Digital Foundry vs. Mafia II demo

By Richard Leadbetter Published 18 August, 2010

Optimised for each platform?

2K Games has taken the unusual step of responding to negative fan comments over the PS3 version of its forthcoming Mafia II, claiming that the game code has been optimised for each specific platform.

"When designing Mafia II, we optimised for each of the three different systems the game would run on to make sure the core experience was the best it could be," wrote 2K's senior manager of interactive marketing, Elizabeth Tovey, on the company's forum.

"Because of this, there are some differences from one platform to the next. In terms of the PS3 version, I wanted to clarify a couple points you have been asking about. There will not be highly detailed grass or large pools of blood, the cloth movement is less noticeable than, for example, the PC version, and the visual fidelity in the demo is generally representative of what you'll see in the full game."

Previously unconfirmed reports had suggested that the build of the game used for the PS3 demo wasn't complete, a state of affairs that isn't unknown in putting together playable samplers, but definitely very rare. Due to prolonged QA and submission processes, it's more often the case that demos are built in the very closing stages of development, or after the game has been sent off to the platform holder for approval. It appears that Mafia II complies with the norm in this regard.

So just what are the main differences we see in the demo? Let's tackle the grass issue first. Mafia II is an interesting game in that grass and foliage actually uses 2D sprites, given some element of depth thanks to the dynamic lighting. Pop into a bush, spin the camera around and take a look at the make-up of the greenery - you'll note that it doesn't actually render in three dimensions at all. However, it is clearly the case that while major foliage is rendered on PS3, the grass isn't, making for some rather barren areas compared to the 360 build.

'Digital Foundry vs. Mafia II demo' Screenshot 360grass-1
'Digital Foundry vs. Mafia II demo' Screenshot ps3grass-1
'Digital Foundry vs. Mafia II demo' Screenshot 360grass-2
'Digital Foundry vs. Mafia II demo' Screenshot ps3grass-2

The paring down of grass on the PS3 version appears to have upset many.

It's also confirmed that downed NPCs do indeed spill blood, which results in bloody footsteps if you walk through it, and this does appear to be omitted on the PS3 version. Also apparent are differences in the anti-aliasing setup that favour 360 (though this is not exactly hugely apparent when comparing the two games side by side) while screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO) is another effect we only see on the Microsoft console, as you can see on the bottom set of comparison shots.

'Digital Foundry vs. Mafia II demo' Screenshot 360blood
'Digital Foundry vs. Mafia II demo' Screenshot ps3blood
'Digital Foundry vs. Mafia II demo' Screenshot 360ssao
'Digital Foundry vs. Mafia II demo' Screenshot ps3ssao

Pools of blood and SSAO appear to be found only on the Xbox 360 code.

Where 2K hasn't commented is on issues with the game's frame-rate, which again has come under fire as being inferior to the 360 version. This is something we can address fairly quickly with a montage of action taken from the demo.

Mafia II demo console performance analysis.

The difference here doesn't look to be so much of an issue, as it's clear that both games have issues in sustaining 30FPS based on the sampler code. In like-for-like areas we can see that the Xbox 360 code has fewer torn frames, but in crucial gameplay areas the game performs at a similar level.

"Our aim is to make a cohesive and immersive experience and optimise the game for each platform so that it could run its best," Elizabeth Tovey continues. "And while there are some differences between each version, I'm sure you'll find that the core gameplay and the heart of Mafia II remains no matter whether you play on PS3, 360, or PC."

It does seem to be the case that "optimising" in the case of this particular PS3 game seems to involve the removal of features, but at the same time, regular Face-Off readers will know that this is part and parcel of the reality of multi-platform development on a great many games. The question is whether the missing elements impact the overall game experience. Certainly, based on the demo code, it's hard to imagine that the omitted features will have that much of an impact on whether or not the game is worth buying.

We'll be carrying out a full triple-format Face-Off as soon as we can.

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 (85) Latest comment 1 year ago

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

  • drumbaby #1 2 years ago

    Are 2K Games known for making great looking games on PS3 or something?

  • Lord_Gremlin #2 2 years ago

    For me pools of blood and bloody footsteps are absolutely crucial. Since I prefer PS3 I simply won't buy this game. I'm yet to play GTA4 and Godfather 2.

  • Azryial #3 2 years ago

    I think what will be important is how much of a difference will there be in the retail code over the demo code.

    Tho I myself will be getting the PC version - the demo cod for that was imo flawless

  • Spekingur #4 2 years ago

    Denying yourself of a possibly great game "because it doesn't have minor graphical stuff for the only system I own" somehow just seems... wrong.

  • makeamazing #5 2 years ago

    PC Version will definitely be best if you want the best possible version. Me i am a muppet and will still be getting the PS3 version (because i try not to play many games at my home desk, especially as i sit down at one all day). Don't mind the differences in grass, though the blood pools is extremely bizarre thing to have to leave out. The biggest concern i have is with performance, so lets hope my insistence to play on the sofa doesn't ruin Mafia 2 experience for me.

  • RKOwned #6 2 years ago

    Im just waiting for the 360 fanboys to come in hear adn say "lol, 360 wins again. Why did you buy a PS3 again? its inferior" To which I will say its not inferior, in this case its down to inferior devs.
    Edited by 1 at 18/08/10 @ 19:17

  • SG79 #7 2 years ago

    RDR all over again, complete with Sony securing some minor exclusive DLCs. Tearing is what's bothersome though, and the demo on PS3 had lots of it.

  • Dizzy #8 2 years ago

    That is some awesome optimizing! Can I work for these guys? I will do the PS3 port.

    /deletes some random lines of code

    >To which I will say its not inferior, in this case its down to inferior devs.

    Hell of a lot of inferior devs around apparently. Lazy pigs!
    Edited by 2 at 18/08/10 @ 19:25

  • Osahi #9 2 years ago

    Well, as long as the framerate holds up I'm not all to bothered. If you don't see what you miss, you can't miss it. I hope the exclusive DLC makes up for the lackluster port.

  • fknetwork #10 2 years ago

    lol, 360 wins again. Why did you buy a PS3 again? its inferior
    (Joke to an earlier comment people!)
    Edited by 1 at 18/08/10 @ 20:13

  • AnsemsApprentice #11 2 years ago

    And this is why I have both consoles... to avoid disappointment.

  • RKOwned #12 2 years ago

    @ Dizzy. Please, the multiplatform games are usualy not this big of a difference. You should know that if youve been reading these comparison articles lately. 2K is not a good multiplatform dev. Look at Bioshock, look at GTA 4, and look at this. Lots of otehr devs seem to get the PS3, why cant they?

    @fknetwork: lol.

  • CernaML #13 2 years ago

    "And this is why I have both consoles... to avoid disappointment."

    It's a shame this game sucks on both consoles.

  • _LarZen_ #14 2 years ago

    The admins at 2K forums are deleting and banning people that talk to badly about their game like mad now....

    You have been banned for the following reason:
    No reason was specified.

    Date the ban will be lifted: Never

    Haha, im getting your game for free 2K...for free.

    EDIT: And probably those lazy people at 2K giving me minuses to bury this comment. Or some crazy fanboys..
    Edited by 1 at 18/08/10 @ 20:11

  • SlippedDiscs_of_Tron #15 2 years ago

    It a shame that despite its vaunted superiority the PS3 still seems to be struggling when it comes to multi-plats. Still, by the sounds of it, the missing features are entirely cosmetic and will have zero impact on the gameplay itself.

    As for the game, I thought the demo was pretty darn swish. Nothing particularly groundbreaking, but the mechanics felt solid, and the period detail and facial animation were superb.

  • Badassbab #16 2 years ago

    Wasn't impressed with the 360 demo, 2K definately need to improve the framerate. The PS3 has trouble rendering foliage as RDR had the same issues.

  • NotSoSlim #17 2 years ago

    Blood was really going to tax the PS3...2K are just poor and it does hurt to ask for help from Sony. The foilage againg is development as if you had a problem in one game sure your next game should be easier to manage and code as you are used to the system?

  • HisDudness #18 2 years ago

    They should have asked the Flower devs how to render grass. That game has loads of it! flowers too...

  • Deckard1 #19 2 years ago

    The game runs like dog shit on the 360, so if the PS3 is worse then I can't even imagine how badly it must run.

  • MrsPacMan #20 2 years ago

    lol, 360 wins again. Why did you buy a PS3 again? its inferior
    (Joke to an earlier comment people!)

    Yea, ok , but why did you buy a PS3? Not a joke.

    360 > PS3

  • metamorphic #21 2 years ago

    Funny how the 360 fanboys seem to have converged onto this particular thread like flies. Here's a newsflash, dimwits: it sucks on the 360 port too. The only platform where it's optimized is PC. If you have a PC anyway, which most people do (and should; if you don't have a i7 yet, plan on it), there's no reason to choose the 360 or either console. Regardless, this is a pretty lazy effort from 2K; they will no doubt be losing a lot of sales over this, and many would already have canceled their preorders. We'll see some major multiplats soon which will feature the PS3 as lead platform and will actually do justice to it, like Platinum & Shinji Mikami's Vanquish and certain Ubisoft games, not to mention several others. 2K, if you don't up your game soon, you'll be mired in the past.

  • tiny_Eggy #22 2 years ago

    Both console versions are pretty crappy, too much tearing. PC version is really the only option if you want to properly enjoy the game.

  • vizzini #23 2 years ago

    Multiplatform games don’t tend to have problems just because of bad code, they tend to have fundamental problems with the software design.

    How the design compliments either the PS3’s asymmetric heterogeneous hardware architecture or how it matches the PC/360 symmetrical homogeneous hardware architecture makes a big difference.

    I found this demo quite good fun even with the controls and graphical issues on console. But I would assume that the game design compliments the PC best, then 360 and lastly the PS3; were it can use more memory, faster GPUs and Core i7 processors to by pass the specs of the 360.

    But then again, the demo does say it isn't from the final game.

  • Pirotic #24 2 years ago

    I never got why they didn't make all these things optional settings, if the code exists - let the player decide if they want a higher framerate or weird looking grass. Heck, judging by the performance issues the '360 version has I'd be happy to turn the blood and grass off if I could smooth out the framerate.

  • Spekingur #25 2 years ago

    Even with being out for 4+ years the PS3 is still rather difficult to program (or optimize) due to how Sony built up their codebase on the console. Some representatives from Sony have said that it was deliberate to have it so - which I think is rather stupid. More work that goes into understanding how the machine work, how to optimally code for something and needing to hardcode rather than having the option of pre-coded things that just makes a developer/publisher spend more money - and neither of them likes that. Some might argue more money for less, something that might hold true in some instances.

    We have all seen how well games turn out that are purely and solely coded for PS3. They run very well on the console. We also have nothing to compare it to as opposed to multiplatform games :p

  • makeamazing #26 2 years ago

    @MrsPacMan...Thats a pretty stupid comment to be honest, there are many reasons imho and many others (free online, blu-ray, exclusives), but i know some people who say the PS3 still doesnt have any good games, and its pointless arguing with mindless fanboy drones. Its very easy to go down that route, for example the PS3 version of RiverRaft.. .oh thats right we dont have that shite ;)

    There is no doubt that the PS3 suffered this gen, because when you are in a very tight deadline, the Xbox is a much better machine to just get the speed out of, companies didnt spend the time sorting out the PS3 versions (games companies and deadlines are really really tight)... so no one is going to hold off a release for 3-6 months generally to make the PS3 version better. But as software companies have had better tools and have been able to get a handle on the SPU's etc, then it has certainly improved. I think the PS3 Exclusives show what can be done if you have time to make it right... unfortunately many didnt.

    Most games now are comparable and the differences are minimal. The reasons why BOTH the xbox and ps3 versions are inferior to the PC version, can only be answered by 2K... but i suspect its because they haven't had the time to perfect an open world tech, like Rockstar have. Is this the first openish world by 2K (that they made?).

    Edited by 1 at 18/08/10 @ 21:21

  • neems #27 2 years ago

    This might sound weird, but on a lot of games (on PC this is) I actually turn down grass settings - I find the 'green fuzz' effect much less distracting than being able to see little tufts of long grass suddenly appear / disappear about half way into the draw distance as I move around. It's like walking around in a little bubble of a links golf course.

  • MrsPacMan #28 2 years ago

    @makeamazing
    'Thats a pretty stupid comment to be honest, there are many reasons imho and many others (free online, blu-ray, exclusives), '

    Free online - Crappy online, but you'll soon have a decent service which you have to pay for
    blu-ray - Yea, that's been a massive hit
    Exclusive - every console or handheld has these, PS3 has the fewest worth buying (don't bother listing what titles you think, I'll rip it to shreds)

  • makeamazing #29 2 years ago


    Hey look, i could sit here all day and slate all three of the current gen machines, none of them are perfect, if you dont understand that, then you are indeed more of a muppet than your current set of posts. Perhaps you are the new Donnie.
    Edited by 1 at 18/08/10 @ 21:48

  • MrsPacMan #30 2 years ago

    @makeamazing

    Hey bud, I didn't start this.. and your babble is full of PS3 holiness.

    And I don't know who this 'Donnie' is

  • telboy007 #31 2 years ago

    Group hug?

  • FuzzyDuck #32 2 years ago

    It's not like it's Bayonetta levels of broken?

  • makeamazing #33 2 years ago

    Hey bud, I didn't start this.. and your babble is full of PS3 holiness.

    @MrsPacman - did you even read any of my posts?

    Seriously, I said.. and i quote - "PC Version will definitely be best if you want the best possible version"... the reason i am getting the PS3 version is because i sit at a desk all day, i spend 2 hours in the car every day, and guess what, i don't want to be sat at a desk for a few more hours playing the game when i will be much more comfortable on my sofa. Sorry you dont like that, but if you think that is PS3 holiness, you really do need to take your blinkers off.
    Edited by 1 at 18/08/10 @ 22:18

  • TopKatt #34 2 years ago

    It is quite refreshing that the numbers of fanbois seem to be diminishing steadily from Eurogamer. This thread has only got one so far.

    *Waves at MrPacMan

  • MasterNameless #35 2 years ago

    Yeah, and makeamazing is baiting/grooming it very well with his argument of pure logic!

    Can we keep this one? :D

  • MrsPacMan #36 2 years ago

    @TopKatt
    Go back to licking the shit off Officer Dibbles size ten's. Stay out of it.

    @Makemazing
    Get your head out of your arsehole and read your own posts. Still sitting at the desk making these post, OK buddy whatever you say.

    Edited by 1 at 18/08/10 @ 22:42

  • vizzini #37 2 years ago

    The thing that never seems to get a mention in these threads is why the PS3 design is so different to PC/360 that causes developers problems.

    If you were an ecologically conscious company, would you choose a design to last 10 years that produced an average of 40% less performance per watt, and could be optimized completely in 2 years because of the architecture being straightforward? Or would you take a higher performance architecture, capable of near theoretical performance in real problems, but would undergo major software design experimentation over many years to achieve those performance gains?

    Sony are a very ecologically conscious company relative to Nintendo and Microsoft as shown by their green list position. They have helped develop a Cpu (the Cell with IBM & Toshiba) which is the major component in all of the world's 7 greenest supercomputer clusters(the Green500 List). And it was also the major component (still used with AMD's Opteron) in holding the number 1 spot for the fastest computer in the world (TOP500 list) from June 2008 – November 2009 named IBM Roadrunner; which is still ranked at number 3 today.

    By all means complain about poor multi-platform design for ps3, but don't criticise a technology company for being ecologically friendly. The only intensive tasks home PCs struggle with today are all vectorizable/scaleable problems that work more efficiently on heterogneous CPUs.

    Edit Reason: adding hyperlinks/rewording final sentence/typos
    Edited by 4 at 19/08/10 @ 12:32

  • MrsPacMan #38 2 years ago

    Yea, Vizz, good argument, for another time and place.

  • orangpelupa #39 2 years ago

    need something like this.... (-__-)
    [link url=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/BEUnderta ker/console2.png
    ]http://im g.photobucket.com/albums/v669/B...[/link]
    [link url=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/BEUnderta ker/console6.png
    ]http://im g.photobucket.com/albums/v669/B...[/link]

    BTT,
    when <strong>Digital Foundry </strong> analyse the PC version later, can you Please analyse <Strong> "Why when i turn on VSYNC, the mouse become very lag?" </strong>
    on B3D seems also got this vsync lahg.

    also when many thing happening on screen, the mouse become a lot more laggy.
    some other game not act like that (crysis, Left 4 dead 1/2 (triple buffer ON), CoD4).

    you have done analysis like that on Killzone, im curious why this happening on Mafia II PC. If i remember correctly, mafia 1 not suffer this problem. (that's if my memory still right.. been years since played that).

    thanks

  • RKOwned #40 2 years ago

    PS3 only struggles with select multiplats. The other ones are just negligable at best.

  • FladgeMangle #41 2 years ago

    It's a pity that a system that is capable of something like Naughty Dog's Uncharted 2 (which I'm playing at the moment) can be so poorly handled by other devs - and so often. It's demonstrably clear that it's not simply a lack of hardware capability, it's more to do with the hoop-jumping required to make it sing.

    These guys probably tried to direct port to the thing and so naturally the comparable lack of CPU threads (2 compared to 6) hobbled it. For "optimising" read "remove things until it runs at a get-away-with-it frame rate" and not "make effective use of the 7 available SPE threads". Understandable and disappointing at the same time.

    In all fairness, Sony (or rather Father Ken) should take some blame for assuming the development community was populated by eager nerds with limitless resources instead of haunted and weary drones on a budget.

  • skyrend #42 2 years ago

    Not shocked at all that this author gave a free pass to a lazy port job to the PS3. If it was to the 360, he'd be all over it like fly to dung (check FFXIII 360).

  • Rens11 #43 2 years ago

    I've only played the ps3 version but was shocked at how bad the tearing was I've never noticed a game as bad before i'd rather have 10% cut in graphics quality and flawless framerate! Such a shame :(

  • xenoss #44 2 years ago

    It is easy for me to imagine how this can impact my experience.

    Grass and blood aren't trivial omissions. They are part of the atmosphere. It doesn't help that these are things that are supposed to be in the game, except for the PS3 version. Things are missing. If you pay the exact same price as the 360 counter part, and you get way less, then it'd be odd if you have no problem with that.

    It isn't just "is your experience good". It is also a matter of "what should your experience be like". This "good enough" arguement game sites like to use to help justify things like this is unacceptible.

  • TopKatt #45 2 years ago

    @MrPacMan


    Ahhhh bless! I'm surprised that someone as young as you remembers that cartoon!

  • toy_brain #46 2 years ago

    I tried the PS3 demo, thought it was meh. Mostly noticed 'teh jaggies' and the dippy framerate when it came to technical shortcomings, but it was the gameplay structure (tiny - albeit recharging - health bar, cover system, loose feel to movement) that marked it as a no-buy for me.

    I also tried the PC demo, sadly my rig is just not up to it. It ran worse than the PS3 version by no small margin.

    I suppose I could try the 360 version, but something tells be a splash of extra greenery and claret isnt going to make the game any better.

  • UncleLou #47 2 years ago

    Exclusive - every console or handheld has these, PS3 has the fewest worth buying (don't bother listing what titles you think, I'll rip it to shreds)

    I find it genuinely a little depressing when people don't just troll, but when you can tell from how they post that they are simply a bit stupid. :-(

  • SL33PY #48 2 years ago

    TBH I don't actually care about this face off, since I have a PC, that does what it has to do very well. I have higher resolution, Higher AA settings and higher framerates.

    As long as consoles are inferior to a PC I'll be the devils advocate to promote PC gaming. I have a PS3 as well because any interesting game on XBOX that can't be bought for PS3 can however be bought for PC and I happen to like several PS3 exclusive games.

  • Lee_Morris #49 2 years ago

    I wouldn't really call grass and blood pools features

  • hiscore #50 2 years ago

    Nowadays, 'optimizing' means 'Vsync Off' to avoid framedrops. The result in most cases is screen tearing. As long as consumers are happy with (just) 'a decent framerate' developers won't bother with polishing the (rest of the) graphics. An uncompromised image means: a steady framerate (fixed 30 or 60 fps) PLUS vsync enabled (to avoid screen tearing).

  • Darren #51 2 years ago

    @hiscore - 'Optimised' in my book means a game running smoothly at 30 or 60 fps (minus a few frames per second) with NO screen tearing.

    It's quite depressing to see so many console games being released with both framerate issues and tearing, at least on the 360 and PS3 (the Wii doesn't seem to suffer this issue anywhere near as badly; likely because Nintendo don't like to see it). Mafia 2 looks downright ugly on the consoles and reminds me of the four year old Saints Row, another game that was heavily criticised for its tearing but at least the developments patched in a v-sync option (plus included it out of the box in the sequel).

  • dr_zoidthrob #52 2 years ago

    Odd that there's no mention of the really weird shadows (which are most noticeable on faces) that appear to be stippled - first time I've ever seen anything like it

  • Haloboy #53 2 years ago

    So wait PS3 owners would prefer a world full of grass and a game that ran at 10-15 fps on avg then I take it? Good call.

  • woodnotes #54 2 years ago

    But PS3 games look better - I read it in today's Metro!

  • Grievous1976 #55 2 years ago

    I heard somewhere that the PS3 version does'nt include any cars! Now watch the PS3 fanboys negative this one.

  • des #56 2 years ago

    Optimization,an eternal excuse for fanboys...bu bu bu lazy devs,optimize optimize optimize

    It exists but it is not some magical thing...besides in lots of cases optimizing is just cutting things that simply don't work well
    Edited by 1 at 19/08/10 @ 09:32

  • flaming.carrot #57 2 years ago

    To be honest it looks pretty shit on all 3 formats, but the PS3 version especially so.
    Edited by 1 at 19/08/10 @ 09:31

  • Gromit #58 2 years ago

    Is it just me or is this game just as bad as the first one? It just seems so outdated. Shame because there was real potential with this and Mafia II, but they just end up cheaply done and incomplete.

  • JahB #59 2 years ago

    This would have been somewhat acceptable 3 years ago, but for a game that's being released a few months after Red Dead Redemption (which showed impressively that console parity is absolutely possible for sandbox games) it's a bit of a shame.

  • des #60 2 years ago

    "Red Dead Redemption (which showed impressively that console parity is absolutely possible for sandbox games) it's a bit of a shame. "

    What?Are you drunk?
    RDR was nowhere near console parity...lol

    Differences are even much worse than in Mafia 2.
    Edited by 2 at 19/08/10 @ 10:19

  • muscleblade #61 2 years ago

    This is nothing new. Multiplatform games are best on the PC (when it has a version) and almost as good on the 360. The PS3 version falls behind almost every time. DRM issues, prefering a console in the livingroom , party chat and xbox live makes the 360 a distant number one imo. The PS3 have some pretty good exclusives no doubt. Halo and Gears are my faveourite franchises so i do think the 360 wins here too though.
    Edited by 1 at 19/08/10 @ 10:31

  • hiscore #62 2 years ago

    @ Darren: that's exactly what I say/mean: a steady fps + vsync on = no screen tearing ;-)

  • Arwin #63 2 years ago

    Oh the contrast with the playable footage of inFamous 2 at gamescom just couldn't be bigger ...

  • feistycheese #64 2 years ago

    Looking at the comparison pictures, it just looks to me like the neighbourhood on the 360 version are a bunch of lazy sods who never mow their lawns. The PS3 suburbanites however are very neat and keep their green nice and short :) they also quickly mop up any nasty bloodstains left around the place by careless gangsters.

  • azic #65 2 years ago

    As a side note, IMHO Sony have dropped the ball with the PS3 Big time. Every multi platform game 9 out 10 times fails on the PS3 the 360 is just killing it every time (I OWN THEM ALL & AND PC) and my loyalty only lies with the PC.

    There is no point screaming lazy Dev's etc.. The PS3 is just too dam hard to work with, and you cant expect developers to create 2 engines for each console, becuase Sony in there infinite wisdom decided to handicap there hardware with such a low amount of RAM etc. GT5 Looks amazing as does Kill ZONE but they are only on PS3. So yes the PS3 is very capable but this only shines on Exclusives as the engine is designed only for that Hardware.

    It is completely unreasonable to expect the Dev's to make 2 optimised engines for one game across 2 consoles. I deal daily with costs in this arena, and I can tell you that game Dev costs are right up there with film making costs some times.
    Of course if we want to pay double the price for games and wait 3 times as long then yes we will have 360 & PS3 running identical games.

    Sony's thinking behind the Hardware was good, it is very powerful but they Handicapped it so badly that when an engine is designed to run on a PC/360/PS3 (possibly Wii) there will have to either be very serious cuts or very very highly developed optimizations due to the way in which the PS3 works. Again this is down to the Dev's and some *Have managed* by using the PS3 as the base and then working towards the 360 and PC, however this again leads to the same problems, and ultimately the PS3 version isn't any better.

    In summery, it easy to blame the hardware, but it has to be noted that its not in the best Interest of Dev's to make sub-par games on Sony Consoles, and what ever way you cut it, the PS3 is handicapped and is so hard to code for, hence why Valve wont touch it becuase the Half Life series was designed on Hardware that the PC & 360 use, and again its unreasonable to expect them to re-make the game for PS3 becuase portions of code they have already got and can scale right up or down in detail on any PC or 360 need more money and time spent on them becuase the PS3 is technically handicapped as stated by many AAA game houses and developers.

    IMHO Sony need to pull finger out, start helping developers more, and start taking gaming seriously again. They won the Next Gen Home Movie format war, but they are really losing the gaming war. UK customers get 40% of what the US store has, 3-5 revisions of hardware, pulling backwards compatibility, where is the promised you can use your PSP as awing mirror in games etc.

    Suffice to say I have pre-Purchased MafiaII on steam :)
    Edited by 5 at 19/08/10 @ 13:55

  • glaeken #66 2 years ago

    The frame rate for me is the most important thing that seems to be wrong in this and having watched the video it seems equally as bad on both consoles. I will definitely have to try the demo to see how noticeable it is for me during game play before buying this.

  • flaming.carrot #67 2 years ago

    @Azic

    Wooh! Steady on there, a couple of points on your post:

    "Every multi platform game 9 out 10 times fails on the PS3"
    Is'nt that a bit strong, a slightly slower framerate (sometimes) and lack of antialiasing is hardly a fail?

    "PS3 is handicapped and is so hard to code for, hence why Valve wont touch it"
    Ah, this is the same Valve who were on stage at Sony's E3 presentation announcing Portal 2 on PS3?

    Cheers.
    Edited by 1 at 19/08/10 @ 13:56

  • azic #68 2 years ago

    @flaming.carrot
    Given the power of the PS3 and since AA is a forgone conclusion on the 360 in almost every game... it does rather beg the question as to why the PS3 suffers lack of AA and **sometimes lower fps**?
    Why is that the case? AA makes the world of difference to jaggies and how sharp a game looks. and Slower FPS means the experience is not as fluid.
    I'm not attacking the PS3, but even you agree it does suffer with the basics such as AA. Look at lensoftruth.com head to heads to see just how much the PS3 suffers when it comes to side by side comparisons.

    Portal 2... Not Portal or any of the Half Life series... Portal 2 is new and has been created from the ground up. However I wonder what version will suffer detail and frame rate cuts?

  • poorwretch #69 2 years ago

    "Yea, ok , but why did you buy a PS3? Not a joke.

    360 > PS3"

    to play mass effect 2 with free dlc :)

  • wicked_uk #70 2 years ago

    @poorwretch

    You can buy Mass effect 2 on the 360 for £10 and then get all the DLC still cheaper than it's going to be on PS3 in Jan 2011

  • azic #71 2 years ago

    @Umbriel
    I only really believe in the PC politic.. For me PC is where its at in regards to gaming. But as such M$ kill its own system to better another and this is why I have consoles becuase games like GTAIV and RDR take years to come to the PC or not at all.
    What I do believe in, is that the PS3 is suffering and it should not be. Whatever others feel, not having AA, Not having Blood pools, Not having Foliage, lower FPS, not having nice backgrounds like in the case of SFIV is like only having the second best to me.

    In regards to exclusives, I have made the point that PS3 Exclusives are amazing but for the fact they created solely for that Hardware. I'm not attacking the PS3, but I feel on a multi platform release its going to be better or you will get more from the 360 version than the PS3 in most cases...and it should not be like that, but it is!

  • poorwretch #72 2 years ago

    @wicked_uk
    and you could get a sense of humor, but that might be asking too much.

  • randyronald #73 2 years ago

    Although I'm confident developers are comfortably familiar with the PS3's architecture when it comes to making exclusive titles (just look at Uncharted 2, LittleBig Planet, KillZone and God of War 3 for examples), it's still evidently clear that compromises have to be made when it comes for multi-platform releases. I'm lucky enough to own both consoles so I get the best of both worlds - outstanding looking exclusives for the PS3 and sharper cross-platform titles for the 360. But to be perfectly honest, if I only had a PS3 I wouldn't feel too bummed out about it as the inferiorities are extremely minor and hardly game breaking in most cases (although I'll be the first to admit that the omission of the grass clutter does hurt a little bit).

    I do wish I was lucky enough - or rather wealthy enough - to own a sweet PC rig, because that is the only way the PC version will ever make mince meat out of the other versions, as previous commentators have claimed. For Joe Public, it's going to be the console versions that will yield the greater performance/visual fidelity.

    Although that didn't stop me getting the PC version of Borderlands. Sure, I can only play at at 640x480 resolution - but that was a compromise I was willing to make for the online community's... mannerisms :p

  • azic #74 2 years ago

    @Umbriel
    Don't know if I made it clear or not, but yes I always game on the PC unless its not released for PC like Red Dead etc or its a console exclusive. PC is the Best, Ive just been playing GTAIV on PC and its so much better than on console.

    My point in this thread is that the PS3 is suffering in regards to graphics because IMHO its has been handicapped in its design, and its not lazy Dev's, its just too hard and i guess too expensive to optimize for it when an engine can run well on the 360 and PC retrospectively.

    OK so missing foliage, lower frame rates and loss of AA is not an exaggeration? Would it be an exaggeration if your PC did not do that. As for God of war and Uncharted..Please both are less than or exactly 720P and so could easily run on your PC at higher resolution and with so much more. You are not seeing those graphics on your PC because the games are not on your PC period. If they were they would look better. Play Crysis and you will see. Look at Batman on the PC, looks the same on PS3 and 360 but if you look deeper it has so much more going on in the physics department and a few other places.

    Sorry 30 odd wins to 16 is a fairly good amount to win by. I am not disputing the PS3's power in exclusives, but in cross platform it does lose out and I'm sorry but the cross platform to exclusive ration is much higher.

    Also if you feel that read dead is a mute point fine, play the low res, choppy frame rate version on your PS3, ill play the best version available on my 360 until the PC version arrives....and guess what Ill buy it again and play it again on PC because as I'm sure you will know, its like a new game :)
    Cheers.
    Edited by 2 at 19/08/10 @ 22:56

  • The-Jack-Burton #75 2 years ago

    These are the same people who said this engine would be comparable to Cry Engine 2, what a fucking joke

  • vizzini #76 2 years ago

    From my experience with the demo, the game looks entertaining(and I still might buy it), but I’m always surprised when a game with relatively average graphics needs, won’t run well on Doom3’s reference hardware (P4 3.0ghz, 512mb Ram and ATI 9800 Pro chipset/256MB videoram),

    So I guess it is no surprise when the 360 experience is below par, and the PS3 experience is hobbled below that.

    The console versions run with issues because the main game engine has performance issues even on moderately fast PC hardware.

    From reading some of the comments in this thread, you’d think that the _overall_ gameplay experience of most games is magically better on PC than console. But having had custom built machines since the 80286 & an Orchid VGA card 256KB vram days, my feeling is that _overall_ gameplay experience is now best on HD consoles.

    PCs tend to be power inefficient and fall into the following categories:

    very high power usage, fast performance, quiet, cooling system, 26” screens or less
    high power usage, fast performance, noisy, no cooling system, 26” screens or less
    mid power usage, mid performance, quiet, cooling system, 26” screens or less
    low power usage, mid performance, noisy, no cooling system, 26” screens or less
    low power usage, low performance, quiet, no cooling system, 26” screens or less

    But rarely are they like consoles:

    low power usage, high performance, quiet(relative to PCs), high-end 32” screen or bigger, with DTS or better sound.

    Even if the PC version of some games is technically better due to developer design choices, the overall gaming experience on consoles at my house has been better than PC gaming for well over a decade now.

  • ukgamer #77 2 years ago

    surprised you didn't go into the AA. it's crap on all three platforms. they can't be using MSAA it must be some other low end type.

  • Farzlepot #78 2 years ago

    I've been playing the demo on both consoles quite a lot over the last day or two, alternating between each as I try to compare them without the benefit of two screens. I didn't know this article was here, you see! I largely agree with the conclusions of DF though - the PS3 version features a lot of tearing and aliasing compared to the 360 version, and the areas of painted-on grass do look a little bland.

    I've also noticed a peculiar sound issue that I haven't had yet on the 360 - occasionally, the lines uttered by NPCs become digitised and muffled.

    However, contrary to this article I actually thought that the framerate seemed slightly better on the PS3. I don't have access to sophisticated nerd gadgetery like they do though, so maybe I was imagining it.
    Edited by 2 at 20/08/10 @ 11:01

  • Retroid #79 2 years ago

    That's some mighty lazy optimisation there.

    The game engine is running slowly with a feature turned on. Do we:

    a) Look at how that feature is working, work out why it's running slowly and look up alternative methods for achieving it

    or

    b) Take it out! Does the game runner faster? Yes? Then SUCCESS! \o/

  • CloisterBlack #80 2 years ago

    ok, honestly people, if you just look on the PS3 version it looks ok, but when comparing it it just looks like crap.
    that's a fact. and that's for shame.
    too bad there are still developers, 5 years after the consoles launched, that are lazy to optimize their code for each console.

  • Ilusiil18 #81 1 year ago

    I've played both console demos at least 10 times each comparing the two in an attempt of decide which version to go with,and both seem to be lacking something the other one isn't so it's a trade off.

    While the PS3 version is lacking raised grass and blood effects the 360 version is lacking the cleaner graphical fidelity apparent in the PS3 version due to really bad alpha channels (pixelation) in all shadows and vegetation.So it all comes down to what you're willing to lose/put up with.

    For those of you whom continue to claim PS3 is destined to be plagued with inferior ports EA disagrees with you.EA has proved in the last year and a half that multi-platform titles can be produced on both platforms with little to no despairity (see titles like Dante's Inferno and BFBC2)...PS3 may have been prone to bad ports from launch to 2007 due to the learning curve associated with the new tech but that excuse just doesn't hold up in 2010.

  • Geordiemp #82 1 year ago

    Its comforting as a multi console owner to see less and less fanboys on these threads.

    Everyone with half a brain knows some engines run better on PS3 and some on 360, and some the same.

    What seems to be common is that PS3 suffers from the OLD ENGINES or tech that some companies still use but are a bit outdated.

    Roll on the newer engines like crytek and all console owners will have a better experience.

    Quite happy seeing people complain of lazy devs, but maybe they should be asking why they are still churning out games on old engines ?

  • vizzini #83 1 year ago

    I'm interested to know if DF set the aim assist to off and sensitivity to the max when running the frame rate monitor; as I played both console versions again last night and found the game smooth on both with these settings, and didn't see any screen tearing this time.

    Looking at them one after the other, I have noticed that the PS3 version actually has some different benefits to the 360 version. Namely the lighting is slightly better on the ps3, particularly visible close up to the cars and the clothing(like the main character's jacket).

    The general colours also look marginally washed out on the 360 by comparison, and the illumination inside the building doesn't have great contrast like it does on the ps3. But even looking at the DF video I can see these minor issues to an extent.

    I suspect there is the gamma problem that the OrangeBox version of HL2 had on 360(compared to the PC and PS3), which is affecting the lighting ever so slighting, but could also be caused by lower precision normal maps.

    But none of these issues really mattered much to the(retro Untouchables Amiga/ST) fun I had again with the demos. It is looking more like a purchase now, so hopefully all version will get improved at some point in time by patches to include all FX, and the choice of version will be more about preference of control pad or mouse/keyboard.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/10 @ 15:50

  • Mar27w #84 1 year ago

    360fanboyOH YEAH EPIC FAIL FOR THE GAYSTATION3,360 RULES THE ROOST WHOO WHOO,PS3fanboyF*CK OFF AND PLAY QUEERS OF WAR,360fanboyIM A 360 OWNER AND PROUD,PS3fanboyYEAH SAY IT LOUD HES GAY AN PROUD ho ho you all get carried away over the slightest thing,would anybody even have noticed this minor graphical diff if the dev hadnt pointed it out,im a 360 owner but im hardly spanking the monkey over some 2D foilage and some spilt tomato sauce,im more intrested in the framerate being locked down

  • RKOwned #85 1 year ago

    "It does seem to be the case that "optimising" in the case of this particular PS3 game seems to involve the removal of features, but at the same time, regular Face-Off readers will know that this is part and parcel of the reality of multi-platform development on a great many games. "

    Ok, someone explain to me what he meant here. We hardly ever see the devs actual remove a graphical feature like grass or whatever when deving multiplatform games on PS3. So, what did he mean by this? nowadays, theres hardly a difference. Certainly not to this extent where its actual missing stuff like blood or whatever.
    Edited by 1 at 25/08/10 @ 03:49