Ghostbusters: 720p X360 Screens

RedMist11 - 87 days 11 hours ago

There was a patch to fix that, wasn't there?

Agree(9) | Disagree(6) | Report

Gamer4111 - 87 days 11 hours ago

All the PS3 patch did was up the resolution from 960x540 to 1024x576.

It just doesn't compare to 1280x720, which is the native resolution on the 360 version.

Agree(18) | Disagree(7) | Report

Gregmonk - 87 days 11 hours ago

meh, who cares, its a bad game anyways, not our fault they could not figure out how to tap the power of the Cell. Lazy davs are just that, Lazy Devs. If I want Ghostbuster, I will watch the movies.

Agree(12) | Disagree(24) | Report

Xiphos - 87 days 11 hours ago

Oh please, after playing the demo for this game I saw first-hand that this whole thing was being blown massively outta proportion. You'd think the game looked like a PS1 title by the level of criticism against the PS3 version.

Agree(13) | Disagree(3) | Report

y0haN - 87 days 4 hours ago

And a few months back the devs said the X360 was holding them back LOL

Agree(10) | Disagree(4) | Report

trancefreak - 86 days 22 hours ago

My 7 year old really liked the demo on ps3 I played both 360 and ps3 version demos I personally didnt like the game demo. Ill wait for a price drop and pick it up for my boy whe it hits the bargain bin.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

FamilyGuy - 86 days 22 hours ago

But it looked fine in it's (upscaled) 1080p form on my tv. The game was 540p native but it went straight to 1080p on my tv, skipping the 720p output that was also available altogether. I know the comparison people checked both at 702p but maybe they should seen what it looked like in 1080p as well, not that i'd know if it would make a difference.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Persistantthug - 86 days 19 hours ago

Seriously.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

coolfool - 86 days 18 hours ago

When it's less than £10.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Cronnie - 87 days 11 hours ago

It is coming out next month in Europe, I guess they are releasing images to get interest up.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

frjoethesecond - 87 days 11 hours ago

Makes sense. Still think anyone who knows how to use the internet and want it on 360 woulda imported it by now.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

peeps - 87 days 10 hours ago

can't import 360 games i don't think? only ps3 games are region free

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

Aloren - 87 days 10 hours ago

Lots of 360 games are region free actually, including Ghostbusters.

Raiden 4 isn't though... that sucks.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

glennc - 87 days ago

i really hope it doesn't sell. withholding a game from a region is just plain wrong no matter what the sony fanboys say (and they would say it if it was the other way around... and so would i. from a console is fine but not a finished game delayed for specific regions.

i would have bought it

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

HolyOrangeCows - 86 days 23 hours ago

It's releasing in EU soon, I think.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Cronnie - 87 days 11 hours ago

The 360, Wii and DS versions in Europe were delayed because Sony got timed exclusivity of the game there.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

XGamer - 87 days 9 hours ago

The display box for the upcoming, ha ha, shows just how interested I was in it, still i'll get it later this yr. And thanks Cronnie.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

ry-guy - 87 days 7 hours ago

The single player is a very tight, solid, and funny experience.

I'd strongly encourage at least a rental. You could bump out a complete run through in a weekend.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

NMC2007 - 87 days 10 hours ago

Sony Pictures and SCEA are different, just because they are both apart of Sony doesn't mean that they are at war with the same companies, doesn't Sony own Spiderman? That was on 360 as well and all other plats, so it doesn't matter if Sony owns movie rights, all SP wants is money, they do not care about video game wars.

Also, you don't think Sony and Microsoft work together outside of the game wars? I hope you do.

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

Morbius420 - 87 days 7 hours ago

The Spiderman analogy just reinterates his point. It's a Sony owned licsense but it's available on both systems. If it was owned by Microsoft it would have been a 360/PC exclusive as well.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

Death - 87 days ago

Sony obtained the rights to the Marvel characters for the movie and DVD releases only. They do not own the character in any way and their licence has a time limit.

Ghostbusters the movies were obtained by Sony from Columbia in 1989. The intellectual property is owned by Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis and of course Sony. That is why Dan and Harold are still so close to the IP. Atari licensed the IP for video games, Sony was the publisher in Europe. Had Sony been the sole proprietor of the IP they most likely would have developed and distributed the game as a first party exclusive.

-Death

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

ReBurn - 87 days 8 hours ago

If you've never seen the 360 version then you won't care about the graphical differences between the 360 and the PS3. I played both and they play pretty much the same. However, after seeing both and having a choice I purchased the 360 version because, in comparison, the visuals were a bit more clean. Other than that, no real difference.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

talltony - 87 days 8 hours ago

The best looking games are on the ps3 and everybody knows this, yet idiots like the guy above me blame the ps3's "inferior hardware" for a few sh*t looking multiplats. I dont understand that sort of logic.
PS3's Best > 360's Best End of Story!

Agree(11) | Disagree(5) | Report

harpua - 87 days 4 hours ago

"it look worser on PS3"

hahahaha...grammar isn't for everyone.

Agree(10) | Disagree(2) | Report

Pope_John_Paul_II - 87 days 4 hours ago

you know whats ironic, a naruto fanboy stating that the PS3 is inferior, when a Naruto game that recently came out on the PS3 destroyed its 360 counterpart.

Agree(6) | Disagree(4) | Report

HolyOrangeCows - 86 days 23 hours ago

What about:
Batman:AA?
Battlefield:BC?
Burnout:Paradise?
All superior PS3 multiplats. How do you explain your ''all'' theory now?

@naruto girl
The PS3 and Xbox have identical amount of RAM. The PS3 has two parts of RAM.

Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report

commodore64 - 86 days 18 hours ago

The Ps3 fans get all upset when the 360 multiplats are repeatedly held back the inferior ps3 hardware, despite the massive evidence supporting such claims.

They then resort to selectively ignoring this evidence and cling to the SMALL number of multiplats which are (very arguably) better looking on ps3. Witness the guy above me, as proof.

Here's the real facts, which show the 360 whipping the ps3 in most multiplats:
http://misterslimm.wordpres...

I guess it is fair to say, in light of this evidence that:
- yes, the ps3 hardware is holding back 360 multiplats.
- yes, the ps3 most often has gimped multiplats.
- yes, the 360 has, on average, better multiplats

This is true even when such multiplats are led on ps3, like ghostbusters, negating any further excuses that Ps3 fans like to cling to.

Ps3 multiplats suck ass, en masse, compared to the 360.
We all know it.
end of.

Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report

darkride66 - 86 days 14 hours ago

Commodore often labors under the false assumption that Eurogamer's opinions are law. Far from it.

If one game has lower resolution but better framerates - who wins? If one has superior controls but a blurred texture here and there, who wins? It's simply a matter of opinion, not hard and fast facts like Commodore would have you believe.

And when we look at the bulk of reviewers opinions they point us to a different conclusions, one the puts the PS3 on an even playing field with the 360 in terms of multiplats or even surpasses the 360. Don't the weight of many reviews mean more than the opinion of one site?

At the end of the day, we know the PS3 is a more capable machine because we've seen the evidence. Plenty of multipats look better on the PS3, and the PS3's exclusives are unrivaled. So, given this mountain of evidence that Commodore choses to ignore, isn't it a safer bet to say it's not the PS3 but rather the developers that's the issue here? All we need is just one game that looks better on the PS3 to prove this point. We know the PS3 has better graphics and is a more capable system all around because we see and play the proof every day, and because we know better, when a multiplat is slightly worse on the PS3, we know exactly who to point the finger at, and it's not the PS3 hardware.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

talltony - 86 days 13 hours ago

"So, given this mountain of evidence that Commodore choses to ignore, isn't it a safer bet to say it's not the PS3 but rather the developers that's the issue here? All we need is just one game that looks better on the PS3 to prove this point. We know the PS3 has better graphics and is a more capable system all around because we see and play the proof every day, and because we know better, when a multiplat is slightly worse on the PS3, we know exactly who to point the finger at, and it's not the PS3 hardware."

Exactly my point ^^^^^^
If the best looking games are on ps3 how the hell can you blame the ps3 itself for inferior looking multiplats?? It is clearly and obviously up to the devs to deliver on ps3. End of.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

commodore64 - 86 days 10 hours ago

so we are blaming developers again?
Come on guys, the excuses are getting old.

It's staggering to think that it is now 2009 and Ps3 multiplats are still coming up short.

What's worse is, the ps3 fanboys take little time to consider the perspective of the developer, preferring instead to blame them, but strangely not the inaccessible hardware.

It is no secret that developers incur increased expense and difficulty when coding for the ps3, resulting in shoddy ps3 ports... and even shoddy ps3 leads, unless record budgets are allocated to make the ps3 shine.

Even Kaz Hirai has, somewhat sheepishly, admitted that the ps3 is "purposely difficult" for developers. (wtf?)
http://www.shacknews.com/on...

Question is, why didn't Sony make it easier for devs?
Why is the ps3 such a pain to code for?

As far as developers businesses are concerned, the ps3 hardware is to blame. Developers have limited time and budgets. They need to make money. Gabe Newell has already voiced what a lot of other developers are thinking.

Developers cannot spend all their resources extracting marginal performance gains from the ps3, to make the PS3 fanboys happy, or just so that Kaz Hirai can 'promise a ten year lifecycle.'

For a Developer, the ps3 represents constantly diminishing returns for every additional dollar spent over and above what is spent on the 360 development, for the same result.
This is true, everybody knows it!

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

Rhythmattic - 86 days 9 hours ago

C64

Call-151

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

darkride66 - 86 days ago

It's their fault.

You can't deny, that the PS3 has unmatched exclusives. So, given that we have proof the PS3 is the most powerful games machine, capable of the best graphics (the 360 might be capable, that's debatable, but 4 years in it has yet to put out a game that matches PS3 heavy hitters like Killzone 2, uncharted, etc).

So, we know the PS3 is capable. That leaves the developers.
If it's not the developers responsible for the odd sub-par multiplat, then what's at fault? Fairies? Bad Mojo?

As for the PS3 being difficult to develop for, again, it's simply different than what people are used to. If you learned to tie your shoe one way, and someone taught you a new way it would probably take you a couple of times to get it right. The argument of "Why didn't they make it like everything else," is ridiculous. If we did everything the same way, all the time, there'd never be any progress.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

commodore64 - 83 days 19 hours ago

"Of course we're blaming developers"
Oh i am glad you finally admitted that!

Just goes to show what length you will go to to excuse the ps3 multiplat mess!

Perhaps, conversely, it may also be true that developers are to blame for not yet extracting KZ2 performance from the 360?
hmmmm... kind of makes sense, using your tinfoil-hat logic.

Ultimately though, darkride66, you again spoke before reading/comprehending my post.

I stated that developers have businesses to run.
If the ps3 has not got the ability to produce results on par with the 360 for the same budget then it is certainly wasting the developers time.

That's the fault of the hardware, not the developers.
Why ask the developers to bend over backwards just so the ps3 keeps up?
Surely, spending more money will yield better results, on any platform
The question is, how much MORE money is it fair to ask developers to spend just on the ps3?

It's about money, time and effort.
The ps3 requires MORE of these, to produce the same result. Undeniably.
Kaz admitted it.

Thus, developers have to choose to invest more of each of these to produce a ps3 game, in comparison to the same result, or better, on the 360!
Thus, they make LESS profit - a silly outcome in an industry where the margins are tight.

Alternatively and realistically, Developers can expend a reasonably balanced proportion of costs on the ps3, resulting in slightly gimped ps3 multiplats, but yielding a profit instead of a loss.

Problem is, this last strategy sees irate ps3 fanboys, like you, crying foul because the ps3 wasn't treated like a precious princess and getting favourable developer status.

Ms certainly did it right when they put developers first.
They know about business and software and have sought to help developers, instead of hindering and blaming them!

No wonder Gabe Newell called the ps3 a 'waste of everyone's time'.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

commodore64 - 86 days 18 hours ago

So wait...

you are saying you are happy about the fact that the game looks like crap on your console?

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

darkride66 - 86 days 15 hours ago

From IGN's review of the PS3 version"Graphics: 8 Diverse environments look great, as do the beautifully-designed spectres."

Even though they note the the PS3 version's graphics were "dumbed down", it didn't cause them to lower their score on the game as they've done in the past when the two versions differ.

Have you even played this game? There's nothing wrong with the PS3 version. It's a fun game I'd recommend to any Ghostbusters fan. Don't let users quibbling over a few blurred textures deter you from giving this game a rent.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

commodore64 - 86 days 10 hours ago

Can you stop stalking my posts, darkride66?

Get a life, old boy.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

darkride66 - 86 days ago

As soon as you stop spewing nonsense!

You'll notice I don't have an issue with you simply voicing you opinion, talking about games or the like. What I take issue with is you cluttering up the forums with your anti-Sony obsession. You can't back up your points, you turn to personal attacks whenever you're proven wrong and you're generally unpleasant to other members on this site. Start acting civil and cutting the crap and I'll have nothing to argue with you about.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report