I’m having a big problem with trying to get my head around this Ghostbusters Ps3 vs. 360 issue. Quite frankly because I’m having some issues with how the media is taking this. I’ve read the Ars Technica article, and from what I’ve seen, they were trying so hard to dissolve Terminal Reality (TR) of any blame, making it all about the PS3 hardware (and this had absolutely nothing to do with the hardware until the AT article came up…well, that and TR trying to pass off the blame). We have TR trying to make excuses, and we have fanboys making a battle ground out of a game no one gave a shit about until this all started.

So yeah, I’m left with a few possible reasons why this is going on. Either this is something the “let’s bash the PS3 anyway we can” crowd is using because it has nothing else to use, Terminal Reality didn’t know how to program, or this was a well-crafted way to sabotage the PS3 in the worst way possible.

For one, the media is jumping all over this like no one’s business. I’ve noticed the swarm of GB articles on N4G (and yes, I’m being guilty of writing one now, and I’ve also submitted one there from Kombo), and they all seem to be about this issue (in case you’re not aware yet, this is about the Lens of Truth comparison that revealed that the PS3 version of the Ghostbusters game runs at a slightly lower resolution than the 360 version. How bad it is depends on your perception, since there’s a ton of conflicting stories out there on that front). Many tend to blame Terminal Reality, since they are trying their damnest to make contradicting excuses as to the reason (not enough RAM, they weren’t finished versions, etc.). But none blame the PS3…UNTIL Ars Technica decided to run their mouths about this. No where in the article linked do they make any mention of TR being at fault, and use proof (as in a picture of a AT card along with two retail copies of the game. Some proof, right?). The “blame the PS3” thing comes from the comments section, where the articles author (Ben Kuchera, who, ironically, wrote that stuff about NPD numbers I called him on some time back). He argues constantly about why the PS3 has installs and all of that. I’m not about to sit here and list everything he tried to come up with, but he, not once, said that this was just TR’s fault that the game turned out this way (for the record, in reviews, the 360 version isn’t THAT much better, and graphics are not an Achilles Heel of a game in most cases). It’s all “360 does multiplat games better”. I’m not saying that they need to start praising the PS3 every single time, but I’ve said before that AT has been one of the media whores who constantly dogs Sony over everything while giving MS a free pass over anything. Of course, anything for hits, right?

Then again, it could be just TR losing their place as people who know how to make a good game. Keep in mind that these are the same people who created the underrated Bloodrayne games (never mind Uwe Boll giving THAT franchise a bad rep), so I expected them to have a good track record. Of course, we also know the publisher trouble this game had, and as we’ve seen countless times, that can spell a disaster waiting to happen. This could’ve been the exception, but it’s probably being part of the rule. Of course, all TR has to do is to say “we fucked up, and we can fix this with a patch to make it at least an equal playing field”. But instead they are doing the “don’t blame us” routine. This shows that there’s something else there.

Which brings me to the last point (one in which I hope is NOT the case, because if it is, Pandora’s Box may have just opened): sabotage. We know a lot about what people were saying about the PS3 during its infancy: too hard to develop for, a “complete waste of time”, etc. Of course, those don’t hold as much water NOW because developers who have gotten their hands dirty have found otherwise about those claims. That and with several devs, the PS3 has been the lead platform of development for multiplatform games (such as what TR claimed with GB). Now, one of the claims that TR recently made was that the PS3 has “less RAM than the 360”. One, you guys just NOW say this AFTER this controversy begins? And two, why were you praising the PS3 all throughout the development cycle of GB, and are now changing your tone? Trying to cover up that you cannot program with shit now? Or maybe it’s because you knew that if you came out with a PS3 version that was inferior, you would’ve show how “tough” it is to develop for the PS3: even when it’s the lead console, you can’t do anything on it without tons of difficulty. And then the media picks up on it and goes on a rampage, and you pull a first: a game that could be considered “flame bait”. Only thing is, the gaming PUBLIC isn’t going to be buying this as much as they would have before, and we KNOW how people like Ars Technica and GameDaily are like. They are controversial for a reason. Even LoT was blaming you, but any publicity is good, right? Let’s just hope that this isn’t the case, because if it is, then you (and, if it were to be warranted, Microsoft) would have a TON of explaining to do. I’m bringing this up in the hopes that someone says something saying that this wasn’t the case. If it is, I would hope that Sony sues the living shit out of some people, because that is a damaging incident to the gaming industry, and there is NO place for that sort of thing.

Thing of it is, unless you really are looking, you’re not going to exactly notice these differences. If you’re a fan of GB, then you’re going to pick up the game on the system you give more of your time to (unless you’re in a PAL region). This is just a fanatic thing brought up to stir up the fanboy pot (and to “blame Sony”). Rob Foor is probably LOVING the name exposure he’s getting right now because of this, if you know what I mean.

Like I said, it’s hard to get a true gamer’s head around this mess.