-
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
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
lol how? PS3 looks and runs way better than most here think.miladesn said:
360 does look better. You won't care at all when playing.
Castle Doctrine
Member
Tr4nce said:
Well the PS3 is obviously a powerful system as has been shown with UC2 and GOW 3, but it's been said before many times: the cell apparently is difficult to develop games on, split ram, and a slightly underpowered graphics card causes problems. Look at all the hoops devs have to jump through just to take a load off the GPU. Would have been nice to just have a GPU as good as the 360 so devs wouldn't have to find tricky ways to use the SPUs. We can't keep trotting out the "lazy developer" meme (you didn't but others do). Rockstar is lazy? That's ridiculous. Any developer that creates an immense game like this isn't lazy. They just don't have the time to tailor their engine for the cell like Naughty Dog and Santa Monica. I'ts probably like making two different games. Those devs dedicate all their time and effort to to the cell and have considerable expertise, including the ICE team which supposedly does nothing but find ways to maximize cell technology for games.
Plus this is a huge open world game so I'm sure that causes more issues. Infamous wasn't exactly a graphical stunner. I haven't played Just Cause 2, how does that stack up? If it's identical to the 360 hmm.. not sure about that one. Bad Company 2 looks better on the 360 too from what I've seen, and no one is going to tell me that DICE isn't talented.
I don't want to let Rockstar off the hook but it's not like this is the only subpar port. If it was that would be a different story, but it's not.
that said, RDR on the PS3 looks pretty good in motion from what I've seen in videos and people are just overreacting as usual.
Paracelsus
Member
panda21 said:
They didn't try hard enough period.
AsylumBlue
Member
.
Metalmurphy
Member
I thought you were joking on your first post... oOpanda21 said:
Have you noticed on which system the most graphical impressive games have been?
Yeah... stop making excuses for Rockstar. Crappy port is a crappy port.
And yeah, it's a less powerful GPU, but that's not the whole console
Ok. rockstar are not my favourite PS3 developers at the moment..
1. PS3 version is not up top par with the X360 version. Even though it has been proven by countless developers that it is possible to get similar games on both consoles.
2. Rockstar did not expect big Sales of this game in Europe on the PS3. Because of that there is a serious SHORTAGE of copies in the stores this friday. Every European website has some info regarding this. Some say that only Preorders before the 15th. of May are sure to get their copy. Others say that the game available on the 28th. of may because of shortage.
And one store I called (in Denmark) recieved an Email from Rockstars Danish partners, which said "That due to bigger demand than expected, there is serious shortage of this game in Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. they are making more copies, but they will not hit the European stores before 28th. of may.
How the **** can Rockstar not expect big demand in Europe for the PS3..? are they living under a rock.? (pun intended).
And how can they not develop a game that is up to par with the X360 version.. ?
We are living in 2010 not 2007---
1. PS3 version is not up top par with the X360 version. Even though it has been proven by countless developers that it is possible to get similar games on both consoles.
2. Rockstar did not expect big Sales of this game in Europe on the PS3. Because of that there is a serious SHORTAGE of copies in the stores this friday. Every European website has some info regarding this. Some say that only Preorders before the 15th. of May are sure to get their copy. Others say that the game available on the 28th. of may because of shortage.
And one store I called (in Denmark) recieved an Email from Rockstars Danish partners, which said "That due to bigger demand than expected, there is serious shortage of this game in Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. they are making more copies, but they will not hit the European stores before 28th. of may.
How the **** can Rockstar not expect big demand in Europe for the PS3..? are they living under a rock.? (pun intended).
And how can they not develop a game that is up to par with the X360 version.. ?
We are living in 2010 not 2007---
panda21 said:
I'm not sure how much of an excuse that is when other developers are finding ways and means beyond the GPU, to work around limitations either relative to other platforms or their own ambitions for a game.
Tr4nce said:
Depending on what you mean by 'bad', that's a bit of an exaggeration. Absolute parity between versions of multiplat games is rare, but the differences are often small in the bigger picture, and not universally against the PS3 version. Truly , really bad multiplat conversions nowadays are fairly rare. I can only think of maybe 2 or 3 of others this year going by DF's face-offs (one of them being a rather high-profile bad port to 360 rather than to PS3).
How? density of foliage is like 40% less, missing objects and details, missing shadows and it's all with lower resolution and the terrible QAA and apparently lower framerates. pics speak for themselves really. This is quite a big gap, if this isn't big then I don't know what it is really.LiquidMetal14 said:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Truant said:
Only thing missing is a solid 24 frames per second, stupid 30 FPS ruins the experience.
JRW said:
Exactly, luckily I can choose which version to get as I have a PS3 and 360 - the only thing that was making me hesitant was paying for more xboxlive subscriptions, or playing for free on thr pS3 and putting up with slightly lower quality.
After seeing those comparisons it's pretty easy to see that the 360 is the choice to make.
HOWEVER this does not mean the PS3 is a worse console, just that rockstar's engine is not built to utilise the PS3 very well. It's essentially just a port from the 360 with corners cut to ensure that it runs on the PS£ (but doesn't run WELL).
I don't see this as a slur on the PS3, as much as a slur on rockstar's ability to create an engine that works well on both systems.. however we all know this is impossible, you either build for the PS3 or you don't. Massively expensive to have 2 teams of coders working on the different systems.
TTP said:
From someone who actually played these on both consoles, Dead Space, Batman, BFBC2 are not "pretty much" the same.
Similar issues to what are being discussed in this thread plague these games too. Not to the same extent but they exist.
It's like saying Avatar on DVD is "pretty much" the same as the Blu Ray version. Although the content of the film is the same the picture quality is not.
In a comparison thread you really can't throw the phrase "pretty much the same" around.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
It runs better and the qouted pic was missing grass. Pics compared to video are misleading.miladesn said:
Of course I don't care in the end. Some things need to be clarified though.Feindflug said:
SolidSnakex
Member
G_Berry said:
He's right though. Those games are often used by comparison sites as example so of quality ports. Yes there are differences but they're so minor that they really aren't going to sway people in one way or the other. A port doesn't need to be identical to be a quality port.
Dr. Acid Avatar
Member
I'm still going to buy it on the PS3 because that's where my friends play but instead of buying it new on Friday like I'd originally intended, I'm going to buy it used first chance I see it.
MazingerDUDE said:
Proper comparison there (pretty much what the thread needed), but I do agree with that last comment. Especially so with Game Informer because they reviewed it and highly doubt they even had the PS3 version at the time of review considering the likes of IGN didn't even have a PS3 review copy until release date. They had that copy out much earlier than the rest of the reviews and they normally will hold back a review unless they have compared both. They did it with FF I know that much. Oftentimes they will give an edge to which may be the better of the two as well. In the end it seems CheapyD was it least close to right with his source.
Yea I would say the detail level in these two say it all.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
I have both. The 360 is definitely better looking.
Disappointed.
I prefer the PS3 controller and my PS3 is connected to a 5.1 system while the Xbox isn´t. I don´t have a gold account, either, but mp isn´t a deciding factor.
Is the 360 version tearing free? I´d rather have slowdown and a worse IQ than tearing (and dithering). If it´s tearing free, I´ll buy it at <25 pounds.
I prefer the PS3 controller and my PS3 is connected to a 5.1 system while the Xbox isn´t. I don´t have a gold account, either, but mp isn´t a deciding factor.
Is the 360 version tearing free? I´d rather have slowdown and a worse IQ than tearing (and dithering). If it´s tearing free, I´ll buy it at <25 pounds.
Feindflug said:
Pretty much. I feel like adding two more food for thoughts:
1. I can't understand why proven 360-only owners in this thread (or PS3-only owners in the Alan Wake topic, as a recent example) use so much of their time to discuss something they won't play on the wronged platform either way. Just play your superior port and don't waste time "rubbing it in" or whatever.
2. I can't understand why multiplatform owners still wish for comparison threads, when the outcome is pretty much the same every. single. fucking. time. Just go for the 360 version; a topic like this where a lot of trolling occurs (maybe not in this particular one, talking in general). I don't buy the "but we multiplat owners need to know the pros and cons of each version" argument anymore.
Castle Doctrine
Member
TTP said:
Welp some developers have the technical know-how to make games identical and some don't. You're right about Bad Company 2, I just checked digital foundry and they're for the most part identical give or take. The PS3 actually has some graphical advantages compared to the 360 version, but has a touch more screen tearing.
Well if open world game Just Cause 2 does look the same then bottom line, Rockstar doesn't know how to properly design their engine for the PS3.
BeeDog said:Pretty much. I feel like adding two more food for thoughts:
1. I can't understand why proven 360-only owners in this thread (or PS3-only owners in the Alan Wake topic, as a recent example) use so much of their time to discuss something they won't play on the wronged platform either way. Just play your superior port and don't waste time "rubbing it in" or whatever.
2. I can't understand why multiplatform owners still wish for comparison threads, when the outcome is pretty much the same every. single. fucking. time. Just go for the 360 version; a topic like this where a lot of trolling occurs (maybe not in this particular one, talking in general). I don't buy the "but we multiplat owners need to know the pros and cons of each version" argument anymore.
FFXIII on the 360 was a joke and I saw many people opting for that version who also owned a PS3 just for achievments etc. Threads like this are mostly fanboy crap but they do serve an important purpose of informing dual console owners of which version is better.
Windom Earle
Member
G_Berry said:
And here I was thinking for a moment you were serious... Phew
Mr_Brit said:
The odds of a PS3 version being better than its 360 counterpart is miniscule, and I'd say saving the forum from fanboy shit slinging is better than discussing something that's tipped in the 360's favor 99 % of the time.
But maybe that's just me, I don't wanna start a nasty argument.
Was just posting some thoughts.NemesisPrime
Banned
The-Warning said:
TBH a lot of cross-platform games have been "identical" because the 360 version has been downgraded/not upgraded a bit. This is a sad cross-platform trend where new versions of a game get an improved engine on PS3 to try to be identical while the 360 version uses the same engine as the previous game in the series with only very minor tweaks.
A bit of a pity but we have seen it before in the previous gen with PS2/XBox ports.
Castle Doctrine
Member
BeeDog said:
Me neither. I know there are legitimate mutli-console owners who want to know the differences, but there's also others who are in it for the trolling lulz. This is their way of getting back for hearing about the beast UC2 so much. It balances things out for them
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
From a psychological standpoint there may be truth to that.The-Warning said:Me neither. I know there are legitimate mutli-console owners who want to know the differences, but there's also others who are in it for the trolling lulz. This is their way of getting back for hearing about the beast UC2 so much. It balances things out for them
RDR, when you play both the differences are less pronounced than select grabs. There's many great looking vistas about.
I think it's been established that 360 looks better. The game is no slouch on PS3, you will love it no less.
BeeDog said:Pretty much. I feel like adding two more food for thoughts:
1. I can't understand why proven 360-only owners in this thread (or PS3-only owners in the Alan Wake topic, as a recent example) use so much of their time to discuss something they won't play on the wronged platform either way. Just play your superior port and don't waste time "rubbing it in" or whatever.
2. I can't understand why multiplatform owners still wish for comparison threads, when the outcome is pretty much the same every. single. fucking. time. Just go for the 360 version; a topic like this where a lot of trolling occurs (maybe not in this particular one, talking in general). I don't buy the "but we multiplat owners need to know the pros and cons of each version" argument anymore.
For multiplats thats not true all the time sometimes it matters how bad the difference are. I prefer to game on the ps3 mostly because of wifi, but ended up buying RE5 on 360 because it was the much better port. I bought BFBC2 on the ps3 because I felt the ps3 version on par(I was in the beta and played the 360 demo), audio I think is better on the ps3 version, not sure though. Threads like this help buyers like me decide.
The Bookerman
Member
I have the ps3 version and already it looks way better than GTA IV did on my PS3.
That's how I see it.
That's how I see it.
Gareth Bale
Member
The-Warning said:Me neither. I know there are legitimate mutli-console owners who want to know the differences, but there's also others who are in it for the trolling lulz. This is their way of getting back for hearing about the beast UC2 so much. It balances things out for them
Well done to you for taking the moral high ground there... although you didn't really give yourself any ground to stand on with that.
And yes you're right, there are multi-console owners who really do want to know the differences between the two. I'd much rather see people I trust express their genuine feelings about these differences, however blunt they may be, than being reserved and repeating over and over that both versions are completely identical when in truth they are not.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky