Does Ghostbusters: The Video Game Look Better On Xbox 360?

Online head-to-head comparisons of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of Atari's Ghostbusters: The Video Game indicate that one of those high-def consoles is offering a less "feel good" experience.

Game blog Lens of Truth put both the PS3 and 360 versions of the game under the their... lens of truth, achieving results that show the PlayStation 3 version appears to be filtered through a fine film of ectoplasmic residue. What does that mean in technical terms? Decreased texture quality, lower resolution and missing shadowing and lighting effects.

The blog's side-by-side comparison isn't favourable to the PS3 version, which they point out carries with it a substantial hard drive installation to little perceived benefit.

A similar test was run by Digital Foundry's Richard Leadbetter, who handles head-to-head console comparisons for Eurogamer. Two of his findings highlighting the quality differences can be seen here and here. He also tweeted earlier this week "At the gutter end of Face-Off 20 with Ghostbusters: The Video Game. It's like time-warping back to the dawn of PS3 development." We'll assume that's a reference to previous quality differences between Xbox 360 games and their PlayStation 3 counterparts.

We've contacted Atari, its third-party PR firm and Ghostbusters developers Terminal Reality but have yet (checks again) to receive a response to our inquiries about the differences.

Head2Head: Ghostbusters [Lens of Truth]


    Hmmm I'm suprised, I was under the impression that the PS3 was the lead console SKU. A bunch of physics tech videos they ran for the game a while back were all using the PS3.

    was so worth the import

    Well didnt Terminal Reality make an ass of themselves. I remember them saying something like the 360 was holding them back and if it was a PS3 exclusive they could do so much more.

    I have been looking at the two pictures over and over and over again.

    Its only the contrast and saturation that is the difference between the two.

    If you really want to fix the issue on the consumer side then just adjust the settings on the channel you use for gaming.

    Other than that I cant see any other major difference

      The differences are far from just being contrast and saturation.

      The PS3 version is clearly running at a lower resolution. This is obvious if you A-B the images.

      I wouldn't say this is a stellar looking game in the first place, compared to AAA titles, but the PS3 version looks terrible.

        I think we all know now what Sony wanted the exclusivity for PAL regions.

    The PS3 itself has nothing to do with it. It's the slack ass developers who cbf making the game properly for the PS3 to begin with.

    This is just another classic case of a shitty multi-platform scenario. The PS3 gets handed the short stick because it's "too hard".

    GG Terminal Reality ... gg. I can only hope developers like this steer away from the PS3 and stick to what they're good at, cave man style programming for windows based systems.

    just goes to show that no matter how powerful the machine is, if you make it to hard to use or people don't know how to use it, it doesn't mean shit.

    The developers have confirmed that the PS3 version is indeed running at "75%" of the resolution of the 360 version.

    Blame the developers all you like, but when you do, remember Sony's prideful statement that PS3 IS hard... There are hardware differences involved, not to mention API and major threading issues.

    There's just no excuse for this anymore, but subpar development work.

    I've heard that the game itself ended up pretty average anyway.

    Ah well - just another game that X360 can add to their pile to help themselves feel secure that they bought the 'better' system

      What's with the hate?

    No matter how "hard" it is to program for a console, that is no excuse for a drop in quality. If you can't do it, don't release it.

      plmko I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you suggesting that it's Sony's fault or the developers fault? Sony obviously have good reason for their development software being difficult to work with. The type of superiority that comes from PS3 is not easily attainable, and suffice to say that most developers would benefit from using it, they refuse to on multiplatform games.

      You're dealing with a system which is immensely powerful, 8 processors is nothing to sneeze at. Do you honestly believe that there's going to be any "Developing PS3 games for idiots" tools? Powerful systems require developers to pull their fingers out.

      However all that being said.... it's a Ghostbusters game, who cares what it looks like because I'm not playing it.

    well off to cancel my pre-order, i'll just wait for the $50 pc version to come out, which i'll assume (by then) will have been patched to include MP....

    To be fair i have both consoles and a highend pc and the only console game that has made my jaw drop with graphics quality is mgs 4. No game on 360 has done that yet so its a shame that the PS3 version is not as good as the 360 version when in all rights the PS3 version should be better.

      im in the exact same position. mgs4 is the only game that i have thought was just beautiful. looking at those shots it almost looks like the tv settings arent right for the ps3 version. i cant see a dev spitting out that garbage for the ps3. if that truly is the quality they have thrown up they need to be shut down cause that is a joke! either that or its a deliberate sabotage by eurotrash oops i mean eurogamer.

    Their is no excuse for a developer to still not have a grasp of the ps3 hardware by now, damn things been out for years. All this is proving is that terminal reality have bad programmers.

    I cant think of a single other multiplatform title that looked this bad on ps3 since... 2007.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now