• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

imtehman
Banned
(05-19-2010, 01:54 AM)
imtehman's Avatar
anyone else spend the last hour playing poker ? :lol
blehh
Junior Member
(05-19-2010, 02:21 AM)
spent the last two hours playing this on the ps3. jaggies bothered me at first because i've been pc gaming for the past couple of months, but when the game starts to pick up story-wise, you forget all about it.
-DarKaoZ-
Banned
(05-19-2010, 02:33 AM)

Originally Posted by imtehman

anyone else spend the last hour playing poker ? :lol

*raise hand*

Anyways, playing PS3 ver and dear god, I feel bad for the people who can notice slowdowns and jaggies while playing. I rarely find them until I start looking at it, the only thing that I really really notice while playing is Screen Tearing and thanks god this game doesn't have that feature! :lol
MazingerDUDE
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:20 AM)
MazingerDUDE's Avatar
upper: 360
lower: PS3






















640P + QAA makes some blurry image quality similar to that of GTA4.























There're some significant loss in foliage making some epic scene on 360 looking down right pathetic on PS3.









On 360's side, trees are well alpha blended looking very smooth overall.

PS3 on the other hand, trees are processed with alpha test creating some serious shimmering artifacts.









There're some LOD issues on PS3 as well. As you approach buildings, shadow pop is very apparent on PS3 where it is very smooth on 360.









There're some missing self shadows on PS3, making its characters look rather flat.









LOD is a lot more aggressive on PS3, change in geometry and object pop etc are a lot more noticeable.


The frame rate is much worse on PS3 too.

It is definitely NOT better than GTA4.

It's just that the nature of game makes frame rate issues less noticeable.

(You drive 200MPH in middle of crowded city in GTA, where you ride horse on barren wasteland in RDR)

Probably one of the worst port ever.

Funny how RDR got free pass from IGN when Bayonetta & Lost Planet 2 got picked for their flaws.
Last edited by MazingerDUDE; 05-19-2010 at 08:50 AM.
Blutonium
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:21 AM)
Blutonium's Avatar
360 it is :D
TheLegendary
(05-19-2010, 07:25 AM)
TheLegendary's Avatar
As a predominantly 360 gamer I really think you're exaggerating a bit.
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
(05-19-2010, 07:32 AM)
I don't think the blurring would be quite so offensive if it didn't dull the entire image. I think a lot more clarity gets lost through the color/brightness than through the detail.
mujun
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:32 AM)
mujun's Avatar
That is quite a big difference in the foliage between the 2 versions, take the topmost sunset pic with the train for example.
supermackem
Banned
(05-19-2010, 07:33 AM)
supermackem's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheLegendary

As a predominantly 360 gamer I really think you're exaggerating a bit.

:lol just a tad, i can barely tell the difference the ps3 grabs look a tiny bit more blurry thats about it. Its the worst port ever if you believe him.
JRW
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:33 AM)
JRW's Avatar

Originally Posted by MazingerDUDE

<Snip>

Very nice work, Thanks.
Teknoman
Little Big NeoContra
(05-19-2010, 07:34 AM)
Teknoman's Avatar
As a person playing the PS3 version, I just have to say...I havent seen the framerate drop or because noticeably bad once, even during free roam online with explosions going off and crazy shoot outs.

Also calling that scene pathetic just because its got a few missing patches of brush...is a bit much. Same for calling the characters flat looking in the last set of shots.


In the end, RDR is nothing like Bayonetta on PS3. In game everything still looks pretty clear and decently sharp. You'll notice the small jaggies in the opening cutscene even if you arent looking for them, but after that, nothing really smacks you in the face.
Valru
Call of Douchey
(05-19-2010, 07:37 AM)
Valru's Avatar
imo both versions look awfully jaggie, bring on a PC version (oh add MC:LA to that list R* SD
LaneDS
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:38 AM)
LaneDS's Avatar
Are there any points on which the PS3 wins out? Otherwise it seems like 360 is the clear choice if you have both platforms.

Think I'm going to cave and pick this up tomorrow, just looks too damn good (and refreshing, given the setting), and it seems pretty clear that I should go 360 just by this page alone.
miladesn
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:39 AM)
miladesn's Avatar

Originally Posted by MazingerDUDE




.

thanks, gap is pretty big.
marathonfool
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:39 AM)
marathonfool's Avatar

Originally Posted by MazingerDUDE



LOD is a lot more aggressive on PS3, change in geometry and object pop etc are a lot more noticeable.


The frame rate is much worse on PS3 too.

It is definitely NOT better than GTA4.

It's just that the nature of game makes framer rate issues less noticeable.

(You drive 200MPH in middle of crowded city in GTA, where you ride horse on barren wasteland in RDR)

Probably one of the worst port ever.

Funny how RDR got free pass from IGN when Bayonetta & Lost Planet 2 got picked for their flaws.

That's disappointing to hear a big game release from Rockstar get a worst port than the previous game. I'm kind of interested to hear what the devs did wrong in the port similar to Final Fantasy XIII. Hopefully Digital Foundry can shine some light on it.
JRW
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:41 AM)
JRW's Avatar

Originally Posted by supermackem

:lol just a tad, i can barely tell the difference the ps3 grabs look a tiny bit more blurry thats about it. Its the worst port ever if you believe him.

The difference is a little more than "a tiny bit" on my 1080p monitor. Pretty substantial difference in sharpness and the lack of foliage on ps3 ver cant be denied.

Top that off with a lower framerate and its pretty clear which version is better here..

I own both systems so no special bias on my side, just going by what im seeing here.
schennmu
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:41 AM)
schennmu's Avatar
Thx for the comparison, Mazinger. The overall IQ on PS3 seems to be pretty good and superior to GTAIV (no blur filter). Not comparable to the bad PS3 captures we've seen so far.

Surprised at the other differences you pointed out. Rockstar's overall treatment of the PS3 version is poor (not showing it, etc.) and it's quite sad that they get a free pass on it.

Not really seeing the self shadowing issue though. Interesting to see better trees on 360 too, GTAIV was quite different in that area. And the foliage differences are indeed huge!
Valru
Call of Douchey
(05-19-2010, 07:44 AM)
Valru's Avatar

Originally Posted by marathonfool

That's disappointing to hear a big game release from Rockstar get a worst port than the previous game. I'm kind of interested to hear what the devs did wrong in the port similar to Final Fantasy XIII. Hopefully Digital Foundry can shine some light on it.

sounds like pretty much the same problems that R* San Diegos last game Midnight Club: LA had, which is also RAGE.

Tom reviewed the PS3 version and while it's undoubtedly worth checking out on the Sony platform, the Xbox 360 rendition trumps it with graphical advantages that give it a clear edge.

Those advantages are pretty much self-evident. First of all, the 360 game is standard 720p, while the PS3 blows up a base 960x720 image sideways to fill the screen - a 33 per cent increase in detail for Xbox owners. Different anti-aliasing methods are invoked on both versions too. The Xbox 360 uses the tried and tested 2x multisampling AA, while the PS3 game uses a method called quincunx. Seen before - alas - in games like Assassin's Creed and Need for Speed: ProStreet, quincunx provides better-looking edges than MSAA, the disadvantage being that the entire texture is blurred. This, combined with the resolution deficiency (itself creating a blur due to the scaling) gives an obvious advantage to the Xbox 360 code.

For its part, the 360 game isn't beyond reproach either. Frame-rate drops not seen in the PS3 game crop up - but in the oddest of places. Some of the really impressive GPS zoom-ins jerk and judder once the car models appear, and even less stressful stuff such as in-game cut-scenes can also lose frames. Close-up zooms on the cars can also give the 360 code pause too - these are not resolved by using an NXE hard disk installation by the way, we checked. Crucially though, the actual gameplay itself seems to be lacking these problems, and that's far more important than the weirdness exhibited in the presentation elements.

DeVeAn
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:45 AM)
DeVeAn's Avatar
Lol I hardly see a difference, Bayonetta yes this game looks so close.
miladesn
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:45 AM)
miladesn's Avatar

Originally Posted by MazingerDUDE


Funny how RDR got free pass from IGN when Bayonetta & Lost Planet 2 got picked for their flaws.

They didn't have the PS3 copy when they posted the 360 review, then after 5-6 hours I think PS3 review was on site, a copy/paste review that is, they probably didn't play much of the PS3 version.
zero margin
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:48 AM)
zero margin's Avatar
Some big differences there. Wow.
oversensitive
Banned
(05-19-2010, 07:48 AM)
Is there any performance difference? The game looks very similar without a microscope, in my opinion.
sillymonkey321
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:50 AM)
sillymonkey321's Avatar
I'll be getting the ps3 version due to the free online play, but the 360 version definitely looks better. The blurriness isn't as bad as in Dragon Age though, that was just horrible.
Stillmatic
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:50 AM)
Stillmatic's Avatar
Well that comparison tips the scales in Modnation Racers favor for me, money is tight so it was either that or this.
benny_a
extra source of jiggaflops
(05-19-2010, 07:50 AM)
benny_a's Avatar
From my impressions the only thing the PS3 is better at is the dithering. I guess because everything is so blurry, that's not as noticeable.

Otherwise I'm now a bit unhappy about the situation (I pre-ordered the PS3 version because I couldn't believe it would be as bad as it was 2 years ago)

The foilage especially is a big downer.
Yoboman
Banned
(05-19-2010, 07:52 AM)
You'd thing after two years they'd have brought the PS3 side of the engine up to speed
miladesn
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:52 AM)
miladesn's Avatar

Originally Posted by oversensitive

Is there any performance difference? The game looks very similar without a microscope, in my opinion.

they look similar because they are from the same game:lol , otherwise looking at the screenshots, Image Quality is very obviously bad.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
(05-19-2010, 07:53 AM)
Foliorum Viridum's Avatar
Does the game look good in motion? Those screens are kinda ugly, but so are ones of GTA4 and when that's running it looks really good to me.

I'm hopeful for a PC port, but the good things I'm hearing are tempting me to resist waiting. Hmm..
noisome07
Banned
(05-19-2010, 07:54 AM)
:lol this thread is great
CartridgeBlower
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:54 AM)
Yeah, why do websites pick apart other ports, but then a game like RDR, there's barely a mention of the differences from major websites? Is it just Rockstar not sending them the PS3 version in time for the review?

I mean, isn't this one of the reasons people go to review sites in the first place? To see which version of a game they should buy if they have both systems and there are differences?
marathonfool
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:56 AM)
marathonfool's Avatar

Originally Posted by Valru

sounds like pretty much the same problems that R* San Diegos last game Midnight Club: LA had, which is also RAGE.

Is it safe to say Rockstar has an awful multiplatform engine? You think they would at least improve the performance. As a PS3 only owner, I'm pretty disgusted that a big name developer is incapable of outputting a "parity"engine when a smaller studio like Avalanche is putting them to shame.
schennmu
Member
(05-19-2010, 07:56 AM)
schennmu's Avatar

Originally Posted by miladesn

they look similar because they are from the same game:lol , otherwise looking at the screenshots, Image Quality is very obviously bad.

Really, it's much better than GTAIV PS3 imo. The other differences are what makes this port bad. I know that "lazy devs" is a worn out meme, but it definitely comes to my mind here.
oversensitive
Banned
(05-19-2010, 07:56 AM)

Originally Posted by miladesn

they look similar because they are from the same game:lol , otherwise looking at the screenshots, Image Quality is very obviously bad.

okay so does the ps3 version run worse like most ports usually do? it was ported from 360, right?
zero margin
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:02 AM)
zero margin's Avatar

Originally Posted by oversensitive

okay so does the ps3 version run worse like most ports usually do? it was ported from 360, right?

Each version had it's own development team on RDR.
Kruhex
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:02 AM)
Ok, some people notice a big difference some don't but I do. I bought this today at kmart but unfortunately actually thought the opposite for some reason and in excitement opened it. Is kmart cool with exchanging a game but for a different platform if the game is already open (since it's not really a return)?
MazingerDUDE
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:04 AM)
MazingerDUDE's Avatar

Originally Posted by Foliorum Viridum

Does the game look good in motion? Those screens are kinda ugly, but so are ones of GTA4 and when that's running it looks really good to me.

I'm hopeful for a PC port, but the good things I'm hearing are tempting me to resist waiting. Hmm..



The game looks 'a lot' WORSE in motion with all the shimmering artifacts and flickering jaggies. (that is PS3 version of course)

Here're some videos I made.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X271DTsH_g&hd=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wge2EVB3wE&hd=1


Well, the video quality is rahter poor, but pay close attention to trees and the house up ahead.

The things get a lot worse on some epic vistas that what this game is all about.

It looks absolutely beautiful on 360, but just blurry flickering mess on PS3.
Last edited by MazingerDUDE; 05-19-2010 at 08:07 AM.
JAVK
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:04 AM)

Originally Posted by MazingerDUDE

PS3 VS. 360

Thanks for the comparison shots. To be honest the PS3 version doesn't look too shabby, there could be a bit more foliage and I'm not liking the fact that some models don't have proper shadows. But other than that it seems fine.

Also the blur on the PS3 actually looks more appealing to me than the 360, as I usually play with the film grain settings on, Like in ME1 and ME2.
benny_a
extra source of jiggaflops
(05-19-2010, 08:05 AM)
benny_a's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kruhex

Ok, some people notice a big difference some don't but I do. I bought this today at kmart but unfortunately actually thought the opposite for some reason and in excitement opened it. Is kmart cool with exchanging a game but for a different platform if the game is already open (since it's not really a return)?

If you don't notice a difference, no need to switch (Keep in mind, frame rate is not shown here, but differs in favor of the 360 as is object pop-in which MezingerDUDE says is worse on PS3 as well.)

This thread is mostly for people that notice those kind of things on their own anyway, so it's great if someone that is good at spotting this stuff can inform us before we buy it.
(The game isn't out in Europe yet for example.)
MacBosse
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:06 AM)
MacBosse's Avatar
The foliage problem looks like the one between Operation Flashpoint on the 360 vs ps3. The 360 verison had good density but the ps3 had very scarse foliage.

That is probably the biggest complaint I would have if I were to complain about anything in the ps3 version. The other stuff wouldn't bother me as much but that foliage difference is pretty huge.
oversensitive
Banned
(05-19-2010, 08:07 AM)

Originally Posted by Kruhex

I bought this today at kmart but unfortunately actually thought the opposite for some reason and in excitement opened it. Is kmart cool with exchanging a game but for a different platform if the game is already open (since it's not really a return)?

are you having fun with it and it isn't giving you problems? what does the other version give you than your current one?
MacBosse
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:10 AM)
MacBosse's Avatar

Originally Posted by DeVeAn

Lol I hardly see a difference, Bayonetta yes this game looks so close.

Either you are blind to this sort of thing (good for you) or you're a ps3 fanboy deluxe.

C'mon, there is a huge difference in foliage atleast! But anyone with eyes can see all the other differences ... you may not be bothered by it, but that's another story.

Sorry for double post.
miladesn
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:10 AM)
miladesn's Avatar

Originally Posted by JAVK

Also the blur on the PS3 actually looks more appealing to me than the 360, as I usually play with the film grain settings on, Like in ME1 and ME2.

Wow.
Tiktaalik
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:10 AM)
Tiktaalik's Avatar
Thanks for the shots MazingerDUDE.

Looking at the screens they look similar enough that it wouldn't be too much of an issue for me, but a buddy of mine was going back and forth between the two versions and he texted me a while ago that on frame rate difference alone the Xbox version was the one to get and it was a "no brainer."
Truant
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:10 AM)
Truant's Avatar
360 version looks too good. Going with the PS3 version for the softer look.
polyh3dron
Banned
(05-19-2010, 08:12 AM)
polyh3dron's Avatar

Originally Posted by noisome07

:lol this thread is great

Hey it helped me out after I sifted through the bullshit. I hate these reactionary posts, they shit up and otherwise informative thread.

You know, some of us have all 3 consoles and couldn't care less about console warz.
tomedo
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:15 AM)
tomedo's Avatar
Ok ok, 360 it is. Thanks Mazinger.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:17 AM)
REMEMBER CITADEL's Avatar

Originally Posted by schennmu

Not really seeing the self shadowing issue though.

It's very apparent if you download the images and flip from one version to the other.

I don't know how they compare in motion, but based on these grabs, I wouldn't say the PS3 version looks bad at all. However, it does look noticeably worse, that much is obvious. If the performance gulf is also as wide as MagazinerDUDE claims... Yeah, PS3 ended up with a poor port.
scoobs
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:21 AM)
scoobs's Avatar
lol this is one of the funniest threads ever.. i miss the old days on gaf where there wasn't blatant system wars goin down. I honestly can barely see any differences in any of those pictures, the 360 is a little sharper... but honestly?? that ps3 pic looks pathetic compared to the 360 one? lol alrighty apparently i'm in the minority here, i seriously am not seeing a big difference.
AsylumBlue
Junior Member
(05-19-2010, 08:21 AM)
AsylumBlue's Avatar
.
Last edited by AsylumBlue; 03-22-2013 at 08:09 AM.
scoobs
Member
(05-19-2010, 08:27 AM)
scoobs's Avatar

Originally Posted by AsylumBlue

The difference in foliage is pretty big, but aside from that, the other differences are minor enough that I won't be offended by them while playing. I've heard differing opinions about the framerate, so I'm still a little confused about that. Is the difference REALLY that bad? Having heard from other people playing the PS3 version, I've been led to believe that the framerate is stable and that it runs well aside from some dips here and there, which I understand the 360 version has as well. As ridiculous as it sounds, I can understand people preferring the "blurrier" look. I'm not one of those people, but I can understand it.

As for the colors, it definitely looks a bit dull on the PS3 side of things, which means I'll have to mess around a bit with my TV settings to get it looking vibrant. Dynamic contrast, I still love you regardless of what other people say <3

Thats the beauty of the contrast option on TVs :) no matter how muted a game can look at first... i can make it pop!

Thread Tools