• 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!)

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
burgerdog said:
Interesting, then why aren't more devs jumping onboard then?

Because even Sony SPU ninjas had a very challenging time optimising their implementation to the level its at in GoWIII. It's also a relatively new technique.

So say, for example, the RDR devs saw this emerge a couple of months ago along with the rest of us. Wanna hazard a guess at whether they had the time/experience to invest in rolling their own implementation that would be of optimum performance in time for the release of this game? Simply put, any projects released up to now would very likely not have the time to invest in something like this so late in their development.

If Sony releases their implementation out into the wild, watch more projects adopt it. As far as we know, though, they've not yet done that. (It seems to be more immediately available to first parties though - MM has seemingly plugged n' played GoWIII's implementation into LBP2 with very pleasing results.)

ExtraKr1spy said:
1650x1080 monitor using VGA cables with the xbox video setting set to expanded I use.

From default
Brightness + 1
Contrast - 1
Saturation - Max

Love how the colors pop.

Thanks! Your monitor set up is pretty much exactly like mine, so I'll give these a try.
 

Dabanton

Member
bycha said:
I check them, and I also know for a fact that PS3 is selling at least 1.5 better than 360 in Europe in 2010.

XBox 360 is practically dead in continental Europe they have to sell Elite for 219 Euros here against 300 Euros for PS3 (just imagine this prices in NA) just to move any units.

You know without actual evidence your just another guy on the internet saying stuff right?


chandoog said:
Good catch with the saturation thing. Seems like it's a case just like GTA IV where I notched it up too and all the lighting in the game looks a lot more "oomphy" now .. like it has more intensity to it.

Yeah GTA:IV is well worth tweaking i like to play mine with higher contrast it really makes the game look so vibrant.
 

Goldrusher

Member
Keep in mind the game was designed to have low saturation though.

"Visually, we wanted to push the theme of the dying of the Old West by showing the harshness of the environment: everything is sun-bleached and scorched, dirt and dust float in the air continually, grit and grime are in every corner of every room. Life back then was difficult, so we made it that even the buildings look as though they've lived a hard life. Along with layering dirt and grime everywhere, one of the things we did was keep the colour saturation of the world low.
Happy, bright colours tend to make for a light-hearted or fantasy experience, which was the polar-opposite of what I wanted to achieve. That isn't to say the game is black and white, but it does allow for the colourful moments to mean much more. For example, the sunsets in our game are the moments where we bring focus to the vastness and grandeur of the open landscape."

-- Daren Bader, Creative Director
 

Loudninja

Member
burgerdog said:
Someone posted a few pages back why you simply can't add MLAA to every single game. You should do some research on the tech, that way you don't have to post the same thing for every game that doesn't have it.

This thread is also fucking frustrating to read because there are so many single console owners in here shitting it up. People like Loudninja who always enter these type of threads and posts "guys the x version is fine, it is still playable!!" That is not why we multi console owners are in this thread. We spent money on both consoles and want to get the best version of the game.
What in the hell are you talking about?
 
lowrider007 said:
Don't forget about morphological anti-aliasing (or edge smoothing).

That does nothing to deal with sub pixel aliasing though, so thin lines and distant objects get pretty much no edge smoothing at all. Its better than 2xmsaa but its hard to make a case for it being better than (properly applied) 4xmsaa in most cases. Even with 4xmsaa or MLAA, you're still going to get significant alpha and shader aliasing so you're still far from a aliasing free image. 2Xmsaa (especially at a low resolution like 720p) is nice and all but its miles away from being perfect.
 

Beardz

Member
burgerdog said:
Indeed it is, however, is it not a very dark game? It's also a city-based game so you don't have to deal with as many transparencies as RDR. If the tech was flexible enough to support every type of game then I would be extremely happy, God of War 3 has excellent IQ.

I also don't hate sane single console owners, just the insecure ones in here who don't have a choice anyway.

Look at this:

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/9/1/3/9/5/9/saboteurps3.jpg.jpg

And read this:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-saboteur-aa-blog-entry
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
brain_stew said:
That does nothing to deal with sub pixel aliasing though, so thin lines and distant objects get pretty much no edge smoothing at all.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. They can be blended/smoothed, but the result won't be as accurate in these cases as with techniques that use subpixel info, and can lead to strange patterns. Though you could selectively choose to ignore those objects if the results were poor. See this comparison using Intel's algorithm:

http://i50.tinypic.com/2helvuw.png

Note just how thin your object needs to get before you see (notable) deviation from the 16-sample SSAA. (And perhaps, consider if that really wouldn't be worth the tradeoff vs no AA or 2xMSAA for example).



brain_stew said:
Its better than 2xmsaa but its hard to make a case for it being better than (properly applied) 4xmsaa in most cases.

Is it?

Intel did some technical tests with a number of edge slope types, and the results compared favourably to SSAA with very large numbers of samples (e.g. 16 or 24), not to even mention MSAA.

From the one game I've seen use it, it certainly looked well beyond anything I'd seen before on a console (i.e. 2x or 4x MSAA) in terms of edge quality. To me it looked like someone took a PS3 game, ran it on a PC emulator and cranked up the AA high. It was frankly a little weird to see it running on a console.


brain_stew said:
Even with 4xmsaa or MLAA, you're still going to get significant alpha and shader aliasing so you're still far from a aliasing free image.

MLAA will actually cover any edges on the image - not just polygonal edges, but those created by texturing (with transparency or no) or shader effects. It's one advantage over MSAA. MLAA doesn't care how an edge was produced, unlike MSAA.

A lot of people are saying strange things about MLAA that seem maybe half based on truth, and half based on total non-truths. I'd again recommend a read-through of Intel's paper on it (while bearing in mind that Sony's implementation has made further improvements over it, apparently wrt motion artefacts). I'd also recommend a realisation that neither MSAA or SSAA even are perfect either (Intel's paper, again, does a good job on comparing relative strengths and weaknesses of MLAA vs SSAA). People refer them almost as if they're reference/master quality, but they're not really...all of these techniques have deviations vs the ideal, perfect edge, with their own individual characteristics and contraints. It seems a little unfair to highlight all of MLAA's shortcomings (imagined or otherwise) while blissfully ignoring those of other techniques.

Whilst this is an interesting discussion, we risk veering waaay OT. But 'the talk' around MLAA seems rather confused.
 

bj00rn_

Banned
Beardz said:

I just can't fathom it. We have RDR, arguably and relatively speaking one of the best looking games on the 360, it even has 2x AA. But then we have Saboteur looking like shit in comparison and the 360 version doesn't have any AA at all..? It gotta be a joke right? What am I missing here?
 

goonergaz

Member
wow, this game is great - have settings on +1, +2 and +2 (PS3 on plazma 1080p @ 13ft) - makes it look less 'flat', no issues whatsoever 1 hour in and enjoying it more than I thought I would...great stuff! Jaggies not as bad as expected :D

Oh, and load times are really short...usually 5/10 seconds
 

Chrange

Banned
Load time, then fast traveled from a camp in the plains to Thieves Landing.

Load to game:
Off disc: 22:02
HDD install (120 GB): 12:35
Cruzer 16 GB USB: 13:21
Patriot 16 GB USB: 13:04

Fast travel:
Off disc: 33:55
HDD install (120 GB): 22:41
Cruzer 16 GB USB: 22:10
Patriot 16 GB USB: 22:08

Not amazing performance differences between the Cruzer and Patriot (though the Patriot took only about 1/2 the time to install to) but it's all considerably better than going off the disc.
 

Pimpbaa

Member
Zeliard said:
I haven't played a single 360 game off the disc ever since they added the install feature.

Before the install feature, I had to play my 360 with headphones because that was the only way to could hear the game clearly. How anyone at MS thought the noise level of the dvd drive was acceptable was beyond me.
 

DrXym

Member
I think the PS3 version looks inferior overall - some things like trees look better to me but ground cover and draw distance is worse and in a game like this kind it does matter.

I suppose someone could argue that the blurry look better suits the material, perhaps evoking soft focus films like Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid. But technically it looks inferior to the 360 version. Maybe it's not so obvious in motion or a significant reason to hold off buying but still.

As a PS3 owner, the most irksome thing is that there is no excuse for any significant difference. GTA IV could be forgiven for dropping the resolution but two years on, why hasn't anything improved?
 

Omiee

Member
iv been playing it all day now on the ps3 and i have to say first of all its an amazing game second of all i dont realy see the differences they might be there like is proven on pictures etc but when im playing the game im enjoying it not actually nitpicking
 

watership

Member
Omiee said:
iv been playing it all day now on the ps3 and i have to say first of all its an amazing game second of all i dont realy see the differences they might be there like is proven on pictures etc but when im playing the game im enjoying it not actually nitpicking

My god man, use some periods! And playing the game vs screenshots is never the same. That's why people are waiting for comparison vidoes and eventually, digital foundry.
 

DeVeAn

Member
I have been playing the PS3 version since day one and the game looks fantastic. I watched GT's video comp and really hard to notice any difference.
 

goonergaz

Member
what surprised me is that I'm sure this isn't as 'hazy' as GTA4 - the screenshots make it look a lot more worse and really bland than it actually is
 

bj00rn_

Banned
cgcg said:
Looks like the x360 version missing lighting and shadows in the saloon cutscene with the old man and woman.

Looks like sunlight, so they probably just had the game at a different time of day at that spot.
 

Goldrusher

Member
Omiee said:
iv been playing it all day now on the ps3 and i have to say first of all its an amazing game second of all i dont realy see the differences they might be there like is proven on pictures etc but when im playing the game im enjoying it not actually nitpicking
30skoau.jpg
 

goonergaz

Member
cgcg said:
It's beginning of the game. It's day time in both versions.

Missing the lighting and shadows here in this video as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UazsR7HMg



Not surprised you're not a fan of nice lighting and shadows.

nqs3uw.jpg

I pointed out the fact that one of the X360 horses in one of the opening scenes was missing a shaddow also - but apparently the lower amount of shrubbery on the PS3 version is more important to discuss...
 

Dresden

Member
Davidion said:
So sad. :lol
You guys do realize that...

Evilore said:
Know what makes this thread suck? People complaining that the thread exists and chastising all the people making comparisons and drawing conclusions, not "fanboys taking things too seriously when they should just plaaaay gaaaames, maaaan."

Ban wave incoming.

...this happened, right?
 

JoseSensa

Neo Member
FYI,

The Lens of Truth RDR Head to Head has been posted. You need to be logged in as a member to read it but here's the link:

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=19855

The only surprise for me was that they said the frame rate was similar and they didn't see any real tearing on either platform.

They did mention the loss of detail in the PS3 version.

I think I'm still leaning towards the PS3 version since my big hang ups in multiplats are frame rate and tearing.
 
I love it when the discussion goes to discuss the lack of foliage in PS3. The whole country is almost desertic and theres not a whole lot of grass in deserts. If this was Uncharted 1 or 2 then I would worry about the lack of foliage. Oh and I own both consoles and went with the PS3 version.
 

surly

Banned
JoseSensa said:
The only surprise for me was that they said the frame rate was similar and they didn't see any real tearing on either platform.
They usually post some frame rate analysis, but this time they said........

While our analyzer was not stable enough to handle Red Dead Redemption, we were able to confirm that the game ran at 30 frames per second on both consoles.
There's no mention of the native resolutions either.

Digital Foundry's comparison is usually better IMO and that should be up on Monday. I don't really agree with LoT's methodology (which is inconsistent at best). The "out of the box" settings thing is a bit silly, because if one version is a bit too dark, adjusting the brightness can easily fix that. They should also include some info about how the 360 version of a game runs when it's installed. They could do much better comparisons and just drop awarding a win to one console or another, especially as awarding a win is based on a flawed system where a 1-2 second loading time advantage on one system can cancel out vastly superior graphics on the other.
 

Truespeed

Member
What a fluff piece that LOT comparison was. DF should deliver the real truth. Besides, the MazingerDude comparison was all you really needed. And he completely nailed it by calling it one of the most inferior ports ever released on the PS3.
 

surly

Banned
miladesn said:
So what was the conclusion on LoT? I don't want to register.
GRAPHICS - The Xbox 360 wins with more shrubs (Monty Python would be proud), higher resolution, and better draw rate for shadows.

PERFORMANCE - Frame rate was @ 30 frames with very little screen tearing, and some dropped frames, but overall, pretty consistent on both consoles, which made us think about the shrubs again. A decrease in shrubbery makes us think they were taken out to optimize performance.

LOADING - Although the PlayStation 3 had a small install, it beat out the Xbox 360 for load times.

OUTCOME - Xbox 360 wins this Head2Head by a shrub. Although the PlayStation 3 has an equal performance rate, it sacrificed resolution, draw distance, and most of all, our extra shrubs (how many objects it can handle at a time) to do so. It is still important to note that the PlayStation is still worth buying and a small lack of shrubs shouldn’t deter you if that is your preferred console.

The Head2Head is pretty horrible though. There is no proper analysis of the native res, framerate or level of screen tearing. In the conclusions they say that they "believe the game is running at 30 FPS on both consoles" and earlier in the article they say that their analyser couldn't handle the game, so it reads like all they've done is look at the game on both systems, take a few screen shots, and time the loading times with a stop watch.
 

JaxJag

Banned
bycha said:
I check them, and I also know for a fact that PS3 is selling at least 1.5 better than 360 in Europe in 2010.

XBox 360 is practically dead in continental Europe they have to sell Elite for 219 Euros here against 300 Euros for PS3 (just imagine this prices in NA) just to move any units.
Why would you buy multiplatform games for the PS3, when they are usually better on the 360?
 

Pooya

Member
Truespeed said:
Graphics: 360
Performance: 360
Loading: PS3
Overall: 360

Quality of comparison: D-

SolidSnakex said:
360 version is superior but you're safe getting either version of the game.
thanks.
surely said:
There is no proper analysis of the native res, framerate or level of screen tearing. In the conclusions they say that they "believe the game is running at 30 FPS on both consoles"
Believe!:lol
 
Top Bottom