Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p

By Richard Leadbetter Published 27 August, 2009

But PS3 image quality gets a useful boost.

Terminal Reality has issued a new patch for Ghostbusters: The Video Game on PS3, which squashes multiple bugs, also sorting out "localisation issues", game freezes and audio/subtitle sync problems. Curiously, the press release also states that the game has received a visual upgrade, namely "an increase in resolution to match that of Xbox 360".

This was something I was rather curious to see. The launch version of Ghostbusters was pegged at a native resolution of 960x540, according to Digital Foundry's expert pixel-counter, MazingerDUDE. That's a massive gulf in detail level compared to the native 720p (1280x720) of the Xbox 360 version of the game. Engine performance in both versions was hardly super-smooth, so for the PS3 to maintain its current performance level in concert with a relatively enormous increase in resolution would've required an intensive, dedicated effort in optimising Terminal Reality's rendering tech.

In actuality, that effort hasn't fully materialised, and while the patch does take a couple of measures to improve image quality on the PS3 version of the game, our analysis is pretty much confirmed at a minor resolution bump up to 1024x576. This is still miles away from the Xbox 360 version, but Terminal Reality has also re-worked its anti-aliasing technique in order to significantly improve the clarity of the image. So, the NVIDIA Quincunx AA technique has thankfully been given the boot, helping to eliminate some of the Vaseline blur that blighted the launch PS3 version. In its place, Terminal Reality appears to have incorporated the same type of 2x multi-sampling AA (MSAA) used in the 360 game. In short: a definite improvement but still a disappointment.

If you want to see how this translates into pure image quality, look no further than this battery of comparison shots. In each case, you'll find the launch PS3 version on the top, the patched rendition in the middle and the full-res 720p Xbox 360 game on the bottom.

'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 11
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 9
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 7
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 5
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 3
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 1

Resolution comparison between the launch PS3 build, the patched version and the Xbox 360 game show that despite improvements, PS3 still haven't delivered proper 720p.

Performance of both console versions of the game is immensely variable, with plenty of dropped frames and a lot of screen tear, and the patch does nothing to improve this. Furthermore, the savagely hacked down textures in the PS3 version of the game remain just as they were in the initial release build.

'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 10
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 12
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 6
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 8
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 2
'Ghostbusters PS3 patch doesn't deliver 720p' Screenshot 4

Terminal Reality make no claims for increased performance or improved textures in the new build, and indeed the visual quality in this respect remains unchanged.

Overall then, we have a somewhat ambivalent opinion of this new patch. The good news is that Terminal Reality has indeed made an effort to improve the look of the very disappointing PS3 build of Ghostbusters and in that respect, they do deserve some credit. Overall clarity gets a tangible boost thanks to the binning of Quincunx anti-aliasing in favour of MSAA, and the minor resolution bump adds to the effect too. However, dispatching press releases which promise parity with the Xbox 360 version when it is clearly still sub-HD is somewhat bewildering.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (45) 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • muscleblade #1 2 years ago

    "This is still miles away from the Xbox 360 version"

    Why did they bother. Next time make it PS3 exclusive and then you could say: It will not be possible on the 360.

  • Collymilad #2 2 years ago

    ""This is still miles away from the Xbox 360 version"

    Why did they bother. Next time make it PS3 exclusive and then you could say: It will not be possible on the 360. "

    Except that entire phrase is BS.

  • TheDudesRug #3 2 years ago

    Why was there such a difference between the two versions in the first place?

  • GamesConnoisseur #4 2 years ago

    Darn was going to say as muscleblade aptly put! Sure Would makes sense if they worked exclusively, they would likely do a better job with resolution n other effects than a multi platform work, with which Sony done a timed exclusive for Europe and ending up with a weaker version (visually).


    ..... But wait what about Haze?!!

  • KrissAkabusi #5 2 years ago

    The 360 version is gorgeous.

  • Darren #6 2 years ago

    The PS3 version looks better than it did initally from those screenshots so that's good but it's still a half-way house and still inferior to the crisper, sharper looking 360 version.

    Why did the devs mislead PS3 owners though by claiming the resolution was now the same as the 360 version when it clearly isn't?

  • MasterNameless #7 2 years ago

    There even seems to be more detail in the 360 screens, more than just a resolution boost. Especially from looking at the first screens, on the textures of the walls and doorway.

  • seasidebaz #8 2 years ago

    Oh well. Shit game is still shit.

  • muscleblade #9 2 years ago

    "Why was there such a difference between the two versions in the first place? "

    Ask Valve.

  • menschenfracht #10 2 years ago

    "Why was there such a difference between the two versions in the first place? "

    Ask Criterion.

  • womble #11 2 years ago

    Of course Uncharted 2 is utterly impossible on the 360.

    For the simple reason that Naughty Dog -- owned outright by Sony -- would never be allowed to port it to the 360, even if they wanted to.

    It's pretty easy to make claims when they can never be tested! Shame on them, and shame on arstechnica for carrying their PR bullcrap.

    As for Ghostbusters, the PS3 original version really is not very good at all. More than the resolution, the textures just suck. And there's z-fighting all over the place, and frame-rate drops galore. All from a company that bragged about being a PS3 developer, no less. This patch had better go some ways to fixing what is otherwise a pretty ordinary product.

  • crazyhorse174 #12 2 years ago

    Think EG should really stop these Digital Foundry articles - all they are is fodder for the console fanboy war...

  • canIdoyabombsforya #13 2 years ago

    "Why did the devs mislead PS3 owners though by claiming the resolution was now the same as the 360 version when it clearly isn't? "

    They caught the bull### disease from Sony?
    A game that should have been 1080P and dual screen according to Sony's first press specs.

  • Retroid #14 2 years ago

    It's pantomime patches time! \o/

    "It's patched to full 720p!"

    OH NO IT ISN'T

  • photoboy #15 2 years ago

    "Think EG should really stop these Digital Foundry articles - all they are is fodder for the console fanboy war... "

    Why should EG drop in-depth technical analyses of games just to shut up a bunch of insecure fanboys? There are plenty of people out there who are interested in the technical aspects of how modern games are being implemented on current console hardware.

    At the very least people might like to know which system to buy their game on. If you had an Xbox 360 and a PS3 wouldn't you want to know the PS3 version is noticeably inferior to the 360 version?

  • crazyhorse174 #16 2 years ago

    @photoboy

    I DO have a 360 and PS3, but these so-called "comparisons" are just an excuse for people who only one machine to come on here and boast about who's machine is better.

    If you have a PS3 and hear that the 360 version is better, are you going to rush out and buy a 360? No, you wont - you'll buy the version for the machine you have. Who cares whose version looks best? When did everyone become such enormous graphics whores!?

    This article doesnt even say which version is best - it just says which version looks best. How is that a technical comparison?!
    Edited by 1 at 27/08/09 @ 13:27

  • gallow #17 2 years ago

    To be honest I could not care about the differences between the 360/Ps3 as I am really enjoying the game.

  • el_pollo_diablo #18 2 years ago

    "Why was there such a difference between the two versions in the first place? "

    Ask Michael Jacksons plastic surgeon.

  • cyacomini #19 2 years ago

    "....it just says which version looks best. How is that a technical comparison"

    Errr....I think you answered your own question there dude.

  • crazyhorse174 #20 2 years ago

    "....it just says which version looks best. How is that a technical comparison"

    Errr....I think you answered your own question there dude.

    I dont think that strictly speaking that is a technical comparison - if I put a Ferrari and a Porsche beside each other and said, "The Ferrari looks better", thats hardly a technical opinion...
    Edited by 2 at 27/08/09 @ 14:22

  • Darren #21 2 years ago

    @MilkybKid1985 - I believe Muscleblade was referring to Valve's refusal to code for the PS3 because they consider it badly designed and hard to code for. Which it is as we know from other developer's comments, only most of them had no choice but to bite the bullet and learn the hard way by making games for it. That's why it has taken so long for multiformat games to achieve almost the same quality as the 360 versions, it wasn't entirely due to the 360 having been out a year longer, rather the PS3 is just a bitch to program.

    Note these are the very same complaints levelled at the PS2 when it launched too so it seems that Sony learnt absolutely nothing from the PS2 about how to design a console sensibly so that's easy to code for. I get the impression sometimes that Sony console development amounts to throwing everything that sounds great on paper into a huge metaphorical pot then mixing up all the contents to produce the finished goods with little regards as to how it should all work together.

  • Lukus #22 2 years ago

    I'm sure I remember the developer about a year ago saying something along the lines of them having to hold back how good they made the game look due to the 360, implying that if it wasn't multi platform the PS3 only version would look a lot better.

    That's looking like quite a ridiculous claim now.

  • muscleblade #23 2 years ago

    @Darren

    Thats right.

    @MilkybKid1985

    "Why ask a developer that has never done any PS3 development at all? "

    As Darren said its a reason for that. Yes i do know EA made a wastly inferior PS3 port. Valve didnt want anything to do with it.

  • Bigglesworth #24 2 years ago

    Why should EG drop in-depth technical analyses of games just to [...]

    Hahahahahahahahahaahahaha

    /dies

  • El-Dev #25 2 years ago

    @Donnie, if PS3 is so vastly inferior how come KZ2 is the best looking game out there at the minute and Halo ODST isn't even HD? I mean these are both AAA exclusive titles, not cross platform games.

  • cyacomini #26 2 years ago

    "if I put a Ferrari and a Porsche beside each other and said, "The Ferrari looks better", thats hardly a technical opinion...

    huh?

    The difference being you can tell the graphical differences by looking at both version of the game - you can't tell how fast a Ferrari is by looking at it.

  • Bigglesworth #27 2 years ago

    The difference being you can tell the graphical differences by looking at both version of the game - you can't tell how fast a Ferrari is by looking at it.

    How about this: you can put two cars on a rolling road and see that one has more bhp than the other, but that won't tell you why.

  • Loghorn #28 2 years ago

    Taken from [link url=htt p://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241:
    ]http://fo rum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php...[/link]

    Let's see here:

    360 version: 1280 x 720 (2xAA).
    PS3 version: 960 x 540 (QAA, pre-patch), 1024 x 576 (2xAA, post-patch). HUH? What's wrong with this picture here? And it was developed first for PS3? What a joke.

    LOL. So much for the mighty PS3 being more powerful. Face it, most multiplats on PS platforms are like the horrible Sega Genesis (Mega Drive) multiplats in comparision to SNES (Super Famicon). Plus there's about many multiplats in native 720p on the 360 than on the PS3.

    As soon as I found out the truth back a while ago, I bought myself a 360 soon afterwards & have retired my PS3 for multiplats.
    Edited by 2 at 27/08/09 @ 17:54

  • Huffman_D #29 2 years ago

    wow look at all the junior detectives on this board.

    a ferrari is HARDWARE. ghostbusters are SOFTWARE. are you all daft? the way a game looks is actually a VERY GOOD INDICATOR of the CODE powering it. NOT THE HARDWARE POWERING IT. that would be a technical analysis of the CONSOLES. and those you can find on WIKIPEDIA. i guess what i'm trying to say is POOR CHOICE OF METAPHOR. it's like you're all new or something.

    to those asking why the versions are different there's a blog post a few pages back on DF about John Carmack, who in fact knows his shit. the ps3 has a great processor, but has a weaker GPU and less RAM. in order to achieve equal or better performance to the 360 on the ps3, developers have to code to the hardware directly, whereas on the 360 they have to work through the API(directX). coding to the hardware takes more time and skill, and this leads to developers doing one of two things:

    a) they code for the lowest common denominator(Burnout Paradise, Devil May Cry) or
    b) they say "fuck it" and and make the game for the 360, and then trim the edges for the ps3 (Ghostbusters, Assassin's Creed, etc)

    if they were to code for each system individually, they'd have a mostly different code on the 360 from the ps3. which is why ps3 exclusives look waaay better than any 360 games, and also why they can't simply port these games to the xbox.

  • Oceans1999 #30 2 years ago

    Both the 360 and PS3 have better looking and more technically advanced games than this. Why all this penis comparison. Grow up ffs!
    Edited by 1 at 27/08/09 @ 20:15

  • intpleeus #31 2 years ago

    Although the PS3 has more potential than the 360, it is too costly to harness for all but a few first-party developers. Most sales are still on the 360, so that is the target platform for the majority of releases. Little incentive remains for publishers or developers to make the best use of the PS3, and it has suffered a slew of inferior ports as a result.

    Listen to John Carmack discussing Id's Rage. The lead platform is the 360; they want to put no more effort into the PS3 port than is necessary to get it about on par with the 360 original. It's just not worth doing anything more -- too much work, not enough reward. Those hours spent optimsing Rage for the PS3, could be better spent on something else.

    The PS2 was also a difficult machine to develop for, but Sony got away with it because the PS2 was so commercially dominant: developers had on choice but to learn how to make it sing. However, the PS3 is not in such a dominant position, and Sony are suffering from the difficulty of their machine.
    Edited by 1 at 27/08/09 @ 20:30

  • Loghorn #32 2 years ago

    Think EG should really stop these Digital Foundry articles - all they are is fodder for the console fanboy war...

    Not really. I think one of the reasons why there wasn't any multiplat comparisons last gen because it was very obvious that the X-Box would beat both the PS2 & GC in multiplats (in which, 99% run & look better on that system).

    This gen, it's a different case, as the 360 was released first back in '05, & then Sony released it in '06 & were hyping it up by such nonsense, such as "Full 1080p," "120Hz," "4D," & so on. But the fact of the matter is, is that most of the multiplats turned out to be running & looking better on the 360 by miles. Even games that were developed for PS3 first, or games that were ported from PS3 came out running & looking better on 360 (such as Assassin's Creed, Virtua Fighter 5, & this game).

    Simply put, if the PS3 was truly more powerful than the 360, there wouldn't be any need for these multiplat comparisons going on right now. Sony hyped up the console like it was the next messiah, & it came back to bite them in the rear.

    What Sony needs to do for next gen is to have a better GPU, more RAM, make their next PS console developer friendly, & have a faster Blu-Ray drive to avoid installs. It's my opinion, but take it anyway you want it.

  • El-Dev #33 2 years ago

    @Donnie, most of the games in the comparisons aren't worth buying. I think I have bought very few of them. Uncharted 2 has only had a 2 year dev time and will blow away it's console competition for some time to come, most likely until Uncharted 3. Bungie have had a number of years to work on from Halo 3 and still have the same problem, ie lack of HD.

    " killzone2 is the last of its kind on ps3,(massive budget/long dev) it doesnt and wont have the install base to make these sorts of games feasible"

    You are also aware Donnie that in the same time scale since release, roughly 3 years, the PS3 has had better sales in comparison to the 360 in it's first 3 years? So the install base argument is quite stupid. Especially as GT5 and Heavy Rain are both close to release and have a long dev time and big budget, also I can throw in The Last Guardian and God of War 3 for evidence. So by last of it's kind you really meant last of it's kind to be followed by 4 others most likely in the space of a year.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 00:01

  • davearnie #34 2 years ago

    Forgetting about just graphics for a minute. Its quite a simple choice really, what exclusive games are better?

    Personally I prefer Halo 3 to Killzone 2 which is far too generic and nothing beats Halo multiplayer lmao

    I also dont care much for Uncharted - tombraider clone, solid snake - sub par splinter cell, god of war - give me ninja gaiden.

    Buy whichever console you prefer the games and controls on - have you tried an FPS on PS3 oh my god!

    Also take into consideration multiplatforms are much better on Xbox 360 and you have a clear winner for me!!!

  • El-Dev #35 2 years ago

    "I also dont care much for Uncharted - tombraider clone, solid snake - sub par splinter cell, god of war - give me ninja gaiden."

    I'm guessing you only own a 360.

  • womble #36 2 years ago

    "But EG likes it that way, they hired these guys, so called 'tech experts""

    Yet another attack on DF, and EG, by SHARXTREME. Every day, same attacks on DF.

    If you hate DF so much mate, why don't you just piss off back to your PS3 fanboy site? Some of us are interested in technical comparisons, even if you're not.

  • des #37 2 years ago

    "Take some mediocre multiplatform console game"

    Don't worry i am sure that DF will analyze some mediocre PS3 exclusive just to please you.

  • Zebula77 #38 2 years ago

    Ah, good news. I just started playing this game yesterday. :)

  • Bazfrag #39 2 years ago

    Won't someone please think of the Pixels!! I cant believe how dumb ive been over the years. How could i find trash like Super Metriod, Mario etc playable when they weren't 720p? DF keeps showing me the light.

  • NorUraeus #40 2 years ago

    I got the game on PS3 and really enjoyed playing through the game before the patch came out. The enjoyment of this game do not come from studying pixels and textures, but from the Ghostbusters story and experience it brings. Having played a bit after the patch, yes there is a noticeable improvement in picture clarity which is nice, but honestly if one doesn't read articles like this before playing I doubt one would have even given the original graphics a thought while playing.

  • zztopp #41 2 years ago

    I like DF's tech articles. Also one can't accuse them of being biased. Didn't they say that in their opinion the best looking game this generation is Uncharted on the PLAYSTATION 3 (although I don't agree with it)?

    Oh and to the KZ2 fanboys here...it may have good physics but the mediocre textures spoil it for me. There.

  • wayland #42 2 years ago

    thats some nice black crush in your 360 screens, not saying the ps3 version is better but a blog that trys to be profesional should at least configure there 360 correctly

  • plaztiksyke #43 2 years ago

    While I do genuinely appreciate Terminal Reality taking the time to improve things, I hope hope there's another iteration of the patch coming out that at least resolves some of the texture quality issues. Atari did PS3 owners a great service with the overall quality of Alone in the Dark: Inferno, and I hope they continue to do the same with Ghostbusters. I was hoping for 24-bit DTS/lossless audio, but it looks like the assets on the bluray are all 16-bit.

    I would love to see some DLC for Ghostbusters that injects a different character as 'the rookie', especially a female character. That would be a great way to fund some further game tweaks and keep things going for a marketing campaign re-launch around xmas.

    For anyone on the fence, I have to say that the online co-op play is probably the most fun I've have playing online in quite some time. It is definitely worth checking out, especially if you're a fan on the franchise!
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/09 @ 01:11

  • mutendo #44 2 years ago

    This Game sucks. The graphics are sharper on Xbox 360 but the game still sucks.

  • bemaniac #45 2 years ago

    what a sloppy job the ps3 can clearly do the same job as the 360. im a 360 owner and recently also got a ps3 slim and i can tell it holds up ok on most games only the most intensive games lack crispness on the ps3 but they are real close. this isnt ps1 vs saturn here. sloppy coding.