Despite only being released on the 19th June Ghostbusters: The Video Game has made it to number four in the UK All Formats chart for the week ending 20th June. A PlayStation exclusive title, for now, 98% of those sales were on the PS3 with the venerable PS2 picking up the remainder.
Such strong sales may come as a bit of a surprise to those of us who spend an unhealthy amount of time on the Internet after witnessing the firestorm ignited when comparisons showed that the PS3 version was only running at 75% of the resolution of the 360 version, 960 x 540 on the PS3 vs 1280 x 720 (720p) on the 360.
A firestorm that drew this response from Terminal Reality’s spokesman, “For the record, the PS3 version [of Ghostbusters] is softer due to the ‘quincunx’ antialiasing filter and the fact we render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version. So you cannot directly compare a screen shot of one to the other unless you scale them properly. The PS3 does have less available RAM than the 360 – but we managed to squeeze 3 out of 4 textures as full size on the PS3.” A statement that only adds to the mockery of their earlier boasts about the game’s appearance on PS3.
Regardless of the graphical differences the game has garnered a fairly respectable metacritic score of 78 at the time of writing. In our own TSA review of the single player experience to be had with Ghostbusters we awarded the game 6 out of 10. By all accounts the multiplayer, which we were not able to review due to few people being online prior to the game’s release, is where a lot of the fun is to be had. Most of that fun probably consists of crossing the streams to see if all life as you know it stops instantaneously and every molecule in your body explodes at the speed of light.
Please feel free to fill the comments with witty remarks about the game bustin’ into the charts.
Source: MCV
Jumping Monks | 22/06/2009 14:03
Legend
1102 TSA Points | Member since: Jan 2009
That’s good news then, it’s always nice to know a game is doing better than expected.
CJay | 22/06/2009 14:05
Member
182 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
Although I originally said I wasn’t going to get this game, with GH : Smash Hits, and Fight Night not out until this week, I decided to pick it up any way.
And I have to say I’m glad I did.
I (naughtily) checked out the PC version first, just to see if it was worth the purchase, and thought I’d give it a go – so far, I have to say I’m really enjoying the game.
I’ve only briefly played multiplayer, but the single player is more than entertaining and fun to play.
Granted, it has a couple of issues occasionally, and I can see what everyone has been saying about the graphics/resolution, but I find that the game itself is good enough to overlook all of that.
It has that rare thing that is commonly missed from video games these days – gameplay.
If a game is fun to play, I will happily overlook the graphics. I don’t care if it’s not full HD, or is missing certain textures, it’s a fun game, and that’s what I pay for £40 to £45 for – to have fun, not just to have nice graphics on my TV.
Firewarrior706 | 22/06/2009 14:11
Member
352 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
I agree, my friend says he doesn’t want [PROTOTYPE]cuz the graphicss aren’t great. I keep telling him he’s an ass, cuz grapgics don’t really matter, it’s whether or not the game is fun. And that’s what [PROTOTYPE] is, complete and utter stupid fun.
I probably wont buy this but I might rent it if I can spare the cash.
hunterstryfe | 22/06/2009 15:31
Member
571 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
Sry to disagree but I played [PROTOTYPE] briefly and I think Activision are cloning their own games – it plays very similar to Web Of Shadows which even though I bought for the Symbiote Wolverine thing, i was bad to play. [PROTOTYPE] story may be good but gameplay seemed poor to me.
I will most probably rent this as affording to buy a game atm is out of the question for me.
gnipper | 22/06/2009 14:08
Member
709 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
GB is ok. TSA review was spot on, its fun (and funny) but its missing something.. cant put my finger on what, but there is definitely something missing… its a tad repetitive and VERY tough on the top difficulty level..
Still, glad I got it (for the free t-shirt alone!) – but one Ill trade once ive finished it (unless the MP grabs me)
PSN_KAP | 22/06/2009 14:13
Member
63 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
I honestly think the whole internet took most of the fiasco over board, so many saw me playing it and msged me saying “nah i wont buy it because of res etc” without even playing it. Its a wicked game and you can tell the devs took real care into the mechanics and little touches that i really rate the game.
I will admit tho its criminal not to have a Co-op within the game. I’d of said it would be a must to buy.
and this is coming from someone who totally avoids movie based games too
hannes_truce | 22/06/2009 14:22
Member
2919 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2008
Glad it’s selling well. I still wont buy it, cos I’m broke. but it’s on my rental list so i’m sure i’ll enjoy it when it comes
Ross | 22/06/2009 14:25
Member
197 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
I borrowed Ghostbusters off a mate for a few hours on Saturday and I throughly enjoyed it, I never noticed the graphics were poorer to be honest, I though the detail off the tarmac on Times Square was really good, and I enjoyed beating Stay Puft, the game seems rather short though but it was good fun, even though I havent seen the films in years and wasn’t alive to witness the hype when they were released in the 80’s.
DarthSharkey | 22/06/2009 14:28
Member
1044 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
I seen a trailer for it in the cinema yesterday before Transformers 2, it looked good and also quite funny. I’m looking forward to playing it.
BoyDay | 22/06/2009 14:29
Member
902 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
I’m glad it’s doing well because it’s a fun game and deserves to do well. The “news” posts about the game by the writers of this site irritated me last week because they wrote the articles like they were the Sun or Daily Mail trying to make a big scandalous story out of something that is a tiny thing – like saying the game runs at 540p. Why not just say it runs at 1080i which is the same but more factually correct? It’s just because 540 is a smaller number than 1080 so makes it look worse since the 360 version runs at 720p and PS3 runs at 1080i.
Normally you don’t get that sort of crappy journalism on here which is why I come to the site every day, so I hope it’s not something that’s going to become more frequent (as I’ve noticed it a few times recently), because it will make the site no different from the countless shitty fanboy sites out there.
colossalblue | 22/06/2009 16:07
Team TSA: Editor
1398 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
I’m not a resolution expert and I’m not completely au fait with telelvisual display nomenclature but I do know grammar and I am a big fan of accuracy. So, without completely disagreeing with you I’d just like to point out that if 540p and 1080i are “the same” then one cannot be more “factually correct” than another. Surely the fact that they are “the same” makes them both as accurate or as inaccurate as each other and therefore the differentiation is unnecessary.
As for the story we ran earlier, I think the numbers used (which you seem to concede as accurate, even though you would prefer we used a different numbering system) were merely a method of pointing out that the PS3 version runs at a lower resolution than the Xbox 360 version. Which it does.
Kevling | 22/06/2009 16:25
Member
2032 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2008
Boyday
Further to CB’s splendid display of logic, I just want to confirm that 540p is NOT the same as 1080i.
540p displays 540 lines every frame. The image is “only” 540 pixels high.
1080i also displays 540 lines every frame, but each frame is basically half of a 1080 line image (alternate lines are shown).
So while both are technically displaying the same number of pixels (540 lines per frame), the amount of detail on offer is very different.
One is a lower resolution displayed every frame, the other is a higher resolution image displayed every other frame.
I have no idea how Ghostbusters video is output, but to say 540p = 1080i is wrong, I’m afraid…
Watchful | 22/06/2009 16:47
Team TSA: Writer
2084 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
As Kevling rightly points out, there is a huge difference between the resolution that the PS3 version of Ghostbusters: The Video Game is rendered at, 540 x 960, and the resolution that 1080i is capable of, 1080 x 1920.
1080i rendering produces an image using four times the number of pixels.
The PS3 will use hardware scaling to increase the resolution for output to your TV, but if outputting at 1080i or 1080p it will effectively be using 4 pixels on your TV for each one actually rendered by the game. So it will not have any more detail than the 540 x 960 image.
Which is why sites have been able to calculate the resolution the game is rendered at by looking at ‘jaggies’ on screen. Those observations have proved to be correct prompting the statement in the article from Terminal Reality’s spokesman.
BrendanCalls | 22/06/2009 14:47
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - YOHIMBÉ!!!
1417 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Am really not sure that this is going to be a worthwhile investment
A few mates have bought it and said its good, and the reviews seem generally positive, but something niggling is just telling me not to buy it
djdustb | 22/06/2009 15:52
Member
1308 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
I am a little worried about the article. Basically the game seems to be doing well as it is a movie tie in (ok not exactly but you know what I mean) and so quality can once again go out of the window for a quick buck. This on the back of the terrible Terminator worries me about the future of gaming. The standard of these two games is below what we deserve for our money.
I haven’t played the game and it is on my rental list but not something I would buy, and to be fair I am basing all this on things I have read about the game in the media. I have not heard one person say it is great.
Watchful | 22/06/2009 16:12
Team TSA: Writer
2084 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
The people who are playing it seem to be enjoying it for the most part as you can read in some of the comments above. And when I wrote the article the user rating on metacritic was 8.6. Overall the opinion seems to be that it is pretty good for a “movie tie-in”.
djdustb | 22/06/2009 16:23
Member
1308 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
I must admit after reading this page I was careful to say that no one said it was “great”. I was going to say good, but it seems more people are enjoying it than I thought.
My main concern is that a company can charge full price for a game that is not HD on the PS3. I am sure when I play it, that I will find it fun, but not worth buying.
yogh_wayne | 22/06/2009 16:51
Member
2852 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
I got my copy today
Carl | 22/06/2009 18:31
Member
734 TSA Points | Member since: Jan 2009
I bought it on saturday it’s much better than i thought it was going to be
Although i have no idea why there is a ticker for the amount of steps you do, it is fucking good
Mick939 | 22/06/2009 20:03
Member
895 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
The game is absoloutley fantastic, i also picked up the ps2 version for my newely rebought ps2, my 60gb ps3 dosn’t quite play all the ps2 games i’d like.
CJay | 23/06/2009 08:23
Member
182 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
Well, I finished the single player last night (or, technically it was this morning cos it was 1am) and that alone shows how great this game was to me.
These days, it’s rare I will finish a video game – I usually get bored by the time I’m half way through, and just trade it in for whatever is newly released that week.
Ghostbusters is a cracking game, and I will actually play this again to get some more trophies.
I’ll have a quick go at the multiplayer, but my first two games of this didn’t impress me a great deal, so I will probably trade this in on Friday for Fight Night Round 4 – but not because the game is bad, just because I’ll get the full £45 value of the game in trade if I take it back within 10 days
Phil_Kil | 23/06/2009 11:20
Member
36 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
This game is a huge nostalgia bomb, filled with fan service.
If you loved the Ghostbusters films, watched the cartoon and traded a part of your anatomy for a proton pack when you were 4 years old then this game is for you. Seriously, trapping ghosts feels great every time. Voice work and story are great but Murray phones it in 75% of the time.
If Ghostbusters isn’t your cup o’ tea then you will not be able to see past the faults (540p rendering, save games that come and go, matchmaking issues online, vaporising ghosts nowhere near as fun as trapping them, relatively short) and this game should be a rental at best.
Watchful | 22/06/2009 16:33
Team TSA: Writer
2084 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
There’s a lot of ‘current gen’ games that are not even rendered at 720p. (And that’s without counting anything on the Wii.) Same as outside of the PSN there are very few titles that run at 1080p.
There are a lot of people still gaming on SD TVs. Turning the argument around, why should they have to pay extra for an HD game that they won’t see the benefit of?
djdustb | 22/06/2009 17:13
Member
1308 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
I’m not asking them to pay extra for a HD game on a setup that can only run SD, I just don’t think that on this console and this far into having access to the technology we should be having an inferior product for our money.
I have nothing against SD, I have only had an HD TV in the last year or so, and to be honest it is not true HD just a 26inch.