Digital Extremes: Dark Sector PS3 wasn't running as well as Xbox 360 build |
Ó
According to Digital Extremes Producer Josh Austin, their team had a problem developing the PlayStation 3 version of the video game Dark Sector. The producer added that the same issues weren't encountered in the Xbox 360 build.
But before you guys start arguing which system is better and before PlayStation 3 owners get worried that they will get an inferior version, note that the issue had already been resolved.
Austin shared their experience:
So, yeah, this is the PS3 version, ummÂ… it looks just as good as the 360 version, which weÂ’re very happy about. Towards the end, we started having some serious conversations about what we were gonna do, uh, but we ended up pulling it off, so weÂ’re very proud of that.
Austin also revealed that they almost had the problematic version canned. When pressed for further details, Josh Austin simply added that the PS3 version "was just not running as well as the 360."
Dark Sector is due for release this coming March. Keep checking back here at QJ.NET for more details regarding the matter.
Buy: [Dark Sector (PS3)]
Buy: [Dark Sector (Xbox 360)]
Via Ripten
44 Jumps PSP Homebrew - PSPDisp v0.4
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
He doesnt sound too confident in his statement on the final result. The game is probably only worth a rental, if that.
Even though things are finally looking good for the PS3 I had almost a year collecting dust in my living room, it's still annoying to see how many titles aren't running as good as the 360.
What's bugging me is the PS3 was marketed as being almost double as powerful as the 360, yet a lot of developers say it's very complex too program for and the result is games running worse than on 360. That's quite different from the expectations that it was going to run much FASTER than the 360.
Anyways, I'm quite content now that blu-ray won the war, uncharted is out, home is almost done and a lot of good exclusives are coming out. Would be nice with better divx support, matroska support and ingame XMB as well.
of lousy developers who can't get games to work on the PS3. Insomniac among many others have proven that the machine is more than capable.
Lazy Devs need to stop complaining about how hard the PS3 is to program for. They would say the same thing about multi-core processors if the 360 was the only one that had it. \n
Programmers are lazy ( trust me, I know ) taking a programmer out of their box and making them learn something new is like taking a vampire outside at noon day.
of gamers complaining about 'lazy', 'lousy' developers. ;)
:)
I mean, all the others can do ps3 games but them? What did they learned at school? lol
Anyway, as long as it's resolved, I don't really care. After all, the game on ps3 should be the same as the x360 version now.
"What's bugging me is the PS3 was marketed as being almost double as powerful as the 360"
And yet the reality is that the two consoles are actually *very* similar in terms of power (with the PS3 perhaps having a slight edge overall). Therefore setting up some unrealistic expectations from certain gamers of what to expect from the PS3. :|
While I'm a Software Developer myself and can fully understand the problems that do beset anyone developing 'any' kind of software, I do tend to agree with 'CHUCKINGROCKS...' here: What is possible by one should be possible by the other. If one Software Developer (and not just one, have you seen the beauty of Software Development that is Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank and COD4?) has been able to develop properly on this platform, then others should be able to. You don't need to stand up for these developers just because people criticise areas where these people could do better. In Performance Appraisals, these criticisms are called "Areas for Improvement", although the language used by 'CHUCKING...' would never be used for such ;)
I meant "hush404", not "CHUCKINGROCKS..."
Every time this subject crops up, we always get the same 'lazy developer' comments, and yet no-one ever bothers to consider the size of the dev in question and the resources available to those devs!
The bigger the dev, i.e. the more resources are available to them (including man power, often with some of best programmers in the business), and so the more they can dedicate towards overcoming any hurdles. That is, bigger devs can often afford to dedicate FAR more programmers towards game developement than smaller devs, allowing them to solve the kind of problems which may cause a smaller dev to stumble.
Look at the devs who have achieved the best results so far on the PS3. :|
So I don't buy into the idea that if a dev has difficulty on the PS3 then the programmers are just lazy. There are many factors to consider, such as the size of the dev and the talent they have available to them.
I messed up my sentences there, but you know what I mean. :)
I don't think Insomniac and Ninja Theory are as big as you think, Yaz. I could be wrong, but I thought Insomniac were considered "indies", which would align them squarely with smaller companies.
As for the thing with resources and manpower, it's not just that man. I don't know what line of work you are in, but I do understand that the Budget for a Project, in terms of fiscal resources, analyst/designer/developer resources, and timelines is weighed against possible revenue, and that's where I think these Developers (by which I mean the Development Houses of course :)) are behaving a bit myopically by shortchanging the PS3 and giving comparatively more importance to the 360.
If any Developer is going to go the porting route, I think they would be more benefited by developing on the PS3 first, and then porting it to the 360, rather than the other way around. I leave you with this link with an analogy from an EA developer, which should shed some light on things:
http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic+639852+st+0#entry4210620+highlight+ m_hael
In case QJ happens to truncate the link, I've broken it up into THREE lines:
http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?
showtopic+639852+st+0
#entry4210620+highlight+ m_hael
Also, if you see '+' signs in the link, substitute with "equals" signs.
On the page that this link takes you to, search for "full power of a system is a entirely undefinable concept" and read that post.
Hopefully, this gives an idea of what I'm referring to.
Yaz, I agree with your current perspective, but I'd also have to argue once developers get more comfortable with multi-threading we're going to see the margins begin to widen in terms of performance.
I'd have to say the PS3s biggest drawback is its RSX capabilities, but that in processing potential it can run rings around the 360.
And now you've touched on more issues.
However, as a quick observation, whilst we can argue about the size and talent of devs like Insomniac and Ninja Theory, neither were working on multi-format games, they had the benefits of working exclusively on the PS3, which I think we can all agree offers advantages over multi-format developement. The same is true for Naughty Dog, and for COD4, Infinity Ward had two seperate teams working on both versions simultaneously (with the best programmers on the PS3 version according to them).
However I don't think it's really fair to expect all multi-format devs to have PS3 versions which match the results of console exclusive games on the console.
And yes, it's best for devs to lead on the PS3 version due to greater complexity of PS3 developement.
(Got to catch a train....)
Before I reply, listen to podcast 15 on Criterion's website.
http://www.criteriongames.com/podcast/archive/
(That's it, I'm off .... :))
"Got to catch a train"
Sure man! I work in a downtown metro area and commute by train everyday too, so I know how that works.
Looking fwd to continue this discussion.
ok yea this game better run well on the ps3.. it is either lazy, lousy, or just irresponsible development. insomniac is a small company, yet they won developer of the year 3 times in a row... this game should run well on ps3 if digital extreme optimizes the game for ps3.. they just need to put time into it.. make the game on ps3 first, then port it.. thats not only easier, but the results are really great. Yaz, dont say that we need to shut up because we're sick of getting half assed port jobs... they could run perfectly, but they don't because of the developers not taking the time
I've been around long enough to know what game development is like (I've beta tested lots of SCEA games, and directly saw their studios before and spoke with devs)
When a smaller, less-equipped team can make a PS3 game that runs really well and encounters no problems, and another larger team with more experience and resources fails to do so, there is no argument. The latter devs in that example are simply lazy. You can defend it all you want, but it's true. It's real and it's happening with the PS3.
You might be some 360 fanboy, I don't know, but if you are, there's no reason to troll and just bash anyone who tries to speak the truth or make a good point. I own all PS systems to date (besides the PSX [the media center, not the PS1] and the Pocketstation), and while I admit I may seem very fanboyish, I'm not really. The PS1 was my first system that I myself owned, and I've been loyal ever since.
The problem is that most devs will port the 360 straight to the PS3, because while both systems have 512mb of main memory, the 360 puts all of that into one big pile, which is apparently easier to work with. The PS3 splits it up into two parts of 256; 256 for main system memory and the other 256 for the RSX and it's shared components. The PS3 handles it's memory much like a PC.
This doesn't mean the 360 is better nor does it mean the PS3 is better at memory either. It just means they wouldn't have problems if they developed the PS3 versions from the ground up, like Infinity Ward for example. Just my 2 cents. I'm not gonna type out another novel so meh.
was sold, devs have had problems, here is an exapmle of that, the reason for xbox 360 being easier to dev for is simple, its windows OS, dev have had what 15 years to dev for xbox360 lol, maybe the ps3 should be based on linux, thats the easiest to dev for out of windows and mac anyway.
Way to much left over time at work my friend lol.
"When a smaller, less-equipped team can make a PS3 game that runs really well and encounters no problems, and another larger team with more experience and resources fails to do so, there is no argument. The latter devs in that example are simply lazy."
And again, there IS any arguement against that view. There are far more factors than that, and therefore just saying the devs/programmers are lazy is often unfair. Yes sometimes it may be justified, however I feel that accounts for the minority.
For a start, it's no point people comparing the PS3 achievements of 'smaller, less-equipped' teams working EXCLUSIVELY on the PS3 to those working on multiple formats, because that's not comparing like with like. Hence I often see people holding up exclusives like Heavenly Sword, R+C and Uncharted as examples of what devs should be achieving, when in fact they should be holding up games like COD4, and PS3 led titles like Burnout and DMC4 as examples of where the devs got it right for multi-format developement.
No, I'm not a 360 fanboy, I'm a 360 fan...AND a PS3 fan, because I'm a gaming fan (one who doesn't have as much time as he used to for gaming anymore :( ).
"It just means they wouldn't have problems if they developed the PS3 versions from the ground up"
Or if they lead on the PS3 and port to the 360. We all know that, but if only it was as simple as that for everyone. I'm sure more and more devs will lead on the PS3 as a result of their previous experiences, but then that makes the difficulties they experienced on the PS3 from leading on the 360 as being more of an error of judgement, or a choice they HAD to make at the time, rather than pure laziness.
;)
:)
I have to admit, I find your discussions on this matter to be quite refressing. No trolling or baised comments toward's one platform or another, just well thought out responses on the status of developer's capabilities on game creation.
Thanks Lifeline. :)
CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!!!!!!
Thanks Lifeline.
Yaz - As much as I want to continue yesterday's discussion, I have been hit with a 5h1tl0ad of deadlines pushing down on me, so I won't be able to go for long posts today :). Sorry man.
In as much that I current don't have enough time to give the kind of replies I would like to give (hence the hastily typed out responses so far :)).
Next time perhaps and in another topic. :)