-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Red Dead Redemption - 360 & PS3 comparison (Bish-approved!)
- Thread starter Mik2121
- Start date
Valkyr Junkie
Member
Tricky I Shadow said:
Can I get a comparison screenshot or animated gif?
zero margin
Member
Tricky I Shadow said:
Yeah, not a whole lot else you could call that.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
travisbickle said:I think MazingerDUDE is right!!
Weak scene!
Epic scene!
Just add more foliage!
:lol
This one's good.
Confidence Man
Member
CozMick said:
And be forced to pay Microsoft to access a basic feature of the game I just paid for?
Surely you jest. :lol
Teknopathetic
Member
"Precisely. The differences are extremely minor. Never before have we had such platform parity. It's a huge step up from every other console generation in history."
You were having a big bitchfight about COD4's PS3 textures with 600% zoomed in screenshots less than 3 years ago.
You were having a big bitchfight about COD4's PS3 textures with 600% zoomed in screenshots less than 3 years ago.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
dark10x said:
Really? I recall last gen to be pretty much the same with a few exceptions (Need for Speed: HP2 comes to mind immediately, but it was handled by a different dev IIRC).
I made a point to DL PS3 demos of games I already owned on the 360 and there was a pretty wide gap with regards to IQ.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
MazingerDUDE said:
Well that seals it for me, I'm getting the 360 version and that's coming from someone that usually always prefers to get my games on the PS3 as my preferred platform.
I'm sure that the game is very playable on the PS3 but I'm loving the extra detail coming through in the 360 shots.
Yoboman
Member
Who gives a shit, it's still a good game. Shit I enjoyed Oblivion on PS3 and when I got it later on PC, I really didn't feel like the visual difference made a huge difference for mejett said:
These minor differences don't mean jack unless you're planning to run them side-by-side
Baki
Member
jett said:
If it plays and runs fine (regardless of whether another platform runs better) than thats all that matters.
I mean 6 months down the line, the PC version is going to come out and thats going to run at 1080P and 60FPS with much better detail and post-processing effects and all for a lower price. So does it really matter?
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
jett said:
wow, slow down there fella, the differences are really not that BIG, also using the sharpness filter on your tv will help a lot in regards to the blurring, I'm going for the 360 version but I certainly don't think that the PS3 version is worth anyway less, the average person on the street that is going to purchase this game honestly wouldn't notice the differences or even care tbh, it's only under these conditions where both versions are under such scrutiny that the differences become that apparent and even then they are quite subtle.
BattleMonkey
Member
Lazy devs because one looks better? I would say Lazy cause of no PC version 
zero margin
Member
lowrider007 said:
Pretty big. I'm not gonna quote those images yet again but you can't deny, pretty big difference.
lowrider007 said:
Eh? QAA is a piece of shit and it bothered me the instant I started playing AC2, without having seen any comparison pictures. And this thing is subHD+QAA. No dude, shaprness won't help. I don't care if the average joe doesn't notice these things, I do, and I do feel that a port like this isn't worth $60. Maybe I'll rent it some day if it never comes to PC, but no no I'm not buying it on the PS3.
szaromir said:
I didn't intend for it to sound that way. I think 'excuse' was the wrong word to use.
I understand developers have lots of priorities pulling them in many different directions, so I'm not playing some blame-game or suggesting they didn't work as hard as they could have. I'm sure given their budget, their skills/experience, their time, their goals, their priorities etc. they did the best possible job they could.
I think people too easily conflate the 'accusation' that a dev didn't do as good a job as can possibly be done on a system with saying a dev is lazy. There's lots and lots of reasons why a dev mightn't execute as well as would be exemplary, that may have nothing to do with total level of effort expended on the game. Most particularly in a multiplatform context.
The poster I was responding to was saying 'of course it's not going to be as good, the GPU is weaker'...as if that's necessarily some fundamental limit. All I meant to say is that it's not.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
jett said:
Well if you let things like QAA effect your gaming experience to such a degree then I feel for you honestly I do, it's such a shame that minor inferiorities in image quality can tarnish your enjoyment of a game in this way, that's very unfortunate.
I'm sure the PS3 GPU was downgraded at the relatively last minute as a desperate measure to cut costs, it doesn't make sense to pair the Cell CPU with such an ordinary GPU at that time (128 bit bus... ugh). Anyway, as a multi-platform user I don't really care that much and these threads are welcome for helping me spending my money on the better version. Bring X720 - PS4 already! 4 GB RAM + 1GB VRAM will make a huge difference. Current engines will show immediate awesome graphics just by adding extra texture resolution, better framerate, crazy post-processing and IQ enhancements.
This game will be great regardless what console you get it for. Just get it for whatever console/controller you prefer to game with. I won't be playing RDR 'til later this year (have to clear out some backlog) and it'll be the X360 version because I prefer the controller, not because of (slightly) better performance.
That's what makes these threads so fun. Their responses are so predictable (if you've been on GAF for a while, that is).
schennmu said:
That's what makes these threads so fun. Their responses are so predictable (if you've been on GAF for a while, that is).
and here comes my little follower...
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
zero margin said:
Of course I can deny it, I've seen the images myself and I am purchasing the 360 version because of them, but imo the differences are still minimal, I guess at this level of comparativeness though an image that is a bit sharper compared with one that isn't can be constituted as a MASSIVE difference by some, but not by me my friend, and certainly I can assure you not by many people outside of threads/forums like these.
BattleMonkey
Member
Less shrubbery? This game is unplayable.
travisbickle said:I think MazingerDUDE is right!!
Weak scene!
Epic scene!
Just add more foliage!
:lol pretty much sums up the thread. There are some details missing on the PS3 version, if you only have PS3, you wouldn't know the difference unless you went to this thread or watched someone else play it. It's pretty foolish that people are not going to buy this game or wait for a discount because the 360 version looks better.
BattleMonkey
Member
reKon said:
You'll be sorry knowing that other people are playing the game with extra shrubbery.
BattleMonkey said:
why not place some real shrubbery on a table half-way between the TV and where you sit - not only will you benifit from more shrubbery - but you will benifit from smell and 3D effect.
personally I prefer all shrubbery to be removed from my Mrs...I guess X360 owners like their women manly?
semiconscious
Member
i've got cowpokes moon-walking thru camp, & a piano player who stands on his stool between songs - & i'm supposed to get worked up over how good this looks, graphics-wise? ...
...BattleMonkey
Member
I tried to play Crysis, but had to turn down the shadows from 'Very high' to 'high'..... it pained me inside, so I uninstalled knowing the lazy developers did not optimize for my system of choice.
Drinking Hatorade
Neo Member
had to stop in to say just how nice the gfx are (360 here). it's suprising how good the IQ is for such a large scaled world. textures are sharp, draw distance is amazing, framerate has been very stable so far and I have yet to notice screen tearing. good stuff man.
Indeed. Ahh..only if you had said something similar to 360 owners in the ff13 comparison thread though..:lolWrikaWrek said:
Judging by the comparison shots posted by Mazinger, I would say ff13 360 is a much better port than rdr ps3.Relix said:
I think RDR ps3's lower resolution hurts its look more than the lack of foliage. It looks even more blurry in those pictures where the characters are riding their horses due to lower res + qaa. This is a rather easy choice for multi-platform owners.
-_- blah
Which version should I get? I don't have Live, and probably won't for a good while still. The graphics are a concern. Does the game look blurry in motion on PS3? I was almost dead set in picking this up on PS3, but now I'm not for sure. Sound doesn't matter as I don't even have a 5.1 setup. Is the online really worth it? Or will I primarily be playing the single player campaign?
Which version should I get? I don't have Live, and probably won't for a good while still. The graphics are a concern. Does the game look blurry in motion on PS3? I was almost dead set in picking this up on PS3, but now I'm not for sure. Sound doesn't matter as I don't even have a 5.1 setup. Is the online really worth it? Or will I primarily be playing the single player campaign?
Basch said:
I played both versions for awhile last night and while the 360 version did look a little better, I honestly don't see why all the drama. I didn't run into anything on either platform that affected my enjoyment of the game. I didn't play any online so I can't really speak to that.
Edit: Just an FYI, I am planning on playing the PS3 version through to the end.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky