EDGE - Platinum Games director Atsushi Inaba has called the PS3 conversion of Bayonetta, “our biggest failure”.
Cue the unneeded death threats!
well at least they admitted to their mistakes here and actually learned from it. They are more referring to the fact that they decided to Port the game to PS3 and say that they couldn't develop for the PS3, only after realizing that they should have learned
"They are more referring to the fact that they decided to Port the game to PS3 and say that they couldn't develop for the PS3" From the article, there is nothing to suggest that problems originated purely due to porting the game but the fact that they couldn't develop for the PS3 fullstop: "At the time we didn’t really know how to develop on PS3 all that well, and whether we could have done it… is irrelevant: we made the decision that we couldn’t. But looking back on the result, and especially what ended up being released to users, I regard that as our biggest failure.” It goes to show that developing for the PS3 presented itself as a stumbling block or significantly difficult (comparatively or otherwise) to put off Platinum Games amongst others. But its not just Platinum Games that have learnt their lesson, Sony have too and experiences like this will pay dividends in the next generation. At least Platinum games are admitting their shortcomings though. Other developers like DICE managed to overcome problems with the PS3 whilst simulatenously making the PC the lead platform. So it can be done as long as you don't prematurely resign to defeat.
@Septic "From the article, there is nothing to suggest that problems originated purely due to porting the game but the fact that they couldn't develop for the PS3 fullstop" Yeah... porting the game because they couldn't develop for PS3.... You know you aren't disagreeing with him, right?
Woow... people is already overreacting... Platinum Games is just saying/admiting it was THEIR mistake and not something that is wrong with the platform.
Finally started playing Bayonetta....wow, at first I was weirded out but after the first hour or 2. Wow, I'm very impressed. The combat is ridiculously good, THEN I started to get transformations, Seriously impressed they worked such a mechanic into the game so well(sprinting around as a wolf etc) Cannot wait for MG rising.
@Fred Ah fair enough- my apologies. I got confused there. The port was handled quite badly. I remember IGN had to do two separate reviews because of the disparity in quality of the two versions. You have to criticise their handling of the game for the PS3- I can't think of a multiplatform title that suffers like Bayonetta on the PS3 did. It isn't just Platinum games' biggest failure but one of the biggest failures as far as miltiplatform games are concerned. Still, at least lessons have been learnt.
Sony has never created a console that was easy to develop for. It has always taken a ton of effort from dev teams to create something great, and a lot of devs just don't have the manpower to do multi-platform releases. When Sony got word that Platinum games would be sending development to some poor sap team outside of Platinum, bells should have been ringing at Sony and they should have done something about it. That's just smart business. They could have provided better dev tools, and did what they did for the God of War 3 devs, and had them go talk to the Uncharted team or some other team with some experience working in PS3 to get things rolling.
The PSP and PS3 are both atrociously horrendous platforms to develop for. Just the non-graphics related API in the SDK is primitive and overly clunky requiring unnecessary reading of documentation and experimentation for EACH AND EVERY FUNCTION you want to call. It's nothing at all like the beautifully designed Win32 API for interacting with the system. I can't imagine how atrocious the graphics functions must be compared to DirectX. I've only developed applications and not games and still thought the API was crap.
Not many multi platform developers would blame the PS3 out if fear of reputation killing sustained backlash. This is the lesser of two evils(taking the blame) It is safer to give PS3 priority, struggling with its hardware with the time allowed and throwing the 360 version together in a after thought because 360 fans don't complain as much as Sony fans. Avoiding the advantages the 360 gives games altogether by default by leading in PS3 is the safest bet.
Don't be so naive because you know as well as I do that if every multi-platform game on the ps3 was always better in every way than the 360 counterpart, I'm sure 360 owners would be bitching and complaining about sloppy seconds equally as much, if not more. btw, I would Loooove to see a port of uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 on the 360, LOL! maybe the 360 will even improve those games graphically if the developers used it's "hardware advantages" as you stated....
I haven't done everything right in my career. I remember what I counted as the biggest failure in my career as well. I also remember what I did to atone for it and it didn't involve just talking about it but instead actually doing something that made a difference to those affected. Inaba should consider that before he opens his mouth again. Regret without action is meaningless.
Haha very good.
We all know for a fact Sony will make sure ps4 is a lot more developer friendly PG are at least admitting it but ts ok after the patch they released it was much better more smoother experience
Bah.Sony should have made the PS3 easier to develop for. They won't make the same mistake with the PS4 let's hope. Bayonetta developers should not blame themselves for having to waste extra money and resources to code on the unorthodox ps3 cell structure. Next gen(if Sony makes it there)will make a programmer friendly console and all the Sony fanboys will eat their words saying it was the way to go this gen with the ps3.
Worst failure is going exclusive. Third parties devs should never develop for a single platform imho
Sony needed to give out more training courses on "How your title could look and play like on PS3" With ports and Exclusives. That way developers wont even kid themselves with excuses, because a good port can be done well in the right hands. You know, all of those "The ps3 is too hard to developers for" excuse that a lot of third party developers used. Just saying something like that shouldnt be an excuse when others put hard work into their product.
It's nice that they realize it.
You mean by your refusal to even touch it? To let Saga do it? Somehow merely admitting such was a mistake doesn't sound like its enough. Should be, when considering that the game sold a bit better on the system, an actual apology. Edit: To expected disagrees; according to vgchartz the game did better on the PS3 globally. The US was the only exception, and even there the difference wasn't much.
They don't owe anyone an apology. They made what they thought was the best decision at the time, considering their current skill set, and it didn't work out. PS3 fans should be happy they received the game at all.
As a PS3 owner, I think I can safely say for many (but not all) that we would rather have a good and functional game than one that is bug riddled or a sloppy port. This goes for Bayonetta, or Skyrim, or any games like it. There is literally no point in giving anyone games that function poorly just for the sake of saying "at least you got the game." If the game is a chore to play, we don't want to play it. Either put some actual effort into making a good game, or don't release the game for the system. That simple. One thing is for certain, the PS3 did root out the talented, hard working developers from the ones who just like to coast their way through with familiar development tools.
@DragonKnight "one thing is for certain, the PS3 did root out the talented, hard working developers from the ones who just like to coast their way through with familiar development tools." I think that's the best sort of "concluding argument" for the PS3's difficult architecture I've ever heard or read very well said!
@torchic: Thanks, but I don't deserve the credit. I merely paraphrased something Ken Kutaragi said and was blasted for. Turns out he was right. The devs that put in the most effort to learn how to develop for the PS3 have also made the best games. The devs who whine about it have also made the most bug riddled games or passed off games to other developers who then did a terrible job. PS3 is difficult to develop for, true, but people can't grow in skill unless they are challenged. If development remained the same forever, we will definitely reach a plateau sooner than later.
yeah, they could keep it for all i care, im used to better games as a ps3 owner buff1044
@dragonknight wait, you're only talented if you can program on the PS3? That's sounds kinda stupid. Do you know any programming languages? Do you know what it's like to take all your standards and throw them out the window and start from scratch? It's not about talent, it's about knowing how to use the system. The talent is in the teams ability to even make a game...period!
@DragonKnight Holy shit DragonKnight? You actually believe that? You think developers should learn a completely new architecture, that provides no real advantage over familiar hardware, because some how that will make games better? Do you even have any knowledge of game development? Or do just look at Naughty dog and say "if they can do it why can't others also"? There's a reason Sony is ditching the Cell next generation, and going to use a a familiar architecture. As for a "plateau," umm what? Look at games for the original Xbox, games progressively looked better and better. Look at Halo this generation, from Halo 3 -> Reach -> Halo 4. Big improvement. Look at Elder Scrolls, Bad Company -> BF3. Bad developers develop bad games. Good developers develop good games. Naughtydog is backed by Sony, and literally has all the time in the world and tons of money & resources to create a good game. When you have to WASTE time, learning the architecture of a system, waste money, waste resources that could be put to use polishing the game, that only hurts development. But keep thinking "Companies should make the architecture more complicated, because then we get better results!"
@tordavis and lategamer: Get your panties out of a bunch. I didn't insult your child. First of all, explain to me where I said you're only talented if you can program on the PS3? I didn't. I specifically said PS3 rooted out the talented developers from the ones who just want to coast through with familiar tools. Talented developers work with what they are given and make the best possible experience they can and don't sit there making excuses and whining about "it's too hard to program for." Second, since when has progress benefited from familiarity. If it wasn't Sony, it would have been someone else, but sooner or later game development would change. Those who can adapt are the ones who would survive and remain relevant. Those who do nothing but whine will see their studios closed. I didn't mention any specific developers but here lategamer brings up Naughty Dog. Well I'm going to mention some third party developers who've shown their talent by creating amazing games for the PS3. You got devs like Rocksteady, Rockstar, Konami, those are just SOME third party developers who've made games like Batman Arkham City, Grand Theft Auto 4/Red Dead Redemption, Metal Gear Solid 4, some of the best games of this generation and some of the best looking games made by other third party developers. They didn't "waste time" learning the PS3, they rose to the challenge of it and showed what they can do. Sony is ditching the Cell are they? So you have actual proof of what's in the PS4 now? Do post a link with your official source so that we can all know what's in the PS4. If they are "ditching" it it's because of capitulation and possibly cost, not because "it's too hard" for developers. PS2 was "too hard" for developers too, and look how that turned out. But hey, if you're fine with developers never trying something different so they are prepared for any possible future eventuality, then have fun when the "graphics leap" is just a hop because you can't do more unless you change something in a significant way. Do you know the history of C++? You should look up the guy that created it and what he thought of it and people who used it around its creation. Might be quite enlightening to you.
@Dragonknight I didn't mean to sound angry, to be honest I read your comment and I just thought it was the biggest amount of bullshit I ever read. That's not surprising, Krazy Ken has said a lot of shit, I was in a state of disbelief. Look, maybe you could explain to me, how is developing a new architecture just for the hell of it, a good idea? I understand new techniques in game development i.e. different Anti-Aliasing methods (FXAA, MLAA), or something like Carmacks & iDs Tech5 (w/ it's Mega/Virtual-texturing). I mentioned Naughtydog becasue they are amazing. Ever since the PSX, they've been pushing out amazing look games. Crash, Jak, Uncharted, and now the Last of Us. It's funny you mention Rockstar and Rocksteady. Both RDR and GTA IV look and run better on 360. And I believe Batman does well (it uses the Unreal 3 Engine, and most games that use that look/are better on 360, even if by a slight margin). And yes, Koonami/Kojima Prod. did produce a great looking game with MGS4. However, there is no evidence the game wouldn't look as good, if the PS3 had a similar architecture to PC or Xbox. In fact, the new Fox Engine was built for multiplatform development, and Ground Zeros looks better than MGS4, a game built with only the PS3 in mind. Though, this could be due to other factors such as the fact that MGS4 came out in 2007?, and it is now 2012. As for PS4 ditching the Cell, there is no concrete evidence. But countless sites have posted rumors over the past year. Just do a quick google search. We'll have to wait to see what happens... And lastly, PS2. Yes, I know it was difficult to develop for. I believe PS1 and PS2 were also. Whats your point? The games? PS2 had so many games because it had majority marketshare. You want your game to sell, you should put it out on the PS2. Games on Gamecube and Xbox looked better, but thats also because they were more powerful in general. And because Xbox was so similar to PC in terms of architecture, more developers ported games to it. Doom 3, KOTOR, etc.
@lategamer: "Look, maybe you could explain to me, how is developing a new architecture just for the hell of it, a good idea?" New architecture has the potential to introduce new aspects to games. I thought that was obvious. I'll give you a radical example. Holodecks from Star Trek. Those are in an infancy period right now, but guaranteed they are difficult to work with. If people said "well creating holographic images is too hard" and didn't bother even trying to, we wouldn't even be capable of that time Will.I.Am was made into a hologram. The point of new architecture is to try new things, to give devs different ways of looking at things. Why should development stay the same and the only real improvements be small? Are we content to just have graphics and physics marginally improve? Or do we want someone to push the envelope and force new ideas into being? "I mentioned Naughtydog becasue they are amazing." And I didn't mention them because they are first party developers and it would weaken my statement to do so. First party developers will always have an edge over third party developers so there's not point in mentioning them. "Both RDR and GTA IV look and run better on 360. And I believe Batman does well." The 360 is irrelevant to the conversation because I'm not bashing the 360's architecture. My statement is that the PS3 showed the world which developers are willing to put in that extra effort to make spectacular games. The PS3 showed us which developers are willing to adapt, and which just want to stay in the same place in terms of development. I could cite 3rd party games that look better on the PS3 but the point isn't about which games look better, it's about which games run great on the PS3 and why. I'll give you an example. Let's look at PS3's version of Oblivion. It was ported by a different developer than Bethesda, a developer with no experience on the PS3 IIRC. Not only did Oblivion run better than Skyrim does on the PS3, but it looked better than the PS3 version as well for developers that have no prior experience with the console. Why would that be? "And yes, Koonami/Kojima Prod. did produce a great looking game with MGS4. However, there is no evidence the game wouldn't look as good, if the PS3 had a similar architecture to PC or Xbox." Again, irrelevant. The point isn't if the game would look better on PC or 360. The point is about effort. The developers who put real effort into PS3 games end up making the best games on the market whether they are exclusive or multiplat. They put effort into all the platforms and it shows. "But countless sites have posted rumors over the past year." I've seen them. The rumours are based on nothing. Pure speculation and opinion. Therefore until anything concrete and official is announced, no one should state with authority that they know that Cell is or is not going to be used in PS4. "And lastly, PS2. Yes, I know it was difficult to develop for. I believe PS1 and PS2 were also. Whats your point?" Again, effort. Marketshare can guarantee SOME sales but it can't guarantee a good reputation for quality games. That's what this is about. When you see games like MGS4 made for a "too difficult to develop for" console and it's an amazing game, you know that Konami are quality developers you can count on for good games. Anyone can make games with familiar architecture, but can anyone make games with unfamiliar architecture and have them be as amazing as MGS4?
They dont owe any apologies there , they made the game on a platform , their publisher decided to push through for another they werent ready to develop for and didnt develop for . If anything their best "apology" was delivering perfect versions of their later ps3 games , as seen with Vanquish . That's as silly as blaming Valve for the Orange box
And it doesn't speak well of the industry when a wrong choice is made, a game is underdeveloped in general or on certain platform, and an "apology" is given by offering another game. Basically asking the customer to take another chance when a mistake has already been made, or to get something which is different from what you bought before. Its limited defensive thinking. And I do blame Valve for the Orange Box. Just like I blame EA for Mass Effect 2 and 3, and Sega for Bayonetta. Even though they put the game on the PS3, it was their choice to originally make it 360-only at first, then multi after production was well under way. Once the public commitment was made to deliver the game to both systems at the same time, they had an obligation to deliver similar product. They failed and that failure was compounded by their flawed product selling better on the system they put less effort into. This was possibly reflected in how their next game sold because there was no level of trust to work on. Only a faint "trust us" and a title which was a different genre than the last. @Baka-akaB: "There is no tangible correlation between Vanquish and some backlash for Bayonetta on ps3" Then, at the very lest, it does not represent an apology. And if Platinum has no real responsibility for the PS3 version of Bayonetta, then they shouldn't be calling it "their" failure.
"Once the public commitment was made to deliver the game to both systems at the same time, they had an obligation to deliver similar product" And that's where i can't agree . Platinum didnt make any commitment as they never developped said version , Sega did . Valve insisted they wouldnt make said version , EA made such promises . If anything they can mostly or only be faulted for having a bad judgement and bad call for wich platform to use . As proven with the good sales of Bayo and orange box on ps3 . Such issues are more in line with the like of Bethesda and the cod involved studios . Knowing they can't deliver , be it their fault or the console's , yet lying through their teeth "Only a faint "trust us" and a title which was a different genre than the last. " Not really they demoed their ps3 build . The game was never going to be popular given its nature and lack of multi . There is no tangeible correlation between Vanquish and some backlash for Bayonetta on ps3
"@Then, at the very lest, it does not represent an apology." Of course not ... it was just me saying that . They did a stunning ps3 version of Vanquish because they were this time working on a ps3 version , and do stunning job everywhere , not because they owed some apology . "And if Platinum has no real responsibility for the PS3 version of Bayonetta, then they shouldn't be calling it "their" failure. " They dont , but it's still a game they created being badly ported somewhere (and selling better there) , it gotta sting a bit their ego .