Support NeoGAF

[Digital-Hero]

OK, I did try to warn you...all phats die in the end

Not true.

 

[goonergaz]

Not true.

I wish that were true

 

[Frostburn]

depends what side of the fence you're on I guess

The side that let's me install the game while I eat dinner and look at the manual until the game is installed and I'm done eating so I can enjoy a much quieter Xbox and faster game loading times.

If you have the hard drive space it makes installing pretty much a no brainer unless you have nothing else to do while the game installs and you just HAVE to play it as soon as you get home. Even then, you can just start the install when you're done playing that first night.

 

[infinityBCRT]

I know, it can't be that hard for Sony to allow the option on PS3 surely? Then allthe loading times will be ~ the same

But then they'll run into the Halo 3 issue. Halo 3 was specifically optimized to cache games to your HDD if you had one. When they added the install feature to the 360, and you installed Halo 3, it would become slower because it would be caching from the hard drive to the hard drive. Most 360 games weren't as optimized as Halo 3 with the caching (or may have had none at all), so there was never a problem. But since Bluray read speed is an issue, I'm sure PS3 games are much more aggressive on caching (especially the ones without a mandatory install), so it could become an issue with those games if they allow full installs.

 

[Windom Earle]

Impression from the 360 version:

- Perfect smooth shadows
- Dithering in trees is minimal to non existent
- Framerate is very good, far superior to GTAIV
- Jaggies are of course there, but the 2XAA is doing a decent job
- Lighting also way better than GTAIV

While the engine has less to do than GTAIV (geometry and physics), the improvements are still very noticeable and great. The art direction is of course awesome as well.

Surprisingly good tech for a Rockstar game!

 

[JoseSensa]

I still haven't decided which version to get. But it has little to do with the resolution of the graphics, or a couple of bushes missing from the PS3 version, or other such inconsequential nonsense I care little about.

My problem is, I usually buy multi-console games on the PS3. Reason being, online play. I just don't pay for Live. Or pay for online gaming in general. (But that's a rant for another time.) So if I want to play online, PS3 version it is. Unfortunately, my PS3 runs loud as shit. Louder than my 360. Probably about the same as a 360 spinning an uninstalled game. And it drives me nuts. So if I want to play the game without listening to a constantly whirring fan, the 360 version is the way to go. But then I can't check the game out online. But then again, I rarely play games online anyway.

Blargh!

Pretty much in the same boat too. My PS3 phat is still pretty quite (launch 20gb upgraded to 160HD). Still leaning for PS3 mainly for free online and better controller (for me at least).

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I think they may have updated the way Halo 3 installs and behaves to run optimally or, at least, without penalty when installed. Seems that X360 installs can be optimized post-release to take up less space (because they aren't installing everything, just unique data and not duplicated data or dummy padding) and can receive title updates to be made to work well when they didn't before, as was the case for Crackdown which suffered because the game was fighting HDD read/write behavior that shipped with the game and made HDD installs perform terribly as it constantly fought with the same media location to stream the world from. I think they made it store changes, such as collected orbs and their locations and such in memory and make regular batch updates to the cached state of the world instead of updating every time at the moment it occurred.

In any case, PS3 disc installs would have to have a similar facility for only installing unique data to slim the size of them if you consider the image size of many titles in the dozens of gigs...even worse or even more impossible if you think about installing many disc images...it may end up being unworkable if it has to fight for limited bandwidth to read and write from for games that need fat and constantly-accessed caches on HDD. PS3 require a HDD at all times, so all games work under that assumption and use the storage for caching to mitigate BRD read limitations...and that would make disc image installs problematic for that read/write behavior.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

The side that let's me install the game while I eat dinner and look at the manual until the game is installed and I'm done eating so I can enjoy a much quieter Xbox and faster game loading times.

If you have the hard drive space it makes installing pretty much a no brainer unless you have nothing else to do while the game installs and you just HAVE to play it as soon as you get home. Even then, you can just start the install when you're done playing that first night.

You don't need the HDD space as you can now install games to any connected USB jump drive that has enough space. I usually am so excited to play the game that I play off disc my first play time then when I'm done playing and just turn off my TV, I do the install so that next time I play it's ready.

 

[goonergaz]

The side that let's me install the game while I eat dinner and look at the manual until the game is installed and I'm done eating so I can enjoy a much quieter Xbox and faster game loading times.

If you have the hard drive space it makes installing pretty much a no brainer unless you have nothing else to do while the game installs and you just HAVE to play it as soon as you get home. Even then, you can just start the install when you're done playing that first night.

(not a dig at you) Funny how views changed - before MS allowed installs people slagged off PS3 for it's madatory installs, but really it's a pretty mandatory thing to do if you own an X360 - I know I do for every game without thinking - more for the noise than the speed!

WRT the loading times, most are ~10secs apparently so thankfully it's no biggie

 

[MightyHedgehog]

(not a dig at you) Funny how views changed - before MS allowed installs people slagged off PS3 for it's madatory installs, but really it's a pretty mandatory thing to do if you own an X360 - I know I do for every game without thinking - more for the noise than the speed!

Honestly, I don't think that was ever the prevailing opinion or even a remotely universal complaint or weakness brought by many X360 owners and/or PS3 detractors. When it was egregious, like it was for MGS4, it was pretty stupid, though.

 

[sloppyjoe_gamer]

Id be curious to see if those with the PS3 version complaining about the visuals would still feel the same way after they go into the game settings and bump UP the contrast, and saturation settings by two.

I felt the graphics were not very sharp, and after changing those two settings it made a HUGE difference....everything looks so much more vibrant and sharp.

 

[pr0cs]

but really it's a pretty mandatory thing to do if you own an X360

not really, I mean if you're in playing 1 game you'll probably want to install it if you have room but you're not FORCED to install them.
ie: I was playing MW2 with my family online and I haven't had the game installed in a while. I was still able to pop the game in the machine and play it instantly.
The PS3 mandatory installs is much worse.

Quite frankly Sony should just allow full-game installs, what with the ability to put in your own hard-drive for cheap. It doesn't make any sense to demand the game use the BD disc at all. If the did allow full game installs I might actually have a reason to go beyond the 40gb drive I have in my PS3.

 

[Takuan]

I spent some time with the 360 version last night, and for me the frame rate is barely adequate. Even riding around alone in the plains, I observed dips in frame rate panning the camera around. It's noticeable in cutscenes as well. Nothing too painful, but for anyone as anal about frame rate as I am, it's annoying. It hasn't detracted from gameplay as of yet, but all I really did was ride around and murder people/animals in some town.

Aliasing and shimmer (or some effect that looks like shimmer) is apparent, but isn't as bothersome to me as the frame rate. I've also been doing quite a bit of PC gaming of late, so even 30fps looks "off" and the drops are that much more obvious. Overall, the game looks pretty good for console, I just wish it ran smoother. Speaking honestly, I would definitely have been disappointed if I went with the PS3 version - noting that I would probably have been disappointed even if the frame rate was equal to the 360's, just because I'm a frame rate whore.

 

[antiquegamer]

(not a dig at you) Funny how views changed - before MS allowed installs people slagged off PS3 for it's madatory installs, but really it's a pretty mandatory thing to do if you own an X360 - I know I do for every game without thinking - more for the noise than the speed!

WRT the loading times, most are ~10secs apparently so thankfully it's no biggie

I think you misunderstood the meaning of mandatory. You don't need to install every games. I only install the games that play frequenly and that have a lot of loading such as most open world game. I occasionaly play Raiden and Pinball Hall of Fame and those never get install.

I also do the same thing that OldJaded does, play the game first, once I am done I install the game for next session if it's warrant installation.

 

[Dragnet]

Id be curious to see if those with the PS3 version complaining about the visuals would still feel the same way after they go into the game settings and bump UP the contrast, and saturation settings by two.

I felt the graphics were not very sharp, and after changing those two settings it made a HUGE difference....everything looks so much more vibrant and sharp.

Could you take a before and after pic to show the difference?

 

[sloppyjoe_gamer]

Could you take a before and after pic to show the difference?

Sorry im not at home right now so i cant....other people in the offical RDR thread have also tried this and have said it makes a big difference for them as well.

 

[goonergaz]

I think you misunderstood the meaning of mandatory.

No I don't - I fully understand it, I'm just saying that due to the noise and the fact 99% of the time you get faster loading, you'd be stupid not to

Back OT I'm sure tweaking will help a bit - nice to know it's ingame too.

 

[CloakedPuppet]

I spent some time with the 360 version last night, and for me the frame rate is barely adequate. Even riding around alone in the plains, I observed dips in frame rate panning the camera around.

I beg to strongly differ. I haven't noticed any glaring frame rate issues with the 360 version after roughly 8 hours of play. Actually, I'm consistently impressed with how well this game runs.

 

[qwerty2k]

got the ps3 version today, frame rate and graphics seem fine to me, only thing noticeable is the LOD, quite bad imo as you see textures popin on buildings.

 

[Gully State]

All you need to do is swing the camera really fast and the framerate will drop (on the PS3 version- haven't played the 360 version).

 

[Lion Heart]

Sometimes the picture is oversaturated while other times its washed out (ps3). When its washed out is the only thing that bothers me, textures are really good surprisingly and framerate is mostly great, GTA is unplayable compared to this.

Anyone else notice when you look up at the stars at night, the screen gets brighter and if you look done really fast it illuminates the ground for a few seconds? It could be my new plasma, but I hope not.

 

[Decado]

Soooo...is there a concensus yet? I just want the best version and am happy playing on either system.

 

[Pimpbaa]

OK, I did try to warn you...all phats die in the end

Not all "phats" are the same. The last revision of them had 65nm CPU and GPU and thus are far less prone to any damage done by overheating.

 

[Domcorleone]

Soooo...is there a concensus yet? I just want the best version and am happy playing on either system.

I'd say get the 360 version, I bought the ps3 version and im gunna sell it, 360 has better resolution, better framerate, more vibrant colors, better textures. I even like the controls better on the 360, and this is coming for a Sony lover. Sometimes a multi game just gels better with a specific console, i think RDR is it for the 360, im having a better experience on the 360 than the ps3.

 

[TheThunder]

Soooo...is there a concensus yet? I just want the best version and am happy playing on either system.

360

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Quite frankly Sony should just allow full-game installs, what with the ability to put in your own hard-drive for cheap. It doesn't make any sense to demand the game use the BD disc at all. If the did allow full game installs I might actually have a reason to go beyond the 40gb drive I have in my PS3.

There are at least two reasons why they don't want to do that. 1) They want to maintain that Blu-Ray offers benefits that can't be found elsewhere. If they let you install full games, Blu-Ray (for games, at least) becomes just a slightly more convenient storage/transfer medium than DVDs. 2) They have no reason to incentivize the purchase of bigger hard drives because those are likely to come from a third party.

That said, I wouldn't object to full installs at all, because we know that most games don't come close to filling up a Blu-Ray. It makes sense from a competitive standpoint that they should allow the user to fully install multi-platform titles. However, if they do that, it will raise questions as to why you can't do it with all games, especially Sony exclusives, which tend to be a lot larger. We would understand why some games can be installed and others can't, but it might annoy "the masses" who just want their console to obey a consistent set of rules.

Soooo...is there a concensus yet? I just want the best version and am happy playing on either system.

Have you read any of the thread? The PS3 version doesn't seem to be better than the 360 version in any way, and in some ways is slightly worse. If you care about free online or a free hat for your dude, then maybe PS3 is the right choice. Otherwise, 360.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

I read the first 3 pages and still had no idea which was the better version. In fact for a good while I thought that GIF in the second post was real...

Reading this last page has confirmed what I thought before entering the thread though. Each version has its ups and downs and the only people who get their panties in a twist are the brand specific console warriors.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21355476&postcount=704

 

[mujun]

experts ?
I don't think that anybody with functional eye(s) should be called experts.

I was referring to Quaz and Mazingerdude who to the best of my knowledge have both said that the 360 version is graphically superior.

What are you talking about?

 

[belvedere]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21355476&postcount=704

It's like GTA IV all over again. The softness/blurriness helps hide the aliasing in certain geometry while the higher res on the 360 build actually makes it more apparent.

In those pics at least.

 

[Prezhulio]

Not all "phats" are the same. The last revision of them had 65nm CPU and GPU and thus are far less prone to any damage done by overheating.

i thought only the gpu had a revision hmmm....any serial # or anything to distinguish between the 90nm and 65nm of the phats? i'm honestly not sure what mine was, i got mine the week of the first ps3 price drop down to 499.

edit: nm i realized you're talking about the non-bc phattys.

 

[Mad_Ban]

Anyone with the PS3 version of RDR also got GTA4: Ballad of Gay Tony on PS3?

BoGT is by far the best performing and looking version of GTA4 so if RDR is up to the standards of that, I'll be content with it.

 

[adamsapple]

It's like GTA IV all over again. The softness/blurriness helps hide the aliasing in certain geometry while the higher res on the 360 build actually makes it more apparent.

The softnesss is also hiding a lot of the detail and even world objects in those screens :lol

 

[I <3 Memes]

I guess you can't really tell from a screen shot, but to me the blurriness also covers up some of the fantastic lighting in this game. Hope that not true when the game is in motion because the lighting in RDR looks fantastic.

 

[belvedere]

The softnesss is also hiding a lot of the detail and even world objects in those screens :lol

I don't recall saying it enhanced those things.

How odd.

 

[gofreak]

The softnesss is also hiding a lot of the detail and even world objects in those screens :lol

You mean the suggested LOD/pop-in stuff? Don't tell me we're blaming qaa for LOD and pop-in issues now...qaa is bad enough as it is

 

[adamsapple]

I don't recall saying it enhanced those things.

How odd.

I don't recall accusing you of saying that either .. was just making a general statement.

How odd indeed.

You mean the suggested LOD/pop-in stuff? Don't tell me we're blaming qaa for LOD and pop-in issues now...qaa is bad enough as it is

For all we know that's probably it

 

[Confidence Man]

Game is a blurry, jaggy, shimmering soup on PS3. It's atrocious. After playing my eyes hurt from trying to constantly focus on the image.

I wish I had followed through on my promise to send it back to amazon before opening it. Definitely be trading this pos in.

 

[Lonely1]

Are there plans for a PC version?

 

[adamsapple]

Are there plans for a PC version?

As of yet none ...

but c'maan it's R*, there's obviously going to be one a few months down the line. I'm guessing September/November ish.

 

[Zeliard]

It's like GTA IV all over again. The softness/blurriness helps hide the aliasing in certain geometry while the higher res on the 360 build actually makes it more apparent.

In those pics at least.

:lol

This argument in favor of the PS3 version of GTAIV was always goofy. It's like console gamers who try to criticize the visuals of high-res PC games by calling them "sterile."

Sub-HD is never and will never be a positive.

 

[goonergaz]

Sub-HD is never and will never be a positive.

Alan Wake? I've heard people call it one of the best looking games this gen!

 

[adamsapple]

Alan Wake? I've heard people call it one of the best looking games this gen!

But then there isn't any other version of the game to draw a direct parallel with either ..

 

[Windom Earle]

I don't recall saying it enhanced those things.

How odd.

It's chandoog, don't ask.

 

[CheapyD]

P.S did anybody have to eat a bowl of crow over CheapyD's comment?

:lol

Not that i've seen.

Everyone will have 'forgot' that they said he was a liar.

Don't worry...I made a list.

 

[adamsapple]

It's chandoog, don't ask.

Excuse me for stating what is plainly obvious based on the screens :lol

 

[LoganKnight4949]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21355476&postcount=704

the most noticable thing in those screens is how much less vegetation the PS3 version has. Crazy!

 

[Y2Kev]

:lol

This argument in favor of the PS3 version of GTAIV was always goofy. It's like console gamers who try to criticize the visuals of high-res PC games by calling them "sterile."

Sub-HD is never and will never be a positive.

Yeah, Houser called the 360 version of GTAIV "clinical."

There's really no accounting for taste.

 

[belvedere]

:lol

This argument in favor of the PS3 version of GTAIV was always goofy. It's like console gamers who try to criticize the visuals of high-res PC games by calling them "sterile."

Sub-HD is never and will never be a positive.

Wow, that's a whole lot of assumptions to create from such a minor statement.

How someone could get their feelings hurt from such a minor comment says a lot about their character.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Alan Wake? I've heard people call it one of the best looking games this gen!

Its a really good looking game, but it would look better at higher resolutions.

 

[soldat7]

I'm a frame rate whore.

Sorry to hear. Glad I'm not. Maybe that's part of why I love Shadow of the Colossus so much.