Support NeoGAF

[Safe Bet]

So basically....

The two version are close enough to be considered "identical" to the casual gamer which is 90% of the buying market.

The only ones exerting any energy into trying to distinguish differences between the two versions are websites in search of traffic, curious technophiles, corporate PR portals, and fanboys.

Yes?

 

[Barakov]

So basically....

The two version are close enough to be considered "identical" to the casual gamer which is 90% of the buying market.

The only ones exerting any energy into trying to distinguish differences between the two versions are websites in search of traffic, curious technophiles, corporate PR portals, and fanboys.

Yes?

Seems like a safe bet.

 

[sajj316]

Seems like a safe bet.

I see what you did there

Anyway ... is this a conclusion to the thread or do have more doors, pillars, and building pop ups to expose?

 

[DeadGzuz]

It's too bad we can't combine the best of both versions...

Optional install for fast loading (I take the cab a lot) and less pop-in.
720P 2x AA no dithering, nice shadows.
Low RPM optical media.
Config option for v-sync (easy to add to both versions).

 

[iceatcs]

It's too bad we can't combine the best of both versions...

Optional install for fast loading (I take the cab a lot) and less pop-in.
720P 2x AA no dithering, nice shadows.
Low RPM optical media.
Config option for v-sync (easy to add to both versions).

There is the one and only system can do all of those, or even better.

I hope it will come!

 

[dark10x]

There is the one and only system can do all of those, or even better.

I hope it will come!

Yeah, I would probably pick up the game a second time if it were released on the PC. A high framerate and superior image quality would really enhance the game.

 

[UncleGuito]

It all depends on where those lost frames originate from and how high the ceiling is. If the 360 is spiking over 30 fps (due to the disabling of v-sync) those numbers will work in favor of a higher average FPS rating. Likewise, the PS3 version may indeed exhibit heavier drops in framerate at certain points which will drag its number down. It's not simply a matter of one framerate staying lower than another on a constant basis.

Here's another fun close-up comparison (what's with that blank area on the 360 that is filled in the PS3 shot?). Again, the image quality seems very poor in that 360 shot.

I don't know what you're doing to those screens, because neither my PS3 nor 360 versions look that bad (especially the 360 version). The dithering is barely noticeable, especially in motion. The "pop-in" that's been noted in the 360 portion doesn't exist in my copy- I just tested it. Issues are seemingly variable in most cases and shouldn't be universally applied to the entire version.

Edit: Nevermind, I saw those are taken from Eurogamer. Regardless, they're bad captures, and horribly compressed.

I don't understand why people are still using screens to compare the versions. Play both, and decide which looks better with your own eyes. To me (having owned both copies), the 360 version undoubtedly looks better in motion. The colors are more balanced out of the box, it has better anti-aliasing, and the models are more "detailed" (probably because it's running at full 720p). While the PS3 doesn't have pop-in's as frequent, it still has them occasionally, and the framerate definitely drags more than the 360 version.

 

[qirex99]

So basically....

The two version are close enough to be considered "identical" to the casual gamer which is 90% of the buying market.

The only ones exerting any energy into trying to distinguish differences between the two versions are websites in search of traffic, curious technophiles, corporate PR portals, and fanboys.

Yes?

I would agree with you, except that the casuals have gotten much savvier this "gen". Now while the differences are VERY sligh online, at the two casual GTA parties i've been to, lo and behold...the casuals all degreed the 360 version to be the better one (not cus they counted pixels), but b/c ALL the casuals involved (I said nothing until AFTERWARDS - trying to be scientific and all...) ALL agreed that the PS3 version was blurrier and slower.

I think that the take home from this high-profile launch w/ huge success is that both machines are roughly equal. Of course, IMO - this is a net loss for sony, since GTA should have been the game that demonstrates to the cashualz the power of PS3. notwithstanding the freezing issue (which "affects" both consoles), I think its safe to say that this "gen" has started.

While I dont think the game deserves any perfect 10s at all, I have to admit, that Im very surprised how well the 360 version came out. I've not tried playing w/o the HDD yet, but I've not seen the tree of doom or any pop-up (which has HONESTLY always been a GTA thing anyhow).

Anybody playing 360 GTA4 WITHOUT the HDD??

 

[jetjevons]

Anybody playing 360 GTA4 WITHOUT the HDD??

I'm playing 360 WITH the HDD but it never asked me to do an install and I never found the option. Can you do an install?

 

[qirex99]

It all depends on where those lost frames originate from and how high the ceiling is. If the 360 is spiking over 30 fps (due to the disabling of v-sync) those numbers will work in favor of a higher average FPS rating. Likewise, the PS3 version may indeed exhibit heavier drops in framerate at certain points which will drag its number down. It's not simply a matter of one framerate staying lower than another on a constant basis.

Here's another fun close-up comparison (what's with that blank area on the 360 that is filled in the PS3 shot?). Again, the image quality seems very poor in that 360 shot.

mine dont look like that.

My buddies did however have this wierd screen door effect over EVERYTHING.

He's a casual gamer tho, but uses VGA cuz he ran out of inputs. Im still amazed to this day that he has VGA going.

Anyhow, I couldnty stand looking at in anymore, as mine is devoid of the screen effect. I went into his menu and set his VGA to x768 from the x720 it was on. It cured it! (lucky)

 

[Liquid]

:lol :lol :lol @ the bitter tears in this thread. bo bo bo CELL bo bo bo PS franchise

 

[qirex99]

I'm playing 360 WITH the HDD but it never asked me to do an install and I never found the option. Can you do an install?

No install. It just automatically caches data like many games do (NOT mass effect tho).

really, all games SHOULD be HDD aware.

 

[Z3F]

Great comparison by Eurogamer as usual.

Also, Eurogamer reads GAF? :lol

"A case has also been made online with judiciously chosen screenshots that the PS3 version has better-realised explosion effects, but again, in controlled conditions this is proven not to be the case. "

 

[fse]

Great comparison by Eurogamer as usual.

Also, Eurogamer reads GAF? :lol

"A case has also been made online with judiciously chosen screenshots that the PS3 version has better-realised explosion effects, but again, in controlled conditions this is proven not to be the case. "

ya never really got the explosions thing.

 

[qirex99]

Great comparison by Eurogamer as usual.

Also, Eurogamer reads GAF? :lol

"A case has also been made online with judiciously chosen screenshots that the PS3 version has better-realised explosion effects, but again, in controlled conditions this is proven not to be the case. "

Yeah, eurogamer does a great job with their head2heads. I like how they waited and took their time with this one, while ppl were guffawing over the tree and the flashing arch.

 

[CowGirl]

I would agree with you, except that the casuals have gotten much savvier this "gen". Now while the differences are VERY sligh online, at the two casual GTA parties i've been to, lo and behold...the casuals all degreed the 360 version to be the better one (not cus they counted pixels), but b/c ALL the casuals involved (I said nothing until AFTERWARDS - trying to be scientific and all...) ALL agreed that the PS3 version was blurrier and slower.

I think that the take home from this high-profile launch w/ huge success is that both machines are roughly equal. Of course, IMO - this is a net loss for sony, since GTA should have been the game that demonstrates to the cashualz the power of PS3. notwithstanding the freezing issue (which "affects" both consoles), I think its safe to say that this "gen" has started.

While I dont think the game deserves any perfect 10s at all, I have to admit, that Im very surprised how well the 360 version came out. I've not tried playing w/o the HDD yet, but I've not seen the tree of doom or any pop-up (which has HONESTLY always been a GTA thing anyhow).

Anybody playing 360 GTA4 WITHOUT the HDD??

I think once those casuals start examining each frame of output at 400% zoom they will soon determine which is actually the superior platform.

 

[Liquid]

examining at 200% zoom is dumb as hell. its already known that the 360 version is doing the backgrounds different. whats the point of zooming it to make it look bad.

 

[yellowjacket]

So basically....

The two version are close enough to be considered "identical" to the casual gamer which is 90% of the buying market.

The only ones exerting any energy into trying to distinguish differences between the two versions are websites in search of traffic, curious technophiles, corporate PR portals, and fanboys.

Yes?

Yeah that sounds about right. Although I would argue that most hardcore gamers would see the games as identical also. Only the people who really want there to be differences are finding differences. If there were any real big differences between the two then this thread wouldnt have gone 32 pages and counting.

 

[DeadGzuz]

examining at 200% zoom is dumb as hell. its already known that the 360 version is doing the backgrounds different. whats the point of zooming it to make it look bad.

:lol :lol :lol @ the bitter tears in this thread. bo bo bo CELL bo bo bo PS franchise

I think this thread is officially dead or at least brain dead.

 

[Z3F]

So basically....

The two version are close enough to be considered "identical" to the casual gamer which is 90% of the buying market.

The only ones exerting any energy into trying to distinguish differences between the two versions are websites in search of traffic, curious technophiles, corporate PR portals, and fanboys.

Yes?

I don't think these comparison articles are just cheap ploys to draw traffic. These articles are useful for many gamesite visitors because they tend to be hardcore gamers that own both systems.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

So basically....

The two version are close enough to be considered "identical" to the casual gamer which is 90% of the buying market.

The only ones exerting any energy into trying to distinguish differences between the two versions are websites in search of traffic, curious technophiles, corporate PR portals, and fanboys.

Yes?

yes!

I own both versions and they are so close to the same most wont see a difference, like the shadows are a little better in the ps3, colors are a little different between the two, close up images are a little sharper in the 360, frame rate is about the same for both, there are 3 view choices for watching tv (ps3) where as the 360 only has 2, and finally, the ps3 car models are missing the break calipers, but they are there on the 360.... big deal...

its a great game no matter which version you get.

 

[Forsete]

I think this thread is officially dead or at least brain dead.

Brain dead is dead.

dark10x: Could it be a drawdistance issue, the 360 shot I mean? There were other screens posted where it looked like the PS3 version was drawing more objects further away.

 

[dark10x]

mine dont look like that.

My buddies did however have this wierd screen door effect over EVERYTHING.

He's a casual gamer tho, but uses VGA cuz he ran out of inputs. Im still amazed to this day that he has VGA going.

Anyhow, I couldnty stand looking at in anymore, as mine is devoid of the screen effect. I went into his menu and set his VGA to x768 from the x720 it was on. It cured it! (lucky)

If yours "dont" look like that, your TV is simply losing the detail (not necessarily a bad thing in this case). Those Eurogamer shots are extremely accurate captures.

 

[UncleGuito]

If yours "dont" look like that, your TV is simply losing the detail (not necessarily a bad thing in this case). Those Eurogamer shots are extremely accurate captures.

No, they really aren't. They may be good for comparison's sake, but they aren't good quality pictures. My TV is professionally calibrated and both the 360 and PS3 versions look way better than that. Not to mention that the draw-distance issue in that 360 shot is non-existent on my end. At least in GTA4's case, the game can look dramatically different depending on your TV settings, your PS3 settings, and what kind of cables you're using.

 

[TheRipDizz]

So basically, the GAF consensus that the PS3 version was superior technically has been beat to hell this whole last week by people actually taking the time to look at the games, you know, technically, showing alot of crap in favor of the 360 version and has now been changed to "they are basically the same"? Oh GAF. :lol When did this place become such a Sonyland?

 

[bishoptl]

Somebody missed the memo.

 

[Bearillusion]

So it looks like the framerate on the PS3 goes from 30 to about 27 while on the 360 in goes from 30 to about 33. Neither would appear smooth then despite one having a higher peak framerate.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

mine dont look like that.

My buddies did however have this wierd screen door effect over EVERYTHING.

He's a casual gamer tho, but uses VGA cuz he ran out of inputs. Im still amazed to this day that he has VGA going.

Anyhow, I couldnty stand looking at in anymore, as mine is devoid of the screen effect. I went into his menu and set his VGA to x768 from the x720 it was on. It cured it! (lucky)

I'm pretty sure the sceen effect only happens when you turn up the saturation too high.

 

[dark10x]

No, they really aren't. They may be good for comparison's sake, but they aren't good quality pictures. My TV is professionally calibrated and both the 360 and PS3 versions look way better than that. Not to mention that the draw-distance issue in that 360 shot is non-existent on my end. At least in GTA4's case, the game can look dramatically different depending on your TV settings, your PS3 settings, and what kind of cables you're using.

Well, their shots are about as accurate as you can get. That IS how the game looks. Anything else you see is the result of your display (again, not a bad thing).

 

[MonkeyLicker]

If V-Sync was such a hindrance to the PS3 versions frame-rate you wouldn't even be able to see these kinds of fluctuations. It might be limiting the PS3 version to 30fps but in most of these scenes it can't even reach 30.

Test One: Game Intro
360: 31.990fps
PS3: 26.460fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Two: Clean Getaway
360: 28.624fps
PS3: 23.452fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Three: Final Destination
360: 35.262fps
PS3: 29.041fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Four: Station Face-Off
360: 26.076fps
PS3: 26.081fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Five: Rigged to Blow
360: 26.712fps
PS3: 23.781fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Six: Ivan the Not So Terrible
360: 33.798fps
PS3: 28.313fps
See it on EGTV.

 

[beerbelly]

I'm surprised there wasn't an instant reaction to those facts.

 

[dark10x]

If V-Sync was such a hindrance to the PS3 versions frame-rate you wouldn't even be able to see these kinds of fluctuations. It might be limiting the PS3 version to 30fps but in most of these scenes it can't even reach 30.

An average framerate is assembled from all numbers that occur during a certain run.

If v-sync is disabled, the framerate will occasionally jump above 30 fps. Those numbers will then be added into the equation. If v-sync prevents the framerate from ever exceeding 30 fps, however, the ceiling will be just that.

Let's say the highest value is 30 fps and the lowest 15. If v-sync were disabled you might still have a low value of 15 but the ceiling could be higher than 30. When the numbers are then calculated the second set will result in a higher average.

The fact that the average framerate of a scene is 26 fps does NOT mean that the scene never hits 30 fps. It simply means that, when all numbers are averaged, the result is 26.

This is precisely the type of hit you typically see on the PC when enabling and disabling v-sync. Crysis benchmarks quite a bit higher with v-sync disabled, for instance.

So, suggesting that the PS3 "can't even reach 30" in these scenes is completely false.

 

[Liabe Brave]

If V-Sync was such a hindrance to the PS3 versions frame-rate you wouldn't even be able to see these kinds of fluctuations. It might be limiting the PS3 version to 30fps but in most of these scenes it can't even reach 30.

I would've hoped that fps measurements to thousandths of a frame would've made it clear those are averages. They are not maximums, or point measurements of any kind. In fact, they're quite consistent with PS3 having a more stable framerate that holds 30fps more often. . .and with many other scenarios. (That one happens to be false.) I can assure you that PS3 does hit 30fps--but unlike 360, v-sync means it never goes above that, probably causing much of the disparity measured here. Like most of the differences argued in the thread, this is a matter of opinion; some folks will prefer the higher but less stable framerate, and some will prefer the capped but tearing-free image.

 

[FrankT]

If V-Sync was such a hindrance to the PS3 versions frame-rate you wouldn't even be able to see these kinds of fluctuations. It might be limiting the PS3 version to 30fps but in most of these scenes it can't even reach 30.

Test One: Game Intro
360: 31.990fps
PS3: 26.460fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Two: Clean Getaway
360: 28.624fps
PS3: 23.452fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Three: Final Destination
360: 35.262fps
PS3: 29.041fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Four: Station Face-Off
360: 26.076fps
PS3: 26.081fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Five: Rigged to Blow
360: 26.712fps
PS3: 23.781fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Six: Ivan the Not So Terrible
360: 33.798fps
PS3: 28.313fps
See it on EGTV.

I knew it. Nearly a 3-5fps+ for 360, closer to 5 with the other tests and just about zero tearing at all to be found. Because there is nearly no tearing plain and simple, pretty much like nearly every person who picked the 360 version has confirmed here. Purchase reconfirmed.

But TTP.....

Well, with all due respect with these tests it looks like he is just wrong, but I know that is what you are pointing out anyways. Half the people on here that claim they know this and that or this person knows this or that about frame rate or whatever it maybe for the day doesn't seem to add up to me because every time I turn around there is inconsistency in what half of them are saying after the true tests hit the street.

 

[Zombie James]

:lol :lol :lol @ the bitter tears in this thread. bo bo bo CELL bo bo bo PS franchise

Liquid
Junior Member

 

[Surfheart]

I'm shocked that the 360 doesn't have vsync enabled because after years and years of gaming I'm very well aware what screen tearing looks like but I've never seen any on the 360 version.

What I have noticed is the smoother framerate on the 360. Try one of Brucie's car races on both versions and the difference is clear.

Are Rockstar using some technique that limits the tearing to the bottom of the frame or something? and if so why could this technique not be used on the PS3 version. Basically if your framerate is not hitting your monitor's vertical blank it's going to tear and from playing the game, the 360 is often under 30 fps.

Edit: So Eurogamer said this about Vsync.

One curiosity I found was that the PS3 version has v-lock enabled, whereas 360 can produce the odd torn frame. This might be seen to skew results in 360's favour were it not for the fact that, typically, a torn frame is only on-screen for 1/60th of a second before v-sync is re-established. Therefore, it's not likely to affect the overall result, and is certainly not an issue during gameplay. The hosted clips are from the 360 version by the way, in case you want to check.

Variable Vsync?

 

[MonkeyLicker]

An average framerate is assembled from all numbers that occur during a certain run.

If v-sync is disabled, the framerate will occasionally jump above 30 fps. Those numbers will then be added into the equation. If v-sync prevents the framerate from ever exceeding 30 fps, however, the ceiling will be just that.

Let's say the highest value is 30 fps and the lowest 15. If v-sync were disabled you might still have a low value of 15 but the ceiling could be higher than 30. When the numbers are then calculated the second set will result in a higher average.

The fact that the average framerate of a scene is 26 fps does NOT mean that the scene never hits 30 fps. It simply means that, when all numbers are averaged, the result is 26.

This is precisely the type of hit you typically see on the PC when enabling and disabling v-sync. Crysis benchmarks quite a bit higher with v-sync disabled, for instance.

So, suggesting that the PS3 "can't even reach 30" in these scenes is completely false.

Ok, cool. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Salmonax]

I'm shocked that the 360 doesn't have vsync enabled because after years and years of gaming I'm very well aware what screen tearing looks like but I've never seen any on the 360 version.

Me neither. All the tearing FUD is ludicrous. I'm sure it happens occasionally and there are the screenshots to prove it, but I've literally not noticed it a single time in 30+ hours of play. And as God of War 2 is my witness, I know tearing when I see it.

 

[urk]

I'm shocked that the 360 doesn't have vsync enabled because after years and years of gaming I'm very well aware what screen tearing looks like but I've never seen any on the 360 version.

It's so rare in fact, that when I mentioned that I thought I had seen it and people questioned my accuracy, I thought maybe I was seeing things. And I've been looking for tears ever since and haven't seen a single one.

The first time I noticed it was during the initial cutscene.

 

[Truespeed]

Sorry but I think it's pretty obvious, did you even read the comparison?

Don't shoot the messenger, thats what Eurogamer reported


"First things first. Xbox 360 runs at full 720p (1280x720), whereas the PlayStation 3 code takes a 20 per cent hit , being natively rendered at 1152x640 before being software-upscaled."

"So the results clearly show that over the course of the entire clip, 360 out-performs PlayStation 3 in all but one of the six scenarios presented here. Indeed, on the longer vids we're seeing a good 17 to 18 percent variance. Tests on gameplay (playing through the same mission, but not rendering identical scenes, obviously) saw a similar range of variance too."

Please go ahead and spin that

Sure. It was developed on the 360 and ported to the PS3. How's that for spin, shorty?

 

[professor_t]

This thread is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

If I had Bishop's super powers, I would close this shit down yesterday.

 

[fse]

I knew it. Nearly a 3-5fps+ for 360, closer to 5 with the other tests and just about zero tearing at all to be found. Because there is nearly no tearing plain and simple, pretty much like nearly every person who picked the 360 version has confirmed here. Purchase reconfirmed.



Well, with all due respect with these tests it looks like he is just wrong, but I know that is what you are pointing out anyways. Half the people on here that claim they know this and that or this person knows this or that about frame rate or whatever it maybe for the day doesn't seem to add up to me because every time I turn around there is inconsistency in what half of them are saying after the true tests hit the street.

ya, most of who played both versions say the same about the 360. more smoother experience and no tearing.

 

[dark10x]

I should probably have stopped coming to this thread. I tried to play GTAIV tonight and found myself suddenly really annoyed by the lousy framerate and quit.

I should have purchased the 360 version it seems.

/throws PS3 at the wall

 

[Surfheart]

I should probably have stopped coming to this thread. I tried to play GTAIV tonight and found myself suddenly really annoyed by the lousy framerate and quit.

I should have purchased the 360 version it seems.

/throws PS3 at the wall

Don't be too upset dark, the framerate on the 360 still gets pretty nasty at times plus you will have to contend with the horrible dithering.

Both versions have their (different) pluses and minuses. In the overall scheme of things I reckon it's a wash.

 

[MonkeyLicker]

I should probably have stopped coming to this thread. I tried to play GTAIV tonight and found myself suddenly really annoyed by the lousy framerate and quit.

I should have purchased the 360 version it seems.

/throws PS3 at the wall

You should have waited for a better comparison than the ones that were done before launch. You know you notice faults a lot easier than most so you need to play it safer.

 

[Raistlin]

I do and I'm not trying to negate whatever it is that PS3 does better. I just find incredible the amount of length people are going to try and negate the resolution side of things.

Well, people trying to negate things likely have an agenda


When two revs of a title have varying pros and cons, its a bit difficult to come to a consensus. Exactly what weightings go with what elements? In realty, its subjective (some people are more wowed by lighting, people have varying tolerances for aliasing, etc), and worse still, I would submit that the weighting actually changes (even for a given person) depending on a game's art direction. In other words, there's no scientific way to determine how elements are weighted.


That all said, I would suspect the people that appear to be downplaying the resolution are doing so because there appears to be a nod given to the PS3 version as looking 'better' when everything is taken into consideration. Certainly not a strong majority, but for those that have compared both ... more seem to prefer the PS3's overall package.

 

[Raistlin]

It's too bad we can't combine the best of both versions...

Optional install for fast loading (I take the cab a lot) and less pop-in.
720P 2x AA no dithering, nice shadows.
Low RPM optical media.
Config option for v-sync (easy to add to both versions).

The only way to totally combine both versions would be to somehow combine all the HW strengths of each console into a new console.

 

[cjtiger300]

I should probably have stopped coming to this thread. I tried to play GTAIV tonight and found myself suddenly really annoyed by the lousy framerate and quit.

I should have purchased the 360 version it seems.

/throws PS3 at the wall

Joke post I assume?

 

[Narag]

I should probably have stopped coming to this thread. I tried to play GTAIV tonight and found myself suddenly really annoyed by the lousy framerate and quit.

I should have purchased the 360 version it seems.

/throws PS3 at the wall

I doubt you'd have been pleased. I'm far from a framerate whore but this game actually gives me a headache from how janky it'll get.

 

[rollingstart]

The only way to totally combine both versions would be to somehow combine all the HW strengths of each console into a new console.

AND IT SHALL BE CALLED THE PC!

Except, in reality PC is much much more than even that.