• 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!)

Dash Kappei

Not actually that important
Damn, I wanted to play this on my pj and my beastly a/v setup + ps3.
Guess I'll go with the 360 hooked up to the panny plasma in the living room then :-/
 

surly

Banned
Hari Seldon said:
Can someone give me a summary of the proven differences (or update the OP).
360 = 1,280 x 720 native res with 2XAA
PS3 = 1,152 x 640 native res with quincunx AA

Framerate is a bit more stable on 360, but dips at times on both consoles.

Loading from disc is marginally faster on the PS3, but if you install the 360 version it loads marginally faster than the PS3 version.

Some shadow effects missing from the PS3 version in external environments. Some lighting/shadow effects missing from the 360 version inside buildings where light would shine in through doors or windows. The foliage is cut back considerably on the PS3 version. Water effects marginally better on 360. View distance better on 360, or as DF puts it, "Xbox 360 gives you more detail further away, not just in terms of raw resolution but with actual object placement too."

Both games have Dolby Digital audio, but the PS3 version also has 5.1 LPCM. Both games support custom soundtracks.

360 version has a 6.7 GB optional install. PS3 version has a 515 MB mandatory install, with no optional install.

DF's final recommendation: -

We've demonstrated conclusively that the Xbox 360 version of Red Dead Redemption possesses higher resolution, improved levels of detail, noticeably superior performance in-game and fewer jaggies owing to a more consistently applied anti-aliasing solution that doesn't blur the image. Shadows are generally sharper, and of better quality (particularly on the characters' self-shadows).

Just about the only area where PS3 commands an advantage is in terms of loading: the 515MB mandatory install shaves off a few seconds, but as the only in-game loading occurs during fast-travel between locations (using the campsite), it's hardly worth mentioning. Certainly the install doesn't grant any kind of tangible performance boost in terms of less LOD-popping or anything like that.

However, none of this is to say that Red Dead Redemption is not a good game in its own right on PlayStation 3. Play on PS3 without having seen the 360 version and it's difficult to imagine that the fun factor of the game has been massively impacted. And if Rockstar had decided to deliberately dial back 360 to make the game look and feel identical to the PS3 version, it's hard to imagine that the enviable scores it has attracted would be any different.

In short, Rockstar is to be commended on what is an absolutely fantastic game on both platforms, but the technical analysis is pretty conclusive: if you've got the choice of buying the game for either console, Xbox 360 is the version of Red Dead you should buy.
 

conman

Member
Just to toss a small bit of added fuel to the fire:

I picked up the PS3 version because my local game shop was out of stock of the 360 one. Figured it wouldn't matter much. Got it home. Played for a few hours. Framerate issues galore. Tearing, fewer objects, and low texture res I can tolerate, but I'm not really okay with the frequent framerate dips. Sold it and picked up 360 version.

Based on the DF comparison, I'd assumed it wouldn't be noticeable. But for those who still care at this point (and who have yet to pick the game up and have a choice of versions), I'd definitely pass on the PS3 version.

Despite what others say, it isn't comparable to the slight differences between the PS3 and 360 versions of GTAIV. I actually preferred the glossier, fuzzier look of that game on PS3 and noticed no substantial framerate issues. But the same doesn't hold true of RDRedemption.
 

Hellion

Member
conman said:
Despite what others say, it isn't comparable to the slight differences between the PS3 and 360 versions of GTAIV. I actually preferred the glossier, fuzzier look of that game on PS3 and noticed no substantial framerate issues. But the same doesn't hold true of RDRedemption.

FFFFUUUU
 

leng jai

Member
My cousin just bought the PS3 version and said it looks as bad as MAG. Now I only have the 360 version of the game (going to get the PS3 version for online later), but surely that is hyperbolic bullshit?
 

conman

Member
leng jai said:
My cousin just bought the PS3 version and said it looks as bad as MAG. Now I only have the 360 version of the game (going to get the PS3 version for online later), but surely that is hyperbolic bullshit?
Depends on your tolerance for the peculiarities of the PS3 version. Some folks think it's a "travesty," most think it's perfectly fine. Take your pick.

For me, it drives me batshit insane when I feel a game chugging (even a small bit) during action sequences--especially if I know in the back of my head that there's a version where that feeling is much more effectively minimized. To me, that feels like getting stuck behind a slow driver on a two-lane highway. Some folks can chill and relax and be cool with that slower driver, but people like me just go bonkers.

I'll be the first to admit that it's a flaw in me, not in the game. :lol
 

Kyoufu

Member
2real4tv said:
My thoughts also looks quite horrible imo compared to the 360 version. Not looking forward to Agent.

Agent is exclusive, built around the PS3's strengths.....why wouldn't you look forward to it?
 
Hellion said:

Doesn't make sense to me to give GTA4's performance a pass, and then complain about RDR's frame rate. The FPS dips in RDR, but it's less noticeable to me than GTA4. It feels more optimized, at worst the performance is the same, no way it's worse than GTA4. I think the lowest fps dip in the PS3 DF video was 20 ? Mostly staying between 25-30 ?
 

Snuggles

erotic butter maelstrom
So which version is better?

I noticed that my 360 version was brown-ish looking but then I realized that my telie was set to "cinema" mode which made it look all weird.
Add that to the OP.
 

conman

Member
Death Dealer said:
Doesn't make sense to me to give GTA4's performance a pass, and then complain about RDR's frame rate. The FPS dips in RDR, but it's less noticeable to me than GTA4. It feels more optimized, at worst the performance is the same, no way it's worse than GTA4. I think the lowest fps dip in the PS3 DF video was 20 ? Mostly staying between 25-30 ?
I'm not sure how good a reflection of actual play that DF video is, though. The places I felt the dips the most were in any fast camera movements in inhabited locations. Didn't see the DF framerate tests doing much (if any) of that.

I honestly never noticed the framerate difference in GTA4. I played the game to completion on both consoles and never picked up on it. I'm sure a difference is there, but I never felt it (probably because the 360 version isn't particularly stable either). There's a lot more give and take between the versions of GTA4 (I actually preferred the PS3 version), but not so much in RDR.
 
StuBurns said:
Just watched the multiplayer.it video, PS3 version looks good enough for me. So I'm buying it, and out of the thread, I hope the bloodshed is lovely and high res in here. Enjoy yourselves.
"getting ps3 version no matter what" type posts never get old. Kind of like in the Bayonetta thread. :lol
 

Snuggles

erotic butter maelstrom
...but even if the PS3 version has a few issues with the visuals, I think it's more than worth playing. People blow this kind of stuff way out of proportion, even if it lacks the sharpness or whatever of the 360 version, if it plays anywhere near the same it's most definitely worth getting. I doubt that the awesomeness is lost because of whatever the problems are. There is and should be no shame in getting it on PS3.
From what I've heard, it's not nearly a big of difference as Bayonetta, but even that was worth playing either way.
 
Snuggler said:
...but even if the PS3 version has a few issues with the visuals, I think it's more than worth playing. People blow this kind of stuff way out of proportion, even if it lacks the sharpness or whatever of the 360 version, if it plays anywhere near the same it's most definitely worth getting. . .
definitely worth getting. . . over the 360 version? Because comparison sites are, I assume, to assess where best to spend your money on for those. . . both consoles. . . ah never mind.
 

Risette

A Good Citizen
Snuggler said:
So which version is better?

I noticed that my 360 version was brown-ish looking but then I realized that my telie was set to "cinema" mode which made it look all weird.
Add that to the OP.
Do you have a Samsung TV?
 

Snuggles

erotic butter maelstrom
CadetMahoney said:
definitely worth getting. . . over the 360 version? Because comparison sites are, I assume, to assess where best to spend your money on for those. . . both consoles. . . ah never mind.

Oh, well I didn't mean it was worth getting OVER the 360 version, I thought we were talking a bout PS3 only owners.

Carry on, I'll step out.

Do you have a Samsung TV?

Nein.
 
conman said:
Of course, I also had a hard time with Assassin's Creed 2 on PS3, so maybe I'm just over sensitive.

Totally agree on this one. The AC2 PS3 version was barely playable when stacked up to the 360 version. Tearing and framerate were absolutely terrible. Sold mine after about 2 hours of playing it and picked up the 360 version.

I prefer the PS3 versions of RE5, GTA4, and the Call of Duty titles (4-MW2) though so go figure :/

I picked up the PS3 verion of RDR based on my experience with GTA and I'm not complaining at all. I think it looks great. Lost Planet 2 on the other hand I figured would be fine considering the great RE5 and Street Fighter IV. Nope. Framerate and stuttering frames are constant. I might have to swap that one out too.

Damn me and my "I have to have it on Day 1" phobia... :)
 

Dabanton

Member
Jeramii said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IcoJXJKKdc
1 minute 8 seconds in.... replace question with this topic, and keep the same answer. (it'll make sense when you see it).

but really, i bought it for ps3 only for the fact most my friends in gaf, and day to day life are on there.

You know about 20 people got banned for saying the same thing in this topic.

Their are obviously people who do "give a fuck" about differences and this is a thread where multi console owners can discuss them without clogging up the official thread.

If you don't care then just leave them to it.
 

Jeramii

Banned
Dabanton said:
You know about 20 people got banned for saying the same thing in this topic.

Their are obviously people who do "give a fuck" about differences and this is a thread where multi console owners can discuss them without clogging up the official thread.

If you don't care then just leave them to it.

the top part was a joke. hence why i put, but really.

i actually got a bunch of new good info from this thread. i had no clue there was XMB custom soundtrack support. and i thank the gaf members who posted that information.
 
conman said:
Just to toss a small bit of added fuel to the fire:

I picked up the PS3 version because my local game shop was out of stock of the 360 one. Figured it wouldn't matter much. Got it home. Played for a few hours. Framerate issues galore. Tearing, fewer objects, and low texture res I can tolerate, but I'm not really okay with the frequent framerate dips. Sold it and picked up 360 version.

PS3 version does not tear according to DF and other sources.

conman said:
I'm not sure how good a reflection of actual play that DF video is, though. The places I felt the dips the most were in any fast camera movements in inhabited locations. Didn't see the DF framerate tests doing much (if any) of that.

360 version also heavily drops frames in the towns. Especially in Thieve's landing and Armadillo. Thieve's landing is not only the worst looking area in the game but also runs horribly :lol
 

mattiewheels

And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
This stuff makes me wonder why they even had a separate team just to work on the PS3 version. The differences in the versions make it sound like it wasn't very advantageous in the end.

So what's the PS3's shortcoming here, does it have a comparatively weak GPU or video ram or something? Very frustrating that there can't be an optimal version of the game on the only system I own.
 

conman

Member
mattiewheels said:
This stuff makes me wonder why they even had a separate team just to work on the PS3 version. The differences in the versions make it sound like it wasn't very advantageous in the end.

So what's the PS3's shortcoming here, does it have a comparatively weak GPU or video ram or something? Very frustrating that there can't be an optimal version of the game on the only system I own.
Well, look, I'm someone who's posting that I "couldn't stand" the PS3 version, but even I'll admit that I'm being hyperbolic. For me and my tastes, it bugs the crap out of me. But for most people, I doubt they'd even notice or care.

Regardless, even I wouldn't go so far as to start bashing the development team. It's a great game on both consoles. It just has some minor performance issues on PS3. Like I said, the fault is with me, not the game. I'm like the princess in "The Princess and the Pea" when it comes to this stuff. I can't speak for everyone else though.

Really, I think this is yet another case of "native platform." It's been the case now for a couple years that most multiplatform games that begin development on 360 will perform less well on PS3 (for all kinds of reasons). It's not a "shortcoming" of the platform; it's just a side-effect of the development process.
 
mattiewheels said:
So what's the PS3's shortcoming here, does it have a comparatively weak GPU or video ram or something? Very frustrating that there can't be an optimal version of the game on the only system I own.
The PS3's GPU is less advanced (for when it was designed) than the 360's. Now, this deficit can more than be made up for by clever programming and use of Cell to offload work in the PS3, so the very best PS3 games can look just as good--or, some would say, better--than the very best 360 games.

However, most developers making multiplatform games don't want or can't afford to specialize that much for the hardware's quirks, so the PS3 version suffers. Only for the rare developers who work first and/or hardest on PS3 does the disadvantage sometimes disappear (like with FF XIII, or to a lesser extent Dante's Inferno or Burnout Paradise).
 

mattiewheels

And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
Liabe Brave said:
The PS3's GPU is less advanced (for when it was designed) than the 360's. Now, this deficit can more than be made up for by clever programming and use of Cell to offload work in the PS3, so the very best PS3 games can look just as good--or, some would say, better--than the very best 360 games.

However, most developers making multiplatform games don't want or can't afford to specialize that much for the hardware's quirks, so the PS3 version suffers. Only for the rare developers who work first and/or hardest on PS3 does the disadvantage sometimes disappear (like with FF XIII, or to a lesser extent Dante's Inferno or Burnout Paradise).
That sounds about right, but you'd figure that's why they had a separate PS3 team, because possibly they had people who really knew their way around Cell processing.
 

conman

Member
Spike said:
So, is the differences between the 2 versions anything like the differences between the Ghostbusters game?
Not at all. I'd put in on par with AC2. They're very small differences that only folks with a "sensitive disposition" would care about.

But really, this only applies to you if you have a choice of versions. Like the DF summary says, if you have a choice, choose the 360 version. If you don't have a choice, that's fine too.
 
Top Bottom