So it's official, Bayonetta on PS3 sucks :(

  • 124 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Pikapichu (66 posts) -

IGN posted their review of Bayonetta for both the PS3 and 360 and, you guessed it, the PS3 version got knocked because of excessive load times and slowdown. So much for Sony/Sega/Platinum Games/Whoever fixing the problems with the PS3 version prior to release. Can those sort of issues even be fixed with a patch?

#2 Edited by AjayRaz (12477 posts) -

holy shit! what a difference! :\   
I've played both demos (PS3 and 360) and i'll say that the 360 for sure has better performance. I didn't want to leave my PS3 out on this one.. but it looks like I'm going to have to :\  
It's such a shame that the PS3 versions get the lazy ports >< 

#3 Posted by Stephen_Von_Cloud (1530 posts) -

Load times are always bad but slowdown on a game of this type is a big problem.  When I check it out I guess it's going to be on 360 by default then.

#4 Posted by mordukai (7185 posts) -
@Pikapichu:  
I won't hold my breath on it. It seems the developer had a specific console in mind when he made it and the only reason it's a multi plat game is because Sega wanted to maximize the earnings. Just go get for the 360 or incase you don't have just wait until you do. THey should have made this into an 360 exclusive and just drop the pretenses. Frankly I really couldn't care less. This game just looks likes a DMC game with the volume turned way up, as they say in the wrestling business.
#5 Posted by xyzygy (10078 posts) -

That's too bad. What happened to all those people saying that Sony was going to fix it before the NA release? bahahaha

Online
#6 Posted by zombie2011 (5049 posts) -

Holy fuck Bayonetta got a 9.5. This game must be incredible its getting amazing review scores, i have 360 so i am definitely gonna pick this up.

#7 Posted by TheHBK (5563 posts) -

I think the game itself is nothing special and that Famitsu giving it a 40 is japanese bias.
The graphics on the game are nice but bland.  Seriously, do Japanese developers know how to use Bump or Normal mapping.  Its a little off putting when you see a title floor or wall but it is completely flat and has not sheen to it.  Then there is the concept being completely retarded.  Yes, I know that its stylized and somethings can be ridiculous to be awesome, but the idea of witches, fighting with guns on their feet, and hair making up her clothes and her getting naked, its like they said lets make a game for lonely Japanese boys.  Fuck man, Sega is fucking up.
 
@Daryl said:

" It's official, Bayonetta sucks.  "

I was gonna say wow, thats a little harsh, but with your user picture, I am inclined to believe you.
#8 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

That's a pretty large difference.

#9 Posted by Pikapichu (66 posts) -

I downloaded the (PS3) demo (loved it!) and was looking forward to buying the game on the PS3, but now it looks like I'll have to get the 360 version instead. Or possibly wait for the PS3 version to hit the bargain bin. Hmm... $15-$20 for the inferior PS3 version for $50-$60 for the superior 360 version?

#10 Posted by xyzygy (10078 posts) -
@TheHBK said:
" I think the game itself is nothing special and that Famitsu giving it a 40 is japanese bias.
The graphics on the game are nice but bland.  Seriously, do Japanese developers know how to use Bump or Normal mapping.  Its a little off putting when you see a title floor or wall but it is completely flat and has not sheen to it.  Then there is the concept being completely retarded.  Yes, I know that its stylized and somethings can be ridiculous to be awesome, but the idea of witches, fighting with guns on their feet, and hair making up her clothes and her getting naked, its like they said lets make a game for lonely Japanese boys.  Fuck man, Sega is fucking up.
 
@Daryl said:
" It's official, Bayonetta sucks.  "
I was gonna say wow, thats a little harsh, but with your user picture, I am inclined to believe you. "
So Sega is fucking up for making a game that's been getting 40/40 from Famitsu, 10/10 from Edge, 9.5/10 from IGN, and, well, every other review I seen was above 9. OK, that makes sense. Let's just get rid of all games rated highly because apparently they're "fuck-ups".
Online
#11 Posted by Icemael (6364 posts) -
@Daryl said:
" It's official, Bayonetta sucks.  "
40/40 from Famitsu, 10/10 from EDGE, 9.5/10 from IGN, 9/10 from Eurogamer... yeah. You might not be into this type of game, but don't talk shit about it just because of that.

I find this difference in score weird. On the latest 1up podcast, one of the guys said he played both versions side by side and didn't notice any significant difference.
#12 Posted by Daryl (1781 posts) -
@Icemael: Likewise. 
#13 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

The demo ran fine and dandy on my PS3. But, hey, it's only one review, and 8.2 is still a pretty good score. I think I'll still give this game a shot.

#14 Posted by Linkyshinks (9880 posts) -

I cannot fucking wait to guns n copy on January 8th. 
 
Blame Sega, not PlatinumGames.

#15 Posted by Romination (2777 posts) -
@TheHBK: yeah...I like seeing Bayonetta exist because it reminds me of when Sega was crazy enough to put out Jet Grind Radio and Space Channel 5 and Chu Chu Rocket and excuse me, I have to go cry onto my dreamcast
#16 Posted by mordukai (7185 posts) -
@Linkyshinks said:
" Blame Sega, not PlatinumGames. "
I would say the blame falls 50-50 on both.  
 
PlatinumGames for only catering to one specific user base while completely neglecting the other one. 
 
Sega for not fixing the issues and optimizing the game before it ships, or at least make it into an 360 exclusive since they knew that the developer is not working on the PS3 version in any way shape or form.  
 
So 50-50. 
#17 Edited by Stephen_Von_Cloud (1530 posts) -
@Pikapichu said:

" I downloaded the (PS3) demo (loved it!) and was looking forward to buying the game on the PS3, but now it looks like I'll have to get the 360 version instead. Or possibly wait for the PS3 version to hit the bargain bin. Hmm... $15-$20 for the inferior PS3 version for $50-$60 for the superior 360 version? "

I don't think I've ever seen a multiplatform game like Bayonetta drop in price on one system before another, regardless of performance issues.  That'd be like an admission of guilt.  I think if you're waiting you'd be able to get the better 360 version for the same cheaper price.
 
Maybe I'm wrong and it has happend but I don't remember ever seeing it with a release like Bayonetta.
#18 Edited by GunstarRed (5478 posts) -

Yawn... If you had played the game you would realize it is better than it's faults, The PS3 version is indeed a bit wonky but the game underneath is absolutely stunning. 
 
edit.. I will liken it to mass effect a game riddled with bugs and graphical glitches but the game itself was absolutely brilliant.
Online
#19 Posted by Interfect (981 posts) -
@Pikapichu: So It's official. I'm totally not getting  Bayonetta
#20 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -
@Linkyshinks said:
" I cannot fucking wait to guns n copy on January 8th.  Blame Sega, not PlatinumGames. "
Just what I was going to say..  Platinum games finished the game ages ago, and it was supposed to be released in August.
It was only delayed because Sega decided to jump in and make a butchered port for the PS3. 
#21 Edited by nanikore (2740 posts) -

So it's official, SEGA and PlatinumGames are fucking idiots.

#22 Posted by GunnBjorn (2911 posts) -
@marioncobretti said:
"Yawn... If you had played the game you would realize it is better than it's faults, The PS3 version is indeed a bit wonky but the game underneath is absolutely stunning. "

Still, if you have both consoles, which version of the game would you choose...?
#23 Posted by luce (4045 posts) -
@Interfect said:
" @Pikapichu: So It's official. I'm totally not getting  Bayonetta "
yep. too bad the game seemed interesting
#24 Edited by GunstarRed (5478 posts) -

@GunnBjorn: 

haha, yes I have an import for the PS3 and I have reordered a copy for the 360 (kind of for the replica gun) but if you can ONLY get a PS3 version of the game its faults seem completely minor when  weighed up against the actual quality of the game itself... anyone missing out on it because of this would be an idiot.    

Online
#25 Edited by Hot_Karl (3309 posts) -

Has there been a drastic difference between console versions like this before? I guess The Orange Box for PS3 vs. the superior version on the Xbox. But has it been this pronounced before? 
 
That sucks for people who only have a PS3 to play this game. Slowdown is a huge problem, especially in this type of game. I'll have to get my hands on the PS3 version before I make any conclusions, but I can trust IGN enough to say that if they say something's up, something is definitely up.

#26 Posted by Interfect (981 posts) -
@luce: Just. I dont think I can handle hair magic..
#27 Posted by cstrang (2381 posts) -

Point one:  Baynetta just got a 9.5?  Holy shit.
Point two:  8.2 --> 9.5 is a huge difference in score.  Is it really that much of a problem on the PS3?  I suppose in a game like this, where you need to be counting frames in order to do different combos, an inconsistent framerate might be a bigger problem.

#28 Posted by Luke (1609 posts) -

Wow, this is kinda crazay... watching them both now! 

#29 Posted by DrLove (361 posts) -

hopefully they patch it.. the PS3 version is jacked

#30 Posted by xyzygy (10078 posts) -
@VinceNotVance: I played the original Assassin's Creed this summer at a friends place on his PS3 and the game has absolutely terrible framerate, mostly when running around rooftops and jumping. Like it was noticeable enough to make me even ask him what's wrong, lol. It was one of the first games on the console though so it's understandable.
Online
#31 Posted by yeahno (269 posts) -

Jankiness doesn't determine what a good game is or not. If I like the gameplay enough then I'm not going to let it bother me. Unless the game crashes or something...

#32 Posted by Luke (1609 posts) -
#33 Posted by fallen_elite (380 posts) -

Do not want anymore. Good job Sega.

#34 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@Mordukai said:
" @Linkyshinks said:
" Blame Sega, not PlatinumGames. "
I would say the blame falls 50-50 on both.   PlatinumGames for only catering to one specific user base while completely neglecting the other one.  Sega for not fixing the issues and optimizing the game before it ships, or at least make it into an 360 exclusive since they knew that the developer is not working on the PS3 version in any way shape or form.   So 50-50.  "
I don't see how the easier system to develop for coming out better is "catering". If they made special recessions on the 360 version so it would be "even" with the PS3 version, that would be catering.
#35 Posted by KinjiroSSD (694 posts) -

I wasn't going to get this regardless but its a shame nonetheless

#36 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5293 posts) -

Good thing I'm getting the 360 version. That's too bad for PS3 owners though.

#37 Posted by mordukai (7185 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" @Mordukai said:
" @Linkyshinks said:
" Blame Sega, not PlatinumGames. "
I would say the blame falls 50-50 on both.   PlatinumGames for only catering to one specific user base while completely neglecting the other one.  Sega for not fixing the issues and optimizing the game before it ships, or at least make it into an 360 exclusive since they knew that the developer is not working on the PS3 version in any way shape or form.   So 50-50.  "
I don't see how the easier system to develop for coming out better is "catering". If they made special recessions on the 360 version so it would be "even" with the PS3 version, that would be catering. "
So basically what you're saying is the because the 360 is easier to develop then the developer should completely neglect the other user base? 
I think there is enough talent in PlatinumGames that if they really wanted to make the PS3 themselves they would have. True, the PS3 is harder to develop games for because of the different way the CPU and the GPU works but that does not mean you have an excuse to not learn it and simply not care when another company takes your game and make it into a less then desirable port. I don't care who ported it but if I was a game developer and my publishers told me that this game was going to be a multi plat then I won't just dismiss that idea and tell them to make it themselves. I would be ashamed as a developer if my game was ported by my publishers and was not up to my qualities. That is just how I feel. 
#38 Posted by Luke (1609 posts) -
@wolf_blitzer85 said:
" Good thing I'm getting the 360 version. That's too bad for PS3 owners though. "
I'm a PS3 owner... but I'm def gunna be getting this on the 360 as well.  So, uh, why is it too bad for me again? :p 
#39 Posted by Griddler (3344 posts) -

That sucks for those who want this game, I however, could care less.

#40 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5293 posts) -
@Luke: Well it seems like you're in the clear then. I meant PS3 only owners. I also game on PC so I can feel the pain of getting crappy ports for a system that could do so much more.
#41 Posted by NinjaHunter (973 posts) -

Ouch, over a full point. I'll probably still get this eventually but I'm definitely going to wait until they lower the price though.  But man I guess Sega/Platinum Games really dropped the ball on the PS3 version.

#42 Posted by JJOR64 (19070 posts) -

Thank god I'm getting this game on 360.

#43 Posted by billR2D2 (19 posts) -

uh oh looks like sega pulled a orange box deja vu.

#44 Edited by Whisperkill (2969 posts) -
@Daryl said:

" It's official, Bayonetta sucks.  "

its official, you suck
#45 Edited by Steve_C (1757 posts) -

Well I guess I won't be getting it then, though i'll wait to see some more reviews on the differences. The explanation was pretty non-existent in the 1up review.

I hope Platinum get some in-house PS3 development people for their next games.

#46 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

It's official it "sucks" because it got 8.2/10? That's the best (worst) you could do with it? It even says "impressive" under the number right there. That's a far cry from "it sucks" don't you think? On 1UP the score difference is even less. Now the game may well suck on PS3, I haven't played it, but according to these reviews it does anything but suck. That they rate it lower due to the slight technical issues mentioned screams of the (at least) double reviewing standards. Console versions of other games that have a PC version which loads faster, looks and runs better don't get points knocked unless there are other bigger problems like Dragon Age's control issues (though control deficiencies in FPS games also get ignored, lol). It's nice to have the best version but making such a big deal of it putting down others who may get what is scored slightly lower is stupid hyperbole. Or you should go make a thread for every multiplatform game ever that's also on PC saying it's official it sucks on PS360 for such reasons, lol.

#47 Posted by VWGTI (1919 posts) -

I'm suprised to see this game get such glowing reviews. I thought it was a little too crazy for it's own good. :)
 
 I'll stick with Dante's Inferno though. Nothing in Bayonettea looks very appealing to me as far as the story, characters, enemies and setting goes.

#48 Posted by Skye (411 posts) -

Why would you want to play this if you have a PS3 anyway? GOW3 anyone?

#49 Posted by EVO (3941 posts) -

Hmm, I thought 8.2 was a good score?
 

Yep, you're a jackass.
#50 Posted by KamasamaK (2409 posts) -

I've seen load times get improved with a patch. Dunno about slowdown.

Online

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.