Support NeoGAF

[tinfoilhatman]

The 20% of pixels wouldn't even be noticed if it wasn't for B3D's pixelmonkeys. You act like ps3 fans are somehow missing out when the ps3 version is the better looking version in the end.

I'm sorry but the bluryness of the PS3 version is painfully obvious to me, Halo3 and COD4 were the same deal but not nearly as bad.

Show a videophile a blind screenshot test and garunteee they'd pick the sharper image every time regaurdless of what platform it's on.

How anyone can argue that the PS3 version is better with 20% less pixels and almost 20% worse frame rate is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Struct09]

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/7/8/8/9/lighting10.jpg.jpg

Is it me, or does the PS3 version have a much shallower depth of field here?

I see what you're thinking, but my guess is that it's an effect of upscaling the resolution (which adds a slight blur to the PS3 images)

 

[Raistlin]

This is a PlayStation franchise or, to say it better, it used to be mainly a PS franchise. It comes out for both machines and one renders 20% less pixels. How can this be good? It's Rockstar's fault? Whatever, really. I can only imagine what would have happened had the opposite been true (360 at 640p).

You do realize there are other things the PS3 version appears to be doing better? Its not like they don't both have pros and cons.

 

[cedric69]

Maybe because it doesn't matter as much as framerate, shimmering and filter effects?

Maybe because it's not the first game that doesn't run below 720p (which happens quite often on both 360 and PS3)? Maybe because it's NOT a big deal in this instance?

Framerate, as far as I understand, has always been reported as more solid on 360, you're claiming the opposite? It's not the first game. It's the first GTA on this generation, not any game. And it's running at 640p on one machine and 720p on another. And with your reply you are just confirming what I stated, really.
But that's ok, my PS3 is ready for MGS4, and in that case, being system exclusive , I won't care about resolution (665p or whatever).

You do realize there are other things the PS3 version appears to be doing better? Its not like they don't both have pros and cons.

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.

 

[RoH]

I'm sorry but the bluryness of the PS3 version is painfully obvious to me, Halo3 and COD4 were the same deal but not nearly as bad.

Show a videophile a blind screenshot test and garunteee they'd pick the sharper image every time regaurdless of what platform it's on.

How anyone can argue that the PS3 version is better with 20% less pixels and almost 20% worse frame rate is beyond my comprehension.

By the ghosts of Terok Nor how did you come up with that number? how?

 

[KTallguy]

I don't know, but something about how the cityscapes are always a bit hazy looks nice on PS3. It doesn't look poor, it looks artistic, if not unintentional :lol

Like when you're by the water and you see Manhattan and the bridge, and they're a bit out of focus, it looks really nice.

 

[h3ro]

Show a videophile a blind screenshot test and garunteee they'd pick the sharper image every time regaurdless of what platform it's on.

I disagree. I think the average gamer/non-videophile would pick the 360 version because of its sharper textures and more clean look. The videophile would probably go for the lighting effects and shadows of the PS3 version.

 

[le.phat]

How anyone can argue that the PS3 version is better with 20% less pixels and almost 20% worse frame rate is beyond my comprehension.

i think alot of the stuff you're arguing about is beyond your comprehension.

20%worse framerate :lol, what does that even mean ? 20% of runtime ? 20% of the total frames played ? jesus christ.

 

[AndyD]

I don't know, but something about how the cityscapes are always a bit hazy looks nice on PS3. It doesn't look poor, it looks artistic, if not unintentional :lol

Like when you're by the water and you see Manhattan and the bridge, and they're a bit out of focus, it looks really nice.

ITS THE SMOG!!!

Just kidding. I like the softer look as well, it makes the city seem more comfortable for some reason.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

By the ghosts of Terok Nor how did you come up with that number? how?

i think alot of the stuff you're arguing about is beyond your comprehension.

20%worse framerate :lol, what does that even mean ? 20% of runtime ? 20% of the total frames played ? jesus christ.

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

 

[Zaptruder]

Second post of the thread, again to reiterate, jesus fucking titty christ, this obsessive compulsive analysis and flame baiting is not good for anyone's mental health.

Simple fact is, the tech differences between the two pale in relation to tech issues external to the game; online, controller, reliability, et al. And that in turn pales in comparison to your preference of console.

Do us all a favour multiplatform owners. Prefer one console over the other(s), and stick with it... don't bother justifying or trying to nut out exactly which version is best... because you don't have to!

 

[tinfoilhatman]

I disagree. I think the average gamer/non-videophile would pick the 360 version because of its sharper textures and more clean look. The videophile would probably go for the lighting effects and shadows of the PS3 version.

Videophiles mostly rate Blu-Ray movies by their overall level of detail and sharpness, why should it be and different with games.

 

[spyshagg]

Ok guys, let me activate the V-sync and bench my new 9800GTX in 3dmark.... apparently, its the new "thang"

do you guys know what v-sync does ? it only outputs up to certain FPS to avoid screen tearing. Meaning that with V-sync active, the ps3 would never go past 30 or in between non-friendy framerates.

x360 version outputs all it can gives, because the devs know you guys are used to tearing anyway (and yes, I hate that about uncharted)

 

[RoH]

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."

Please go ahead and spin that

Thanks for clearing that up; I went back and read the Eurogamer report. But I have to ask is an average of 5 frames difference that important? Again its an average and even they make note of how limited in value the frame rate data is.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that the frame-rate detector can only produce an average rate. By looking at the other comparison videos in this piece, you'll see that by and large the games generally run at the same speed.

 

[t0va]

all this talk about screen tearing. i hadn't noticed it until i read this thread. i'll check it out when i get home.

 

[pr0cs]

Thanks for clearing that up; I went back and read the Eurogamer report. But I have to ask is an average of 5 frames difference that important? Again its an average and even they make note of how limited in value the frame rate data is.

You will definitely notice 5fps, especially sub 60fps.
I think you'd notice if 20% of your paycheck just disappeared.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Here are some examples that Eurogamer thought were not important to the comparison.

Aren't those photos evidence of the very dithering effect that they explicitly (and like repeatedly) state docks the 360's performance below the 360's?

 

[tinfoilhatman]

Thanks for clearing that up; I went back and read the Eurogamer report. But I have to ask is an average of 5 frames difference that important? Again its an average and even they make note of how limited in value the frame rate data is.

If both games ran at about 50 and the diff was only 5 frames than I think the answer would be no, but since both games run at around 25-30 then yes 5 frames does = 17-18% and yes it does make a noticible diff.

Aren't those photos evidence of the very dithering effect that they explicitly (and like repeatedly) state docks the 360's performance below the 360's?

Yes jsut like the "photos' of the explosions that turned out to be BS in a lame attempt to show the PS3 verion as superior.

 

[dark10x]

If both games ran at about 50 and the diff was only 5 frames than I think the answer would be no, but since both games run at around 25-30 then yes 5 frames does = 17-18% and yes it does make a noticible diff.

You do realize that those numbers do not mean that the game is actually running at 5 fps less, right?

 

[jetjevons]

I've owned both versions and I'm 360 all the way. The frame rate seems more consistent and the IQ is noticeably sharper. I really didn't like the blurry, dreamy feel of the PS3 version at all (though I get why some people would).

 

[tinfoilhatman]

You do realize that those numbers do not mean that the game is actually running at 5 fps less, right?

No just 17%-18% less, regaurdless of what exactly that means it's still almost a 20% diff which is easily noticable.

 

[RoH]

You will definitely notice 5fps, especially sub 60fps.
I think you'd notice if 20% of your paycheck just disappeared.

Lol my wife's cut of my pay check is more then that; I stopped noticing. If i lost 20% at 60fps yes it would be a big deal, but at 20% at 30fps is not noticeable after years of video game conditioning. When I was a PC gamer the frame rate would drop, now that I'm a console gamer the frame rate still drops off, but 5fps it not something I can notice very often if not at all.

 

[dark10x]

No just 17%-18% less, regaurdless of what exactly that means it's still almost a 20% diff which is easily noticable.

See, you don't even know what that actually means. Stop throwing around useless numbers. How can you simply say "regardless" of what that means when its meaning is the most important piece of information.

You're pushing an agenda without understanding the facts.

I'm not suggesting that the 360 version isn't superior, rather, simply noting that you seem to believe this means much more than it actually does.

 

[purvispisgah]

Ok guys, let me activate the V-sync and bench my new 9800GTX in 3dmark.... apparently, its the new "thang"

do you guys know what v-sync does ? it only outputs up to certain FPS to avoid screen tearing. Meaning that with V-sync active, the ps3 would never go past 30 or in between non-friendy framerates.

x360 version outputs all it can gives, because the devs know you guys are used to tearing anyway (and yes, I hate that about uncharted)

Perhaps I just haven't been paying enough attention, but I haven't seen any tearing in the 360 version, and I've put in about 40 hours. To be fair, I don't care as much about screen tearing as some others seem to, but that hasn't been a drawback for me.

I think GTAIV looks great. From what I've seen, it looks great on both consoles. Why do people care about pixels and dithering and all this crap? If I was getting a degree in psychology, I think I could write a dissertation on Neogaf.

 

[artredis1980]

So its like Xbox 360 is a kid with little scars on his cheek. PS3 is the same kid, 2 years younger with blur applied to hide the little scars

 

[KTallguy]

No just 17%-18% less, regaurdless of what exactly that means it's still almost a 20% diff which is easily noticable.

I'm having a 35% better experience in this thread after laughing at your posts.

 

[Walshicus]

By the ghosts of Terok Nor how did you come up with that number? how?

Terok Nor? DS9?? What an odd thing to say.

 

[pr0cs]

but 5fps it not something I can notice very often if not at all.

Unless you're playing one version you aren't going to notice but if you play the 360 version then go back to the PS3 version I'd be willing to bet you might notice frame drops.

At this point it doesn't really matter though, both versions are great and the game is a ton of fun. Those framerate drops, loss of IQ and lower resolution mean nothing if all your friends are playing on the questionable 'weaker' version.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

See, you don't even know what that actually means. Stop throwing around useless numbers. How can you simply say "regardless" of what that means when its meaning is the most important piece of information.

You're pushing an agenda without understanding the facts.

I'm not suggesting that the 360 version isn't superior, rather, simply noting that you seem to believe this means much more than it actually does.

OK please tell me how it should be interpreted.

To me they are saying on average the 360 version is running with 17%-18% more fps than the PS3 version, how is this open to interpretation?

 

[dark10x]

To me they are saying on average the 360 version is running with 17%-18% more fps than the PS3 version, how is this open to interpretation?

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.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

/\Lets stick with screenshots from reputable web sites, after all the BS\doctored\unfair screengrabs that gone around I don't trust anything done by forum members.

Not to say that there isn't some truth to it\them but after the "explosion" proof I just don't trust any of it.

It's painfully obvious that many people have tried very hard to put the PS3 version in a good light by using these self made comparison pics.

 

[blazinglazers]

The captures on that perviously quoted japanese site show the 360 version displaying more "decorators" (grass, plants, trash, etc) than the PS3 in almost every shot... have you guys fought about this yet? ;p

 

[DevilWillcry]

After reading through most of this thread I think it's safe to say that the game looks close enough on both consoles that any differences are meaningless. Like COD4, I think GTA IV is going to lack a "superior" and "inferior" version.

 

[chubigans]

/\Lets stick with screenshots from reputable web sites, after all the BS\doctored\unfair screengrabs that gone around I don't trust anything done by forum members.

Not to say that there isn't some truth to it\them but after the "explosion" proof I just don't trust any of it.

It's painfully obvious that many people have tried very hard to put the PS3 version in a good light by using these self made comparison pics.

Your username couldn't be more apt.

Framerate, as far as I understand, has always been reported as more solid on 360, you're claiming the opposite?

No I'm not, 360 has the advantage there.

 

[dark10x]

/\Lets stick with screenshots from reputable web sites, after all the BS\doctored\unfair screengrabs that gone around I don't trust anything done by forum members.

Wait a second, are you suggesting those two shots that I posted are somehow "unfair"? They are taken directly from the Eurogamer article and simply cropped. I'm not altering the image in any way, rather, focusing on certain areas of the shot through cropping.

Here's the original image...

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/7/8/9/0/res12.jpg.jpg

 

[RoH]

Unless you're playing one version you aren't going to notice but if you play the 360 version then go back to the PS3 version I'd be willing to bet you might notice frame drops.

At this point it doesn't really matter though, both versions are great and the game is a ton of fun. Those framerate drops, loss of IQ and lower resolution mean nothing if all your friends are playing on the questionable 'weaker' version.

I guess its some thing I will have to try, but I still have a hard time with the fact that both versions have inconsistent frame rates to begin with (using the EuroGamer Numbers) from 26.4 - 29.0 on PS3 to 26.0 - 35.2 on X-360. If if play both I would have a hard time noticing the difference when both are running struggling vs running at peak.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

Wait a second, are you suggesting those two shots that I posted are somehow "unfair"? They are taken directly from the Eurogamer article and simply cropped. I'm not altering the image in any way, rather, focusing on certain areas of the shot through cropping.

Here's the original image...

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/7/8/9/0/res12.jpg.jpg

Sorry I didn't mean to suggest you did or would anything of the sort.

I can still tell just by looking the bridge that the bottom pic is much sharper and more detailed.(I'm not sure which pic os from which platform)

The 360 deffintly has IQ problems, the thing is to me the blur on the PS3 version just kills it for me since it's in your face at every point in the game regaurdless of what your doing where.

 

[DeadGzuz]

From Fafalada, a dev psting at B3D:

20% different average is standard fare for what happens when you run two identical tests, one with VSync off, one with on. In fact it's almost exactly the difference I've observed when doing similar tests in my own work.

If anything this suggests that internal fps is really close. I wonder if people could bully T2 to patch in a VSync toggle for PS3 version one day.

Same point I was trying to make above. They should just make it a option in the config menu on both systems, let people decide what they like.

 

[Lord Error]

Yes jsut like the "photos' of the explosions that turned out to be BS in a lame attempt to show the PS3 verion as superior.

No, it's nothing like that. The dithering thing in X360 version on DOF and shadows is well documented, and it's not just someone's imagination or spin. PS3 ver. has some dithering on shadows as well, but much less.

I really doubt this dithering is any kind of intentional painterly effect btw. I've seen that kind of thing in games before, and it's a matter of rendering artifacting, never a wanted effect. I don't know if the rendering technique is used because it yields better performance on 360, but there are other games that have the same kind of artifacts. The last I've seen it was on this picture of Fable 2. Look at the DOF dither on the right side, it's the same kind of thing.

 

[manxor]

dark10x, I might've missed it, but have you rented or seen the 360 version in person?

I'd love to hear your impressions from 1st hand experience.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

No, it's nothing like that. The dithering thing in X360 version on DOF and shadows is well documented, and it's not just someone's imagination or spin. PS3 ver. has some dithering on shadows as well, but much less.

I really doubt this dithering is any kind of intentional painterly effect btw. I've seen that kind of thing in games before, and it's a matter of rendering artifacting, never a wanted effect. I don't know if the rendering technique is used because it yields better performance on 360, but there are other games that have the same kind of artifacts. The last I've seen it was on this picture of Fable 2. Look at the DOF dither on the right side, it's the same kind of thing.

Agreed, I'm sure they used something common to 360 to improve the performance. I highly doubt the dithering would be intentional since it looks so bad.

What boggles my mind is why v-sync is turned on on the PS3 version and not on the 360 version(or vise versa)

Is it possible the screen tearing was more noticible on the PS3 version so they decided to enable it, just doesn't maek sence to me. Liek someone lese mentioned if V-Synd was tunred on on 360 the framerates would probably be indeticle or worse on 360.

 

[dark10x]

dark10x, I might've missed it, but have you rented or seen the 360 version in person?

I'd love to hear your impressions from 1st hand experience.

Well, I'm hoping to get together with beermonkey next week and test it out on my Kuro panel. Everyone else I know owns the PS3 version, so I haven't had the chance yet. I've been very curious, however. It's not as if I would switch to another version at this point or anything, but I'd still like to see how they compare.

 

[manxor]

Cool, I'll keep tabs here for it.
A lot of the distant dithering stuff I see in these screenshots, isn't discernable on my screen. Shadow dithering can be quite noticeable however.

 

[Lord Error]

Is it possible the screen tearing was more noticible on the PS3 version so they decided to enable it, just doesn't maek sence to me.

That may well be the case. I mean if they disabled vsync on PS3 version, maybe numbers would be closer when put through that frame counter and it would maybe appear to move at a smoother pace than it is now, but the tearing itself would be bad enough to negate the positive effect.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I'm probably going to be able to take the 360 version over to dark's place next week so he can make some impressions.

 

[Mash]

Just throwing this in for what it's worth.

I know what screentearing is, I put up with it all the time when playing PC games to gain some fps but I haven't encountered any, none at ALL in the 4 hours I've played GTA on the 360 so far. I'm playing via VGA on a 16:10 monitor if that changes anything. There's barely any aliasing either, the resolution I've set the 360 to is high though perhaps that makes a difference. The only thing I can fault the visuals for on the 360 are the dithering shadows, it's quite distracting when you sit so close to the screen.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Sorry I didn't mean to suggest you did or would anything of the sort.

I can still tell just by looking the bridge that the bottom pic is much sharper and more detailed.(I'm not sure which pic os from which platform)

The 360 deffintly has IQ problems, the thing is to me the blur on the PS3 version just kills it for me since it's in your face at every point in the game regaurdless of what your doing where.

I was playing RE4 on the Gamecube yesterday and just burst out laughing at how inferior the game looks compared to the PS2 version with it's 33% more pixels running in a true 16:9 widescreen format. I could sense the incoming brainwaves of the Nintard fanboys trying to get inside my head, forcing me to pay attention to other details in the game when comparing the two platforms. But my tinfoil hat and superior belief system held true becuase I know that only resolution makes the ultimate difference. Besides, if you don't believe in pixel superiority your going to hell when you die and no one wants that, right?

 

[SpokkX]

This will be my last post in this thread.

I have played both 10 hours + and own both consoles so I am not biased

The 360 is technically superior simply because it is much smoother when you play it.This is, after all, what matters most for gameplay. The ps3 framerate affected the gameplay because it dropped so low, sso often. Ímo of course

Sure the dithering looks bad on the 360 but framerate = king

 

[Raist]

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.

Huh, is it a pop in issue or there actually is a missing building on the 360 shot ?

And man, the dithering can be pretty horrible in some instances.

 

[dark10x]

Huh, is it a pop in issue or there actually is a missing building on the 360 shot ?

And man, the dithering can be pretty horrible in some instances.

I know, I really can't tell what is going on. There is clearly a large empty area in the 360 shot that isn't present in the PS3 shot. I can't tell if it is pop-in or something else. Regardless, it's a strange detail to be missing especially considering that the shot was taken from a full stop.