Last Remnant dev says Unreal Engine cause behind PS3 delay

by Andrew Yoon { Jun 18th 2008 at 12:30AM }

Once again, another Unreal Engine-related delay strikes again. The Last Remnant is one of the timed exclusive RPGs from Square Enix on the Xbox 360, but that wasn't because Microsoft shelled out the big bucks. According to an interview with Gamespy, the delay was "mainly for development reasons." The Unreal Engine has been difficult to work with on PS3, and that's been the cause of the delay. "We're developing the game using the middleware Unreal Engine, and the Unreal Engine has a slower development on the PS3 side."

Thankfully, ever since Epic worked on the PS3 with Unreal Tournament III, things have been running more smoothly on Sony's platform. "It was only really workable after Unreal Tournament was published, so this was mainly a development decision."

Square Enix's other PS3 RPG games, Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy Versus XIII, utilize Square Enix's in-house Crystal Tools engine.

[Via NeoGAF]

Gallery: The Last Remnant

Tags: last-remnant, square-enix, the-last-remnant, unreal, unreal-engine, unreal-engine-3

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

NightHawk @ Jun 18th 2008 12:37AM

why the hell were they using the unreal engine instead of crystal tools, or the white engine?

leiwei @ Jun 18th 2008 12:59AM

There's speculation on the net that Square is using the Crystal Engine on FF because it's "customized" to utilize the PS3's capabilities.

Dehshizknight @ Jun 18th 2008 1:08AM

Hahaha! A PS3-exclusive in-house third-party (*mouth full*) engine.... FFXIII=Brilliant

JerJerBinks @ Jun 18th 2008 9:42AM

Another question to ask .... why arent more developers using Phyre Engine?

Josh @ Jun 18th 2008 2:17PM

Crystal Tools = White Engine, by the way.

Nasser @ Jun 27th 2008 7:49AM

perhaps they want to see how a cross platform engine works and use that info to upgrade the crystal tools for cross platforming.

p.s:so which is its official name now crystal tools or white engine?

snake79 @ Jun 18th 2008 12:41AM

I've been wondering it for a long time... why does games always have problem fitting to ps3 while they fit perfectly with the xbox? I thought PS3 is more powerful then xbox and thus game that is playable on a xbox should be a peace of cake for ps3?
I'm no expert so please make it simple on the explanation. thanks.

leiwei @ Jun 18th 2008 12:57AM

It has to do with the coding. You can't just code for one system and expect it to run perfectly on the other. I can't think of a good example but if you ever made a Powerpoint presentation using Office 2007 (the one with the new funky interface), you'll be surprised how much a mess it will look like when the file is opened under an older Powerpoint version unless it's saved in the old format.

gabor @ Jun 18th 2008 8:29AM

the problem is that the hardware-architecture of the xbox360 is the 'usual' architecture, very similar to PCs (the processor has 3 equal normal cores), and the ps3 has a very exotic hardware architecture (the processor has 1 normal core, and 8 special cores).

and when developing for the xbox360, you can use the "usual" programming style/principles and you reach good performance, on the ps3 you have to do things differently, in more complex ways, to achieve good performance.

that's why there are many ports from the xbox360/pc to ps3, that do not perform well.

proog @ Jun 18th 2008 4:38AM

Exactly like leiwei said, it has to do with the coding. Two major differences in the development of the two consoles is that
1. The PS3 has a central processor and 6 cores available to games while the 360 has a dual-core processor (if I recall). On top of that, the two machines use different architectures: the PS3 uses a variant of PowerPC while the 360 uses an architecture more common to PCs.
2. The 360 uses DirectX, Microsoft's own technology for using graphics, while the PS3 uses OpenGL. Again, DirectX is more comfortable for regular PC developers and the porting between the two is quite easy compared to porting to/from the PS3.
It's true that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 in terms of calculations and arguably graphics, when utilised correctly, but there are certainly some major differences between the two. Hope this clears things up a bit.

Xoviet chiK @ Jun 18th 2008 5:17AM

@ Proog

Xbox 360 has a 3 core processor, and it is also POWER / Power PC based. (Alpha kits were Power Mac G5s for Pete's sake!)

Another worthwhile point is the issue of RAM. PlayStation 3 has 256 MB dedicated to the GPU and 256 MB dedicated as system memory, while Xbox 360 has 512 MB shared GPU and System memory with 10 MB Dedicated GPU memory.

ymmv @ Jun 18th 2008 7:35AM

The PS3's hardware architecture is very different from the 360. To make optimal use of the PS3 a game has to use the SPEs as much as possible and use the single core CPU only if necessary. The SPEs are blazing fast but since the SPEs can only access data in small chunks, the program code really has to be designed with this in mind.

360 games on the other hand use only the (triple core) CPU and because the CPU can access a unified memory pool you can throw large amounts of data at the CPU without breaking it up first.

Bad 360 to PS3 ports that don't take the PS3s strengths into account will run subpar. Brute force programming works on the 360 but not on the PS3. Its a lot easier if games are made on the PS3 first and then ported to the 360, because the PS3's design philiosophy also works on the 360.

snake79 @ Jun 19th 2008 1:16AM

thanks guys!! I think i understand now. and YMMV, your explanation is very detail. thanksa lot! :D

Mattchewie @ Jun 18th 2008 12:41AM

You would think you would take EPIC a bit more if you where having issues. Especially since Mark was all lovey dovey about the PS3.....

Christian @ Jun 18th 2008 7:40AM

Well the article do mention that the Unreal Engine got useful once UT3 was out for the PS3. This was quite clearly the goal for both Epic and Sony with collaborating on UT3, to make sure all Unreal Engine games post UT3 didn't have the severe issues of pre-UT3 games. Of course since games these days are multiyear development efforts it do take a little time from they fix the Unreal Engine until games using the fixed engine starts shipping.

Aziz @ Jun 18th 2008 12:58AM

Well that was obvious and inevitable...oh well FFXIII FTW!!!!

kentuckyfried @ Jun 18th 2008 1:13AM

I'm really, really tired about hearing about how so-and-so game based upon the Unreal 3 engine doesn't work well on the ps3. For the love of God, I wish these companies would use something else that does work well besides that engine.

I don't have a good handle on this either, is a native Unreal 3 engine built for the ps3 impossible?

proog @ Jun 18th 2008 5:12AM

It's certainly not impossible, however one of the strong points of the Unreal Engine is its cross compatibility, and by making it specifically tailored towards the PS3 would cut out some of the point of using the engine for multiplatform titles.

Efeez1986 @ Jun 18th 2008 1:59AM

I've seen a lot of game engines that are better than the Unreal Engine, i think it's time people stopped going so crazy over it and start using different engines.

goboColossus (LIVE, PSN - gobopop) @ Jun 18th 2008 2:23AM

Can you name one that is offered as a Middleware Solution? Can you name one that was developed from the ground up as a Middleware Solution?

Sure, a lot of engines produce results just as good if not better results than UE3, but they are mostly engines that were developed for in-house development by studios intending to use it on a specific game. Like FFXIII, Call of Duty 4, Killzone 2, and Capcom's 7th Gen offerings for instance. Engines like CryEngine/2 and Source were developed in the same manor, though gradually opened up for use by third parties (though without most of the extensive support offered with true Middleware).

Right now the biggest players outside of Unreal are Gamebryo and Renderware as well as lower-spec offerings like Torque. Engines like Frostbyte and id Tech 5 are very near to seeing commercial products release, but it's still not know if these more high-profile engines will be open to third parties at all.

Unreal is popular because it gives great results, and comes in a package that handles virtually 50% of programming time and costs at a nominal fee. It, and middleware solutions like it are were the industry is heading if demand for consistent and quality software release keeps increasing.

JaseH @ Jun 18th 2008 1:39AM

I'm starting to get sick of this engine.

1. Makes everything look glossy & plastic.

2. & DELAYS games.

F'n sake.

_____________________________
JaseH.

RagingStormX @ Jun 18th 2008 10:29AM

I thought I was alone.....why in the blue hell would they use the ultra sh!tty and craptacular Unreal Engine when they have their own in house engine. FFS Square Enix.....thats total weak sause. I would like to know what engine they are using for Infinite Undiscovery....bastards.

Popfrogs @ Jun 18th 2008 10:53AM

I'm guessing it was a timing thing. An in-house engine can take years to develop, especially when you're as slow as SquareEnix is. While they were working on their own game engine, they had to throw some scraps to Xbox owners to sell something and keep the lights on. That's why they went with the Unreal Engine, and that's why Xbox is getting all these little titles first.

BTW I'm betting that nearly everything they release on 360 blows.

Fraser JK @ Jun 18th 2008 10:28AM

Again it all comes down to the muti-core processors the PS3 has.

I bet the Unreal Engine never had that in mind and was designed for a single core use. Oh well atleast they won't dish out a crappy game... custom engines are the way to go on the PS3 tho.

ymmv @ Jun 18th 2008 4:54PM

Remember when Epic demoed their UE3 on Sony's first PS3 presentation? The engine was running completely on the PowerPC core. It didn't the SPEs at all. It was good enough for a demo, but useless for a fullfledged game. When they optimized UE3 while developing Gears of War, the whole engine was optimized for the 360 hardware architecture. All of those optimizations were completely useless for the PS3. It took them TWO YEARS before they finally started using the SPEs.

Fraser JK @ Jun 18th 2008 5:00PM

Exactly... although unreal is sweeeet, better use crystals engine or something built for PS3. X360 and PC are best platforms for UE since it was pretty much developed for them.

One other thing... I think Square Enix decided to do this to try and be more like Western developers which a lot of Japanese companies have been trying to do lately.

haramanai @ Jun 18th 2008 5:01AM

The main problem is that Unreal Engine is a port. So all the games that will come with Unreal Engine are going to be just ports.

haramanai @ Jun 18th 2008 5:05AM

The problem is that Unreal Engine for PS3 is a port. So all the games that will come with Unreal Engine are going to be ports.

Christian @ Jun 18th 2008 8:52AM

This is not fully true. Yes, Unreal engine is a 'port' of a engine originally made for PC operating systems. And Epic has recently made ports of the Unreal engine to Xbox360 and PS3 systems. The PS3 version was the last one completed (only really completed alongside Unreal Tournament 3). So developers who use(d) Unreal Engine versions prior to Unreal Tournament 3 did get a very unfinished engine for the PS3 and thus we saw a lot of games with problems. We are seeing the last tail of such games coming out now, but once we are done with all pre-UT3 developed games we shouldn't see good quality PS3 versions which should be just as good/bad as their Xbox360 counterparts.

mushmouth @ Jun 18th 2008 8:57AM

I guess it depends on your idea of a port. I guess the UE3 engine is a port to the 360 as well? It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the PS3 is more difficult to develop on since the architecture of the system is so different from the x86 architecture. The 360's architecture is similar to a standard pc. Attached is a link to an older article that discusses some of the chanllenges that Epic will face with bringing the UE3 to the PS3. I think it is relevant to this discussion.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=4

ultima_omega @ Jun 18th 2008 6:34AM

I knew it! I have been saying for ages that the Unreal Engine sucks. I don't know why Square decided to use it. Unreal Tournament looks nice but its far from perfect the framerate drops and there is a lot of screen tearing. I have come to expect only the highest quality games from Square so i hope they don't release a game that looks and peforms badly.

Kellian @ Jun 18th 2008 7:36AM

Sounds to me like Square just made a slightly stupid development decision in going with Unreal, and unfortunately it's the PS3 owners that 'suffer' (have to wait hehe.)

Dan @ Jun 18th 2008 10:27AM

I dont think it was stupid, granted I dont understand why they didn't use their own engine but still the games look great and the issues are already resolved.

You cant expect every single game to get released on-time. Every worthwile game that has come out has been pushed back a few times to ensure it comes perfect, MGS4, halo, and GTA4 are good examples (Haze is not). Its not like the Unreal engine is the only thing to ever hold back a game. I rather have a game running perfect then a crappy port.... @%#@%Lost Planet@%#% .... O:-)

ymmv @ Jun 18th 2008 3:02PM

Square Enix is just one of a long list of developers who were taken in by Epic's false claims about Unreal Engine 3. Epic made UE3 the only tool a developer would need: it was fast, powerful, multiplatform, could handle any kind of game and was ready to use NOW. So they said. The truth was that the engine was far from finished. They started selling UE3 to devs in 2005 but it only became useable on the 360 once Gears of War was released. The PS3 version of UE3 was even further behind and was finally fixed once Epic finished their own PS3 game Unreal Tournament in december 2007.

This shitty Unreal Engine caused many, many delays for many, many developers all over the world because Epic overpromised and underdeliverd. I really hope Silicon Knights will take them to the cleaner for their misconduct and mismanagement.

miglaugh @ Jun 18th 2008 10:28AM

Wow, it only took them this long to find out that engine is garbage?

EPIC must have one hell of a marketing team to get all these crappy devs on board with their terrible engine.

No matter how much they work on this game, it will release looking 5 years old already.

mushmouth @ Jun 18th 2008 8:39AM

I bought a subscription. I thought it was fairly well done and it was an excuse to get calling all cars. So far I am happy with my decision. I like the attitude that everything Sony does should be free. Sony gives its customers substantially more for free than MS does for the 360 customers.

pavs @ Jun 18th 2008 10:27AM

I refuse to buy games for PS3 built on Unreal engine. Those graphics suck and should be left on 360. Just look at any exclusive built with an engine just for PS3, they all look amazing (IMO MGS4 looked better than crysis). F#$k Epic and their shitty engine, why cant they use Konamis metal gear enginge, or whatever they used for uncharted/ratchet?
I think after KZ2, no-one should have an excuse to use unreal, because its out-dated and its a total piece of sh*t.

The Kiss @ Jun 18th 2008 10:14AM

Erm... as much as I like the graphics and all... I can't seem to find the quality that SE is putting on the PS3's FFXIII. I don't know... it's somehow lacking.

Maybe it's because they're not used to the Unreal Engine? I really doubt that the UE sucks... or at least... I don't want to think that it is that.

Vcize @ Jun 18th 2008 10:34AM

Wow, these comments the differences in architecture and the history of these engines have been a very good read.

ymmv @ Jun 18th 2008 5:08PM

If you really want a good read, google on Silicon Knight's lawsuit against Epic Games. SK was screwed over because Epic promised them a fully functioning, ready to use games engine, Instead they got underperforming beta code which delayed. UE3 was useless in the beginning that SK was forced to write their own 3D engine because they couldn't risk waiting for Epic to fix UE3.

Very interesting reading material. It really explained why so few UE based games were actually released even though it was by far the most widely used next gen games engine. UE3 simply blew. Epic knew that was the case when they charged hundreds of thousands of dollars for UE3. Instead of putting all their own devs on fixing UE3, they first wrote and finished their own game (Gears of War). That must have been tough for other devs. After spending so much money on UE3, their own UE3 games ran like crap because of the beta code while Epic got Gears of War out the door and sold millions of copies.