-
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.
Bish's Official GTA IV Thread of Comparisons and Ignoring the OP at One's Peril
- Thread starter bishoptl
- Start date
Personally, I went with the 360 one for single player. I much rather a clean sharp game than one that is blurry. It comes down to personal preference I suppose, and with my background with PC games I guess thats why I prefer that look. Lots of the comparisons here are taken from different times of day/weather, so I wouldn't read too much into them.
BeeDog said:
yes F1:CE had minor slowdown/tearing in some replays and at the start of some GPs when you qualified P16 or lower, however the latest patch fixed everything with a nice boost in performance (30 fps locked). On the other hand I doubt R* will take the time to further optimize GTAIV, I guess the first thing they need is to make it run flawless and bug-free specially in PS3 hardware, then they'll start tweaking and reworking the engine for the next GTA installment.
Outcast2004
Banned
Really enjoying this gam so far. Runs pretty smoothly, but you can tell it's giving the system (360, I'll stick with 360 for all multiplat) a pretty good workout.
Messed around w/ multi and that can be a damn blast! Cops N. Crooks is GREAT
Messed around w/ multi and that can be a damn blast! Cops N. Crooks is GREAT
AgentOtaku said:
Exchanged my PS3 version for a 360 one and I am glad I did.
- The framerate runs at a constitently higher clip on 360. It is really noticable and framerate > everything else for me. Still the framerate is hardly optimal, just not as bad.
- The game looks "sharper" and more clinical. I am not sure if this is good or bad though, mostly different.
- Shadows do look worse and the HDR lightning could be somewhat more subdued (I am not certain of the lightning)
- Popup is a bit worse, but not really something I notice while playing.
- Controls is down to preference. I prefer the 360 controller for driving and fps games.
Shake Appeal
Member
I can tell you from experience that everything I have run through a component cable looks worse. As soon as I switched to VGA (my 360 is running through a 20" widescreen monitor) it was like adding 2xAA.bigmakstudios said:
the grass is always greener on the otherside... i own the ps3 version and do agree with the comments about the blur. it's like i'm playing through a light fog or something. i've been watching stream videos off of justin.tv and looking at the screenshots and the 360 version definitely looks clearer. i'm not sure if its just because i prefer the look of defined lines? in the end, i guess i just wish the pc version were confirmed so we could settle this comparison (and know what liberty city truly looks like). 
Is the framerate really that much better on 360? There are too many differing reports on the matter.
The one thing that I DO know, however, is that I really dislike that "painted" effect the 360 version uses. I mean, that is really wierd and ugly looking. I don't understand why they are using it. It reminds me of playing games in 16-bit color or something. An awful decision.
I really love the soft "CG-like" image quality of the PS3 version. It's a bit jaggy in some areas, but that doesn't apply to all surfaces and lines. Certain things look extremely clean while others are quite jaggy.
The one thing that I DO know, however, is that I really dislike that "painted" effect the 360 version uses. I mean, that is really wierd and ugly looking. I don't understand why they are using it. It reminds me of playing games in 16-bit color or something. An awful decision.
I really love the soft "CG-like" image quality of the PS3 version. It's a bit jaggy in some areas, but that doesn't apply to all surfaces and lines. Certain things look extremely clean while others are quite jaggy.
That doesn't seem like a good thing to me. Why would you want the framerate to occasionally spike? If the game can't hold a framerate higher than 30 fps for any length of time, there is no reason why they should ever allow the game to hit that point.
The framerate in the 360 version is not a solid 30fps by any stretch
But it is on average about 5fps above the ps3 version 95% of the time and sometimes more. It makes a bit of a difference since those few extra frames mean that the fps doesn´t interfere with the gameplay as much
I am quite senstive to framerate problems since my Quake-playing days and there is a definate difference. I guess "ordinary people" would hardly spot the difference though, so if you usually arn´t bothered by framerate you can easily stick with the ps3 version.
But it is on average about 5fps above the ps3 version 95% of the time and sometimes more. It makes a bit of a difference since those few extra frames mean that the fps doesn´t interfere with the gameplay as much
I am quite senstive to framerate problems since my Quake-playing days and there is a definate difference. I guess "ordinary people" would hardly spot the difference though, so if you usually arn´t bothered by framerate you can easily stick with the ps3 version.
Well, I'm one of the biggest framerate whores on this board. That said, two others that I trust on this matter (TTP and BlimBlim) really didn't have anything positive to say about the 360 framerate (as in, they felt that both were pretty poor).
There's no way I'm going to bother with the 360 version at this point, however, as I've already put 18 hours into the PS3 version. A slightly smoother framerate and uglier visuals (IMO, of course) aren't enough to convince me to switch.
It's just that, with people throwing around stuff like "40 fps", that simply illustrates to me that they know not of what they speak. 40 fps isn't exactly possible with v-sync enabled on a TV of any sort.
dark10x said:
Are you honestly that affected by a few frames here and there or dithering to consider switching after investing $60 and 18 hours into a title?
I don't want to be rude or whatever, but damn, that's kinda insane, dude. :lol
The graphics are crummy. It's the narrative, the living world, and the gameplay that should sell GTA IV. Hell, you can fire up Vice City or San Andreas on Steam and rock 16q AA and every other bell and whistle your GPU can handle and they still looks like total ass. But that doesn't mean running down the pizza delivery guy and stealing his moped is any less fun.
dark10x said:
Playing the Xbox 360 version, there are times when the game seems really smooth, and gives the impression that it's running above 30 fps. It's probably just an effect from your eyes getting used to a low frame rate, and then the game switching and running at a solid 30 fps.
No no, I would never do that, actually. I would have considered it earlier last week before I really put any time into the game, but I wouldn't do that now. I'm actually really enjoying the game a lot and have actually become used to the unstable framerate. Hasn't ruined the game by any means.urk said:
dark10x said:
Okay, I was worried for a second there.
It's a really mixed bag. There are some really ugly elements. Last generation type stuff. But then, once you settle in and give it a good amount of playtime, they kind of fade out and you can appreciate some of the places they did achieve some really fantastic stuff.
But damn, I fired it up straight on the heels of Uncharted and wondered how in the hell any honest reviewer gave it a 10 for graphics.
And to relate this back to the topic of comparison, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that neither version is a graphical showcase. They both exhibit some really nasty flaws. That said, unless you simply can't stand a poor framerate or aliasing, you'll have fun with either version.
If you're on the fence, just buy a copy. You won't be sorry a couple of hours in.
plagiarize
Banned
motion blur is probably fooling some people too.Struct09 said:
i'm sure that i've never seen GTA4 on 360 go above 30 fps... and naturally it drops a lot.
40fps etc for the 360 version is plain bullshit. It seems have a maxfps of 30fps, which seems really smooth when it actually hits it
That said it holds a higher framerate on average on 360 and slowdown may seem to be "worse" because the relative drop is bigger. From 28-30 to sub 15 where on ps3 it is from 24-25 to sub 15. No version is perfect, but the 360 has a better framerate
That said it holds a higher framerate on average on 360 and slowdown may seem to be "worse" because the relative drop is bigger. From 28-30 to sub 15 where on ps3 it is from 24-25 to sub 15. No version is perfect, but the 360 has a better framerate
While they are flawed, I actually DO believe the game to be somewhat of a showcase. Unlike previous entries in the series, there are many moments that are truly outstanding. The lighting and shadows are EXTREMELY high quality for a game of this type. The textures are all very detailed, the models are high-poly, animation is tops, etc. If the framerate were stable, I'd say this would stand as one of the finest looking games we've seen this generation. An open world game such as this will never look perfect 100% of the time. I mean, during general gameplay, the game is incredible looking, but there are certainly areas you can reach that are pretty nasty.
This was actually the case with Crysis as well, however. That is important to remember. In general, Crysis was the most impressive looking game I had ever played, but there were plenty of areas you could walk through that were extremely rough looking.
That's another thing that has impressed me. Their use of motion blur is among the best I've ever seen. It's mostly seen while driving fast or engaging in combat. The way they kick in motion blur right as you land a huge jump really looks insane. The blur used as you move in and out of cover and generally whip your gun around is extremely cinematic as is the driving blur.
Has anyone noticed that, if you press "X" (or A on 360) before pressing a direction on the analog stick Niko will break into a slow run using a really kickass animation? It really gives the character some great momentum. When moving through a major gunfight, I must say that the animation is really incredible. It can actually hold its own against stuff like Uncharted.
That's not even possible, you know. Unless you've disabled v-sync, the framerate will never show such slight variation. It's a limitation of how the displays work. I don't believe even triple buffering can allow for such framerates (and I doubt that they are using triple buffering here).
CurseoftheGods
Banned
Which version overall has the smoother framerate?
I skimmed through the thread, but I couldn't find a solid answer to this question. =\
Edit: Nevermind. I am an idiot. It seemed like it was answered on this very page.
I skimmed through the thread, but I couldn't find a solid answer to this question. =\
Edit: Nevermind. I am an idiot. It seemed like it was answered on this very page.
dark10x said:
Yeah, I'm probably being too compartmental. I've been impressed countless times by a number of things. I guess for me, the overall package seems like it would have benefited a thousand fold from just a little bit of polish here and there.
And again, you don't really notice it all that much when you launch your chopper off a ramp and land into the crowd of fatties a Burger Shot.
dark10x said:
well.. of course it can if the cpu is limiting the frames being drawn or whatever. I agree that spotting 24 or 25 fps is somewhat impossible though
it was just an average/guessBut something like this is how I see it:
360 goes from 10fps to a max of 30fps and ps3 goes from 10fps to a max of about 25fps. To me the 360 seems to hold a bit higher overall also.
No, what I'm saying is, the actual displays we are using will not display odd framerates like that. Your display will not, for instance, be able to properly display 23 fps. It's not a limitation of the hardware powering the game.SpokkX said:well.. of course it can if the cpu is limiting the frames being drawn or whatever. I agree that spotting 24 or 25 fps is somewhat impossible though
Oh, v-sync is disabled on 360? That's interesting. I can say with 100% certainty that v-sync is enabled in the PS3 version. Tearing has always been painfully obvious to me and it simply doesn't occur. Perhaps they should have given users an option similar to Saint's Row (you could disable v-sync to improve performance)?andrewfee said:
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
urk said:
well if this is true then that explains the higher frame rate then because there is no tearing on the PS3 version what so ever, perhaps they will consider patching the PS3 version and disable v-sync, I'd prefer to have tearing and a higher frame rate tbh.
I can deal with the minor issues with the game (framerate, aliasing, blur effect on PS3, low native resolution) since the overall game is just fantastic. Although I'm only at about 10% complete with the game, its been a joy to play in SP.
One thing I can't stand is screen tearing. I haven't hit much of it (if any) on the PS3 version. Does the 360 have it?
One thing I can't stand is screen tearing. I haven't hit much of it (if any) on the PS3 version. Does the 360 have it?
Slackbladder
Member
All I know is what I've seen with my own eyes of both versions. I think the differences only stand out on a fairly large HDTV such as with my 46" LCD. I can clearly see a difference between the two versions; the PS3 is far more jaggier but has less dithering and better shadows etc, whilst the 360 has better AA (though still a bit jaggy) and a sharper image. It may also have a better frame rate, but very slightly.
I wish I could show a comparison on my tv with a pic but I have no digital camera.
I wish I could show a comparison on my tv with a pic but I have no digital camera.
lowrider007 said:
It may depend on the target audience of each console, as a lot of 360 owners are also hardcore pc gamers or ex pc gamers, this audience tends to turn off vsync by default with games that fluctuate between 20-50fps, to keep a consistent fps, I think you did with bioshock, or at least tried it
I'm not entirely sure who the ps3 is marketed for, but maybe the PS3 versions testers complained about tearing during playtesting, so they enabled vsync
also I think the dithering people keep complaining about in the 360 shots is part of that weird "matte painting" effect
belvedere said:
You can never really lock frame rate, but you can enable v-sync (which the PS3 does).
I did not notice any tearing in the 360 version, can anyone verify it? It seems strange they would have v-sync in one and not the other. If they did disable v-sync they should cap the frame rate at 30 in the 360 version, why go higher and get tearing? The location of the "tear" is purely the mathematics of the timing, you cannot force it to the bottom. Did anyone see any tearing in the various videos?
It would be nice to have a menu option like SR or Bioshock for v-sync.
wayward archer
Member
sajj316 said:
If it's happening I haven't noticed it yet. And i'm pretty sensitive to screen tearing too.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
dogmaan said:
I'm not sure why you presume that tbh, I know far more people with 360's that are more akin to console gaming rather that being hardcore pc gamers, or ex pc gamers for that matter, yeah I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule but still I'd say outside of this forum most 360 users are not hard-core PC gamers.
On Bioshock you have the option to disable V-Sync, I'd almost say in some areas it felt like it doubled the FPS compared to having it enabled, every console game that runs around 25/30 fps should have this option, I can't see how it would hurt having the choice, there are many people that would put up with tearing for extra frames, if you don't like it then you can just disable it.
This has already been established, many people are calling it 'The paint effect', it's the one thing I don't like about the 360 version, others don't it mind though, horses for courses at the end of the day.
AgentOtaku
Member
yeah, I actually do like the "painting effect" for the most part
lowrider007 said:
most of the people i know who had xbox's and x360's also to some extent played pc games (possibly due to the bait and switch pc version of halo a month before the launch of xbox)
most of the people I know who have ps2's or wii's don't play pc games much or at all
as for the PS3, I'm not sure what there target audience is yet, I think the target audience for PS3 is probably anyone who can afford it
PC gamers will be more understanding/forgiving of a lack of vsync if it means the frame rate is higher
UncleGuito
Banned
It definitely doesn't. Neither version has tearing.M_A_C said:
wowfactor said:
The PS3 version looks blurrier but has more vibrant/oversaturated color pallete which you can also achieve in the 360 version by adjusting the saturation option - in default the colors look somewhat washed out...personally I increased the saturation because vibrant colors match the artstyle/overall look of the game.
Oh and btw I'm nearly 10 hrs in and I haven't noticed any tearing.
The left two pictures have nothing to do with saturation and isn't something that can be "fixed" using picture controls. Do you not notice who dithered the shadows, trees, and other background elements are? It's that awful airbrush effect. I still don't understand why they thought that was a good idea. It completely clashes with the look of the game.Feindflug said:
I'm glad some folks like it, but I really think it damages the otherwise awesome visuals. Perhaps it should have been an option?