Guerrilla Games laughs at those developers who believe the PlayStation 3 is difficult to develop for. The Killzone 2 creators have brushed off such complaints, going so far as to say that the PS3 is easier to get to grips with. You don't hear that one often.
"I think a lot of those stories that you hear about it being 'so difficult' are coming from developers who are native to other consoles and then start working on PS3, because it is very different," explains managing director Hermen Hulst. "But like us, if you are native to PlayStation, our tech director doesn't say it's particularly difficult. It's specific, but it's not difficult like PS2 was difficult – PS2 was a difficult [machine] to crack, but PS3 didn't take us a long time to get up and running."
Development director Arjan Brussee added his belief that the PS3 was an easier platform: "I actually think PS3 is a simpler architecture than some of the other consoles; you just have to have a certain mindset on how to address it. I think the Cell-based processor with the SPUs and the super high speed DSPs that you can throw all your calculation tasks at gives us a model that's way easier to program for, even for junior programmers, than the general purpose multi-core type of architecture, which the PC and Xbox 360 have. ... On the other platforms, you can have one processor dealing with AI and another processor dealing with rendering and another with game code, etc. And the synchronization of all that is so hard that it's a huge complex issue to solve and get stable."
If you can understand a word of that, you're a better man than me.
This whole "PS3 is hard/easy to develop for" argument has gone on for quite some time. It's quite clear that it's a very personal thing and some studios will have an easier time with certain consoles, especially if they're Guerrilla and haven't even made a game for the other machines. That's not going to stop the debate, though. The console wars pay no heed to logic.
Contest:
8:00 PM on 04.02.2009
| 
I don't want to sound like a jack ass, but why do we need to report on a story like this? I feel as though I've heard this countless times.
Who honestly cares (with the exception of fanboys)?! You even said that it's up to personal preference of the developer, so what are we really getting from this?
Quote:
"...way easier to program for, even for junior programmers, than the general purpose multi-core type of architecture, which the PC and Xbox 360 have."
I call shenanigans.
Does this make me better than someone yet?
Hell, Sony basically let the Guerilla team look at the inner workings of the PS3 and see what it can do. Sony owns this company, so naturally, he would say this, because the technical director probably knows exactly how to pogram for the PS3 far greater than most other developers on the planet. The end result speaks for itself.
KZ2 is sonys big exclusive, they'd do anything to help the developers understand the PS3 better and they have.
Jim is right, it is a personal preference.
Only if said cheese sandwich has bacon in it.
I think the whole Company Vs Company thing would be much greater if they settled situations like this in heated competitions. I'm thinking a nerf war.
That aside, the constant bickering is making me more and more enthusiastic to build my next long-term PC with minimal upgrades. What do you all think? Quad Core?
At LEAST 13 cores. Gotta get the longevity in there.
There are a lot of developers pumping out great stuff for the PS3, so either those programmer are the best on the planet, or everyone else just sucks. I'm inclined to go with the latter.
Seriously, shut the fuck up with these meaningless statements. If Crytek or Valve or some other competent 3rd party dev says the PS3 is easier to code for, then I would be more inclined to believe it.
why did it take you 5-6+ years to make it? and still leave out essential FPS components like split-screen or even co-op?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch0BALz2wnE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP7zGF6orAI&feature=related
Originality isn't easier on either console, right?
Here is what will happen: You will continue to cite examples of game design decisions you disliked in Killzone 2 as evidence of lack of serious programming competency. Or cynically, you will assume that just because some corporation signs his paycheck, that Arjan Brussee can't possibly have an objective sense of coding difficulties.
It's not like he's an expert or anything, compared to the rest of us.
As an animator, my 3D program of choice is Maya but there are alternatives which can more or less let you do the same stuff. The trouble is the interfaces in these programs are so different that I would have to spend some time to learn things and fight habits I've got from using Maya.
I've tired a couple of programs which felt they could be more intuitive but without investing more time in them, Maya is the "easiest" for me to use.
It's all a matter of preference. Just like Johnny Justice is comfortable with Maya, I'm comfortable with Blender. Another contributing factor is the investment required to develop- Devkits, Engine Licensing, the exorbitant price of tools for animation and sound; it can be taxing on both money and time to use these things effectively.
Of course an in-house developer is going to say the platform they work for is easier, they have the experience with it. The guy at your local breakfast diner is more than likely going to say cooking an egg breakfast is easier than a steak dinner, whereas the guy at your local steakhouse will probably say the exact opposite. It's not to say they do a shit job or that they're bad cooks, it's just what they know and they stick to it, and broadening their horizons will only make them better.
It may be difficult to allocate the time needed to make a port, as it is different, but no self respecting developer I have ever met (And I am one of them) would ever admit something was too difficult to do. You know what that means in this business? "You can't do it? We'll get someone else who can!".
From what GG is saying, the problem with conventional multi-core development is that you can have one core dealing with GFX, another Sound, another AI. Sounds easy and modular, but you have to have them all coordinating with each other and synchronising in harmony otherwise it's all for nothing.
The PS3 Cell seems to have the benefits of multi-core architecture, but without the hassle involved. That involves as much of a change in development as moving from 1 core to many.
Good on them :)
The point is that the PS3 needs its games to be built from scratch and highly optimised for the platform because of its architecture and this just isn't how games are made.
Cross-platform people.
The ps3 is a bitch to develop for because you have to heavily modify your existing PC or Xbox360 code in order for it to work efficiently. If you only need it to work on Ps3 thats fine, but making it portable?, good luck.
Just look at Ps3 version of the current Unreal engine , massive problems, still inferior to its Pc/XBox versions and this is from seasoned engine developers.
Im guessing the sucessful ps3 & Xbox ports (Re5,DMC,fallout3 etc) will have been made especially for the difficult Ps3 then ported to the xbox.
( PS for you ravign fanbois out there, theres at least one developer who created a PS3-orientated engine ( SPU style job streaming etc) and then found it ran faster on the XBox :) )
Sure... Which ones?
@hjd uk
You mean the Unreal Engine that ran UT3, which on PS3 features mods, the ability to use Mouse and Keyboard, and let us play against PC users? In fact is pretty darned close to the PC version? Right!
Also strange how a lot of other devs manage cross platform titles well, like Burnout Paradise, even adding better support to PS3 as time goes by (like running it in 1080i instead of 720p).
I want to like the PS3, but I'm convinced the only game that is worth a fuck so far is Uncharted.
"If it's so easy to develop for, how come KZ2 took 4 years to make?"
alright, sorry.
hahaha