Support NeoGAF

[Windom Earle]

Yeah, the framerate on 360 is far from perfect after putting more hours into the game. Especially in the towns.

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

You sure are enjoying this thread a lot for a single console owner. Maybe you should twitter digital foundry again about the PS3 resolution instead. :lol

 

[adamsapple]

You sure are enjoying this thread a lot for a single console owner. Maybe you should twitter digital foundry again about the PS3 resolution instead. :lol

Why so bitter :lol

Also the guy already said for Monday since you're so interested in DF's twitter

http://twitter.com/Digital_Foundry/status/14351085467

 

[Y2Kev]

Yeah, the framerate on 360 is far from perfect after putting more hours into the game. Especially in the towns.



You sure are enjoying this thread a lot for a single console owner. Maybe you should twitter digital foundry again about the PS3 resolution instead. :lol

I think it's worst in the cutscenes. That's not so bad though.

It's really weird going from AW to RDR.

 

[Dragnet]

Psyched for the DF analysis, getting the PS3 version anyway..

 

[Barrett2]

Playing on 360, i had a weird framerate drop when i shot a horse point blank in the face while i had a person hog-tied across it's back. Framerate dropped to 5fps, stayed that way until i saved.

So, keep that in mind for purchasing decisions. 360 can't handle point-blank horse torture.

 

[Seanspeed]

Playing on 360, i had a weird framerate drop when i shot a horse point blank in the face while i had a person hog-tied across it's back. Framerate dropped to 5fps, stayed that way until i saved.

So, keep that in mind for purchasing decisions. 360 can't handle point-blank horse torture.

I'm cancelling my order as we speak! Thanks for this vital info, man.

 

[mintylurb]

Yeah, the framerate on 360 is far from perfect after putting more hours into the game. Especially in the towns.



You sure are enjoying this thread a lot for a single console owner. Maybe you should twitter digital foundry again about the PS3 resolution instead. :lol

Dang mang. He fought tirelessly in the FF13 comparison thread and AW resolution thread. Why can't you let a proud warrior have his moment!

Anyway, DF analysis could be interesting but it would be grand if Rock Star SD put up a making of RDR video that discussed what sort of challenges they faced while developing this title, why the ps3 version lacks epic foliage, etc..;>

I'm cancelling my order as we speak! Thanks for this vital info, man.

:lol

 

[mujun]

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

Nice

P.S love the show.

P.P.S hate you because you didn't respond to my message on youtube

 

[cgcg]

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

Question for you why do developers keep on using qaa instead of 2xaa? Isn't performance hit pretty much the same on the PS3 for those 2 methods?

 

[Loudninja]

IGN video comparison
http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/748481/old-west-game/videos/reddead_comparison_spc_052010.html

 

[Pooya]

It's really weird going from AW to RDR.

yep, looks so much better, RDR has a very good lighting too and is running at 720p, game looks beautiful, AW was too foggy/blurry for my taste.
This is the first 720p game that I play on 360 this year actually :lol (Splinter Cell and Alan Wake before RDR), smh this year was bad.

 

[jedimike]

IGN video comparison
http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/748481/old-west-game/videos/reddead_comparison_spc_052010.html

This showed a lot more differences than I expected...

 

[Y2Kev]

yep, looks so much better, RDR has a very good lightning too and is running at 720p, game looks beautiful, AW was too foggy/blurry for my taste.
This is the first 720p game that I play on 360 this year actually :lol (Splinter Cell and Alan Wake before RDR), smh this year was bad.

I think me too :lol

I know a lot of people say it doesn't matter, but...yeah they need glasses.

oh wait I played ME2 on 360. That was 720p.

 

[Windom Earle]

IGN comparison shows that this is a MUCH better port than GTAIV.

Question for you why do developers keep on using qaa instead of 2xaa? Isn't performance hit pretty much the same on the PS3 for those 2 methods?

They probably think the superior edge smoothing is a good tradeoff. In some games it is, in some not. I know that most people here hate QAA, but it has its perks!

Dang mang. He fought tirelessly in the FF13 comparison thread and AW resolution thread. Why can't you let a proud warrior have his moment!

Anyway, DF analysis could be interesting but it would be grand if Rock Star SD put up a making of RDR video that discussed what sort of challenges they faced while developing this title, why the ps3 version lacks epic foliage, etc..;>


:lol

The only interesting thing left is the framerate comparison. Our very own MazingerDUDE pretty much stole DF the show for the image quality comparisons. Still wondering while he posts exclusively on GAF now *g

 

[JRW]

IGN video comparison
http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/748481/old-west-game/videos/reddead_comparison_spc_052010.html

I love how IGN failed to at least keep both versions in sync during the video.
Need to wait for a proper breakdown of the differences (Which IGN always fails at as well).

Lens of truth will set it straight, although I think this thread has all the info we need already.

 

[DeadGzuz]

The only interesting thing left is the framerate comparison. Our very own MazingerDUDE pretty much stole DF the show for the image quality comparisons. Still wondering while he posts exclusively on GAF now *g

MazingerDUDE also post at B3d, he is also the guy who does (did?) the pixel counting for DF.

 

[DeadGzuz]

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

Other than the 720P PC screenshots they produced up until the very end.

 

[Windom Earle]

MazingerDUDE also post at B3d, he is also the guy who does (did?) the pixel counting for DF.

Afaik he doesn't post on B3D anymore and hasn't done anything for DF in some time. (he said the latter in the ffxiii thread)

 

[Snipes424]

This showed a lot more differences than I expected...

Really? Because after reading this thread I thought the PS3 version looked like E.T. or something.

I mean yeah, the 360 version looked a little better, but it's no where near another Bayonetta situation.

 

[deadatom]

So this game cost 100 million to make? How does the graphics of the ps3 version compare to infamous?

 

[DeadGzuz]

So this game cost 100 million to make? How does the graphics of the ps3 version compare to infamous?

Not as good IMO. R* has good art direction and texture artist, but the engine sucks. I'd love to see RDR in the Far Cry 2 engine.

 

[Stuggernaut]

:lol is all I have to say.

While the differences in the game are many, why do people care so much.

I watched someone play the PS3 version for about 15min today and I thought it looked great. From what I have seen the 360 version does look better, but do I really care?

The game is still the same on both, they both look and play really well, and they are both fun as hell from what I have seen/heard.

If I didn't have a B-Day next week and I think someone may have bought it for me because I have watched a ton of vids and previews for it...then I would have bought it already.

Either way it is mine on Tuesday ;P

 

[Pimpbaa]

Lens of truth will set it straight, although I think this thread has all the info we need already.

Lens of truth sucks. In their Just Cause 2 comparison, they spent most of their time talking about how shitty the game looks.

 

[goonergaz]

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

my point was that altho it's sub HD it's still good looking (again from what I've heard) - apparently the res drop meant they could have stunning lighting...the problem here is we have sub HD and no gain (vs X360) which implies the devs either don't have a grip on the PS3 or refuse to go that extra mile (probably for financial reasons)

 

[goonergaz]

IGN video comparison
http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/748481/old-west-game/videos/reddead_comparison_spc_052010.html

Thanks but it'd be nice to see this 'much worse' framerate that the PS3 apparently has?

 

[goonergaz]

shamelessly stollen from Headshot81 @ B3D: (sorry if against the rules)

I finished playing RDR(ps3) at friends house once again, and right off the bat the lower resolution is noticeable. We ended up having to playing 7ft away from the 23inch monitor(across the room ). The AA mixed with the blur looses a little too much definition on objects, at respectable distances, when compared to the 360. best way i could describe is if you were looking at the game through your glasses that are just "slightly" fogged.
Frame rate dips are there. I always get dips when im not alone: in town,during missions, riding alongside , heavy vegetated areas. When looking at the comparison screenshots, the ones which show more "grass" on the xbox version when compared to the ps3, i noticed there are some areas on the ps3 where it matches the 360's grass "coverage", and runs smoothly.
Online has issues too, there seem to be "spots" on the map where you stay invisible, meaning that when you approach certain spots you cannot see any character models or animals, you only see footprints, and from my experience it frequent.

 

[Snipes424]

Thanks but it'd be nice to see this 'much worse' framerate that the PS3 apparently has?

I'm about 3/4 the way through on the PS3 version and I've only experienced one time the framerate dropped to probably around 15-20 FPS. Other than that, it's been in high 20s+.

 

[mescalineeyes]

Maybe you should twitter digital foundry again about the PS3 resolution instead. :lol

you could do a lot worse than tweeting with Richard Leadbetter.

My only complaint with this game is that the input lag feels just as much as in GTA4. ugh.

 

[NemesisPrime]

Lens of truth sucks. In their Just Cause 2 comparison, they spent most of their time talking about how shitty the game looks.

Lens of Truth should be blocked on GAF imho.

 

[G_Berry]

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

Yeah it is one of the best, but it has 4x AA. Much less detail is lost due to the lower resolution because of this.

In GTA IV on PS3 it uses Q AA coupled with a low res, this combo strips scenes of detail big time. Hell, even Nico's face is a mess and looses a lot of definition.

Unless you actually own both consoles and have played these games on your TV then you just won't understand. (Which I guess is part of the problem in these comparison threads)

 

[gofreak]

Question for you why do developers keep on using qaa instead of 2xaa? Isn't performance hit pretty much the same on the PS3 for those 2 methods?

I don't know, but what I've read suggests that its resource usage is about the same.

That being the case it does leave a question as to why it's used. It does a better job of edge smoothing than 2xMSAA, something closer to results you'd get with 4xMSAA. It'll also smooth transparencies (foliage etc.). The problem is it doesn't just blur edges. Its blending is applied to the whole image. So small detail in textures etc. can suffer - basically, you get that softer look.

That may not matter in some games depending on the make-up of the art or other post-processing effects being used. For those games you get the advantages without really the disadvantages - so it's not a case of being something that should never be used. For a game like RDR, though, it doesn't necessarily have such an accommodating context. And the lower resolution in use coupled with it only softens small detail more.

But yeah, assuming their cost was the same, someone, somewhere along the line at R* made a choice to prefer QAA and its tradeoffs. Horses for courses? Clearly it's not a choice everyone agrees with.

 

[goonergaz]

Yeah it is one of the best, but it has 4x AA. Much less detail is lost due to the lower resolution because of this.

In GTA IV on PS3 it uses Q AA coupled with a low res, this combo strips scenes of detail big time. Hell, even Nico's face is a mess and looses a lot of definition.

Unless you actually own both consoles and have played these games on your TV then you just won't understand. (Which I guess is part of the problem in these comparison threads)

oh no, I understand - I have a 1080p TV which I apparently don't need due to my viewing distance! however, in my circumstances the differences are not enough to make it worth paying to play online with a couple of friends...tho I understand folk who would rather have the best PQ possible.

 

[Feindflug]

yep, looks so much better, RDR has a very good lighting too and is running at 720p, game looks beautiful, AW was too foggy/blurry for my taste.
This is the first 720p game that I play on 360 this year actually :lol (Splinter Cell and Alan Wake before RDR), smh this year was bad.

You didn't play ME2 and Bayonetta? Both are amazing games running at 720p.

The funny thing is that Conviction has vastly superior IQ compared to AW which is a blurry, jaggy mess on my 40" 1080p set, AW is easily the game with the worst IQ I've seen on PS360.

Also after playing RDR and seeing how beautiful, detailed and sharp it looks I wonder if it was indeed the 360 hardware's fault and weakness that AW looks and runs this way - it's hard to believe that 360 can't run AW in it's current state and by that I mean with the low-res textures, the really ugly shadows, the low-poly objects/characters and with this unstable frame-rate at 720p...

 

[NemesisPrime]

it's hard to believe that 360 can't run AW in it's current state and by that I mean with the low-res textures, the really ugly shadows, the low-poly objects/characters and with this unstable frame-rate at 720p...

Stop being so emo about it dude. AW looks great and it does a lot of things with light/shadows that other games do not. They made" some technical decisions and the results are fine and really do the game world justice.

 

[Feindflug]

Stop being so emo about it dude. AW looks great and it does a lot of things with light/shadows that other games do not. They made" some technical decisions and the results are fine and really do the game world justice.

WTF is this shit? :lol

 

[NemesisPrime]

WTF is this shit? :lol

It is called exaggerating or, in Internet speak, being emo.

 

[goonergaz]

more impressions shamlessley stolen from my own forum (after 3-4 hrs play):

"I'm playing it on PS3 and it's a really impressive game on the eyes, the draw distance is almost as far as the eye can see and although there's some pop-in at times it doesn't occur often enough to cause any problems for me."

Mines at home and the Mrs is at work tonight

 

[Pooya]

You didn't play ME2 and Bayonetta? Both are amazing games running at 720p.

The funny thing is that Conviction has vastly superior IQ compared to AW which is a blurry, jaggy mess on my 40" 1080p set, AW is easily the game with the worst IQ I've seen on PS360.

Also after playing RDR and seeing how beautiful, detailed and sharp it looks I wonder if it was indeed the 360 hardware's fault and weakness that AW looks and runs this way - it's hard to believe that 360 can't run AW in it's current state and by that I mean with the low-res textures, the really ugly shadows, the low-poly objects/characters and with this unstable frame-rate at 720p...

Played Mass Effect 2 on PC, Bayonetta for 2-3 hours, haven't finished it.
IQ of Alan Wake is horrendous with very low res textures, the setting of game helps a bit but it's still very bad.

 

[DangerousDave]

After some hours of game... in PS3 version

I can live with the blurriness, fit well with the western movie context.

I can live with the jaggies, if you move, they won't cut you too much.

But I can't really stand the ugly yellow seaweeds that the PS3 version has instead of grass.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

After some hours of game... in PS3 version

I can live with the blurriness, fit well with the western movie context.

I can live with the jaggies, if you move, they won't cut you too much.

But I can't really stand the ugly yellow seaweeds that the PS3 version has instead of grass.

What are you seeing? The grass is the same in both.

 

[leng jai]

Just got the 360 version after much debate. Happy with the purchase, this game is really quite sharp. I've only got MCLA on PS3 for a vague comparison, but the general clarity is in a different league coming from my 50inch Kuro.

 

[LastExile]

:[

 

[Thrakier]

I'm about 3/4 the way through on the PS3 version and I've only experienced one time the framerate dropped to probably around 15-20 FPS. Other than that, it's been in high 20s+.

Oh, it's in the high 20s most of the time. Everything is fine!

...

The only genre I could live with a framerate below 30 is the RPG genre - maybe. Depends on the battle system. But certainly not in an action game. GTA 4 suffered a lot from the inconsistent framerate, the whole action and driving part (almost everything, yep) especially. It's a shame that Rockstar isn't able to deliver a game with constant 30 FPS. And it's even more of a shame, that a game like this gets praise in the press without even mentioning those problems - at least do that for the PS3 version!

 

[goonergaz]

again - from my website:

"I got these yesterday 1 for each system. PS3 is slightly blurrier lower res but thats about it. It has LOD pop in on secondary shadows. Its nowhere near as bad as GTAIV. 360 has better defined texturing doe to blur but it also shows the really bad low textures so its abit swings and roundabouts. Sound the same (think PS3 is HD it sounds meatier). controls PS3 has better rumbe effect. Frame rate about the same, saw more stuttering on 360. Loading nigh on indentical but thats with a 360 full install. Overall their close but if you wanted one then the 360 one would wiin."

 

[DangerousDave]

What are you seeing? The grass is the same in both.

I don't have the 360 version, but the grass in the PS3 version is awful. And the screenshots show much better grass in 360 version. The second shot is the PS3 one, and is how I see it.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

The worst IQ this gen goes to Tekken 6 according to me. Read Dead PS3 is a far cry from that.

It is a tid bit out of focus on PS3, but even if that was fixed, I would still think it just looks like a GTA game. That is the bigger problem.

 

[CaseyTappy]

The PS3 version suffers from severe ground Alopecia and it shows !

 

[WrikaWrek]

Not as good IMO. R* has good art direction and texture artist, but the engine sucks. I'd love to see RDR in the Far Cry 2 engine.

Can't speak for the Ps3 version. But on the 360, RDR rapes Infamous.

Seriously, not even close.

 

[gofreak]

I don't have the 360 version, but the grass in the PS3 version is awful. And the screenshots show much better grass in 360 version. The second shot is the PS3 one, and is how I see it.

I don't think there's any difference in the asset, the grass assets...it's again a consequence of the res and AA.

 

[FrankT]

I don't have the 360 version, but the grass in the PS3 version is awful. And the screenshots show much better grass in 360 version. The second shot is the PS3 one, and is how I see it.

Simply a loss of detail really or what Gofreak said.

oh wait I played ME2 on 360. That was 720p.

Yea ME2, Bioshock 2, Bayonetta, BFBC2, and pretty sure Metro 2033 (this may actually be a little higher iirc, non-standard res maybe) are all 720p.

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

Aye 360 established a good while back. See post 704 for further detail. For further analysis you're going to have to wait for DF or LoT.