2K have responded to complaints that Mafia 2 on the PlayStation 3 is graphically sub-par.

Low quality textures for grass and no pools of blood are some of the stand out flaws being flagged up in the PS3 version.

Here's the explanation:

"Hey guys,

When designing Mafia II, we optimized for each of the three different systems the game would run on to make sure the core experience was the best it could be. Because of this, there are some differences from one platform to the next.

In terms of the PS3 version, I wanted to clarify a couple points you have been asking about: There will not be highly detailed grass or large pools of blood, the cloth movement is less noticeable than, for example, the PC version, and the visual fidelity in the demo is generally representative of what you'll see in the full game.


Our aim is to make a cohesive and immersive experience and optimize the game for each platform so that it could run its best. And while there are some differences between each version, I'm sure you'll find that the core gameplay and the heart of Mafia II remains no matter whether you play on PS3, 360, or PC.

Thanks for your patience while I checked with the dev team on the specific issues you were asking about, and I hope you see you in Empire Bay next week."

Yeah it doesn't make a whole load of sense to us either. We wonder why, if all versions are supposed to be "optimised", the PS3 version falls so far short of its optimum output.

Mafia 2 has done just fine when it comes to reviews on other platforms. PC Zone was happy to award 80% to the game despite its crushing linearity.

...

Downloaded the demo but haven't got trying it yet (with playing the MW games)... Still, is this sort of thing acceptable in this day and age? It's often been rumoured that the PS3 is a bitch to develop for, and there's quite a lot of anecdotal evidence too, but I find it incredible that the problems mentioned above couldn't be worked around or patched

Basically, I suspect they thought they'd get away with it and had a deadline to meet...

its common knowledge that the PS3 has a pretty weak GPU (i think its roughly equivalent to an nvidia geforce 7800GTX), so the fact that it is missing a few details does not surprise me.

i forget how it compares to the 360s GPU, though i doubt thats much faster, if at all

I know I'd heard that before, but it doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would hold back what's being talked about in the article - blood's a pretty fundamental part of a shoot em up these days!

indeed, its a pretty simple effect (compared to some others), it could just be that they are making excuses for not being able to code it properly, in which case itll probably get patched in in a few weeks

Also I remember when Dirt2 came out it was said that the PS3 version was not antiailised whereas the 360 version was (even if only 2x).

Yet look at Uncharted 2. Its looks amazing.

I presume that its down to the developer as much as the hardware tbh.

This is what happens when you use the Red Ring of Death as the lead console - it means the other versions suffer.

I can't say I really fancy this game and having seen it described as crushingly linear I think I can cope without it. I'll play God of War 3 instead...

Gav does it make your life better in some way to use a variety of red ring references when mentioning the Xbox?

Anyway, I presume it wasnt so much that the Xbox was the 'lead console' but more that it was developed on/for PC, with much of that architecture shared with the Xbox.

wouldnt surprise me, thatd put it in a similar situation to console releases of The Orange Box, IIRC Valve struck a deal with EA to port the PS3 version (EA distributed the physical media on all platforms too) so they didnt have to worry about it.

It really does depend on the game/developer, the PS3 version of FFXIII puts the eggbox version to shame.

Really?

This video is interesting. Of course the CG has taken a hit to be squeezed onto DVDs which is noticable but the gameplay itself when in motion (to my eyes) is really no different.

Yep, really!

Even the ASA can tell the difference.

Yep, ruling that the X-Box advert was misleading, because the X-box version just doesn't live up to the quality of the PS3 version (footage from which was used in the X-box advert).

Absolutely, but that is what happens when a 3rd party developer is given preferential treatment with regards to the dev support.

People like EA end up having to deal with multiple formats, console specific games USUALLY (and I say usually as Haze turned out looking worse than Susan Boyle after 7 rounds with Mike Tyson) turn out graphically better than multi format games

For FF13... the PS3 version may look superior, but the 360 version isn't exactly bad.

From someone who has a 360, Wii, PC, DSi, PSP and will be getting a PS3 soon, I see little point in the silly fanboy comments from certain members, some are valid (certain games look better, certain games look a LOT worse)

TBH the quality of games on PS3 doesn't concern me that much. I own my PS3 mainly for two reasons:

1) It is a brilliant home entertainment system. I am much more likely to use it to play music, video and browse the 'net than I am to pop a game in.

2) I like Sony products, IMO they ooze quality, and am a sucker for anything in piano black.

See to me it's more HTPC (without DVB-S tuner) than games console, but as home entertainment I'm sure it's top notch

Sony products to me ooze overpriced items most of the time, if my A450 wasn't near half price I wouldn't have bought it (having owned/owning a number of Sony products previously)