Support NeoGAF

[MightyHedgehog]

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.

Hmmm...I think you may need to spend more time out in the open areas across the Southwest and western US in general. There's a lot of foliage in the form of desert grasses and general brush out there in the desert plains states, like New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. We're not talking about the Sahara here. No one would settle in those old western towns without there being enough regularity in rainfall, Springtime runoff or other water sources, like aquifers and other sub-surface sources to live off of. The existence of plants year-round hints at sustainability of life in general, even if it is very slim.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

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.

Fuckin site. They don't even mention the conditions of the load times for the 360. HDD install? If no, then why not?

 

[surly]

Fuckin site. They don't even mention the conditions of the load times for the 360. HDD install? If no, then why not?

Every Head2Head on that site is done with the 360 version running from disc and not installed, because they use "out of the box settings". If a PS3 game has a forced install, that's fine, but any time there's an optional install on either console (i.e. every game on the 360) it is not used to compare the loading times. I had a conversation with one of the LoT staff about it once and tried to get them to include loading time info for the 360 version (or PS3 version where an optional install is available) running from the hard drive, but they won't do it.

 

[bj00rn_]

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

Is that with or without HDD install on the 360?

Edit: Ah, that's idiotic. I don't get it, why not include HDD install, it's one of the key features on the 360. Oh well. I guess it's fastest while installed then?

 

[Risette]

Am I the only one who thinks Lens of Truth should be banned? It's like the chartzzzz of comparison sites.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

I know, but as it stands - to launch a game I go into the game 'folder' and click 'play from HDD' - nice to know I can just click 'play game' in future

Also, trust your ears on this one. I used to do the same thing, but I could tell the disk wasn't spinning up while playing with either start up method.

 

[JoseSensa]

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.

It's not as thorough as their other HeadToHeads but they explain why at the beginning of the review. Regardless of the level of detail of their review, they saved me from opening my two copies of RDR and then comparing them myself.

I'm still waiting for the DF comparison but I bet we're not going to see many surprises there. I bet they'll comment on the grass, resolution, etc.

There is one thing that I haven't really seen mentioned. Apparently RDR on PS3 forces you to update to the latest firmware. I've got a PS3 phat with other OS support that I do not want to upgrade. I guess it's time to open the PS3 slim that I got as a backup. =(

 

[SolidSnakex]

Am I the only one who thinks Lens of Truth should be banned? It's like the chartzzzz of comparison sites.

They're actually really good most of the time. Their FFXIII comparison was certainly much better than DF's for example.

 

[surly]

I guess it's fastest while installed then?

The 360 version is 3-4 seconds slower based on LoT's tests, with loading times ranging from 18-25 seconds, although they don't say which particular levels they're loading.

These are the results a guy posted on a previous page for the 360 version running from disc Vs. installed to the hard drive or a USB stick: -

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

So I think it would be fair to say that the PS3 version is marginally faster when both games are running from disc, and the 360 version is marginally faster when it's installed, but there's only a few seconds in it either way.

 

[Pimpbaa]

They're actually really good most of the time. Their FFXIII comparison was certainly much better than DF's for example.

But in their Just Cause 2 comparison they spent so much time saying how "bad" the game looked, it almost felt as if they were saying the comparison doesn't matter because it looks so terrible :lol

 

[goonergaz]

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.

no shit? :lol

and WRT 30FPS - there's no way this game is consistent so it's worthless...

 

[indigo-cyclops]

I'm just curious, not quite sure of the technicalities here, but is the large comparison visually something that could be patched in the PS3 version. Meaning, could the game be patched to look as equal as possible to the 360? This is a hypothetical question, of course. Has this ever been done? I know in Demon's Souls they were able to patch in shadows...

 

[Foil]

I'm just curious, not quite sure of the technicalities here, but is the large comparison visually something that could be patched in the PS3 version. Meaning, could the game be patched to look as equal as possible to the 360? This is a hypothetical question, of course. Has this ever been done? I know in Demon's Souls they were able to patch in shadows...

No idea. I remember Bethesda did some kind of visual patch for the 360 version of Oblivion. Or atleast I think they did. No idea if that ever made it look on par with the PS3 version. Doubt it did.

 

[bj00rn_]

The 360 version is 3-4 seconds slower based on LoT's tests, with loading times ranging from 18-25 seconds, although they don't say which particular levels they're loading.

These are the results a guy posted on a previous page for the 360 version running from disc Vs. installed to the hard drive or a USB stick: -


So I think it would be fair to say that the PS3 version is marginally faster when both games are running from disc, and the 360 version is marginally faster when it's installed, but there's only a few seconds in it either way.

So.. Why all the circles and excuses, especially from sites like LoT. They have no reason to hide anything from their readers. So why not just report useful information the easy way, it's not that hard:

The 360 version run from HDD loads the fastest of all the options available.

Simple as that

 

[goonergaz]

I'm just curious, not quite sure of the technicalities here, but is the large comparison visually something that could be patched in the PS3 version. Meaning, could the game be patched to look as equal as possible to the 360? This is a hypothetical question, of course. Has this ever been done? I know in Demon's Souls they were able to patch in shadows...

They could patch, but it's highly unlikey to improve something like the resolution - textures, shaddow issues, things like that maybe. You never know, they might be working on the engine as we speak but TBH it plays perfectly on PS3 so why bother?

 

[goonergaz]

So.. Why all the circles and excuses, especially from sites like LoT. They have no reason to hide anything from their readers. So why not just report useful information the easy way, it's not that hard:

The 360 version run from HDD loads the fastest of all the options available.

Simple as that

other than the 20min install it'd only take 10mins to doe some loading tests so I don't know why they don't list all 3 times.

 

[goonergaz]

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.

:lol

maybe adding "recently" would add more weight

 

[Dabanton]

other than the 20min install it'd only take 10mins to doe some loading tests so I don't know why they don't list all 3 times.

20 min install on the 360?

 

[adamsapple]

20 min install on the 360?

:lol

The guy needs to get his lens repaired I reckon ..

 

[goonergaz]

:lol

The guy needs to get his lens repaired I reckon ..

sorry, it was a figure quoted earlier - I've never timed it...just stick disk in and forget about it...but in essence the point is the same...

 

[Windom Earle]

RDR install on 360 seemed quite long compared to other games, dunno why... Maybe I was just too hyped!

I'm just curious, not quite sure of the technicalities here, but is the large comparison visually something that could be patched in the PS3 version. Meaning, could the game be patched to look as equal as possible to the 360? This is a hypothetical question, of course. Has this ever been done? I know in Demon's Souls they were able to patch in shadows...

Usually you will see minor tweaks. Also Rockstar doesn't care much about the PS3 version it seems.

Ghostbuster was an exception, the patch replaces Quincuncx AA with 2XMSAA and even upped the resolution a bit as far as I remember.

 

[Yoshi256]

Just enjoy the game and don't whine about stupid fanboys.

 

[Windom Earle]

Just enjoy the game and don't whine about stupid fanboys.

You better pray that EviLore does not enter this thread again :lol

 

[Risette]

sorry, it was a figure quoted earlier - I've never timed it...just stick disk in and forget about it...but in essence the point is the same...

I may be wrong but a full 360 install has never taken longer than 10 minutes for me.

You better pray that EviLore does not enter this thread again :lol

Yeah, maybe someone should quote EviLore's post and casualty list for people new to the thread :lol

 

[CrunchinJelly]

I'm just curious, not quite sure of the technicalities here, but is the large comparison visually something that could be patched in the PS3 version. Meaning, could the game be patched to look as equal as possible to the 360? This is a hypothetical question, of course. Has this ever been done? I know in Demon's Souls they were able to patch in shadows...

They didn't bother to make any technical improvements between GTA4 and Episodes from Liberty City, so what makes you think they'll make technical improvements to this via a download patch?

 

[goonergaz]

They didn't bother to make any technical improvements between GTA4 and Episodes from Liberty City, so what makes you think they'll make technical improvements to this via a download patch?

I heard they had improved the engine?

WRT loading times (on my 250GB slim with stick HDD):

XMB to start menu 35secs
Clicking X to start SP to ingame = 28secs

 

[bj00rn_]

WRT

What's this "WRT"?

 

[Mikey Jr.]

I heard they had improved the engine?

WRT loading times (on my 250GB slim with stick HDD):

XMB to start menu 35secs
Clicking X to start SP to ingame = 28secs

HDD install (120 GB): 12:35
Cruzer 16 GB USB: 13:21
Patriot 16 GB USB: 13:04

Wow, 16 seconds faster. To the poster before me, 16 seconds is not marginally faster, but a lot faster.

Goonergaz, can you do some fast travel and measure that? Specifically camp in the plains to Thieves Landing.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

What's this "WRT"?

With Regards To.

 

[Slackbladder]

So what about crashes? I've had a few crashes on my 360 game, always on loading (installed game). Is one platform version more stable than the other?
And as for the 360 version it looks pretty good, but the frame rate will drop noticeably depending on area, effects and number of objects. Thieves Landing in a thunder storm hurt the fps a lot. But generally it's good.

 

[Risette]

So what about crashes? I've had a few crashes on my 360 game, always on loading (installed game). Is one platform version more stable than the other?
And as for the 360 version it looks pretty good, but the frame rate will drop noticeably depending on area, effects and number of objects. Thieves Landing in a thunder storm hurt the fps a lot. But generally it's good.

Might be your console. How old is it/what model? No crashes here on a Jasper Elite, bought Feb this year. Installed.

 

[Windom Earle]

I had one freeze while loading a duel so far. RE5 jasper 120gb, installed.

 

[V_Arnold]

One freeze after an early game load here too. Total freeze, no dash either.
But no problems since then, and it was two days ago.

Edit: 20gb, Falcon, installed.

 

[goonergaz]

HDD install (120 GB): 12:35
Cruzer 16 GB USB: 13:21
Patriot 16 GB USB: 13:04

Wow, 16 seconds faster. To the poster before me, 16 seconds is not marginally faster, but a lot faster.

Goonergaz, can you do some fast travel and measure that? Specifically camp in the plains to Thieves Landing.

it's odd though because there was a straight 'head to head' video of the loading and PS3 won...maybe these figures are not accurate, anyone care to check?

I shall try some more speed measurements later (probably tonight) - too much sunshine to switch on the PS3 at the mo (much as I love this game!)

 

[2real4tv]

Why would you buy multiplatform games for the PS3, when they are usually better on the 360?

When they are close it depends on friend and what system you mostly game on. Example I bought RE5 on 360 but purchased BFBC2 on ps3(my perferably system). I will buy RDR on 360 once I get the $.

 

[astroturfing]

They didn't bother to make any technical improvements between GTA4 and Episodes from Liberty City, so what makes you think they'll make technical improvements to this via a download patch?

they did bother, the Episodes run a bit smoother and have some Quincunx AA applied. after playing Gay Tony a lot, i've noticed it does look and run better. not much, but noticeable.

 

[Chrange]

other than the 20min install it'd only take 10mins to doe some loading tests so I don't know why they don't list all 3 times.

The only time you'd get a 20 minute install is if you're installing to a USB stick with slow write speed, and I mean VERY slow write speed. Like getting the 'you shouldn't use this USB stick' warning message slow.

The 'time to game' speed I posted is from hitting A on the title screen until the game screen shows, recording it each time and using Premiere to get the time. I did each load three times and averaged them.

 

[Windom Earle]

12 seconds into the game from the main menu? I just tried, took me 22 with 120gb hdd. I can hardly imagine such differences. 31 from nxe to main menu. (measuring from the moment I'm pressing the button)

 

[Arpharmd B]

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.

Everyone knows the DF pixel counter and frame rate analyzer is an Xbot, so we'd rather turn to a shit stain of a website like Lens of Truth for "unbiased" analysis.

 

[goonergaz]

I think the differences in loading times (e.g. mine being quite a bit slow than LoT) is due to loading a new game or continuing one (i.e. they measured a new game and I measured continuing one).

 

[surly]

Everyone knows the DF pixel counter and frame rate analyzer is an Xbot, so we'd rather turn to a shit stain of a website like Lens of Truth for "unbiased" analysis.

I don't think that Richard Leadbetter is an "Xbot", but either way, I think LoT did a poor job with this analysis, cos it doesn't amount to a great deal more than the impressions posted by people in this thread. At least DF will (or should) post the native res, some analysis of the framerate etc. and now they cover audio as well. Whether you find DF biased or not, they offer up more info than LoT, although sometimes LoT have done a better job than they've done with RDR.

The longest a 360 install has taken for me is just under 11 minutes, and that's installing it to the hard drive. That's when the maximum of 6.8 GB of data is being copied over.

 

[NemesisPrime]

They're actually really good most of the time. Their FFXIII comparison was certainly much better than DF's for example.

NOT!

One more vote for banning Lens.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

I realize it's not likely they'd patch the things I mentioned; all I was asking was if it was possible and if it had happened before. I forgot about Ghostbusters. I agree, R* seems to give two shits about the PS3 versions of their games. Funny how that works.

they did bother, the Episodes run a bit smoother and have some Quincunx AA applied. after playing Gay Tony a lot, i've noticed it does look and run better. not much, but noticeable.

As I thought. I'm sure RDR was, regarding the engine, already making progress prior to making those improvements. Perhaps we'll see something similar with RDR?

 

[jett]

NOT!

One more vote for banning Lens.

:lol What? It was a lot better. Digital Foundry originally used a 30-second long clip from the beginning of the game to judge the framerate between the two versions, a clip which clearly favored the 360 port. LOF used dozens of clips from different areas in the game to compare framerates.

I don't have any issues with Lens of Truth, they actually seem to be unbiased unlike those douchebags at DF.

 

[Massa]

I realize it's not likely they'd patch the things I mentioned; all I was asking was if it was possible and if it had happened before. I forgot about Ghostbusters. I agree, R* seems to give two shits about the PS3 versions of their games. Funny how that works.

Funny how they don't give a shit and still have the best looking open world game on PS3.

 

[G_Berry]

I love how DF comparisons not favoring PS3 make them xbots :lol

I guess if for some miraculous reason the PS3 version of RDR comes out winning in the next comparison they will have been "redeemed?"

You guys are so full of shit :lol

 

[Arpharmd B]

I don't think that Richard Leadbetter is an "Xbot", but either way, I think LoT did a poor job with this analysis, cos it doesn't amount to a great deal more than the impressions posted by people in this thread. At least DF will (or should) post the native res, some analysis of the framerate etc. and now they cover audio as well. Whether you find DF biased or not, they offer up more info than LoT, although sometimes LoT have done a better job than they've done with RDR.

The longest a 360 install has taken for me is just under 11 minutes, and that's installing it to the hard drive. That's when the maximum of 6.8 GB of data is being copied over.

I was making a joke.

Read it again in sarcasm mode.

DF analysis is 200000000% better. Sometimes they chime in on ways that the developers could have improved the game, like for instance on FFXIII they said they could have used such and such technique instead of butchering resolution. Even if they are right, some people saw that as "defending the Xbox".

But even if you don't like what they have to "say", just read the damn facts which are 100% scientific and irrefutable and make up your own mind. DF is the only analysis that actually gives you real facts to work with. They do an amazing job.

 

[lord pie]

Read it again in sarcasm mode.

Unfortunately, I think most people default to reading posts in 'crazed fanboy voice no.5' unless it's someone they know.

 

[Metalmurphy]

I love how DF comparisons not favoring PS3 make them xbots :lol

I guess if for some miraculous reason the PS3 version of RDR comes out winning in the next comparison they will have been "redeemed?"

You guys are so full of shit :lol

Do you also love it how they downplay every single PS3 advantage? Or simply forget to mention certain PS3 exclusive features that are more important then a 5 fps difference, and later simply recommend you to buy the 360 version? Or when they blame the developers for crappy 360 ports but never when it's crappy PS3 ports? Or... ah shit... I could go on for ages.


DFs comparisons are great for their technical information and how detailed they are, lately they have even been going deeper and deeper which is great. But god... only a blind person cannot see their bias.

 

[mujun]

Do you also love it how they downplay every single PS3 advantage? Or simply forget to mention certain PS3 exclusive features that are more important then a 5 fps difference, and later simply recommend you to buy the 360 version? Or when they blame the developers for crappy 360 ports but never when it's crappy PS3 ports? Or... ah shit... I could go on for ages.


DFs comparisons are great for their technical information and how detailed they are, lately they have even been going deeper and deeper which is great. But god... only a blind person cannot see their bias.

I must be blind then. Which means I have to contradict myself because I just read the FFXIII comparison article and didn't see any of the downplaying, etc that you talk about.

Maybe you are just really sensitive to that type of stuff as a PS3 superfan?