Gameplayer has now gone live with their review of SKATE 2 and have revealed a major discrepancy in the frame-rates between the PS3 version and the Xbox 360.
Strange, demos didnt show this problem up. At least not to me. If this is accurate hopefully the devs address the problem.
what the hell, the ps3 was the lead platform specifically to address the complaints about performance difference in the first skate. bloomin' hell, i was definitely keen on playing skate 2 on my ps3 but poor frame rate is such a pet peeve of mine... :( ps. if its true its out really soon so might not be fixable
Probably has to do with the PS3's hardware being superior. Luckily, I will be playing the superior version on the 'inferior' 360.
You really don't like those bubbles do you Jenzo. I wouldn't blame the PS3 hardware, to even imply it (sarcastically or not) is silly.
Its the game engine you dousche It has nothing to do with the hardware. Why even slap that fanboy sh*t on EVERYTHING?
How many sloppy glitchy games can EA put out and still people will buy them? The day EA can put something out at the same level of KZ2, I'll start to THINK about purchasing their games again.
this is not apparent with the PSN DEMO. It runs a lot more smoother than COD4. 60fps or slightly less is still a treat far beyond 30fps.
Yes! It must be the engine! Since the PS3 was used as the lead platform during development that explains everything! Here is the equation to explain it further: Superior PS3 hardware + lead platform = inferior version Inferior 360 hardware + not lead platform = superior version @Karum - "I wouldn't blame the PS3 hardware, to even imply it (sarcastically or not) is silly" And not being able to relax for just one second to enjoy a joke is pathetic =)
Glad I'll be buying the 360 version.
Unacceptable at this day and age.
if this is true at all (you can never tell with so many fanboys online nowadays) then it must be inefficiencies in the rendering pipeline. If one even exists that is, cause if they are still running code solely on the PPU and RSX then this game was a huge waste of time. Someone who says the PS3 is a less developer friendly platform would not be lying, however the PS3 is not a platform for mediocre developers.
because IGN which is a much more reputable review site did not address this issue on the PS3... Actually both the 360 and PS3 got the same score. Anyone who actually played the PS3 demo also would have not noticed any frame rate hitches. So if some site is going to write this up they need to prove it. Otherwise I think all the sites that have reviewed this game saying there are no differences in the 360 and PS3 version are correct.
Had terrible frame-rate issues for the PS3 version which was by the same developer. If you click through the review they have more on it. Apparently Black Box have claimed to have fixed it, but the site says this is not unusual and that they can only go off the review code given to them. I am not sure when the game goes on sale, but we'll all know for sure shortly.
they don't gimp on their games to make them run smoothly on teh cell
Dark Sniper can boldly state that these rumors are false. Skate 2 runs at a buttery smooth 60 frames per second. All of which is possible because it's developed on PLAYSTATION®3. With it's critically and commercially acclaimed features and under the hood superiority, it's clear that Skate 2 will not have it's definitive version on PS3 but will also sell more copies. As EA has proclaimed earlier, PLAYSTATION®3 is their cash crop for sales. Xbox 360 is a mere afterthought when it comes to develop multiplatform titles. The only reason why games are even being developed for Xbox 360 is the same reason why games are developed for PS2 and Wii, to rake in any extra cash for those willing to buy for the platform. If you want the true next generation version of Skate 2, you will need to play b3yond and buy yourself a PLAYSTATION®3. $niper
i'll just play the better version as usual on 360. ps3- left b3hind!!
Well looks like the PS3 being the lead platform really made a difference huh sniper??
Noticed it in the demo... Im getting this on 360 :-) great game on both consoles... PS3's controller has more swing space for the 360 flips etc though which is neat
Have you even got a PS3 ?
There were no problems in the demo. Not sure what the op was playing...
You are right - there is no problem - until you put both versions side by side and that's when you notice how much smoother the 360 version is.
I noticed that there was slow down on the PS3 version, only played for about 1 min. havent played the 360 version.. Not buying it anyway, not my type of game.
Didn't find those problems with the demo, so dunno. But nothing new, from EA it's been like this for almost al their games, so no surprises (just 2 days ago i was saying "great, EA redeemed itself" after trying the demo)
I've heard good things about Skate anyway.
You stopped buying Skate games? there is only two.
He said "skating games", not just Skate. Besides, Tony Hawk sucks now.
interesting that your refusal to buy skateboarding games coincides with the fact that the PS3 is too weak to run the premier skating game successfully. Alas, such sacrifices must the PS3 owner make for only paying in excess of $400 for a gaming system. you should have splurged on a 360.
This isn't necessarily a problem with the PS3, per se, but obviously it's not the only game to suffer framerate issues on that console that weren't present on the 360. Now, it's easy to blame the developers for all this and say they're "Lazy" or whatever, but I mean, that's a lot of games with lower framerates, what gives? Yeah, the hardware inside a PS3 is pretty damn powerful, but it's not easy to use. It doesn't matter how powerful it is, if you can't unlock that power easily, it's going to go to waste, isn't it? At least with the 360, it's supposedly easy to develop for, so you can spend a little more time optimising to make things run a bit better. This is why I keep saying that the 360 and PS3 are quite similar in terms of power in the end, it's hard to get the potential power out of the PS3, yet relatively easy to get the most out of the 360, in the end it balances. Now before you click the "disagree" button because you genuinely believe the PS3 is some sort of supercomputer, please note that I am not undermining it's power at all (In fact, I have stated that it IS very powerful), nor am I showing favour to the 360, what I am trying to say is that in the end, both consoles are more equal than some people let on. Sure, there's always going to be the odd game that really does show off what a console can do (Come on, there's PS2 games that wouldn't look out of place in this generation), but at the end of the day, the majority of games are multi-platform and the majority of games run about the same on both the PS3 and the 360. That concept is not hard to grasp, so for the love of God, stop defending your console of choice so much (This is directed towards everyone).
So it's possible something went wrong with Black Box's game engine, or some key programmers left early on. We're already two years in the PS3's life cycle, and there's no excuse for this stuff to be happening.
Games programmed with the PS3 hardware in mind - AKA PS3 exclusives are going to look better and have better frame rates. When a dev makes a mulitplatform game - there is no incentive to make the game better on one console. They try their best to make it even. Devs have learned that leading with the PS3 will yield the best results due to a port from the 360 to the PS3 will cause frame rate issues amongst other bugs. It isnt a lazy dev per say - maybe a less skilled dev to program for the cell. Who knows, but most devs have gotten past this issue. It should be a thing of the past.
Yeah but wasn't the PS3 the lead platform for this game as well? Their engine definitely needs more work on the PS3 front, but for one reason or another, they've decided not to. And when you design a game for ONE specific platform, it will always be better than a multi-platform title. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to make the same game on another platform that's just as good, it just means you can focus on that one platform.
Here's their incentive. Make a game that runs properly and people will buy it. Keep making shoddy ports and people will stop buying games from your development studio. Then the media will blame the PS3 install base, rather than the dev studio that can't code right on the console. How issues like this get through QA, even for review code is shocking and there is no excuse for it.
Karum - ABSOLUTELY. My point was there is no incentive to make the game look better on a PS3 - They aim for equal graphics, but sometimes end up with worse because the devs dont know what they are doing.
i just dont understand why they couldnt make it work. wouldnt they make sure its running at a good speed on ps3 before starting on the 360 port? i seriously wanna know what causes these problems because i plan on trying to get into the industry if i run into problems like this, i wanna know how to address it.
Sony bought their graphics card at bargain basement discount prices. The Ram set-up for the PS3 is a clusterf^ck. Throw in an el-cheapo CPU and you have the PStriple. how's Home working out for you anyway? meet any dudes pretending to be chicks?
I think it's a combination of bluerays slower read speeds and a different Ram configuration (2 sticks of 256mb vs 360's 1 512mb stick). I think these to things make it harder for devs to get their games running on the ps3 aswell as they do on the 360. (also the the 360's gpu is slighlty more poweful) As just about every other ps3 fanboy out there has already said, Ps3 exclusives will always outperform multliplats and 360 exclusives because Teh C3ll (lol) blue campacity, the fact that 256mb of the ps3 total 512mb of ram is xdr (witch is faster) and because all ps3 have HDD's which allows games to have installs. Basically to sum it up > blueray is a advantage and a disadvantage > gpu's are almost on par > Ps3 has superior cpu > Hdd's are a advantage > Ram is arguable > I here talk of the cache but i don't really know
6.0 @ Kushan!! I don't normally go to the trouble of replying to much on here due to all the kiddie fanboy unintelligent missinformed rubbish but you are spot on my friend. Both machines are more similar than fanboys would want to confess. Both have strengths, both have flaws. Some can get the best out of them but it takes time and money. Devs who make cross format want the quickest and simplest method to market and that is the 360. This may mean that SOME PS3 x platform titles suffer. I said some SDF! The evidence of this has been clear to see for well over a year. I have all 3 machines this gen yet my personal choice is my two 360's. I think its so good I bought one for upstairs not because of RROD! It's not that my PS3 isn't impressive - it is kind of, its just that I think the 360 is a more complete package and the PS3 isn't the blow everything away piece of kit the PS2 and the PSX was before it, and not as good as Sony had us believe before they launched. Sony have dropped the ball a little bit this gen but MS have also upped their proposition coupled with some fine titles and aggressive price points and marketing. Live also is one hell of a USP. We all have to remember that the proof of the pudding isn't just the hardware design (look at the Wii). It's about the complete package. Innovative ideas, great games, good prices and features and strong marketing. Nintendo and MS have done this bit well. Sony are getting there but should have come out of the blocks fighting when they launched. Now before I get all the pelters please remember this is just my opinion guys. I happen to agree with my sensible friend Kushan. I played Batman the movie on WinUAE the other day and we have come soooooo far. I realised that we are a lucky bunch this gen with such awsome consoles and games. It's never been this good and will only get better. Remember this fanboys the next time you start to write your next anti Sony/MS rant. It's all gravy!
The Skate 2 demo felt sort of half-baked. On one hand, the skating has definitely improved a bit. But the on-foot controls were no better than Tomb Raider PS1 (i.e. CRAP). Graphics were pretty cruddy too.
yeah the on-foot controls felt like controlling a tank! graphics look good though... i disagree with you there
really? the demo looked buttery smooth on PS3... but that could be because i hardly ever notice slowdown save for when it's really severe
Here's what Sony should have done with the PS3: Not invested in the Cell; use the money saved to put a much better graphics card and a CPU with a simpler architecture in the PS3. No multiplatform title would have been inferior. They would all run pretty much perfectly well. We could also have had graphical powerhouses like Killzone 2 from the start, rather than only getting those kind of games later on and with massive amounts of effort and money poured in. Forced games to be on DVDs, but still include the Blu-ray drive - sure, there would be a couple of games that came on multiple disks, but most games WOULDN'T be and, furthermore, due to the simpler CPU and improved graphics card they would not necessarily require installs. This gives them the option to take the drive out in later SKUs to lower the cost, whilst still enabling Blu-ray's market penetration. Designed the features from the start that they wanted to include. If they wanted to include Home game launching, game invites or a party system, they should have made an API that enabled these features for later on, and made the API compulsory for all games. Dropped all development work on Home and related projects - even if you love Home, I think most people can agree that, given the option between an endlessly delayed Home that's still in beta, or 3-4 games out RIGHT NOW, you'd choose the games. Especially if they looked as promising as 8 Days or The Getaway.
They should of just made it an xbox 360 - Right?? Sony always pushes the new technology. You take that away and it is just not sony.
No, no no no. You misunderstand me. By putting a MORE POWERFUL graphics card in the PS3, and ditching the Cell in favour of an easier-to-use processor, but still spending the same amount of money on those components, it would have been more powerful than the 360, yet we would have seen those benefits straight away rather than 2 years or more down the line. By forcing GAMES to be on DVDs, but still having a COMPULSORY blu-ray drive, blu-ray would still have won the format war. MS's mistake was to include it as an add-on - I was simply saying they could remove it if they needed to to bring the price down at some stage. But initally, all PS3s would have a blu-ray drive. My third point, yes, this is like the 360. But there's no way you would say they SHOULDN'T plan for upcoming features. Take in-game XMB. Sure, it was released as an update, but my is it slow. Game launching is only supported when games are patched - this is something they could have anticipated. My fourth point is unrelated to the 360 and is just having a jab at the WASTE that is Home. I was looking forward to The Getaway. Home sucks.
What pennywise is hinting at is, SONY does not stay stagnant. They do not go with the comfort zone, they are always reaching towards innovation. Im glad they didnt stick with DVD.
I like Bluray for games. Every generation of consoles(for the most part) has issued a new Media format for storage. Games evolve and get bigger... the disc they are on has to grow too. DVD is not the answer.
Well if your issue is with my suggestion that they should have used DVD for games, I hope you're enjoying all those games that require blu-ray disks like errr.... ummmm..... There are NO games currently that require a blu-ray disk. MGS4? Please. MGS4 could happily fit on 5 DVDs (or fewer), without compression, and run on the PS3. I'm not making any claims about the 360's hardware, I'm just saying each act could happily fit on a single DVD9. There are many games that use slightly upwards of 8GB. These could be compressed, put on more disks, or have the extra features put on a seperate disk or even use better compression techniques for the video - it wouldn't hurt the quality. Name one single game that wouldn't be able to fit on DVDs and I'll take back my comment. Every game THUS FAR RELEASED could fit on a reasonable number of DVDs.
Thor, if you think that having multiple discs for games is OKAY... you are nuts. To each their own, I suppose... but let me know when you start working for a console mfg. I will be sure to stay away.
"They should of just made it an xbox 360 - Right?? Sony always pushes the new technology. You take that away and it is just not sony. " No, Sony is good at being cheap. Tony Hawk looked and ran 100% better on the original Xbox also. The PS2 was hardly cutting edge. Technically speaking, the Xbox and Gamecube were superior. It's the same with the PS3 only Sony bought into a philosophy of repeating a lie one thousand times to make it true and a lot of people buy into it. Suckers. The PS3 is the same old Sony story....crappy technology, lots of lies, and broken promises.
what you said abot the blueray drive and dvds makes no sence unless you meant include two drives
You really are wasting alot of time and effort to make it sound like you don't have a clue what you are talking about, or that you are delusional. Why didn't you just type "I don't have a clue what I am talking about"? that would have suffice. Do you honestly think that if Sony went your route that a game liek Killzone 2 would have been possible right away, or even ever possible on that hardware? if so then how come the 360, after having been out 3 years, have nothing even close to comparing to Killzone 2? Hmmm. There are no games that require bluray disc? Just put it on 6 dvds? WTF kind of logic is that? Why compress when you don't have to too? You are suggesting that Sony just remain stagnant or even go backwards in tech just to stay competitive. If all the companies did this we would still be playing with Atari games with sprites. Come on now and use some real logic here.
stupid American journalists bashing PS3 again, oh wait... nevermind
Stop thinking all these journalists are bashing the PS3, maybe they're just reporting the facts, did the reports stop with the rrod news? no but no the ps3 must be perfect and can have no flaws? yeah right
It's gameplayer.com.au! I'm not saying all ozzie gaming journos are biased, but gameplayer.com.au are. I wouldn't trust a word written on that site about the PS3. They've been pushing the 360 since it launched. Check out their site for previous articles should you doubt me.
@prunchess and everyone else Can someone point me a websites that is not bias, that is neutral? Because judging by n4g standards, they dont exist.
What a surprise! An EA game that runs and plays like crap, good thing I could careless about this or any other EA game at the moment. I was actually amazed at how good Dead Space was & played seeing it was a EA game. I personally hate EA because of the watered down, under performing crap they release as a complete finished game.
So far for the 'superior' PS3 hardware. The cell is great for calculating how far Mars is from planet Earth. Its great for streaming video. Its a nice BluRay player. For gaming, the 360 remains the best choice, simple as that. 95% of all multiplatform games run best on the 360. "There are some serious frame-rate concerns with the PS3 version of the game. We tested both the Xbox 360 and PS3 review code, even taking our rider in each version to the same spot in the world and switching the input on the TV back-and-forth to ensure it wasn’t some weird pre- and post-coffee phenomenon. But by comparison, the PS3 version runs like a dog." @ darkdiaper, stop the spin dude. Multiplats run better and sell better on the 360. It is getting more 3rd party support. The PS 3rd party support is jumping like rats from a sinking ship.
PS 3rd party are hopping on board. The reason lots of 3rd party titles went multiplatform from PS3 exclusive is because they were announced at a time where it was expected the PS3 would enjoy the same success as the PS2. Since the 360's installed base has always been ahead of the PS3's, it made sense to port the games over. But now we're seeing the reverse trend as well; companies not wanting to miss out on sales are porting their games back to PS3. I don't know if Mass Effect 2 will come to the PS3, but it is heavily rumoured and if it does, that will only supply more evidence to support my claim. If you play the PS3 version of a game, unless it's a TERRIBLY broken game (which Skate 2 is NOT), and then you play the 360 version, you would be hard pressed to notice the differences. It's only when you view them side-by-side that you really notice them. They are the same game, they play the same, they look the same. Both versions of Skate 2 have framerate problems at times, according to the article. However I agree with your "PS3 not built for gaming" general comment. See my comment in the gamer zone - that's what I think about this subject.
Thor, good comment. I just read the one in the gamer zone also. What you describe there what Sony should have done is called the XBOX 360 dude ;-) Without sarcasm, I own both consoles. Yes its nice the PS3 has extra's like the WiFi build in, but I'm paying double the price also for a console. I really like LittleBigPlanet. Its a game that feels like a Nintendo game. A game that has got a lot of love from the developer. WHich is great to see. But the combination of hardware... Well Sony has thought for a long time that the Cell was Jesus, that they need no seperate GPU because the Cell would take care of all CPU & GPU tasks. Late in the development proces of the PS3 they had to add that extra standard GPU, nothing special build like the 360 GPU. There they went from gaming device to a general multimedia device that does gaming besides it. Its not focussed on gaming, simple as that. Same problem with Sony marketing. They don't know were to focus on and people get confused where the PS3's main strenght is.
the cell is great for killzone2 BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA!
Well no, I don't see it as the same as the 360. By making the console more expensive to design and manufacture, Sony have somehow managed to make it just as powerful as or even less powerful than the 360 as far as 99% of games go. By simply spending that extra cash on a graphics card instead of the Cell, we'd have seen KZ2 level graphics from the start - and it would have been a lot easier to justify the pricetag. The GPU was just thrown in at the last minute, you're right - it was originally planned that "teh über" Cell would power all the graphics and everything - until they realised that's just not going to work - it's not specialised enough for graphics. It takes $20 million and 4 years to utilise those SPUs - it takes a small dev team and a low budget to utilise a graphics card - that's how computer graphics programming is taught.
-Killzone 2 edit: -Uncharted -MGS4 awarded for best graphics in 2008 If nothing on the box looks better than those then how are you arguing that the Cell isn't good for gaming? What are you talking about? Since when Skate is a graphic pusher? It doesn't even looks better than the first and most of the games from last year looked better graphically. You only see what you wanna see. Do you really think that the PS3 can't render something that looks as mediocre as Skate when there already are games that look like million times better? Give me a break retard or eat your sh1t fanboy.
Just as the dude above said - killzone 2. This article may have warrent your PS3's archicture bash but you, as well as all xbots claimed that xbox as a whole is a console more powerful than the PS3 for visual prowess. You xbots also claim cell is useless here, pointless there, not meant for gaming, it's a blunder blah blah. Please enlighten us on the architecture of cell. How much can we believe you then after making so many blind claims like these. How do you even know how the cell works, or any f*cking hardware? Hell not even I know how the cell works, but it's doing one heck of a bloody job with Killzone2. Blindly forgetting that now are we. Blindly forgetting ALL the PS3 exclusives so far. "BB BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT MULTI BUT WOT WOT IN DA BUTT MULTIPL BUT BUT" your as bad as a broken record dude.
Right OK. MGS4 managed to have great graphics by getting the power out of the Cell through extended development time (=delays), a huge investment, and a well-envisioned artistic style. Uncharted didn't even USE the Cell's power and its great graphics were down to its simplistic (though well-designed) shaders and fantastic coders able to optimise the engine. It could easily be done on the 360. Its lack of anti-aliasing and other graphical issues always make me wonder why people say it's the pinnacle of all graphics on the PS3. Then they get into some debate about "art style" and forget that they were TRYING to prove the PS3 had more power by listing Uncharted as a graphical powerhouse. Technically, Gears of War 2 is better. Technically, Uncharted could be done on the 360. The Cell can be used for gaming. But it's very difficult and it takes a lot of investment. The PS3 is more powerful because of it. But that doesn't stop the fact that, without the Cell, and with a much more powerful graphics card, the PS3's games would look much better than they do. We'd have had KZ2 graphics from the off.
Damn you make some good comments Thor. Your comments should be required reading for all who attend the 'school of SDF'. There would be less self-inflicted sdf injuries that way methinks...
Good comments thor, but wake me up when I see KZ2 graphics on xbox 360.
wow this "mart" is a great example of the stupid trying to sound like they have a dedicated opinion. The cell was designed as a parallel processing environment for game simulations, yet we have to listen to people like this make total talk out of their ass assumptions. (smacks forehead)
The demo doesnt show all problems, that is why its called a demo. They pick out the best parts of the game and compile it into a demo, to catch your attention ! Games which suffer from that kind of problems shouldnt even be released because for me, if a game suffers from those kind of problems - its BROKEN, or an unfinished game. However you want to put it. Many developers manage to get a steady 30FPS, in some cases even 60FPS at 1080p, SKATE 2 devs should be ashamed. But its also a good thing that we get reviewers, I will never buy a game made by the skate 2 devs.
I thought ps3 multiplats were supposed to be improving? PS3 framerate problems AGAIN? back to square one?
There is no real excuse for a shoddy frame rate in this game! apparently PS3 was lead platform & it's a sequel based on the same game engine! so they should of had plenty of time to develop the engine further to make it more reliable on the PS3. it seems like they have just ignored the issues of the previous game and produced a sequel to cash in My comments are based only on reading this article, and have not played the demo or try to claim I'm in the industry so I have already played and completed the game! I hope the article is wrong as I was looking forward to this game, but now I'm a bit cautious about buying it until I find out more about it.