• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Red Dead Redemption - 360 & PS3 comparison (Bish-approved!)

miladesn said:
R* social club uses Gamespy, that's why,.matchmaking servers are another story, games can't use anything other than LIVE on 360, this not the case for PSN.
Click to expand...

But not everygame on PS3 uses Gamespy, so if Gamespy is used for the Social Club, then there's no way to tell if its using for anything else on PS3. It probably isn't as it wasn't for GTA4.
 
LiquidMetal14 said:
Hopefully not since it's going to lead on PS3. Sony will likely be helping.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that just sound weird? I mean PS3 has been out how many years and it takes having sony be involved in the development to ease concerns?
 
miladesn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Still, looking at Red Dead and the GTA expansions, I think they do an excellent job considering that.
 
Tom Penny said:
Rockstar fail. That be alot of pixels.
Click to expand...


If it's 640p, that's not too bad, and could be expected due to multiplatform inefficiencies. 540p, around 1/2 the pixels of 720p, would be pretty sad considering their prior PS3 games were higher. I'd consider that a failure. But regardless of resolution, it looks nice. I can only image it would be film like on a PC at 1080p. The landscapes are so breathtaking.
 
Metalmurphy said:
But not everygame on PS3 uses Gamespy, so if Gamespy is used for the Social Club, then there's no way to tell if its using for anything else on PS3. It probably isn't as it wasn't for GTA4.
Click to expand...
actually GTA IV uses Gamespy too, I don't know how well it worked, others can comment on that.
 
MightyHedgehog said:
Indeed.

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.



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.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
bandresen said:
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.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand that some of us have BOTH systems and we have NO ALLEGIANCE. We just want the better version for the money. I'm not sure why discussing the differences between the version requires a response of a circus parade of gifs and inanity.
 
MightyHedgehog said:
Indeed.

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.



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.
Click to expand...

Bravo. This is the Declaration of Independence of Resolution Comparison Threads.
 
Dabanton 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.
Click to expand...

Mid 2010!
There's no excuses, seriously. Especially on the PS3. Zero excuses, really.
They fail.
.
 
zero margin said:
Doesn't that just sound weird? I mean PS3 has been out how many years and it takes having sony be involved in the development to ease concerns?
Click to expand...
Make no mistake, multicore/SPU's are complex but offer a lot of processing help.
 
Dabanton 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.
Click to expand...

This is a little revisionist history. People were up in arms because Remedy lied, they were pimping 720P 4x AA no tearing. What did they ship? Did Rockstar promise 1080P and deliver 640P? Apples and oranges.

R* is just not a very good at tech. They seem to spend their cash on marketing and not programmers. Kind of sad at how much smaller devs can achieve good results and parity in open world games. See Saboteur, Burnout Paradise, Just Cause 2, Red Faction Guerrilla for good examples.
 
miladesn said:
actually GTA IV uses Gamespy too, I don't know how well it worked, others can comment on that.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. Games that used GameSpy, like some crappy airplane game I once played that I dont remember, need you to use a GameSpyID. This wasn't the case with GTAIV. And I never had any problems playing it online either.
 
DeadGzuz said:
This is a little revisionist history. People were up in arms because Remedy lied, they were pimping 720P 4x AA no tearing. What did they ship? Did Rockstar promise 1080P and deliver 640P? Apples and oranges.

R* is just not a very good at tech. They seem to spend their cash on marketing and not programmers. Kind of sad at how much smaller devs can achieve good results and parity in open world games. See Saboteur, Burnout Paradise, Just Cause 2, Red Faction Guerrilla for good examples.
Click to expand...
It's weird but it's like most of the posters here forgot or want to forget about this kind of report:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/12/sources-red-dead-redemption-development-in-trouble/
I'm sure you can find similar report guys.
 
Metalmurphy said:
How could you have made this thread without this fabulous gif

24y20yt.gif


:lol
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is a joke right? (direct feed pic compared to pic taken off TV) ?

I need to look through this thread more thoroughly when I get home, if the PS3 version does indeed have bad framerate and lower resolution then I won't get it (but that GIF is an obvious joke that everyone understands right).
 
shintoki said:
Free Hat vs More pixels. Clash of the Titans
Click to expand...

We don`t know if the 360 has more pixels. The 2 games could be the same resolution.

edit:

I hope they are the same. Would be funny after all of this. :lol
 
DeadGzuz said:
This is a little revisionist history. People were up in arms because Remedy lied, they were pimping 720P 4x AA no tearing. What did they ship? Did Rockstar promise 1080P and deliver 640P? Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Those of us who were (initially) aggravated over the resolution discrepancy, took issue over the blatantly false statements from Remedy. If they had offered an explanation for the changes made, and why compromises were needed, I'm fairly certain it would have been a non-issue. The game looks fantastic, especially when the lighting effects are on display.
 
So let me get this straight, if I want to ride a horse, I have to press the triangle button?
Screw this, I'll wait for Natal.
 
DeadGzuz said:
R* is just not a very good at tech. They seem to spend their cash on marketing and not programmers. Kind of sad at how much smaller devs can achieve good results and parity in open world games. See Saboteur, Burnout Paradise, Just Cause 2, Red Faction Guerrilla for good examples.
Click to expand...

R* games tend to have significantly more systems going in their games though. All the AI running takes a toll, much more than people tend to think. I think to call them "not very good at tech" is a bit unfair. They're shipping a multiplatform open world game that looks and runs great on both platforms. That alone is a feat. It's also got more AI systems running than any other console open world game i can think of.

Game development is a war against entropy, as John Carmack once put it, and it seems to me that open world games just exacerbate that problem 10 fold.
 
i know this might be the 1000nd time somebody asked this but i dont wanna look 100 pages for an answer so a real quick question.

i wanna buy the ps3 version cuz i have most of my friends on the ps3, from what u guys know, its not a big problem right cuz i saw the ign review and they gave it a good score on the ps3.
i dont usually notice small things in games.
what should i do buy the ps3 version or go with the 360 version and make friends on live.
 
Omiee said:
i know this might be the 1000nd time somebody asked this but i dont wanna look 100 pages for an answer so a real quick question.

i wanna buy the ps3 version cuz i have most of my friends on the ps3, from what u guys know, its not a big problem right cuz i saw the ign review and they gave it a good score on the ps3.
i dont usually notice small things in games.
what should i do buy the ps3 version or go with the 360 version and make friends on live.
Click to expand...

Get the PS3 version if that's where your friends are. Don't be swayed by some of the craziness that goes on in these threads if your not that sensitive to minor graphical issues.
 
Omiee said:
i know this might be the 1000nd time somebody asked this but i dont wanna look 100 pages for an answer so a real quick question.

i wanna buy the ps3 version cuz i have most of my friends on the ps3, from what u guys know, its not a big problem right cuz i saw the ign review and they gave it a good score on the ps3.
i dont usually notice small things in games.
what should i do buy the ps3 version or go with the 360 version and make friends on live.
Click to expand...

Get the PS3 version. It will be fine. Dont worry about it.
 
I NEED SCISSORS said:
Contradictio in terminis
Click to expand...

So Super Mario Galaxy doesn't have great graphics? Number of Pixels doesn't automatically equal the quality of the images. I think SMG and even Alan Wake prove that.
 
thanks for the advice, ill go for the ps3 version than, btw is it realy confirmed that there is ingame xmb soundtrack support and something with avatars..?
 
DeadGzuz said:
This is a little revisionist history. People were up in arms because Remedy lied, they were pimping 720P 4x AA no tearing. What did they ship? Did Rockstar promise 1080P and deliver 640P? Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

You are right, but how much bearing does that actually have on your experience when you are playing the game?
 
DeadGzuz said:
This is a little revisionist history. People were up in arms because Remedy lied, they were pimping 720P 4x AA no tearing. What did they ship? Did Rockstar promise 1080P and deliver 640P? Apples and oranges.

R* is just not a very good at tech. They seem to spend their cash on marketing and not programmers. Kind of sad at how much smaller devs can achieve good results and parity in open world games. See Saboteur, Burnout Paradise, Just Cause 2, Red Faction Guerrilla for good examples.
Click to expand...

You used the "lie argument", really ? What is this, Forza 3/GT5 comparison thread ?
Technically, they didn't lie, because they never said "native 720p" IIRC. And Alan Wake is not available on PS3 with native 720p...

RSTEIN said:
It's deadgzuz.
Click to expand...

Yeah in fact I should have answer that.
 
A number of people have PM'd me, asking me to post my impressions having played both for a number of hours each.

Honestly, all the information from official sources of coverage by now will render most of my comments from the last few days useless, but in general, despite being a ridiculous PS3 fanboy, I'm deciding on the 360 version, purely for two reasons: the undebatably improved framerate (which I'm particularly anal about) and the undebatably faster loading times (literally half the length of loads on the PS3 version, and often far shorter than even that -- referring to both the startup first load, and the loads/saves before/after each mission).

One addendum -- I have it installed to the 360 HD, which may have a lot to do with the improved frames/loads, etc.

Both versions are super awesome, and as most have said, if you're not sensitive to either qualm, the main considerations should be your system's reliability (RROD), controller preference (people really seem to hate L2/R2 aiming on the PS3, which I thought was just fine), and if you're into multiplayer, your friends list and the cost of Live. I don't have experience with the apparently horrendous Gamespy to comment on how that would hinder the PS3 MP experience.

Love you all long time.
 
Magnus said:
A number of people have PM'd me, asking me to post my impressions having played both for a number of hours each.

Honestly, all the information from official sources of coverage by now will render most of my comments from the last few days useless, but in general, despite being a ridiculous PS3 fanboy, I'm deciding on the 360 version, purely for two reasons: the undebatably improved framerate (which I'm particularly anal about) and the undebatably faster loading times (literally half the length of loads on the PS3 version, and often far shorter than even that -- referring to both the startup first load, and the loads/saves before/after each mission).

One addendum -- I have it installed to the 360 HD, which may have a lot to do with the improved frames/loads, etc.

Both versions are super awesome, and as most have said, if you're not sensitive to either qualm, the main considerations should be your system's reliability (RROD), controller preference (people really seem to hate L2/R2 aiming on the PS3, which I thought was just fine), and if you're into multiplayer, your friends list and the cost of Live. I don't have experience with the apparently horrendous Gamespy to comment on how that would hinder the PS3 MP experience.

Love you all long time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting.

Is the frame rate better or worse than GTA 4 for PS3 ?

Also can you swap L2/R2 for L1/R1 for aim/shoot ?
 
watership said:
So Super Mario Galaxy doesn't have great graphics? Number of Pixels doesn't automatically equal the quality of the images. I think SMG and even Alan Wake prove that.
Click to expand...

Super Mario Galaxy has great art direction, but I don't think you can say it has great graphics by todays standards with the only reason being resolution. It has _great_ art direction, but the low resolution really kills it for me. I expect more these days. That doesn't mean it's not a great game, but I personally expect HD resolution these days.

Playing some Wii games on PC Emu is great, but you still see the limitations of the Wii hardware compared to Xbox360/PS3. Some games poly counts + all the good stuff like complex shaders and HBAO don't matter, Galaxy and Wind Waker are two examples. But the resolution still hurts those games.

I hate watching SD TV. If the show is on that I want to watch in HD, I go for HD any day.

And let people be people, if some don't care if they play in SD resolution then no one can say that they aren't allowed to enjoy it. And no one can tell me that I am wrong for wanting HD resolution and all the bells and whistles that the PS3 and Xbox360 is capable of.

The more powerful tools, the more freedom you have to create your vision if you are a game designer. I've told myself not to get into threads like these :P. I know what I like, I don't care what you guys like! As long as the type of gaming I enjoy is prospering then I am happy. There's a good range out there right now to suit all types of gamers, from Wii Fitness to Uncharted and Gears of War.
 
TheThunder said:
Is the frame rate better or worse than GTA 4 for PS3 ?

Also can you swap L2/R2 for L1/R1 for aim/shoot ?
Click to expand...

No idea, played it on the 360 since the PS3's contrast and lighting was so jacked for me on that game for some reason. And no, this should be in the title of the thread; you're stuck with L2/R2, but it feels fine. :D You needn't push R2 all the way in to shoot. Light taps work.
 
Pucc said:
Mid 2010!
There's no excuses, seriously. Especially on the PS3. Zero excuses, really.
They fail.
.
Click to expand...

Seriously, do you have some industry/project experience to back up your claims? If the answer is none, then you have zero excuses for your random, off-base claims. Really.

or are you just another gamestop consumer lemming asking for "the graphics on level 3 to be tightened".
 
Magnus said:
A number of people have PM'd me, asking me to post my impressions having played both for a number of hours each.

Honestly, all the information from official sources of coverage by now will render most of my comments from the last few days useless, but in general, despite being a ridiculous PS3 fanboy, I'm deciding on the 360 version, purely for two reasons: the undebatably improved framerate (which I'm particularly anal about) and the undebatably faster loading times (literally half the length of loads on the PS3 version, and often far shorter than even that -- referring to both the startup first load, and the loads/saves before/after each mission).
Click to expand...

This is a big deal for me.. So the difference in framerate between the 360/PS3 is really noticeable? That does kill it for me :(. Anything under 30fps really kills gameplay for me in games like this. That's one of the reasons I didn't enjoy GTAIV.

What a shame...
 
Death Dealer said:
better
Click to expand...
Even the videos looked this way. GTA4 was more than bearable, gun fights and lots of explosions slowed it down but it never became unplayable. Gay Tony on PS3 was a nice refiniement of said engine. RDR is even better looking with better performance, can't ask for more except 360's 720 2xMSAA. Otherwise I don't feel cheated (still sucks to have compromised version).
 
Thunderbear said:
This is a big deal for me.. So the difference in framerate between the 360/PS3 is really noticeable? That does kill it for me :(. Anything under 30fps really kills gameplay for me in games like this. That's one of the reasons I didn't enjoy GTAIV.

What a shame...
Click to expand...

The 360 version goes below 30 during hectic moments too. But anyone with eyes will notice a difference between the two, just swinging the camera around in a quiet settlement early in the game, nevermind while actually on missions.

But seriously -- they're both so playable and fine. This thread isn't even necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LTTP: Red Dead Redemption 2
2
76
2K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
[IGN] Red Dead Redemption 2 Comparison Videos Are Lying to You
Opinion Analysis 
27
1K
Karim replied
Red Dead Redemption 2 is Getting a Pokémon Mod
Trailer Indie 
10
343
Dirk Benedict replied
  • Locked
Red Dead Redemption 2 Enhanced Edition
News Rumor  2 3
111
2K
Mr Hyde replied
Red Dead Redemption coming to iOS and Android November 4th
News 
12
2K
SSfox replied
Top Bottom