830°

Mirror's Edge - PS3 lead platform, trophy & dlc plans

September OPM mag's special exclusive feature on Mirror's Edge

Read Full Story >>
img149.imageshack.us
Le-mo5742d ago

PS3 lead platform...so it begins. :)

Laexerias5742d ago

So... let the force be with you.

gaffyh5742d ago

No pudding posted this in the forum:

"EA have all their newer developments lead on PS3. Dead Space for exmaple.

Ubisoft too. Prince of Persia is PS3 lead."

Just wanted to ask if this is true? Cos I was under the impression that EA were porting everything from 360 to PS3.

callahan095742d ago

No, they're only porting Valve productions onto the PS3 because Valve are ignoramuses and refuse to program for the PS3 despite the fact that it would be more than lucrative for them to get off their lazy asses and learn some tricks with the hardware (there are more than enough developers out there who have gotten their heads around it and they share tools and information with PS3 developers who need it...)

NO_PUDding5742d ago

Gaffyh, it's true. I am nmot some crazed fanboy.

Well a tiny bit. But that doesn't stop fact from being fact.

Basically as I said in the openzone, all internal developments in EA and Ubisoft as of a certain date respective to the company, will be PS3 Lead.

For 360 owners, don't worry, developing on the PS3 will only iron out the problems they had with PS3, it will never damage the 360 version. It may even improve it.

CaptainHowdy5742d ago

EA now realizes that ps3 is its bread n butter...most of their sales come from ps3, might as well pay back with quality games

Jerkapotamus5742d ago

They demoed the game at E3 with a sixaxis in every interview I saw on every game site/tv show.It made me think they probably had PS3 as their lead platform.

ar5742d ago

The reason Valve doesn't develop for the PS3 is simply because they doesn't have the resources to develop for three platforms. In comparison to other companies Valve is a pretty small development studio.

jams_shop5742d ago

We have to Thank Criterion Games(Burnout: Paradise) for that. I believe they were the first developers who used the PS3 as their lead platform and they are part of EA games.

mistertwoturbo5742d ago

That's the thing, Leading on the PS3 will result in a better multiplatform game. Sure 360 fans will hate that they don't get to gloat "nyah nyah we get the superior version" or whatever. But at least this way, everybody gets a good game regardless of PS3/360.

I only wished GTAIV made the PS3 the lead platform instead, perhaps it would have ran much smoother and be equal to the 360. Oh well, let's move on.

NO_PUDding5742d ago

GTAIV was identical to me. PS3 had better framerates too.

Anyway, I don't care for GTAIV anymore.

@ar You you have no clue what you are talking about. They could easily get EA to pay for some extra people on the team. The point is Valve as a team are as potently ignorant as your average fanboy. Not to agree with the eprson above becuase calling them ignoramae is different, but they are just anti-Sony.

Cormack is only anti-Sony becuase he helped develop the Xbox. Gabe Newell has one reason alone, and that's becuase it's anti-social to developers. It is, but it creates a competetive market in the process, and if Gabe Newell can't appreciate that, then he can keep his games on the Source Engine for the 10 years for all I care.

Tomdc5742d ago

i dont like the look of this game personally.

gaffyh5742d ago

Ok, thanks for the replies. I remember a story from a whil ago when EA said something like they would start using PS3 as the lead platform, but I didn't think they had already started that plan.

ar5742d ago

First of there's no point in being rude.

Second, Gabe Newell said him self that they doesn't have the resources to handle three platforms. If you choose to believe in him or not is your decision.

Third, since EA doesn't own Valve (and therefore none of Valves IP:s) they are hardly attracted to the idea to finance a permanent PS3 development team at Valve. They can make the decision to port the game to PS3 if they want to (a decision they seam to be making already) but they can't just put some guys over at Valve as soon as they want a Valve title on the PS3. Even for an experienced developer it takes time to learn and adapt to a new system (believe me, I work as a software developer). Every company has different ways to work in and every game engine behaves differently. Therefor if EA want Valve to develop for the PS3 as well they would have to fund for an entire permanent PS3 department at Valve (a company they doesn't own).

BattleAxe5742d ago

Actually it has nothing ton do with any of those things, all it has to do with is Gabe Newell not liking Sony. He was a former employee of Microsoft and about a year ago he said " the PS3 is a waste of everyones time".

Simple as that.

uie4rhig5741d ago

i actually didn't notice any difference, not frame rate or graphics aside from the upscaler, i played on a friends 360 and my PS3 on his 50" TV and i noticed that the PS3's up scaling is a bit more accurate, which i find weird since the 360 version is hardware upscaled and aside from that it also runs on a higher resolution.. im not sure if i saw it wrong or that i am just plain crazy, but the upscaling of the PS3 looked better to my eyes

Bleucrunch5741d ago

I dont care what is in the lead I dont support EA so I will not be buying this crap of a game.

NMC20075741d ago

Game development for the PS3? I don't get this statement, I mean Burnout Paradise was the lead and nothing happened..... did it? I dunno, I didn't buy Burnout Revenge at all, was there some sort of lead platform advantage that I don't know about? Come on guise, let me in on the secrets! I wanna know the lead dev secrets!! come on! Please!! SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECREEEEEEEE EETS!!!!

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTT TTTTTTTT BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! !!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHH!!!

LOLZ!

Bombibomb5741d ago

Man I can't wait for Mirror's Edge.

Silellak5741d ago

This is a good thing, for both consoles.

It's been said by developers time and time again that it's much easier to port from the PS3 to the 360 than the other way around.

Lmann5741d ago

It has to do with the fact that Valve has always been a PC developer, it's what they know, and are setup to do. 360 games can be developed pretty much the same way you would for the PC. On the other hand, Valve has stated that the PS3 was dumb and a waste of time. I suspect that Valve had a hard time getting their minds around the PS3 Cell, RSX architecture. It quite different from long standing PC development techniques. Anyhow, too bad for Valve. It only hurts them in the end. It would not hurt them to learn something new once every ten years.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 5741d ago
THC CELL5742d ago (Edited 5742d ago )

to be honest i am shocked

developed on xbox first would of been well u no the story hahh

and this is made by the burnout team ? lol i can see it now
100% better than xbox

CViper5742d ago

There has not been an instance of the PS3 as a lead, resulting in a lesser 360 port.

The 360 ported to the PS3 is where all the problems seem to occur. Multiplatforms have always been close to equal before this gen. Hopefully leading with the PS3 will get things back on track.

Harry1905742d ago

Criterion,studio which really loves Playstation consoles and handhelds.

Mirror's Edge = DICE.

NO_PUDding5742d ago

Criterion don't have any preference Harry.

But EA's internal devs have switched to lead platform on PS3. As have Ubisofts.

You guys didn't see that at E3?

user8586215742d ago

DICE have worked on the battlefield series

Pain5742d ago

What i like to see and hear.

No GIANT huge pile of crap holding it back now!!

JasonPC360PS3Wii5741d ago

DICE did Battlefield BA and the PS3 version is sub-par to the 360, so that just shoots down your theory about DICE. Criterion did Burnout not DICE, get your facts right. You know a little click on Google or Yahoo can help with that.

IzKyD13315741d ago

how is it sub-par?
because you say so right? oh then it MUST be true!

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 5741d ago
uie4rhig5741d ago

i could do that, and will later on ;) if others want the scans agree and ill post them here, otherwise disagree and ill just pm CViper with the scans

thereapersson5742d ago (Edited 5742d ago )

That is a magazine scan, but it's so far the best news we can get confirming this subject. Maybe scan more of the mag, like CViper says?

MrSwede5742d ago

Check the forum thread (Via link).

THC CELL5742d ago (Edited 5742d ago )

Great news

nice find paul_war

Show all comments (181)
80°

Battlefield 2042 Mirror's Edge Easter Egg Surfaces in Season 4 Map

It seems that in Season 4, DICE has snuck in a Battlefield 2042 Mirror's Edge Easter egg in the new Flashpoint map.

220°

10 Old Games With Outstanding Graphics

GF365: "There are some games with extraordinary visuals that impress us to this day. Here are old games with outstanding graphics."

Read Full Story >>
gamefreaks365.com
ShwaaMan451d ago

Bioshock still looks fantastic, one of my all time favorites.

Yui_Suzumiya451d ago

Beyond: Two Souls on PS3 can compete with modern day graphics.

SonyStyled451d ago (Edited 451d ago )

Same as Killzone 2 and 3, uncharted 2 and 3, Infamous 2, Heavy Rain, Resistance 3

jasonismoney451d ago

I wish this was entirely true, but you might want to load up Killzone 2 and Resistance 3 again.

SonyStyled451d ago

@jason I watched some gameplay videos of KZ2 and R3 on my full screen. They are on par or succeed graphically to the first person shooters mentioned in the article that also launched on the seventh generation of consoles. Try the same and see what you think

cthulhucultist451d ago

Killzone 3 was super impressive! I could not believe the graphics back then as I was regularly pausing the game to stand in awe looking at the surroundings! Resistance however did not impress me that much. Heavy rain is also another amazing graphically speaking game. It almost felt next gen

Fist4achin451d ago

I always thought the first 3 Gears of War games looked great and still hold up for today.

SonyStyled451d ago

They did for their day. I recently played gears judgement with on the 360 and the draw distance was so blurry. The characters up close look great though

JEECE451d ago

Far Cry 2 was awesome. In addition to having demonstrably better physics and AI than later games in the series, it had a lot of design decisions that, criticized at the time, have since been praised in games like BOTW and Dark Souls.

iNcRiMiNaTi451d ago

It might not be super amazing by today's standard but I thought Mgs3 looked really good

JEECE451d ago

In terms of art style it still holds up.

Show all comments (13)
270°

Mirror's Edge achievement designer: "Achievements have been bad for gaming"

Ubisoft Massive lead gameplay designer Fredrik Thylander, previously of DICE where he worked on Battlefield and Mirror's Edge, has spoken out about achievements and trophies, arguing that they "have been bad for gaming."

Machina468d ago (Edited 468d ago )

The achievements in Mirror's Edge opened my eyes to a whole other way of approaching the game. Since some of the toughest and most rewarding ones are basically whole levels turned into time trials with very strict time requirements, they force you to become much better at the game - in a way that difficulty levels just don't - and made me appreciate the mechanics that much more (especially the momentum-based running and platforming).

They actually made the game better for those like me who really enjoyed the game but wanted more of it, basically adding a new level of difficulty that took a long time to master/overcome. It added some extra longevity to a very short game.

He says "it eats resources that could have made the game better". I'm curious what he thinks the time he spent designing the achievements for the game would've been better spent on, because I expect bang for buck-wise achievements are a pretty efficient way of adding value to a game for the people who end up loving it.

shinoff2183468d ago (Edited 468d ago )

I kinda see his point but I also see your point.

I've been trying to remember what games over the years have had their own trophies inside the game before trophies and such were a thing and all I can think of is the star ocean series

Christopher468d ago

I think his point, though not elucidated upon because of Twitter limitations, is not that they can be bad but that they are used improperly to extend gameplay rather than reward actions.

Nebaku467d ago

Harvest Moon: Magical Melody on the GCN did.

In fact it actually built the game around it.

RpgSama467d ago (Edited 467d ago )

I am very OCD about playing games that I can platinum, in that sense I probably avoided playing games that I knew I would be unable to 100% complete.

I do think there are other people like me and also feel there should be an option for you to individually deactivate getting trophies on specific games, just so you play them and they do not go to your account.

-Foxtrot468d ago (Edited 468d ago )

I don't know. I used to think Achievements / Trophies were ruining games at first but then I saw the positive, if you totally love a game then they would offer you replay value by going after the last achievements to 100% the game. It made you explore every last bit of the game to achieve this and sometimes pushed you into areas or scenarios you probably might have missed.

It was a blast to get them on Oblivion / Skyrim, Fallout, Witcher, God of War, Elden Ring etc

Don't get me wrong, I do think there's achievements which are annoying, the ones where you need to find all collectibles which end up being missable AND are like trying to find a needle in a haystack are a kick to the balls, you know the majority of us are just going to use a guide to find them so what's the point.

Kind of a shame Nintendo haven't gotten a full system in place, they are so behind.

jambola467d ago

Nintendo seem to either be ahead of their time by years
or behind by 10 years
no in between

Rimeskeem468d ago

I enjoy having something to go for and feeling accomplished when doing something hard. I just hate it when achievements are based on things you can't really control. Like when something is for MP and the MP is just dead.

MadLad468d ago (Edited 468d ago )

I used to be a hardcore achievement hunter back in the day, but I couldn't care less nowadays. I just want to play games the way I actually want to play them, and don't care to waste my time just to get a little pop-up.

AzubuFrost467d ago

I envy you sir. I just gotta have every single achievement whenever I play a game. On my Steam profile I have an 83% completion rate out of 35 games, and my OCD is telling me to keep upping that percentage higher.

MadLad467d ago

Yeah. Back then, though I'm not sure what my actual completion rate was, I was mainly an Xbox player. I had close to 80k gamer score during the 360 days.

It just doesn't excite me anymore. I have less than 20% completion on my Steam account, though I have a pretty asinine amount of games there at the same time.
But I don't really bother with any of this anymore. If there's an interesting achievement I might aim for it just because I find it fun, but usually I just get that pop-up, say "cool" and continue with the game.

Outlawzz468d ago

Never been a fan of achievements. I just want to play the game however it may present itself to me, there's an overflow of achievements to seek in real life lol

Great for those that enjoy them though, much respect to the platinum hunters, it ain't easy lol

Show all comments (33)