2K responds to criticism over PS3 version of Mafia II

Tuesday, 17th August 2010 16:59 GMT By Joe Anderson

mafia II

2K has posted on its official forums a response to user criticism of the PS3 version of  Mafia II, advising users there are some differences between the various versions.

Apparently, folks were a bit confused as to why the PS3 version of the game did not contain the grass details, pools of blood, or cloth movement as other versions.

We’ll cut to the chase and just let you get to the response posted by Elizabeth Tobey, 2K’s senior manager of interactive marketing:

“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.”

This is in contrast to a earlier comment which stated the grass free version was a earlier build of the game and its sure to anger fans., although 2k say there’s nothing to worry about as the experience will remain the same.

“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.”

Mafia II is out next week on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360.



  1. Razor

    Naughty Dog, 2K need your help.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. Redh3lix

    You see, this is where dev’s get on my nerves when stating this:

    “we optimized for each of the three different systems” …. clearly you didn’t with regards the PS3 version. Pass the game on to a more experienced developer and the PS3 version would be identical, if not surpass expectations.

    Not that I’m particularly interesting in this game as it looks exactly like GTA.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Quiiick

    Another shoddy PS3 port! :(
    Shouldn’t this be a thing of the past?

    #3 4 years ago
  4. spiderLAW

    Weak. The gameplay was the weakest aspect of the demo to me anyways. The only part of the demo i enjoyed was the music. I love some Do-op and it fit perfectly with the setting of the game but other than that, it was weak. I’ll pass on both PC and PS3 versions.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. Lord Gremlin

    No, 2K you lie. PS3 version is not optimized, it’s a piece of shit port by an external POS studio, and it’s obviously running on single Cell’s main core and using only RSX for graphics. It’s a VERY 2007 thing.

    Actually, worst port so far. YES, Bayonetta was better.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. kristrev

    I think what people are disappointed at is not necessarily that those graphical features will not be present/not as good in the PS3-version, but that 2k has shown screenshots with for example “superior” grass in them. See screenshot 2 here:

    I have to admit I think people are overreacting a bit and I will get the PC-version myself, but I still see why people are angered by this. Especially if they have been waiting for this game for several years.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. Gekidami

    Yep, it was ported by Massive Bear Studios apparently.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. Gadzooks!


    The PS3′s architecture means there will always be shoddy ports. It’s just not a developer friendly machine.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. xino

    what makes them think I’ll buy their game if the PS3 looks like trash!?>:/

    #9 4 years ago
  10. KrazyKraut


    #10 4 years ago
  11. DSB

    G1GA isn’t here to say it, so I will:


    #11 4 years ago
  12. Xuchilbara

    “We basically don’t care about the PS3 version… It wont sell nearly as much as it will on the 360 so, we kinda rushed it since we would hate to actually learn how to do our job better”

    That is what I heard…

    #12 4 years ago
  13. BULArmy

    LoL now console owners are even bigger graphic whores then us PC gamers. That is sad.

    #13 4 years ago
  14. SplatteredHouse

    @8: That shouldn’t make it acceptable, tolerable, nor endorsed through apathy.

    #14 4 years ago
  15. Blerk

    The 360 version’s hardly a ‘looker’ either – things get very fuzzy very quickly once you start looking off into the distance.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. Hunam

    It runs better than you’d expect on a PC though. Which is nice. I was expecting to have to play it quite low on the PC, but aside from having to cut AA, it ran at full settings on an 8800GT, which is a £90 card these days, if that.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Gadzooks!


    Hey, I didnt design the awkward brick! ;)

    Take it up with Sony, or simply let them know they did wrong by doing what the majority of gamers do and buy it on the 360.

    I’m pretty sure Sony already know they designed a dog though, and wont make the same mistakes next gen.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. DSB


    It’s just history repeating itself. A console should never be mistaken for a high end luxury item. It’s supposed to be a cheap, convenient machine that plays games, and preferably one that doesn’t waste developers time (Set and match – Wii).

    I’m pretty sure you’re never going to be able to stray from that. Even if Sony didn’t get taken down by it, they certainly missed out on a lot of money, and I doubt they’ll make the same mistake again.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. Aimless

    I don’t see how buying it on 360 would get any sort of message across, unless you’re looking to tell 2K that shoddy ports are fine so long as they’re running on an Xbox.

    The PC version’s lovely, mind. It’s really well optimised and can look fantastic with everything turned up; a feat outside the abilities of my ageing machine, but I still get a fairly consistent 30fps at 1920×1080.

    #19 4 years ago
  20. Filofax

    @8&14 Nah it’s more like bloody lazy developers not taking their time, or learning how best to use the PS3 architecture. And yes I do agree that it’s not as friendly as the PC or 360, but even the 360 version of the game is not that special to look at.

    #20 4 years ago
  21. revsoul

    The whole “hard to develop” excuse is not relevant anymore.

    PS3 is too far in its life cycle for dev’s or fans to hide behind that.

    There are simply far too many games, 1st & 3rd party, that look & play excellent on the PS3.

    I would rather not have the game ported in lieu of getting less of a game.

    It’s a slap in the face.

    #21 4 years ago
  22. theevilaires

    No excuse for this bullshit. I played the demo and yes it was good but I can’t support devs like this anymore after UC2. Its gonna be a rental for me now until the game drops down to the $20 it deserves to be selling for.

    I believe if one version is inferior to the other than that said version should be sold for cheaper because its obvious 2k didn’t put the time and effort to use the CELL at its best. Like I said though its these stupid little kids coming out of college who don’t know how to program for shit other than what they been taught which usually is 95% M$ based stuff.

    2K can kiss my ass…no sale here until its $20 and it will drop fast too so just wait people. Teach these assholes a lesson with your wallet.

    #22 4 years ago
  23. Hunam


    Too hard to develop should just be replaced with ‘fundamentally misguided architecture” to be honest. People make out like this is the first time this has happened. It’s not even the 50th time it’s happened. You can only blame developers for so long before the common denominator makes itself obvious.

    #23 4 years ago
  24. itsucks

    makes perfect sense, in a multiplataform game the inferior version goes to the least powerfull hardware. don’t know what people expected… a generation after didn’t taught you anything?

    #24 4 years ago
  25. Gadzooks!


    The ‘hard to develop for’ argument is as valid now as it was when PS3 was launched, or the situation we see now would not occur, and 99% of multiplat games would not be inferior on the PS3.

    The one and only reason first party PS3 games look good is because of the enormous budgets and assistance from Sony they get.

    Do you expect multiplatform developers to spend (for example) twice as long on the PS3 port to attain parity, only to get the same sales as the 360 version?

    We could cite Criterion as pioneers of platform parity in multiplat games, but Criterion are not the average developer.

    ‘hard to develop for’ is not an excuse, it’s a plain and simple fact for every development house.

    #25 4 years ago
  26. Axelander

    Yeah… Congratu-fucking-latiuos 2K. Not only do act like you don’t a freaking crap about the PS3, but you also release an exclusive to PS3 side-story to make us forgive your sorry ass. Fuck you, 2K. “Hard to develop”? Is this company fucking retarted? Even Valve, realised how fucking stupid that excuse is. But you? You kept with it. Fucking bullshit! Here’s a tip from a gamer:
    LEARN HOW TO FUCKING DEVELOP. If you don’t even know how to develop for a certain console, why even bother releasing it for that certain console? Why give the job to a different company, than yourselves? Why let them spit on your work?
    I’m done with this. Fuck you 2K and learn how to develop

    #26 4 years ago
  27. DSB

    You’re missing the obvious fact that if you’re doing a multiplatform game, it’s going to have to acquiesce to the lowest common denominator.

    If Sony expects anyone but the most triple-of-A developers to simply accomodate a framework that doesn’t fit into the current generation, they’re shit out of luck. There’s no way penny-pinching developers are going to spend more time and money, just to make a game look slightly better on the PS3. Chances are the average (Joe Ordinary) user won’t even notice that it doesn’t look better than a 360 game.

    I’m not opposed to buying a PS3, I own a PS2 already, but the fact that it falls behind on multiplatform titles plays a huge part in me simply not wanting to fork over a higher price, for the same experience.

    #27 4 years ago
  28. NinjaMidget

    I’d have to disagree with a lot of comments. This shit is no excuse, even for multiplatform games at the current lifecycle.

    Look at the call of dutys’, red dead redemption, borderlands, bioshock, every single sports game from EA, burnout, dead space, the bad company’s, batman, assassins creed, street fighter.

    I say again, this shit should not fly when multiplatform games like these are running just as well as their pc and 360 counterparts.

    #28 4 years ago
  29. Blerk

    I’d be interested to hear how many of the people complaining that the developers are “lazy and shit” have actually produced a top-notch PS3 game themselves.

    #29 4 years ago
  30. _LarZen_

    Booo! 2K can go fuck themselfs! Not buying it!

    #30 4 years ago
  31. DSB

    @28 That’s not entirely true. When I was deciding between 360 and PS3, one of the first things I looked into was load times, and the Xbox noticeably came out on top. I care a lot more about how much time I waste looking at a static screen, than whether my game has the optimal degree of botany.

    I agree that it should be possible for most published developers to break even in terms of visual standards, though. Expecting them to go beyond that at the cost of efficiency is just not very realistic.

    #31 4 years ago
  32. Axelander

    @29 I’m not a developer, but I can give you examples of games which run as good on ps3 as on any other console. As NinjaMidget mentioned, look at Dead Space, Assassin’s Creed, Batman Arkham Asylum, Street Fighter, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Battlefield, etc. and etc. And there are multiplatform games which are better on PS3 than on any other console. For example, ever heard of Dragon Age Origins? It has a better frame rate and better graphics. And I don’t know any Bioware games released before that on the PS3. So that was a first-try. They put hard work on the console and look at it. It’s a masterpiece on all 3 consoles. Another example? Let me see… Final Fantasy XIII? Yeah! Better on PS3 and a first-try from the developer. And what do all these games have in common? They’re all top-notch PS3 games.

    #32 4 years ago
  33. DSB

    @32 Dragon Age reviewed by PSX (Dedicated Playstation webzine):

    “My biggest complaints, unfortunately, stem from the visuals. Disregard what you may have heard about the PlayStation 3 version being superior. Sure, the PS3 game has better textures, but it doesn’t matter. Why? Because Dragon Age is a fairly bad looking compared to what’s out there now, so it’s not like having slightly better textures on one version helps, much.

    In fact, I’d rather have the slightly degraded textures than have to deal with the very unstable framerate of the PlayStation 3 game. Per my advice, Ben’s been playing his Xbox 360 version and hasn’t experienced any troubles with the framerate, because I told him that’s the version to get for multi-console guys. The framerate on the PS3 game averages low-20s, and can be very sluggish when the bigger enemies (boss fights) come around.

    Panning the camera around dense locations makes the lousy framerate all the more obvious, as the stuttering will surely pain your eyes. If you can get past the framerate issues, then you’ll absolutely love Dragon Age. I’m just barely able to live with it, and I absolutely detest framerates that aren’t, at the very least, in the upper 20s, let alone 30″

    I’m sure the others you mentioned are fine, but Street Fighter and the EA sports titles have some pretty serious load times, sometimes up to three times as long as the 360 version. And that’s with little to no benefit, visually.

    #33 4 years ago
  34. theevilaires

    @29 I’m sure if we all went down that path career wise we would have stuck to our morals and done our best so our vision would look the same on all platforms.

    Not give my precious work to a rookie team who don’t give a shit. They should have learned 4 years ago you start on PS3 first then down grade. Devs today have this fucking hollywood actor style mentality where they think they are the star of the show when in reality its their game.

    Leave your fanboyism at home when you leave for work and when you walk in the offices you look at your work and have the mind set you want to achieve equalization and not come off being lazy or your ass might not find that you’ll have a job the next day if 30 million people feel you said fucked them and tell them to still eat shit while buying an inferior product when they know the machine of their choice can do so much more.

    There is no excuse in this. Only laziness and greed and SONY should have never green lite this until it was on par. But of course they will do the obviously and patch shit in later…but at that point the damage to their reputation as game devs would have cost them something much more valuable than money….it’ll cost them respect amongst the games industry.

    WTF is so hard about calling up Evan Wells and asking for help for a fee on CELL programing.

    #34 4 years ago
  35. Blerk

    What many people don’t seem to understand is that 9 times out of 10 this isn’t the developers’ fault but the fault of the people driving the project, usually the publishers. The developers do what they’re told, they’re not driving the project at all – it’s not their money that’s feeding it and at the end of the day what the publisher says goes.

    If the bosses say it’s on three platforms, it’s on three platforms. If they say this is your budget, that’s your budget. If they say this is how long you’ve got to do it, that’s how long you’ve got to do it. They’re the people you should be angry with, not the poor old code monkeys who’ve probably done their best with what they were given. They might not have even intended to do a PS3 port, it might’ve been dictated to them by the money men.

    People are always very quick to blame the people who work the hardest. Try looking a bit higher up the ladder.

    #35 4 years ago
  36. NightCrawler1970

    They just shutdown 2K forum server due pissed off PS3 users

    #36 4 years ago
  37. DSB

    @36 Hah! Geeze man. I knew the playstation had an army of rabid fanboys, but I didn’t know it was that bad.

    I bet it was TEA, all by himself.

    #37 4 years ago
  38. Dr.Ghettoblaster

    LOL…..these are some FAT comments…

    I couldn’t agree with #21 more. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too many AMAZING games on PS3 for that SHIT-ASS excuse. If they can’t handle it, they shouldn’t even attempt it.

    Just becuase 360′s easier, doesn’t mean PS3 games should be dumbed down as a result.

    I own and love both systems and guess what….I bought RDR for 360. Always will buy the superior version. I just don’t like when people blame the system and not the developers. That argument expired. I’ve seen too many games on the PS3 already that truly blew me away like NEXT-GEN games should. Can’t say that I have that feeling with the 360 anymore lately.

    #38 4 years ago
  39. NightCrawler1970

    Well i do have a PS3, but wasn’t aware, that on 2K forum, a flame-war about “grass and blood cloth”

    it’s only a 7 minute demo, didn’t paying attention about grass, gheez.

    #39 4 years ago
  40. NightCrawler1970

    2K forum server back online, seen they delete most of negative publicity of pissed off, PS3 users

    #40 4 years ago
  41. Nozz

    @39 pre-fucking-cisely!

    and Blerk hit the nail on the head.

    #41 4 years ago
  42. NightCrawler1970

    Latest hot news from 2K forum

    26 moderators are cleaning up, negative post, also banning posters(they even try to ip ban me) but sorry 2K mods, im on wifi, thats temp ip LOL…

    posters saying to cancel pre-order, and cancel forum membership, looks like another activision scandal….

    #42 4 years ago
  43. NightCrawler1970

    @Blerk, higher up the ladder, you means, Take 2, i know they own 2K.. and RockStar own them both, but i dont blame RockStar, they’re innocent bystanders.

    #43 4 years ago
  44. Hunam

    Rockstar doesn’t own Take 2, not one bit.

    #44 4 years ago
  45. Kuwabara

    im more pissed about the fact u cant walk into the water !!

    #45 4 years ago
  46. frostquake

    Must weigh in here…though most everyone has summed it up. The truth is that they really didn’t focus on the PS3, or had more resources for other systems. So say 100 people..50 on PC…45 On Xbox…and 5 on PS3…or they didn’t truly understand the under the hood architecture…who knows, but their excuse is, well unbelievable to me anyway..I don’t buy it.

    #46 4 years ago
  47. Erthazus

    @@44 Except that Take 2 owns ROCKSTAR. It’s Take 2 subsidiaries.

    the hillarious thing about this that this game uses only One Core of the Cell with the RSX graphics.

    One CORE. ONE. Just one. There was not even a minimal development for this title, basically they ported it to the PS3 and jobs done. It’s like we are back to the Pentium 4 era.

    #47 4 years ago
  48. Isaaclarke37

    I am not getting this one, i didn’t like the demo even.

    #48 4 years ago
  49. Hunam


    That was my point.

    Compared to the PC version though, the console ones look kinda silly.

    #49 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.