 counter-parts.

Both consoles suffer from terrible resolution (540 native for some games) terrible AA, AF, Draw Distance, Field of View, loading times, player base, price, texture quality, longevity, multi-player features...

...ok I'll stop.

Can't wait for the next gen, I've been spoilt by PC goodness.

 

[Casual Shinji]

All that I noticed about the PS3 demo of Mafia 2 was that the controls were absolute shit.

But that's most likely the fault of the game itself.

 

[slipknot4]

I can't say that I've seen any difference. But then, I am way to buzzy playing the damn things to notice stuff like that.

 

[migo]

when dealing with x360 and ps3 crossplatform launches, you gotta take 1 key thing into consideration.

The games are developed primarily on the WEAKER system, where it uses the WEAKER system to it's fullest extent, and then it is ported to the more powerful system. Why? for obvious reasons, it's easy to port up, then to port down. And companies don't spend the money or take the time to OPTIMIZE the game to the new system, all they do is make sure it runs and BAM, straite to print. All the polish went on optimizing it for the weaker system. Notice how PS3 exclusive titles look quite abit better than 360 exclusives. Thats becuase when companies are developing soley for the ps3 they have a lot more to work with, alot more space and a bit more power.

If we ever see a port of Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 to the 360 you can bet your ass they wont look as good. Sad really, big companies should take a little more pride in their porting, making sure to get the most out of every platform they release on. Especially with the budget for the AAA titles.

This isn't the case at all. It's an undeniable fact that the 360 has a better graphics chip, so you can just force out good images with it, while the PS3 requires a lot of work, like making use of the storage offered by Blu-Ray to use uncompressed textures, and bringing in some of the SPEs to handle certain portions of the graphics.

It's the PS3 that always require the optimisation, so by that standard it's the weaker system. If your notion that games are developed for the weaker system first were true, the PS3 would be the lead development platform.

The reason the 360 gets lead development, or used to anyway, was because it was out first, so they were simply developing for it anyway, and kept on with it for a while. Now though, PS3 and 360 have simultaneous development.

As for the OP: You're halfway through a console's lifespan. When the PS1 launched 33MHz was rather standard for PCs, maybe 50MHz or 66MHz at the top. By 1998 you had 300MHz systems that could emulate the PS1. It was pretty similar for the PS2, although it hasn't been emulated yet. You're 5 years into the life of a console, any current PC will always look better, but if you try throwing together a $300 PC it won't even come close.

 

[Juk3n]

^ no you're wrong, on all counts, the ps3 is not the weaker system, the 360 is. This isnt about getting butthurt, its cold hard facts.

The cross platform games are OPTIMIZED for the 360 and PORTED to the ps3 WITHOUT being optimized for it. This is obvious. Do you tink MW2 on the ps3 blue ray used up all the space available? NO. If it was a ps3 exclusive would it have looked much better, had more space for more texture/lighting and other graphical enhancements? Yes. Are you really debating this? With a straite face?

 

[Juk3n]

Programing for the PS3 is different than programming for the PC and Xbox 360, and therefore most games are made for the PC or Xbox 360 first, and then ported over to the PS3. The games aren't optimized to run on the PS3, and therefore don't look as good as if they had been optimized.

That's the reason I pretty much only by PS3 exclusives on the PS3. Everything else runs just as good or better on the PC or Xbox 360.

you sir, get it. Good man!

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Programing for the PS3 is different than programming for the PC and Xbox 360, and therefore most games are made for the PC or Xbox 360 first, and then ported over to the PS3. The games aren't optimized to run on the PS3, and therefore don't look as good as if they had been optimized.

That's the reason I pretty much only by PS3 exclusives on the PS3. Everything else runs just as good or better on the PC or Xbox 360.

This. Plus I prefer the controller, but still. It's kinda sad to see so few companies working to understand the PS3 all that well (that's why companies like Sucker Punch and Naughty Dog tend to shine), but I understand the logic when it comes to developing games across multiple platforms.