-
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!)
- Thread starter Mik2121
- Start date
Klocker said:
yeah, 360 had more texture pop in though...
http://kotaku.com/384422/which-version-of-gta-iv-should-you-buy-we-compare-the-ps3-and-360-versions
Dead Prince
Banned
it only happens if you actually play online with others.Loudninja said:
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
LabouredSubterfuge said:
Sub-HD is not acceptable. Lamenting of programmers shall continue.
entremet
Member
Jesus, really? This isn't a Bayonetta situation now. If you only have a PS3 or prefer buying your multi platform titles on the PS3, does it really matter? Both consoles have over half a decade old hardware. If this really means much to you, wait it out and get the PC version. Although the GTA4 port was horrible, unless they patched it.
LordPhoque
Banned
Esteban said:
Not when installed. It wasn't possible to do it back in the days though.
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
-COOLIO- said:
Contradictio in terminis
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
While I agree that lowering res may allow for better visuals, games like GoW3 not only run at 720 but have vsync, run at 30 fps or higher, amazing lighting, and the most have the most advanced AA ever produced on consoles (MLAA). Games can run at higher res and run great too.
The more detail part is slighty contradicted by the lower native ressdornan said:
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
sdornan said:
You would need to significantly crank up texture detail, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering to achieve a similar level of detail that a higher resolution will naturally achieve. By that point, it's not even worth it.
Metalmurphy
Member
You are in the comparison thread >.<MMaRsu said:
Any direct feed PS3 screenshots yet?
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
It's taxing in it's own way. Physics/animation, large scale, and tons of PP. And MLAA. It's not open world but doesn't take shortcuts due to lesser play field.MMaRsu said:
LordPhoque
Banned
MMaRsu said:
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Hopefully not since it's going to lead on PS3. Sony will likely be helping.Kagari said:
Death Dealer
Member
StuBurns said:
I've been playing it for the last 2 days. It's not even close to a bad port. It looks better than GTA4. No blur filter and the performance is good. After seeing the difference compared to the direct X360 screen capture, I knew the PS3 version had to be sub-hd. I pretty much expected it based on past history. But the off screen picture in that gif makes it look worse than it actually looks, however there is undoubtedly more aliasing in the PS3 version. It's only noticeable to me on buildings. Out in the wilderness, the image quality is fine.
I think it's got some form of adapative AA going on. I was playing last night and against a pink sunset, I couldn't see any jagginess to this building's roof. Also in the sunlight, when you zoom in with L2, and slowly rotate in a 360 circle, you can see the textures on Marston flicking back and forth between two modes.
I think the engine isn't a good fit for PS3, it was designed for 360 from the beginning, see table tennis, it was developed for 360 naturally because they had the hardware first.Karma said:
yep, is it really bad on PS3?
on PC I know for a fact that it never worked properly, Dawn of War and C&C Generals multi were pretty much never worked properly for me.
Metalmurphy
Member
Draft said:
There's a Gamespy logo on the cover of both versions.
I wish that factual comparisons between versions were in the first page of the official thread instead of having to wade through fanboy crap and spin. I'm not a fanboy. I own a PS3 and 360. I'd like to know which version of a game is better, shouldn't be that tough even though developers tend to lie about these things.
ReBurn said:
Most people wouldn't know. The Alan Wake thread is a recent example of this nonsense. A gameplay video gets released everyone agrees that the game looks really nicea few pages later the pixel counters drop in and start the Sub HD talk, thread gets trashed as people who previously said the game looked nice were now saying it looks like shit.
Other people saying that resolution is the most important thing when they are playing a game and if it's not at some godly resolution they can't get their dick hard.
Pixel counting started as a nice little sideline in understanding this gen but it's been used for nothing but evil since, nothing wrong with resolution talk but more often than not it's just another front in the endlessly tedious game wars.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Indeed.Chrange said:
Alan Wake is clearly pushing an insane level of draw distance, as well, and a lot more dynamic lighting and shadow action while upping the post-processing, 3D fog and particle use to the max...perhaps the most dense and dynamic of any console game on any platform. Per scene, per frame, AW seems to be pushing shit to the limit, it seems. RDR obviously has to account for a not-so 100% determined and near-random access of data to spool in since it doesn't have quite as many limits on where to go as AW, but, again, it seems quite a bit lighter with on-screen pixel action. Apples and oranges, still...different considerations for memory and CPU/GPU based on the differences in the games' designs. Just goes to show that harder decisions need to be made on consoles, as is traditional to fixed platforms for the last thirty-odd years...compromises in certain areas that result in a better trade for other things regarding image-quality and performance.
I don't think it's the magical zero-sum game you guys constantly make it out to be just precisely because there's so much value in the human impression based on naked-eye viewing and playing of a game in front of you...in motion...there's a way to balance the numbers to come up with end results that are nearly indistinguishable to numerically-superior visuals and performance for the vast majority...the same majority who makes up the buying audience for these games. 99% of paying customers, of all normal consumers simply won't notice the difference unless told...and then, they have to revise and reconsider their previously-ignorant impressions based on information that is supposed to enhance or ruin their feelings about something on a gut-level. It's practically an intellectually dishonest move if visuals are only there to serve an impression, not work out on a balance sheet of cold numbers that ignore the fact that technology is an enabler of these visuals and their impressions and not the focus.Cobra84 said:
LiquidMetal14 said:
GoW III doesn't have the same considerations for resources that RDR or AW or many other games have. You guys can't just assume everything is a 1:1 comparison because not all software uses the hardware equally. GoW III is linear as hell compared to RDR and doesn't have nearly the same level of spatial scope and density of stuff going on as AW. Every decently-ambitious title, at some level, is a custom-fit shoe for the same foot, yet designed for distinctly different activities and goals. GoW III is an exclusive with no need to consider any other set of resources other than those offered by the PS3 and the same holds true for AW for X360. If there's going to be a concerted effort to achieve some level of reasonable performance and visual parity, RDR has to strike a balance, just like any other multiplatform game.
memes that are just plain ridiculous and if you use them: maybe think about them
"don't talk about the differences, because some people only have one console and they can't do anything about it anyway"
well shitty for them, other people have two consoles *shock*
bonus meme: "just get the PC version"
"nobody would see jaggies or performance issues if people on the internet hadn't said so, this is what's ruining gaming"
How the people that write this information on the internet ever get to the point of seeing jaggies is unexplained. I guess that's a mystery. It's the first-mover argument. There must be a creator.
"why do you keep asking about the differences, why not enjoy life to the fullest?"
I can see using these stupid memes in the other thread, because it was shared with normal gameplay impressions and it was not a great place to be if you were only interested in those.
But following the people that care about these differences to this thread? That's just sad.
I personally don't care if the comparison is motivated by truth, consumer reporting, fanboyism or whatever other reason. As long as the info is good, I can make my mind up.
Edit: So this post is not wasted on the new page:
"don't talk about the differences, because some people only have one console and they can't do anything about it anyway"
well shitty for them, other people have two consoles *shock*
bonus meme: "just get the PC version"
"nobody would see jaggies or performance issues if people on the internet hadn't said so, this is what's ruining gaming"
How the people that write this information on the internet ever get to the point of seeing jaggies is unexplained. I guess that's a mystery. It's the first-mover argument. There must be a creator.
"why do you keep asking about the differences, why not enjoy life to the fullest?"
I can see using these stupid memes in the other thread, because it was shared with normal gameplay impressions and it was not a great place to be if you were only interested in those.
But following the people that care about these differences to this thread? That's just sad.
I personally don't care if the comparison is motivated by truth, consumer reporting, fanboyism or whatever other reason. As long as the info is good, I can make my mind up.
Edit: So this post is not wasted on the new page:
miladesn said:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky