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

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

Is this what these forums have resorted to?

Comparing Screengrabs with Framebuffer Screenshots?

C'mon guys, it's becoming embarrassing.
 
I believe the ps3 version of this game will look fairly terrible. I thought GTAIV on ps3 looked like total garbage and I had a hard time playing it.
 
Goldrusher said:
Wake me up when you guys have actual screenshots of both versions, taken the same time of day, same location.
Click to expand...

This is gaf cant be having you talk sense on here man, compairing a direct framebuffer grab to some random german site captures and from different parts of the game completely.:lol We have all seen what dodgy screen captures can do to games, ill wait for real grabs from the same source in the same place. I dont care anyway as i went ps3 as no one on my xbox friends lists buys games anymore.
 
HalcyonTB12 said:
I believe the ps3 version of this game will look fairly terrible. I thought GTAIV on ps3 looked like total garbage and I had a hard time playing it.
Click to expand...

Check out the PS3 version of Grand Theft Auto: Episodes From Liberty City ... Huge difference & R* made some great improvements, both technically & gameplay-wise :D
 
Shit, I didn't expect there to be such a big difference.

That fucking sucks. Sucks that people have to buy an inferior version at all, they should be almost identical. Also sucks that it happens and we get so much discussion about it on the boards, leads to all sorts of silly talk.
 
mujun said:
Shit, I didn't expect there to be such a big difference.

That fucking sucks. Sucks that people have to buy an inferior version at all, they should be almost identical. Also sucks that it happens and we get so much discussion about it on the boards, leads to all sorts of silly talk.
Click to expand...

Carm down.. They are rubbish screencaps

You'll need to wait for Digital Foundry to get their hands on the game.. They'll provide you with HD direct-feed footage with their high-tech equipment
 
CozMick said:
Those PS3 shots look downright dogshit and I do not believe for one second that the difference between platforms is that huge!
Click to expand...

From a programming perspective the difference is huge. Xbox 360's GPU by itself can process more pixels with AA enabled (due to the edram) and has access to more ram than the PS3 (due to the 360 having shared 512 vs 256 system/256 gpu split on the ps3). To get the same (or better quality) in terms of AA and motion blur on the PS3, the processing for those needs to be offloaded on the Cell processors. However, its a lot harder to program those things into the Cell than just having APIs pretty much take care of it on the 360.
 
WrikaWrek said:
No sun.
Click to expand...
Yeah you are right, apparently there is object shadowing all around, like in this shot.
miladesn said:
red_dead_redemption_rec5el.jpg
Click to expand...

Those screen captures are just poor all around. No point in going further with those.
 
enkeixpress said:
Nope, Both work fine for HDTVs too.
Click to expand...

Yeah I use full range on my HDTV. Even though it does increase black levels (so to speak) it does not improve the blur factor problem or increase fidelity.

It was the same with GTA IV.

 
infinityBCRT said:
From a programming perspective the difference is huge. Xbox 360's GPU by itself can process more pixels with AA enabled (due to the edram) and has access to more ram than the PS3 (due to the 360 having shared 512 vs 256 system/256 gpu split on the ps3). To get the same (or better quality) in terms of AA and motion blur on the PS3, the processing for those needs to be offloaded on the Cell processors. However, its a lot harder to program those things into the Cell than just having APIs pretty much take care of it on the 360.
Click to expand...

So it's possible and you're agreeing that Rockstar are fucking lazy?

only going from the "screengrabs"
 
enkeixpress said:
Nope, Both work fine for HDTVs too.
Click to expand...
It's not because you see a difference switching back and forth, that your tv supports it. On the contrary in fact.
Fact is that 99% of all TVs are designed to accept RBG values between 16 and 235. Not 0 and 255.

And again, Super White is only for movies. It only works when outputting in YCbCr, and games are always in RGB.
 
WickedLaharl said:
wow the difference is huge.

*looks at pics above*

yeah okay. :lol
Click to expand...

If you really think that the source of that PS3 image came directly from the PS3 frame buffer, like the 360 shot, then you really have no idea what you're talking about.
 
CozMick said:
So it's possible and you're agreeing that Rockstar are fucking lazy?

only going from the "screengrabs"
Click to expand...
I'd say it costs money to implement that and this project is already WAAAAAAAAAAY over budget. IMO its really more on Sony to impart that technology to their third-party developers and/or include it into the SDK.
 
CozMick said:
So it's possible and you're agreeing that Rockstar are fucking lazy?

only going from the "screengrabs"
Click to expand...

They aren't lazy.. :lol

Motion Blur & AA are present in the PS3 version.. & yes, they are being processed using the SPUs in the CELL
 
CozMick said:
So it's possible and you're agreeing that Rockstar are fucking lazy?

only going from the "screengrabs"
Click to expand...


I don't understand this.

Xbox 360 version worse = Ps3 obvious superior hardware.

Xbox 360 better = Devs are lazy. Even in such an ambitious and epic scale production as RDR, which has the best open world graphics ever.
 
WrikaWrek said:
I don't understand this.

Xbox 360 version worse = Ps3 obvious superior hardware.

Xbox 360 better = Devs are lazy. Even in such an ambitious and epic scale production as RDR, which has the best open world graphics ever.
Click to expand...

This... is... NeoGAF
 
SolidSnakex said:
This was posted on B3D, it's apparently a cap of the PS3 version (and it's same location as the 360 shot that's often posted)

53uzr4.png
Click to expand...
there ya go, thats a much better capture source (brightness/contrast is much better).
 
Of course it's good. PS3 version is fine and near identical to the 360 version... (see german video above)

Bad capture is bad.
 
SolidSnakex said:
This was posted on B3D, it's apparently a cap of the PS3 version (and it's same location as the 360 shot that's often posted)

http://i40.tinypic.com/53uzr4.png
Click to expand...

Finally a screen capture taken from the same location.

I think people are jumping the gun until we see more screens like this. It's clear the 360 version looks better, but the difference is way overblown in the previous shots.
 
godhandiscen said:
Objects like those chests and water cotainers have shadows in the 360 version. I just went to a location with a similar objects and I noticed the difference.


edit: Yep, just made it there, same location in fact. That screenshot is from the train station in Armadillo. I see shadows under the chests and any other object that might cast a shadow. It looks completely different. I am going to wait there and see what's up.
Click to expand...

why don't you provide that screen shot?
 
C-Jo said:
Thank god.

I should've just gone with my first instinct and stayed the hell out of this thread.
Click to expand...

Same, I actually check back at my posts and think.....fuck me! I sound like a troll/fanboy, and its only because I expect to pay for the same quality game as the other platform.
 
Thrakier said:
Yeah, lol, right. Why not just turn off the TV completly and be happy about those amazing blacks? Man...
Click to expand...

:lol

That guy is really comedy gold. Surprised he hasn't been banned by now with his schtick and playing dummy Rockstar agent.

godhandiscen said:
Not true.

I have been playing the game for 3 hours. I have completed a couple races and been in what I would consider some pretty stressful scenarios, and I have yet to see any tearing. In fact, I bet the game is V-synced since I have actually noticed minor framedrops, which were completely understandable given the amount of action on screen.
Click to expand...

It most certainly isn't true and the guy is most certainly spreading fud. Played for most of the night, notta. But then again everyone who has played to this time has said the same.
 
Goldrusher said:
It's not because you see a difference switching back and forth, that your tv supports it. On the contrary in fact.
Fact is that 99% of all TVs are designed to accept RBG values between 16 and 235. Not 0 and 255.

And again, Super White is only for movies. It only works when outputting in YCbCr, and games are always in RGB.
Click to expand...

People see darker black and think the image is better, while in fact all the fine detail gets lost.

Full rgb is not really meant for HDTVs.

Though I've seen a lot of peolpe preferring that kind of setting.

It's weird, and it makes you question their ability to effectively see differencies between different versions of the same game.
 
Yoboman said:
Looks good to me
Click to expand...
i will say that the 360 does look higher res but that screen is closer to what the game looks like. The screens in the the last page are a little off. This looks so much better on your TV. It's deceiving but while it's likely 640p, it looks sharper and doesn't lack the texture detail either. It's just too bad some people run with crap screen grabs here and call it a day. The PS3 port is as good a port as I've seen, minus the lower res. Like Dark said regarding GTA4, the look may be more appealing to some but in RDR's case, it's even got more going for it. It looks as clean as BoGT PS3 with more effects and smoother frame rate. Let's just not jump the ship and cast the PS3 off based on initial crap screen grabs. We know the 360 looks a little better, just don't dismiss the PS3 version as a marginally inferior port based on unfair comparison shots.
 
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...

Elocuent/well written posts don't belong in here GTFO!

Excellent post. :p
 
Gacha-pin said:
why don't you provide that screen shot?
Click to expand...
I don't have any way to capture the screenshot, and as Wrika said it is because of the sun. The games look near identical. End of story.
 
anddo0 said:
Finally a screen capture taken from the same location.

I think people are jumping the gun until we see more screens like this. It's clear the 360 version looks better, but the difference is way overblown in the previous shots.
Click to expand...

Honestly I'd be surprised if the PS3 version looked that sharp. The other pics posted where it looks a tad blurry and is missing a little detail looks more like what GTA IV looked like on PS3 and I imagine it's no different for RDR.

If I'm wrong I'm wrong but just be careful some asshole isn't posting 360 pics claiming they are PS3 pics before we all get too exited.
 
G_Berry - There is a subtle enough difference in the screen shots to know they are from different machines - look at the signs up close
 
G_Berry said:
Honestly I'd be surprised if the PS3 version looked that sharp. The other pics posted where it looks a tad blurry and is missing a little detail looks more like what GTA IV looked like on PS3 and I imagine it's no different for RDR.

If I'm wrong I'm wrong but just be careful some asshole isn't posting 360 pics claiming they are PS3 pics before we all get too exited.
Click to expand...
It looks like that if not better (in motion). Hard to believe isn't?
 
I cannot believe the sheer inanity of the debate about this game, especially that which is centred on those two screens posted at the same location.

Has anyone stopped to think that the game has weather effects? I mean, Ive only been slightly aware of this factoid for a few hours and apparently some people who have been following the game hype train for months still havent cottoned onto it!

The 360 shot has clouds and weather around. Which if the lighting engine is good should have some extra light scatter and thus a brighter image. The PS3 version has a clear sky which you would expect to be blacker and sharper as far as the skymap goes.

Until someone can post a screen that is damn near identical on both systems at the same time of day and with the same weather effects (since thats the main difference between the two) any comparison of that screen to the extent that has been undertaken so far is null and void.

Then again, I shouldnt be surprised that in the shallow depths of the internet, somewhere, this is the most important issue in the world right now. I'm glad this has its own separate thread from the main one about the game.
 
Why do people keep using that one single 360 shot? Is there nobody with access to that version of the game?
 
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
342
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