Face-Off: Red Dead Redemption

By Richard Leadbetter Published 25 May, 2010

And the West.

Page 1 of 2
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 6.7GB 7.67GB
Install 6.7GB (optional) 515MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 5.1LPCM

The arrival of Red Dead Redemption sees Rockstar return to the realms of the big-budget gaming blockbuster, and how - it's top of the charts and a critical darling. Just like the legendary Grand Theft Auto IV, it's an immense, fully-realised open world backed up by masses of content and an accomplished script.

Regular readers of Digital Foundry will know that the original GTA IV showed clear performance advantages in its Xbox 360 guise. But does the same hold true for what some consider its spiritual sequel?

The technology behind the game is Rockstar's proprietary RAGE engine, which has been utilised for a great many of the company's releases, including GTA IV. The recent Episodes from Liberty City were built upon the same framework, and while hardly conclusive, according to our comparison back in Face-Off Round 25 it seemed to be the case that the performance advantage enjoyed by Xbox 360 was not so pronounced.

So how does Red Dead Redemption fare? There's a comparison gallery with over 50 shots to check out, along with the requisite Face-Off video:

Red Dead Redemption on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Use the full-screen button for full HD, or hit the link for a larger window.

Let's talk image quality. It will come as no surprise to anyone to discover that the basic make-up of the framebuffer in both PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Red Dead Redemption is essentially identical to what we've seen in GTA IV and its episodic offshoots.

This entails a full 720p resolution on Xbox 360 along with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. PlayStation 3 on the other hand renders at a significantly lower resolution: 1152x640, with a very selective implementation of the blur-inducing quincunx anti-aliasing.

Quincunx anti-aliasing and sub-HD resolutions are rarely attractive bedfellows, but in direct comparison with Xbox 360, it transpired that GTA IV had something of an individual look about it. Blurred? Yes. Unattractive? Not really; certainly not in comparison to the 360 build. This was in part owing to a strange dithering effect applied to the textures on Xbox 360 only, which stippled some artwork and applied an odd watercolour-effect to the screen.

In Red Dead Redemption, this effect is gone or at least massively reduced, meaning that the gulf in picture quality between the two versions is more readily pronounced. There's no doubt about it: just in terms of the basic aspects of the image, there's little doubt that the 360 version presents more resolution and more detail, and this is rather more important than it would be in many other games.

Hopefully these two comparison images will help explain why. In the first image we're indoors, and while the "jaggies" are a bit more pronounced on PS3, the resolution differential doesn't really make an enormous difference in-game.

However, in the second set of shots we can see that Red Dead Redemption likes to present us with vast areas of landscape and an impressively long draw distance. Essentially, the further away detail is, the more you "lose" on PS3 as there isn't as much resolution to support it.

'Face-Off: Red Dead Redemption' Screenshot res360-1
'Face-Off: Red Dead Redemption' Screenshot resps3-1
'Face-Off: Red Dead Redemption' Screenshot res360-2
'Face-Off: Red Dead Redemption' Screenshot resps3-2

The impact of PlayStation 3 running in sub-HD seems to vary depending on whether you're in an internal scene or out in the wild. When you're dealing with massive, open worlds, the more pixels you have to render the distant bits, the better.

Performance is interesting. In GTA IV we saw a considerable advantage to Xbox 360. Although frame-rates hovered around and below 30 frames per second, we could also see the occasional spike beyond 40FPS, suggesting Rockstar ran the game with an unlocked frame-rate. PS3 was capped at 30FPS. While both games were prone to dropping frames badly, PS3 suffered more - something that appeared to have been addressed a tad in the episodic semi-sequels.

In addressing the performance of Red Dead Redemption we went for two separate tests. The first was a complete analysis of the initial intro. In these scenes we should in theory be seeing both PS3 and 360 titles in exact like-for-like conditions, with the same lighting (as time-of-day should be locked).

Frame-rate analysis of the intro section of Red Dead Redemption - a chance to see how identical scenes stress the RAGE engine on each platform. Note that any screen-tear indicators are for 360 only. Similar to GTA IV, the PS3 game is v-synced.

By and large we see that both games are capped at 30 frames per second, but it's the PlayStation 3 version that is more prone to dropping below this. However, it is interesting to note that there are some key scenes, usually involving higher-LOD characters on-screen simultaneously, that can see the 360 dropping more harshly, accompanied by some screen-tear.

Similar to GTA IV, screen-tear is only found on 360 and is virtually unnoticeable, always at the top of the screen. It suggests that the RAGE engine still commands an overall performance advantage on 360 in addition to a higher resolution.

The second performance test brings us into actual gameplay. Not like-for-like, but derived from the same parts of the same missions.

The second performance test sees us comparing performance across a range of actual in-game sections.

It would appear that the horse-riding sections that punctuate missions are equally smooth on both systems, but in terms of general gameplay during the all-important missions, where we have a range of characters in play, we see that the Xbox 360 sticks pretty well to the 30FPS target frame-rate, while the PS3 can fall short.

Despite already compromising in terms of resolution and frame-rate, it's clear Rockstar had to cut and pare back the PS3 version of the game still further in order to maintain performance. We can see a fairly obvious array of smaller changes between the two versions that almost always favour the 360 rendition of the game.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (221) Latest comment 8 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • jaluuk #1 2 years ago

    #xbox360win

    Seriously though, having bought a PS3 at the start of last year to complement my 360 I'm honestly underwhelmed with PS3 gaming. Comparing games side by side did no favours to the PS3 and while Heavy Rain was good it can't carry a console on its own...

    New edit: To be fair actually Uncharted 2 was pretty special. Played that before 1 though and now don't really want to play 1...
    Edited by 2 at 25/05/10 @ 15:31

  • dudefella #2 2 years ago

    oh shit, someone call the SDF, we need to spin this, pronto! Clearly MS paid Rockstar to make the PS3 version looks worse! CURSE YOU STEVE BALLMER!

  • Mkwone #3 2 years ago

    If the PS3 version is the 'ugly' sister i can't wait to see Cinderella.

  • iamian #4 2 years ago

    @jaluuk

    Same situation (- though my opinion of Heavy Rain might be higher than yours!)
    I thought before reading it would be the other way round - oh well, will stick to Xbox for this one.

  • Arwin #5 2 years ago

    jaluuk: surely Heavy Rain isn't the PS3s only exclusive, or even its most graphically inspiring?? I've had both pretty much since the beginning, but my experience is the exact opposite. Though I'm sure that's for a large part because most of the games I like to play are in fact exclusive to the PS3.

    I never believed that Red Dead would favor the PS3. There's simply been no reason whatsoever to believe it would - the Rage engine is simply not a 'modern' engine as it has been too long in the making (five years), a multi-platform engine, and one that features a tonne of Content that is very expensive to manage properly.

    It doesn't matter much though, as said, the games are similar enough, the experience is in-tact. I can choose between platforms, but I choose neither version - this type of game just isn't for me.
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 15:04

  • digoutyoursoul #6 2 years ago

    cue the old "microsoft paid" etc posts from the babies.

    @jaluuk you should give uncharted 1 & 2 a try, both great games but I understand what you mean, the whole online experience from the layout of the psn profiles to the lack of community feel is what puts me off getting more ps3 games

  • lcmnick #7 2 years ago

    Richard must thank the fanboys who keep him in a job.

  • StooMonster #8 2 years ago

    What's the output resolution of the FPS test? Are the Xbox 360 / PS3 set to 720p or 1080p?

    Does FPS decrease if I have my games set to 1080p rather than 720p, I know it's scaling output rather than rendering extra resolution -- I tend to leave at 1080p because I can't be arsed changing resolution for content.

  • stephenb #9 2 years ago

    I have the PS3 version, it plays fine, that's all I need to know. It's clearly not as good as the 360 version which is quite apparent from this article.

    If you enjoy the game what does it matter what it's like on other formats?

  • menage #10 2 years ago

    Here we go again.

    I own both systems, still got it or the ps3, for some stupid reason the joypad wins out all the the with games like these. Still looks great imo.

  • Psiloc #11 2 years ago

    I've got the PS3 version and I could have told you it was sub HD with my naked eyes. Can't argue with this article in any way, shape or form.

    EDIT: That being said it hasn't impacted the game for me at all.
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 15:17

  • digoutyoursoul #12 2 years ago

    @menage how is it stupid? you prefer the ps3 controller and so its natural to go for a more comfortable experience isnt it? nothing wrong with that at all.

  • LHH #13 2 years ago

    Currently 1 zillion comments on this article

  • MiniAmin #14 2 years ago

    EuroLAMER YOU SUCK with your 360 BIAS, I wonder how much M$$$ pade you this time?! Nobody cares about Alan Fake so you give dat a 7 but with a BIG ROCKATSTAR game ppl care about you tell them to buy the XBOTS version

    /sarcasm

  • MaoZedong #15 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:40:08 17-12-2011

  • Drpwnage #16 2 years ago

    PS3LOL MUST BE PAST IT'S CELL-BY-DATE! LOL

  • DoctorFouad #17 2 years ago

    Interesting ! I love those face offs ! I think for the first time in the history of video games, gamers are interested in the technical details of video games...which is great !

  • LHH #18 2 years ago

    @DoctorFouad

    Best thing about the faceoffs are the comments wars ;)

  • Miths #19 2 years ago

    So pretty shoddy work on the PS3 version by Rockstar? Like Square Enix on the 360 version of FFXIII?

    Sorry, but somebody had to say it :).

    Anyway, I'm 15 hours into the PS3 version and I'm enjoying it immensely - Mass Effect 2 (PC version) is so far the only better 2010 game I've played.
    As for the graphics, less than perfect though they may be, there are countless stunning vistas, the lighting - both natural and electric - looks great (sunrises and sunsets are gorgeous), and I've only really noticed framerate drops in the larger towns and settlements, where relatively little of the combat action takes place (unless you're feeling inclined to go on a random killing spree, but I'm playing a nice guy).

    I'm looking forward to seeing the PC version I assume will be announced in a few months though. GTA4 really had some nice extra things going for it on PC, including the option to quite heavily increase car and pedestrian traffic (although there's obviously not really any proper equivalent to that in RDR).
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 15:15

  • LeD #20 2 years ago

    Once more, the 360 feeds the PS3 its huge cock before ramming it up its arse, then rince/repeat, leaving the PS3 dilated and humiliated. Oh the agony! Sucks to be a PS3 owner!

  • Yossarian #21 2 years ago

    Any word on input latency? Controls feel clumsy.

  • Nuronv #22 2 years ago

    I think what comes across from most of these articles is that with Multi Platform games that it is harder to get top results from the PS3 without coding for it from the start. That said I still got it for the PS3 rather than the 360 knowing graphically it would be slightly the worse of the two, I guess I just prefer the system out of the two.

  • UncleLou #23 2 years ago

    It's a terrific game, but even without having a 360 to compare the image quality to directly, the PS3 version looks really messy at times with flickering, jaggies, visible LOD transitions and whatnot. YMMV, but it does distract me somewhat.

    Didn't help that the girl-friend and me took turns playing Uncharted 2 (her) and RDR (me). Coming from Uncharted 2 to RDR was a small shock every time before I got halfway used to the image quality (or lack thereof) again.
    Edited by 2 at 25/05/10 @ 15:19

  • muscleblade #24 2 years ago

    Predictable outcome.

  • des #25 2 years ago

    This should be fun to read.

    meh...

  • jag10 #26 2 years ago

    wada great comparison.

  • mkreku #27 2 years ago

    So.. can we expect two apologetic articles about how Rockstar sucks at porting then? Like the ones we got for FFXIII?

  • miiiguel #28 2 years ago

    So pretty shoddy work on the PS3 version by Rockstar? Like Square Enix on the 360 version of FFXIII?

    I'm 104 hours on 360's FFXIII, so I do understand this shouldn't be a problem to anyone with the lesser version, on either games. The million dollar question, however, is: how to kill a Long Gui ?

  • Nuronv #29 2 years ago

    The best thing about Face-Off Articles is all the "ignore poster" buttons I get to push. Its really good at showing you who can safely be ignored. You can see who will never provide any useful information, comments or discussion.

  • Big-Swiss #30 2 years ago

    /crywank!

  • cianchristopher #31 2 years ago

    I find the framerate of the 360 version is much improved over GTA IVs framerate (also 360 version). It just feels a lot smoother.

    Seems like Rockstar made some gains over the past two years. And given that Rockstar San Diego were the ones who developed the RAGE engine, it's no surprise that they can implement it somewhat better than the team at Rockstar North.

  • JahB #32 2 years ago

    i bought this game for PS3 cause the 360 version was sold out. i was slightly annoyed. then i came home, started playing, and about 12 hours later i realized how little all that pixel-counting nonsense actually matters.

    yeehaw.

  • Geordiemp #33 2 years ago

    Arwin summed it up, a poor 5 year old rage engine, not a blight on PS3 but on a poor coding effort (sound like none at all for Ps3) for the engine itself by Rockstar.

    Lets face it, Rockstar go for quantity and big games, rather than quality of engine and tech (they probably would not know where to start anyway). What does SPU stand for Rockstar say ?

    Had GTA4 sitting on the shelf for over a year and not got into it, so unsure about this.

    Ho-Hum, back to replay Mass Effect 2 on Insanity as Jack died on PT1.
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 15:38

  • Spekingur #34 2 years ago

    So.. you'll enjoy the game no matter which console you own.

    If I wanted the super-graphical ecstacy I would wait for the PC version.

    Edit:
    Also, really guys, pulling the "it's five years of age so it must suck" card? Let me remind you that GT5 is still not out.
    Edited by 2 at 25/05/10 @ 15:41

  • monkeywithnoeyes #35 2 years ago

    hard to feel sorry for the ps3 fanboys getting a subhd version of this after the fuss they made self pleasuring themselves to Alan Wake only being subhd. But it is abit of a shame that after 2yrs since GTA4 Rockstar still havent got around the platform..it's not like they've not experience developing on it.

  • Bealsy #36 2 years ago



    the 360 graphics don't stop me being unable to stop my galloping horse in time before ramming it through a crowd of people I'm trying to help, then getting shot at :-(

  • thewool #37 2 years ago

    Hurry up PC version, my money is waiting...

  • _LarZen_ #38 2 years ago

    Glad I have both systems so I can pick the best one. The PS3 comparison pictures looks realy ugly...

  • bigbadbeasty #39 2 years ago

    I find these face off's interesting but almost totally pointless. It really doesn't matter, graphics never maketh the game afterall.

    There is no doubt that the 360 version is graphically better, but it will never take away from the experience, unless it is gamebreaking.

    Cracking game on both systems - no doubt!

  • Grievous1976 #40 2 years ago

    Just like the PS2 was holding back the original Xbox. The PS3 should be far more capable considering the specs it has. I guess its just down to individual developer preferences. Nice to see the 360 holding its own though 5 years on.

  • onyxbox #41 2 years ago

    I think as Richard points out... unless you have them side by side you're not going to notice.

    And if you do... it's pretty minor. I got it on PS3 and after reading all the 'inferiority' reports I almost buckled and got the 360 version but then I though.... Nooooo.... get a grip and I didn't do it.

    I later played the 360 version in a shop and I can honestly say there wasn't anything in it. Yes the 360 is the better version, no one will dispute that, but it's not a night and day situation like Bayonetta and I think it's important as a community we realise this and avoid giving the impression to others that the PS3 version is 'crap' or whatever.

    It's interesting to know the differences but it's more important IMO to keep perspective and avoid fueling fanboyism, doesn't do any good in the long run.

  • NotSoSlim #42 2 years ago

    Don't see how the PS3 is holding back the 360 lol Does it not mean that Alan Wake was hindered by the 360 console?

    Both have strength and weaknesses

  • Eurolamer #43 2 years ago

    I for one like these articles. Having both consoles, it's naturally a consideration as which version to buy. To be honest, the level of detail presented here is above and beyond what I need to know, but none the less it's good have a resource like this written in plain English. So in short, 'gratz EG.

  • digoutyoursoul #44 2 years ago

    @notsoslim

    yeah i keep reading how xbox is holding playstation back, if thats the case well there has been some great games this generation so what else is coming? i dont really care for it all to be honest, i do play the 360 more than my ps3 but i'm not going to let some n4g trolls make up my mind over purchases/knocking my taste.
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 15:58

  • Spency #45 2 years ago

    Being a xbox 360-only owner I don't even know why I read these things. It's not even as if it will make any difference to which version I get. I get this small feeling of satisfaction when the xbox version wins and a slight feeling of annoyance when the PS3 version wins. It's ridiculous really though cos I look at the comparison pictures and I can honestly say I can't tell the difference!

    I think when you only have 1 console (either due to financial or time constraints) you want to justify your choice of purchase and so you defend your chosen side blindly!

    I secretly think the PS3 is a better machine but I'm a sucker for some of the games on the 360 so can't bring myself to swap.

    Anyone else feel this way?

    /reluctant fanboy

  • FogHeart #46 2 years ago

    For the life of me I can't find the missing shadows on the pier. And I can't see Wally anywhere! Help!

  • digoutyoursoul #47 2 years ago

    @spency i only get any sort of satisfaction when the xbox runs a game with great graphics and gameplay that has been shit on by fanboys before release. same with playstation games when they get shit on. the way the online community vibe is heading i dont think the playstation is overall the better system, i like online personalization and the way psn is designed just doesnt do it for me, i think the trophy thing was a quick thought, they never considered the online side of things properly before the consoles release, i could go on. I do love the likes of uncharted, heavenly sword and gow tho, i'll always be a multiplatform owner just to play them games but i will always have a personal first choice system and this generation its the xbox 360.

  • Zamn10210 #48 2 years ago

    Here's what I want to know, is the multiplayer is any good?

    I have both consoles but I won't pay for Xbox Live so I'll get the PS3 version if the multiplayer is worth my while and the 360 version for the better graphics if it isn't.

  • NotSoSlim #49 2 years ago

    @ digout

    Totally agree! I play my ps3 more but to say either console is holding games back is a joke, one console is easier to get best results and the other can get equal results it just takes longer.

    If exclusives are sub standard then there is a problem as your dedicated to one machine so no excuse

  • bad09 #50 2 years ago

    PC wins.....when it gets here...

  • karooo #51 2 years ago

    Does it say this? : Its because of the ancient PS3 hardware, It cannot match the power of the 360 GPU.

    /goes and reads the face off now.

  • digoutyoursoul #52 2 years ago

    @zamn if you can get past the annoying sniper file stalkers in free mode then you will really enjoy it
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 16:10

  • Geordiemp #53 2 years ago

    Agree with Zamn, good question. Whats the multiplayer like, as I dont pay to play on-line.

    If its good, then Ps3, if not that exciting, then 360. Bargain bin as well as still into Mass effect 2.

    To all the fanboys out there, if a multiplat game is technical basis graphically say a 7 on 360 and a 5 on Ps3, so what ?

    It just tells you about the engine & developer skill. Its hardly a 9 or 10 engine like Uc2 or GOW3.

    I think fanboys just whine cos they are missing either Mass effect 2 or Uncharted 2, as a gamer nothing comes close.

  • spekkeh #54 2 years ago

    To kick all the tech lovers in the shins, I'd argue the washed out blurriness of the PS3 could actually be an advantage in some cases. The lack of anisotropic filtering in the xbox 360 version leads to some slightly jarring aliasing effects in distant buildings, something I reckon the PS3 will have less problems with.

    I'd still pick the 360 version (but then, not owning a Ps3 I also don't have any choice), just want to say that resolution isn't everything.

  • digoutyoursoul #55 2 years ago

    @spekkeh

    not having a go at you but why cant people say resolution isnt everything when it came to the likes of alan wake, splinter cell and killzone 2 ? that alan wake thread was embarrassing, the slimy twats on this forum showed their true colours with them threads

  • brseg #56 2 years ago

    @fogheart - no, I cant see the missing shadows either.

    I like the fact that Eurogamer delves into tech details a bit more than most sites.

    To be honest, the difference is very slight between the 2. I've not got a ps3, but the 'smearing' effect would be acceptable to me, I think (I sit v close to the screen…) . It sounds like Rockstar just tweaked it to keep performance ok. Still, tis a bit odd that they have to reduce the res to achieve that. Only Rockstar know for sure.

  • I\'mListening #57 2 years ago

    Having both ps3 and 360 I use these articles sometimes to make sure I get the best version. Here, I'll get the 360 version, in the same way as I got the ps3 version of Final Fantasy XIII. That said, when I find a game to be as terrible as FFXIII, does it really matter which version I pick up?

  • gamerBOB #58 2 years ago

    Personally I've never understood the whole flamewars thing on hd/sub hd games - look at Mario Galaxy 2

    /drools

    Seriously though, if you enjoy the game, does it matter?

  • spekkeh #59 2 years ago

    @digoutyoursoul not having a go at you but why cant people say resolution isnt everything when it came to the likes of alan wake, splinter cell and killzone 2 ? that alan wake thread was embarrassing, the slimy twats on this forum showed their true colours with them threads

    Yeah my ignore poster button went into massive overtime in the alan wake and RDR threads, completely agree with you. As much as I respect DF for their excellent knowledge, I'm afraid these comparisons where you're going to have to press your nose against the telly to spot minor differences that mean squat all for overall game enjoyment, aren't really helping. Although RDR finally seems to warrant an actual side-by-side. For me the foliage would be somewhat offputting, as it's basically half of your game world (and part of the immersive qualities) that's slightly less good looking on the PS3 version.

  • tiny_Eggy #60 2 years ago

    Both versions look pretty damn bland. Just wait for the eventual PC port, probably be an unoptimised pos but it will still be ten times better.

  • spekkeh #61 2 years ago

    @Eddy-the-Ed
    and are perfectly willing to scam almost half their user base with another inferior port

    Scam, seriously, you'd think you wouldn't enjoy RDR on the PS3? Really?

  • digoutyoursoul #62 2 years ago

    @tiny_eggy define "ten times better".

  • bladdard #63 2 years ago

    I don't own a 360 but and cry myself to sleep each night knowing my 360 buddies have full HD, 2xAA and less dropped frames on their multiplatform games.


  • 00.00.01 #64 2 years ago

    Does anyone know why the 360 disc has 6.7GB and the PS3 has 7.67GB?

    Cheers Darren. ↓ :)
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 17:01

  • Darren #65 2 years ago

    The PS3 version seems to have uncompressed LPCM audio track, @00:00:01.

  • DoctorFouad #66 2 years ago

    I think Finally I got my answer : is really the xbox360 GPU more powerful than the ps3 GPU ?

    with this digital foundry analysis of red ded redemption, the answer to my question is simply conclusive : YES the xbox360 GPU is more powerful than the ps3 GPU (by how much ? thats now my other question that I hope one day will be answered)

    I think there is no doubt anymore that the MAIN reason why multiplatform games look and perform SIGNIFICANTLY better in 360 is simply : the 360 GPU is more powerful, capable of more fill rate and more transparency textures due the bandwidth of the edram. If it wasent for the GPU differential of performance, there would be no serious reason why multiplatform games perform weaker on ps3 compared to 360 after all those years of development and experience on both consoles.

    It is unfortunate that sony didnt choose edram for its ps3, that would have been awesome for first party games...but well I guess we cant have everything in life ! nothing is perfect but God !
    instead of a very powerful GPU sony opted for a cheaper GPU but with blu ray + the CELL (GT5 in 1280*1080 say HI !)
    and even with a weaker GPU, the ps3 first party titles outperform 360 exclusives by a wide margin ! this due tio more processor power !


  • kendoji #67 2 years ago

    I have both consoles but got the PS3 version, knowing that graphics wouldn't be quite as good, but confident enough in Rockstar's abilities to believe that I would never know what I'm missing and enjoy it just as much.

    The graphics on the PS3 version look pretty gosh-darned decent, so I'm happy.

  • Balboa #68 2 years ago

    re: pier shadow - it's in the background of the boat shot, center left. The boat's top section is missing shadow too.

  • shadowaspect #69 2 years ago

    Google tells me it took about 6 months between the release of GTA IV for consoles, and the PC announcement, then another two months until release. Fingers crossed they can turn it around a bit faster this time :)

  • Geordiemp #70 2 years ago

    ^^

    Simples. 360 has better GPU

    PS3 has a weaker GPU but a stronger CPU / GPU combo, and if you use the GPU in the combo to do the fancy stuff its been
    shown to be stronger up until now. Maybe Crysis 2 will change that, doubt it.

    Bit sad though, you would think of all the money Rockstar has made they would have better engines by now on both platforms in 2010.

  • MerricK #71 2 years ago

    Does this worry anyone else on a "true for true" comparision ...

    "Equally odd is that even in shots where we can assume that the time of day is precisely the same (i.e. during the intro sequence or just after it), there are some pretty major differences in terms of the overall effect of the lighting in certain places. It may well be the case that overhead cloud formations are different, or that the entire timebase for the intro is running at slightly different speeds, which may explain it, but otherwise it does seem to result in some changes that we can't quite get our heads around"

    that surely means that the screenshots are not an true comparison. Whys there a screenshot from the begning of the game taken at the same time however one has a scripted turtorial/tip screen the other doesnt .... ODD
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 17:14

  • GamesConnoisseur #72 2 years ago

    Not a massive difference, in term of game review score affecting as per Bayonetta as others said. However whilst it's may mainly goes down to numbers of friends you got on which online that wins the choice for multi platform owners.

    I m still interested to see how much the decision to go one way or other are affected by a sense of brand loyalty. As I opted for PS3's FFXIII as an easy decision due to superior quality, but noticed quite a few comments of heck still went for PS3 regardless of better quality?

    Does below factors in multi platform owners decision?!

    - online being free/better service
    - more friends on one platform or other
    - bit better visuals/not bothered
    - likes one platform/ company more than other
    - availability
    - hates the other platform/ company enough to influences choice?

  • ronuds #73 2 years ago

    So how many of you dopes slammed Alan Wake for being subHD, yet are saying "it doesn't matter" now and bought the PS3 version?

  • DoctorFraud #74 2 years ago

    Obvious differences, obvious outcome.

    Inferior machine tries its best but produces inferior game. It's been that way for years and isnt likely to change.

  • Negotiator #75 2 years ago

    Own this on the 360 and it is a stunning looking game, the PS3 is having trouble with open world games. Just look at GTA 4, Assassin's Creed 1 and 2 and now this all having a clear advantage on the 360. Rendering a open environment with lots going on and throwing in full realtime lighting with night and day cycles is pushing the PS3 a little too far. For a game to look amazing on the PS3 it has to play to its strength and avoid it's weaknesses, meaning the game is taylored to make the graphics as good as they can be.

  • Vixremento #76 2 years ago

    Well well well. I have the PS3 version (sorry but MS screwed us over in our country with the original xbox and even the 360 so screw them). Anyway...been playing the PS3 version since Saturday morning (I have leave for this week so I've already put in around 40 hours) and all I can say is WOW! I have zero complaints about the quality (I prefer riding on horse to any play as opposed to using quick travel).

    The game is what matters and I have had zero complaints apart from it freezing once yesterday - seems like I'm getting my moneys worth so whathever! The only complaint that I may have is that it has to end at all (but not for a long time still!).

  • davisorle #77 2 years ago

    Nothing surprising. FFXIII remains my only crossplatform game purchased for PS3 cause it simply looked slightly better. So this has way too many reasons to be purchased for my 360 instead cause the PS3 screenshots incomparison looked just awfull :(

    Im wondering though, like i guess Richard did, why the f*** is that going on with th lightning indoors. Is it something patchable or something done purposly? Anyhow. No time to play the game yet but ill be picking it up soon :)

  • Miths #78 2 years ago

    "I think Finally I got my answer : is really the xbox360 GPU more powerful than the ps3 GPU ?... YES"

    I'm pretty sure even (most of) the PS3 fanboys - which includes me :p - wouldn't argue against that.
    The ATI GPU in the 360 is simply better than the Nvidia GPU in the PS3, I think that much is pretty clear just by looking at the raw numbers for processing power.
    Where the PS3 needs to make up for lower GPU power is with the Cell SPUs, and unfortunately it seems that most third party developers still don't utilize those very well - and since we're so far into the lifespan of the PS3 already, I assume we may never reach a point where they do, at least those developers who recycle game engines for several titles, and most probably do to save time and money.

  • drxym #79 2 years ago

    When GTA IV turned up the PS3 was a relatively new console so it was perhaps forgivable that the resolution was a little lower.

    But two whole years have passed since during which 1st party titles (and even some 3rd party ones) demonstrate the PS3 does not have to compromise on framerate while still yielding 720p native graphics.

    It's disappointing that Rockstar haven't spent the last two years fixing their engine. I was expecting that the GTA IV expansions might even have benefitted in some substantial way but no. Perhaps the game is still fun, but these sorts of comparisons shouldn't be finding such huge discrepancies by now.

  • JahB #80 2 years ago

    If they couldn't put the time and effort into porting the game properly, or building the game to reasonable cross platform expections then they shouldn't have bothered at all.

    biggest pile of nonsense i've read lately. the game is reasonably close, it's not like you put in the ps3 disc and it burns your eyes off. what matters here is that R* ported the game without any detrimental effect whatsoever, so all reasonable cross platform expectations are fulfilled.

    if you really think it's all a "scam" because you get 80 lines of pixels less on [console x], you might wanna look for another hobby.
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 18:08

  • Retroid #81 2 years ago

    Been playing this myself and it is indeed a lovely game. Completely different feel to GTA so far as I'm concerned and I'm loving it.

    Pleasantly surprised by how (mostly) sensible discussion on here has been so far, I usually get a sense of dread when I see comparison articles pop up! :D
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 18:10

  • Rodchenko #82 2 years ago

    and doesn't even work properly.

    Well, it works properly on my PS3. I played it for 3 hours last night. And I even enjoyed it.

  • curtlikesmeat #83 2 years ago

    Why has anyone who says anything against the PS3 got loads of negatives?

    I had the choice and decided to go for the PS3 - I usually do for the simple reason that playing with my Xbox is like playing a game with a vacuum clearner running in the background, it's just too loud (and may melt if we get another 28 degree day any time soon). Before anyone says install to hard drive, it's still too loud and I don't have room (and can't afford a £900 Microsoft hard drive).

    I thought the graphics were great.

  • des #84 2 years ago

    "It's disappointing that Rockstar haven't spent the last two years fixing their engine."

    Yes they have,RDR looks excellent,among top looking games this gen,probably even the best when you hit good lighting conditions,exactly like Rockstar "bullshots".

  • Goodfella #85 2 years ago

    So how many of you dopes slammed Alan Wake for being subHD, yet are saying "it doesn't matter" now and bought the PS3 version?

    Whether people did or didn't is irrelevant. Alan Wake was built from the ground up exclusively for the 360. I guess people expected better.

    Edit: Sorry, GoodGodOWhitey beat me to it.
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 18:33

  • UncleLou #86 2 years ago

    If they couldn't put the time and effort into porting the game properly, or building the game to reasonable cross platform expections then they shouldn't have bothered at all.

    Er, speak for yourself. I love the game, and I sure am damn glad I didn't have to buy another console for it.

    Anyway, all these "Rockstar are lazy", "the engine should be fixed" is nonsense. They're a business, they have to compromise somewhere. Might as well complain about Sony pushing the Cell and compromising elsewhere for motives that don't have anything to do with gaming, ending up with a machine that obviously requires more development resources and effort than it probably should.

  • CaptainQuint #87 2 years ago

    Even though I own a PS3 I still got this for the Xbox, simply because I prefer Achievements to Trophies and because most of my friends are on 360's.

    The fact that this looks better on Xbox 360 is par for the course, in these face-off thingys, so this latest one comes as no surprise at all. The best thing about it all is watching all the apostles of Sony cry into each others shoulders, heh heh...

  • Spekingur #88 2 years ago

    Seriously though, none of the things pointed out in the face-off are game-breaking. You can enjoy RDR on both platforms. If you don't then you just don't enjoy RDR (not because of some face-off nitpicking reasons or Rockstar not doing better/worse).

  • smelly #89 2 years ago

    *sigh* why do people care about this bullshit?

  • Negotiator #90 2 years ago

    I would go as far to say that this is one of the best looking games this generation on any console, I'm talking about the 360 version of course. The lighting in this game is amazing and the shadows are of a very high standard, and with the massive draw distance you have an incredible looking game.

  • TRUTH #91 2 years ago

    God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 (both enjoyable) are liner, fixed angles, small characters, simplistic AI, fixed routes, not much interaction etc etc...games like there are a lot easier to make good looking, rather then an open world/ sandbox nature, with deeper gameplay because graphical process can be given to the liner, fixed angles, small characters, simpler AI, scripted events as in Unchated 2; then open world games as open like RDR/GTA IV/;Assassins Creed II..etc, and others that require complex AI, interaction, free roaming, non scripted.. etc. Which require a lot more processing power - usually sacrificing in graphical effects.

    RDR is an amazing looking game - probably is the best I've seen on this gen, esp comparing the size of the game and the nature of the game. I got on PS3 (though I have a 360 too!), and it's still looks dam beautiful.
    Edited by 3 at 25/05/10 @ 19:55

  • UncleLou #92 2 years ago

    I don't know how you picked up that bullshit. Most games are designed and built with the 360 in mind. This is where all the time, money and resources go. The game is then ported across, as cheaply as possible, to the PS3.

    It's expensive to lead on PS3. Not to port onto it.

    I am afraid that does not make any sense to me whatsoever. A good port to the PS3 is expensive due to the different architecture that requires a totally different approach, while leading on the PS3 or the 360 shouldn't make a blind bit of difference, ignoring the costs to port.
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 18:49

  • Badassbab #93 2 years ago

    I hate quincux!

    On another note no hard feelings PS3 owners. I have both consoles and on my 32inch 100hz 1080p TV nothing looks as good as Uncharted 2 and GOW3 though they are linear games.

    I didn't realise what a difference 100Hz TV makes to games, it really makes a difference to 30fps games, makes it look more 60fps. Really recommend it. Just make sure it's fully turned on.

  • trubadman #94 2 years ago

    From the screenshots, it appears that the PS3 is what you would see without glasses on. Bit annoying, that the res is sub-HD on PS3

  • UncleLou #95 2 years ago

    From the screenshots, it appears that the PS3 is what you would see without glasses on. Bit annoying, that the res is sub-HD on PS3

    Heh, that's actually a damn good description. If you're short-sighted, obviously. :)

  • miiiguel #96 2 years ago

    Aren't all FullHD TVs (at least)100Hz ?

  • des #97 2 years ago

    "So how many of you dopes slammed Alan Wake for being subHD, yet are saying "it doesn't matter" now and bought the PS3 version? "

    The same people that are now attacking Rockstar for making such a beautiful game.They would be more happier if PS3 version was 720p,but 20 fps with grass and stuff popping out like in Oblivion.

  • Retroid #98 2 years ago

    Goodfella: "Alan Wake was built from the ground up exclusively for the 360. I guess people expected better."

    Actually it was PC aswell for years (at one point being used to show off Intel's then-top-of-the-line multi-core CPUs), it's only recently that it was exclusive to 360 only. In a lot of ways it's very nice indeed (lighting, weather, landscapes), in others it really does show the small dev team & the length of time it was in development - the facial animation in particular is quite bad.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 01:36

  • Retroid #99 2 years ago

    miiiguel: "Aren't all FullHD TVs (at least)100Hz ?"

    Pretty sure mine isn't, but it's a few years old now.

  • Goodfella #100 2 years ago

    @ miiguel.

    No, my 10 month old Panasonic 1080p TV isn't. It's just something you pay extra for, can be in a 720p or 1080p TV.

    You can get TV's with much higher Hz now, up to 600Hz.
    Edited by 2 at 25/05/10 @ 19:04

  • TheWretched #101 2 years ago

    Back again to "noticably superior framerate" are we, Richard? It's not even 10% on average probably, yet you insist on the superiority of the 360? Come on...

    In any case, the performance is comparable, so I won't be bugged, when I get the PS3 version again (or wait for the PC version down the line?)

  • miiiguel #102 2 years ago

    Didn't know that, I thought it was like a standard now (now as in: since 1080p spawned).

  • lockload #103 2 years ago

    Wow not even close, i can understand it though

    Rockstar arnt going to spend more on the ps3 version to get it up to scratch when the 360 version will outsell it easily, its all about return on investment

  • blackbriar101 #104 2 years ago

    I have it on the ps3 and yes the graphics whore inside me is a little pissed off but it's a quality game and I think the multiplayer has alot of potential,interesting points about the best looking games on ps3 being linear but I thought Infamous was a quality piece of software.

  • copper08 #105 2 years ago

    this might be off topic, but does anyone know why there's a game shortage? i can't find the ps3 version of Red Dead anywhere.

  • Calgon #106 2 years ago

    @The silly comments that amount to "Alan Wake < Uncharted2 = PS3 is bettar"

    Alan Wake wasn't built from the ground up for the 360 though, it was originally planned as console exclusive which means even if it was leading on the 360(Im pretty sure it started as PC title if I remember right: then MS got behind it and a 360 version was announced, then probably due to their limited manpower decided to focus on getting the 360 version out there and then it was announced they were canning the PC version) the engine will most likely be classed as multiformat. So no it wasnt a good comparison to be made, they had neither the budget or manpower to match Naughty Dog to begin with and focus switched platforms mid way through development, to compare that to a sequel from a first party dev that never had any of those concerns at any point is a bit stupid really. Alan Wake is hardly a benchmark on 360 there are 3rd party engines which do outperform it in many areas but it does have its strong points too, neither can it be considered poor compared to PS3 exclusives.

    A heads up to Richard on a recent interview with Corrinne Yu(Principal Engine Architect at Halo Team) which can be found on the b3d forums(probably already seen it), it would be nice to dispell the silly presumtuous fanboy comments about 360 being maxed out because she pretty much confirmed what Ive been saying for a while now. I'm not sure how much more usefull information that she hasnt already said you could get out of her but she has had a very active role in the 360 dev scene and knows her stuff, so worth a shot if you get the chance with the impending launch of Halo Reach.

    The ease of development on 360 has been both a blessing and a curse, on one hand you have multiplatform developers find getting decent performance easy enough, on the other that also means; why would they go the difficult route if they dont have to?(i.e the best way to do things on 360 is similar to the way the do things on PS3... data decomposition, broken down into smaller and smaller components, job queues ect to allow for things to be processed in parallel more efficiently, which suits the 360 architecture best)

    If anything it looks as though because PS3 devs are pretty much forced to do things a certain way to get good performance out of CELL, its seen better utilisation than Xenon/XCPU, perhaps the difficulty in getting good performance encourages devs to think differently from a design point of veiw, where as CELL has seen full utilisation in titles such as UC2(from the developers own mouth) theres alot 360 has to offer that hasnt been tried or properly experimented with yet.

    If there's one dev MS has that has a good history of doing things differently in this respect it would be Rare IMO(if they still have the right people working there) but maybe the fact that Rare's game sales while they've been under MS havent been exactly stellar MS might be reluctant to budget for a technical masterpeice from them(plus at the rate they move at its probably too late if they havent already started something like that in the past two years). It could be they will suprise us all at E3 with something though, we can only hope MS havent just been making them do Avatar stuff and Natal casual games.
    Edited by 3 at 25/05/10 @ 19:43

  • Goodfella #107 2 years ago

    @ blackbriar

    Re: Only linear games look better.

    I guess they do to some degree but personally I think Assassin's Creed II on the PS3 looks superb, very sharp, lots of great textures and detail, shadows, everything really, just suffers from screen tear but then both versions do.

    This is pretty much down to Rockstar just not bothering/consider it not cost effective to make the PS3 version look as good. But it still does look rather good.

  • ronuds #108 2 years ago

    You can't compare every game to every other game - it's probably become the most idiotic fanboy argument to infect the web this gen. It's a bunch of people who think they know what they're talking about when they really haven't a clue, or they're only regurgitating what they've heard somewhere else.

    It doesn't matter what Uncharted 2 looks like compared to Alan Wake, and the same expectations cannot be placed on one game because of what another is able to do. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Please get an effing clue before you come on a website and post something which is complete crap that anyone read. You're embarrassing yourselves.

    Also, can anyone point me to a source which states that the PS3 version is a port? I'm pretty sure that's more fanboy drivel - because as far as I knew each platform had their own team of devs. I could be wrong on that, though!
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 19:37

  • Kryon #109 2 years ago

    PLOLS 3

  • Goodfella #110 2 years ago

    @ ronuds

    As far as I know it wasn't a port.

    One team worked on the 360 version, another team worked on the PS3 version.

  • Badassbab #111 2 years ago

    Assassins Creed II does look good.I have it on 360 but seen the PS3 version and 360 version is the better looking game. But linear games such as GOW3 and UC2 are quite a bit ahead of everything else. Sandbox type games can never look as good as games where the dev team decides where the 'cinematic' camera angle is facing and hence where all the detail will be focused on.

  • tiny_Eggy #112 2 years ago

    @ digoutyoursoul : well ten times it's exaggerated of course. But compare the PC and console version of GTA and you get the picture.

  • Jelly_Head #113 2 years ago

    Rockstar may be ahead of the curve when it comes to sandbox games, but they're definitely way behind when it comes to getting the most out of the PS3. I mean, it's a great game on PS3 all the same but, visually, the scenery doesn't match Oblivion and Fallout 3 on the same platform.

  • jefranklin18 #114 2 years ago

    Well, it may be sub-HD on the PS3 but it looked fine on my 92" screen. The game itself is enjoyable and may have more longevity for me than GTA4, as it is not so claustrophobic as Liberty City.

  • ronuds #115 2 years ago

    @ Goodfella

    "As far as I know it wasn't a port. One team worked on the 360 version, another team worked on the PS3 version."

    Thank you, sir. I thought so, but wasn't positive.

    So why is everyone chalking up the differences to "lazy devs"? The teams probably had a certain amount of time and money to make the game and did the best they could in that time and with that money. Don't fault the developer because it's overly difficult to develop for the PS3. They have to balance the budget and taking an extra however-many months to bring both versions in line with one another isn't good business.

    Blame Sony - they're the company who devised the difficult console to develop for. You expect these devs to spend more money on the console which is probably going to provide the least profits? For once point the finger where it deserves to be pointed already and stop blaming everyone else.

    Yes, with infinite time and money you can create a very good looking product on the PS3. Unfortunately, not every developer has the luxury of inifinite time and money. If the PS3 was developed with developers in mind and not Sony's bottom line, you wouldn't have this problem.

    I don't hate the PS3 - I think it's a good console. But let's get real already, can we please? If we're going to play the blame game, know who you're blaming and why.

  • Calgon #116 2 years ago

    It doesn't seem to me Rockstar have been lazy, they obviously have worked hard on both versions of the game, if it weren't for the 360 version to compare it to I doubt there would be that many comments about Rockstar being crap devs and the like. The engine isn't that old, a complete rewrite of their engine just to please PS3 owners isn't rational thinking, its slightly worse off but the overall look and feel of the game they went for is intact.

    I like my graphics as much as the next guy but I think we are becoming to nitpicky these days which is kind of ironic(thats not to say DF isnt usefull it is good actually to see how things are improving and if you have both platforms which one you want to buy) because the main benifit of good graphics is to make the experience more immersive, seems we are going backwards, the better the graphics get the harder we look for flaws to spoil the immersion for ourselves.

  • ronuds #117 2 years ago

    @ Calgon

    +1 to you, sir.

  • mcmothercruncher #118 2 years ago

    Rockstar's engine suits the 360 a lot more.

    Whatcha gonna do huh?

  • dragonlion #119 2 years ago

    i shuldve bought it on X360. i'm kinda

  • nemesisND1derboy #120 2 years ago

    @android123... WOW...your stupidity baffles me...not just because thats not true, but also because you are trying to incite a flame war...I thought people had gotten past that childishness now...If you want to be so narrow minded as to start a flame war for amusement, please go kill yourself first...You dirty fanboy...Rant over, cant wait to play this, mine is still in the post :(

  • dragonlion #121 2 years ago

    i shouldve bought it on X360.. im kinda disappointed. I dO have a fullHD 1080i 100hz 42" TV, and although it is said 1280x720p when the game launches; apparently it is not the case. Plus, the framerate while at max speed on a horse is droppin so much that my eyes bleed.
    This game game maybe is the BEST free roamin game ever made,the far east theme is pretty well suited for this type of game; but some gameplay mechanic choices made by Rockstar just piss me off, and the number of bugs and glitches baffles me.
    It s like they did copy/paste the whole GTA gameplay, changed the skin without thoroughly test their product.
    Ok content is massive, diverse and oiriginal, while really fits the genre, but so many simple things feel tedious.
    We got fantastic horses but we dont even know a single thing about them, their race, name, fidelity and so on. We can't tell exactly what our Honour and reputation status is. the character makes rounds when turning, try to get thru a small door gets tedious at time because gotta find the right angle to turn in order to get thru, imagine that on stress like saving a hostage life before its f****ing to late. !! (twin rockq for exemple) While walking is at almost perfect pace, running is to slow and the character looks stupid. And why the hell do we have to mash the run button?? we dont even get real faster !
    there are so many little things of this kind that sometimes it makes me wanna throw the controller thru the room with rage.
    sorry Rockstar the concept is good, the content is good, but for gameplay mechanics you still need some lessons (who said Naughtydog?)

  • makeamazing #122 2 years ago

    Couple of things to add:

    1. I dont think anyone doubts the Xbox version is better... there is no argument to that.
    2. The game is fantastic, but has LOTS of bugs, to me that suggests they didnt even have time to finish polishing, not alone trying to spend time making the PS3 version better - and this is the problem with most non exclusive games
    3. The screenshots show the difference (without looking), but the DF videos I can never see the difference, this itself tells its own story
    4. Yes the Xbox version has more foliage... did anyone notice that it was less in the PS3 version when playing it, I very much doubt it.

    Guess what i am trying to say is, Yes we KNOW the Xbox version is better than the PS3 version, but the PS3 version is perfectly fine, works fine, and looks great... pointing out there is no or less of a shadow on a cut scene that is on screen for a second that no one would notice may be fine for a DF article going into that much depth, but it doesnt have any impact on the game or more importantly would anyone actually notice when playing the game (which i doubt).

  • ronuds #123 2 years ago

    @ GoodGodOWhitney

    I explained earlier why it's foolish to try and compare one game to another. Different requirements for different games.

  • DrStrangelove #124 2 years ago

    As a PS3 owner, I must say: I hate you. But at least we have Gt5. Or wait. Damn. FML.

  • BuckEntropy #125 2 years ago

    Gorgeous looking game, I really want to play this but it'll have to wait, too broke atm... :(

    Having recently given thought to the subject, it'd be interesting to know if the PS3 version is triple buffered. That seems almost a trend: lowering the resolution both frees up extra video RAM and saves fillrate demands, thus finding a sort of sweet spot for efficiency. On the other hand, if it isn't triple buffered and they still met that performance with a hard v-sync it would be fairly impressive.

    But I personally appreciate it when a developer doesn't let one console "hold back" the other version. ;)

  • higganos #126 2 years ago

    @Goodfella

    No idea which panny model you have, but mine is a 3 1/2 year old 1080i viera that runs at 100hz. I'm positive all viera's run at least 100hz+ now.

    In fact, come to think of it my CRT Quintrix panny ran at 100hz too...and that came out 6 years ago.

  • Bander #127 2 years ago

    "If there's one dev MS has that has a good history of doing things differently in this respect it would be Rare IMO
    ...
    It could be they will suprise us all at E3 with something though, we can only hope MS havent just been making them do Avatar stuff and Natal casual games.    "

    Indeed. Right from the 360's launch with PD0 and Kameo, Rare appeared to have incorporated a ton of effects rarely seen before like parallax mapping, refractions, a million particles on screen at once, self-shadowing and more, while hitting 720p with good frame rates, great physics and lots of on-screen characters (hundreds in Kameo). Alas, the 3D models and textures gave away that the games had been rushed to make them ready for November 2005.

    Then they did Viva Pinata which was doing things with pixel shaders that were just amazing. In a kids game, where technical excellence doesn't really matter so long as it's colourful. Banjo 3 again added more physics and huge environments where resolution and frame rate were uncompromised.

    Sony-exclusive developers haven't matched what Rare has done on 360, but then Rare haven't attempted to match the likes of UC2 and God of War 3 either. And to be honest, the visual style of Banjo 3 does nothing for me or most adult gamers. Sad to say, possibly the best technical showcase on 360 is a game where you control a bear with a cuboid face and fingers.

    That might be as good as it gets if Rare are just working on Natal stuff. I'm sure they have the talent to make a Perfect Dark 3 that matches Uncharted 2, or a Killer Instinct action game that goes beyond GoW3. But like Calgon said, if such a thing isn't already far along in development, we may as well assume it won't happen.

  • Alivada #128 2 years ago

    It does everything, apart from making games look better than on the 360.

  • Kryon #129 2 years ago

    They should have renamed the PS3 version "Red Dead ROFLCOPPER" ...

  • Subquest #130 2 years ago

    Goddamit, I crumbled and bought the 360 version rather than wait till Xmas (?) for the PC version. Of course, of course, it's a fabulous game, and I'm loving it - but I'm longing for genuine 1080p.

    360 and PS3 are now 5 and 4 years old respectively. The PC is miles ahead (eg Just Cause 2, Batman) - but we have to wait. So fucks like me crumble, and eventually end up buying both like the suckers we are...

  • Razz #131 2 years ago

    "PS3LOL MUST BE PAST IT'S CELL-BY-DATE! LOL"

    :'D

  • flanker22 #132 2 years ago

    given the same amount of development time you will always get a better result on the 360.

  • funkateer #133 2 years ago

    It seems the differences are exactly the same as in GTAIV, which is not surprising really. Nice to read the popup problems found the 360 version of GTAIV seems to be improved though.

    Still, although I know the 360 version of GTAIV is technically better in things like resolution, I kind of liked the warm and saturated look of the PS3 version. Yup, not a very scientific assessment but there you go :-)

  • frostcircus #134 2 years ago

    Thank Christ that GTA4's dithering filter thing is gone. That's all I was waiting to hear.

  • BuckEntropy #135 2 years ago

    @Funkateer

    I'd just been thinking the softer IQ of the two face closeup shots is actually more appealing in the PS3 one. At the end of the day it's always subjective Funkateer, that's a lot more honest actually.
    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 23:18

  • Rorsch #136 2 years ago

    This is exactly what I was waiting for, now I can buy the game!

  • GamesConnoisseur #137 2 years ago

    Played and finished both versions of GTAIV, and yes I did see the attraction of PS3 version, mainly the look and feel are quite different but at the end X360 won it. Control, sharpness and textures were bit better for me.

    Based on that I went for x360 RDR and bore out by this article.

    But as others said, YOU won't have known it if not for this article or if you are one of the types who went and got both versions and ran them side by side with massive HD screens!

    Even with X360 version, still noticed occasions of slow downs (not very often), bugs that have NPCs hovering above ground (twice 10 hours in), and so on.

    With this massive open world game, and all the contents, amazing they got a good result and very enjoyable game. Still wishing for extra months of extra fine polishing.

    Now what to expect for the multi platform L.A. Noire?

    Any guesses? As I understood it was led on PS3?

  • RKOwned #138 2 years ago

    Eh, yeah its worse on PS3. But really, Multiplatform games these days arent this big in difference between the two platforms.

  • Lunatic4ever #139 2 years ago

    Who needs this comparison?
    I mean
    What for? To fuel the damn fanboys jabbering?

    Its an awesome game and HOW many people actually own both consoles?
    pretty small segment ,i guess.

  • UncleLou #140 2 years ago

    fuck me it looks shitty on ps3 thats for sure....so not only did i get the cunting game for nowt via usenet, ive got the much superior version.

    I guess pirating is the best option when you're too young to buy it and too much of a coward to steal it. Well done, you!

  • Soton4084 #141 2 years ago

    Well I have the PS3 version and so far I've been very impressed by the graphics. Don't let this talk of it being inferior to the Xbox 360 version put you off!

  • Stuz359 #142 2 years ago

    I own all three consoles and tell the truth, multiplatform games such as this I always tend to buy on the 360. It usually wins out slightly in the graphics department, but the main reason is that the 360 controller is SO much better than the PS3's, at least in my opinion.

  • Miths #143 2 years ago

    "fuck me it looks shitty on ps3 thats for sure..."

    It really doesn't. It might not look as good as the 360 version, and there are certainly some minor graphical glitches and framerate drops on occasion, but 17 hours into the game I still regularly stop my horse during point to point travel, just to spend a moment or two looking in awe at a gorgeous sunrise over a breathtaking landscape.

    Having recently started playing a lot of PC games again - and getting used to a 1920x1200 resolution with 4xAA, 16xAF, plus assorted other typical benefits of PC games, such as higher texture resolution - the "shitty" PS3 version of RDR nevertheless continues to impress me with its visuals, even if it is mostly thanks to the setting and the art design and not a state of the art graphics engine or exceptionel performance.

  • BitmapBrother #144 2 years ago

    It's unfathomable that this pathetic company still cannot make an HD game for the PS3. Their PS3 engine is such a dog that they needed to remove content from the PS3 version just to increase the performance. But they didn't stop there as they also removed about 20% of the pixels and rendered it in sub HD. You would think that the PS3 version would have a superior frame rate after all of these sacrifices, right? No, these incompetent fools also managed to give the PS3 version a worse frame rate. What a bunch of WankStars.

  • Saltank #145 2 years ago

    I just wish this came sooner, I wasn't too happy with getting the PS3 version so I also ordered a 360 one; it seems like the logical choice now.

  • The-Jack-Burton #146 2 years ago

    It's a great game and I bought it for my PS3 simply because the controller is more comfortable. That being said, Rockstar is a victim of their own ego. Success is finite and while they are experiencing theirs at present not to have the foresight to fully utilize the PS3, yet limit it, will have future consequences. But that is neither here nor there and this is a very good game, so rock on.

  • smelly #147 2 years ago

    "I would go as far to say that this is one of the best looking games this generation on any console, "

    I've completed it.. it looks nice, if a bit samey apart from the level in the mountains.

    Still say mario galaxy 2 is the best looking game of this generation on any console.

  • himmelsturmerIX #148 2 years ago

    If developers would not optimize it properly for PS3 then please don't release it at all on the PS3.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 06:37

  • TRUTH #149 2 years ago

    Half way through PS3 life and still has not jumoed that so called 3x more powerful then 360. And now the best looking game to hit this gen; looks best on the 3x less powerful console!

  • karooo #150 2 years ago

    "Half way through PS3 life and still has not jumoed that so called 3x more powerful then 360. And now the best looking game to hit this gen; looks best on the 3x less powerful console!"

    Way to ignore all the exclusives and concentrate on this game which isnt that technically great in the first place.

    Best looking game this gen what are you smoking? thats uncharted 2 fyi so cry me a river.

  • muscleblade #151 2 years ago

    @karooo

    Thats arguable to say the least. The 360 version of AC2 looks better than UC2 imo and is probably the best looking game this gen. UC2 looks great but its a simple game compared to RDR and AC2.

  • Rens11 #152 2 years ago

    I personally bought for the ps3 as more of my mates have ps3's and I don't have live anymore just had my 1st go online last night and the free for alls are epic the beginning where you have the standoff is such a great touch and beats cod mw2 for fun anyday

  • milky_09 #153 2 years ago

    i think in regards to all these comparisons, the vast majority of the public arent really going to be able to tell the difference. in still images the omissions/ changes are pretty apparent. but in motion theres not as huge a difference as were all being led to believe.

    all these comparisons do, is give the xbox fans/ps3 fans something to jerk off about... stuff like mint ftw my version is better.

    all this shows is the maturity of the forum/eurogamer readers etc. come on people get a fucking life.

  • FeralGamer #154 2 years ago

    I have the PS3 version and it looks/plays fine! Damn that lasso is fun!

  • Sn@ke #155 2 years ago

    MiniAmin FUCK YOU!!! EUROGAMER ARE TELLING THE TRUTH. THIS GAME IS BETTER ON XBOX 360. 720P 2X AA BETTER FRAME BETTER SHADOWS. SO SHUT UP. I WAS SAYING THAT XBOX CAN PRODUCE 500.000.000 POLYGONS AND PS3 ONLY 275.000.000
    SO HERE IS THE PROOF. AND ALSO IN MANY GAMES. SO SHUT UP

  • drumbaby #156 2 years ago

    So, basically, Rockstar aren't the best PS3 coders in the world...Okay, moving on....

  • koopa #157 2 years ago

    I'll be waiting for the PC version (if it comes out) since I don't have X360/PS3, but I must say although the X360 is clearly superior, in some cases the PS3 version looks better in the screnshots, like in that vista shot, the PS3 version looks like a movie still...
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 09:27

  • Retroid #158 2 years ago

    Oi, Sn@ke: no need to get shouty and insulting at other people. That goes for everyone else, too.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 14:28

  • rotmm #159 2 years ago

    @karooo, "Best looking game this gen what are you smoking? thats uncharted 2 fyi so cry me a river."

    While Uncharted 2 is definately a good looking game (I'm not sure I'd say the best looking this gen, but a lot of that is down to personal preference), it's a corridor shooter and therefore can't be used as a benchmark for open world titles such as RDR.

  • des #160 2 years ago

    "Way to ignore all the exclusives and concentrate on this game which isnt that technically great in the first place."

    Yeah sure,keep telling that to yourself,maybe it will become true...lol

    It's simply amazing that some people think that outdated,5 years old console can do anything...same goes for 360

    Yeah sure you can make a game that is targeting particular system,but that is a double-edged sword.

    "Lets make RDR for Wii...holy shit,this is not working...lets make a linear corridor shooter or 2D platformer instead"-radical example

    Same thing is happening to Crysis 2,game design is severely compromised by consoles...it doesn't matter if you have a PC that is 10x more "powerful" than "HD consoles",you will have higher res,better effects,60 fps,etc...but game design will remain unchanged,you just get a prettier game...no more no less

    GTA4 and RDR are among very rare games that would be absolutely impossible to make on "last-gen" hardware and that alone makes them technically amazing.

  • muscleblade #161 2 years ago

    "If I wanted the super-graphical ecstacy I would wait for the PC version"

    PC versions are seldom the best. They have issues of their own. Its a reason why the PC version of AC2 got a much lower metacritic average compared to the console versions. As AC2 was one of the absolute best multiplatform releases last year it says a lot.

  • koopa #162 2 years ago

    "PC versions are seldom the best. They have issues of their own. Its a reason why the PC version of AC2 got a much lower metacritic average compared to the console versions. As AC2 was one of the absolute best multiplatform releases last year it says a lot."

    Yeah, but the main reason why PC ports have lower scores is because PC reviewers are much more demanding when it comes to graphics, user interface, online play and other options...

  • DoctorFraud #163 2 years ago

    LOL @ people citing Uncharted 2 as a graphical benchmark. It wasnt. Ever.

  • telboy007 #164 2 years ago

    This is all very interesting but you should start an article looking at all the glitches this game has.

    My fav one so far was running and sliding into cover to find myself shooting up in the air before floating back down into cover. Thankfully nothing else went wrong and I merrily started killing scumbags again.

    Have rested at someone elses camp fire with a hogtied victim merrily balanced on my shoulder still. That was a bizarre one to watch. What a guy that Marston is!

    Have had the game freeze on me during the fort mercer raid, which was annoying.

    Overall awesome game, lovin' it.

  • geeza2020 #165 2 years ago

    /random retarded fanboy spew

    (i fucking HATE fanboys)

  • UncleLou #166 2 years ago

    LOL @ people citing Uncharted 2 as a graphical benchmark. It wasnt. Ever.

    You'd have to be a proper idiot to LOL at that opinion even if you don't share it. So for your own sake I'll assume you're a troll trying to valorize your point rather than just stupid. For now.

  • muscleblade #167 2 years ago

    @koopa

    Wake up and smell the coffee.

    PC PowerPlay AC2 PC review:
    "A combination of DRM and instability ruins what should be an excellent game. Pick this up on console."


    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 14:10

  • UncleLou #168 2 years ago

    Total PC Gaming
    "A prime example of the genre that is even better on PC and well worth waiting for."

    /shrug

    DRM is shit, game looks better than on the consoles. Sorry if that hurts you.

  • muscleblade #169 2 years ago

    @UncleLou

    Have you read some of the user reviews on this for PC on metacritic?

    Im so glad im not a PC gamer even though i have a high end PC. ;-).
    It doesnt matter if the game looks a tiny bit better if its unplayable.

    360 is definently the best all round choise for most gamers this gen. Its the truth.

  • UncleLou #170 2 years ago

    Have you read some of the user reviews on this for PC on metacritic?

    No, much better. I've actually played it. I know the anti-PC trolls like yourself only ever comment without experiences of their own. Glad I am not one of them. :)

    360 is definently the best all round choise for most gamers this gen. Its the truth.

    Personally, I much prefer the PC/PS3 combo, but to each his own.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 14:52

  • muscleblade #171 2 years ago

    DRM is shit and getting booted every now and then without getting the chance to save is why i will never be a PC gamer. This has ruined PC gaming imo. This article and the lack of time to play half of the games i want to play only on the 360 is why i dont want/need a PS3 either.

    To each his own of course.

  • oupe #172 2 years ago

    tl;dr (the comments section)

    All I can say is that on the 360 the framerates dip horrendously during some cutscenes.This seems to happen in more games and I think it's strange. If you build a game for a console you know the specs of the system, why make the game to heavy for the system?

    Anyhoo, mates that bought it for the ps3 are equally happy about the game.

  • Roland_on_the_Ropes #173 2 years ago

    Bought this game for my console at home (not sure which console it is) and think it is fantastic. A friend of mine who has the other console thinks it is equally fantastic. I will, however, try to convince him that my version is better than his due to the inferior picture box he has sitting on top of his console and the fact that he had Weetabix on a Wednesday morning instead of porridge which is "in" this season, as you all know...

    These DF articles are very interesting and enjoyable to read but unless you are actively working in the games industry (and I am not) they aren't that important.

    Never in my life have I walked into a room and commented on the lack of shadows being produced by the door as compared to the window. It wouldn't be a factor in buying a house let alone a videogame!

  • Tusken77 #174 2 years ago

    As a PS3 owner it's great to hear the PS3 is the best version. My pet peeve is screen tearing. There's screen tearing in the 360 game but absolutely none in the PS3 version. Brilliant!

  • Pasco #175 2 years ago

    Seems like it is forbidden to say one console is better than the other without being labeled as a troll and getting negative points but a console that is one full year newer and still costs considerably more than the other should per default offer better experiences or at least parity without the developers having to struggle. That is obviously not the case. There is no excuse for it. It's as simple as that.

    Microsoft did a better job than Sony this time around. Accept it and you have made a considerable step towards inner peace.

  • Geordiemp #176 2 years ago

    Makes me laugh when people talk about graphics. Its not just resolution, its lighting, effects, ANIMATIONS of characters, how they move and walk and climb.

    Nothing comes close to UC2, all others seem stiff and limited animations in comparison, although AC2 is not bad.

    ME2 is not great animation wise but what a game ! So its not everything....
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 17:27

  • Kryon #177 2 years ago

    "As a PS3 owner it's great to hear the PS3 is the best version."

    lol, and they say denial doesn't work...I'm a PS3 owner too, Uncharted is great, shame about everything else, no point buying heavy rain, I cry enough over the £400 I wasted on this sub standard console.

  • smelly #178 2 years ago

    Is the story any better on the ps3 version?

    As the last set of missions on the 360 version sucked balls.

    And the ending was "meh"

  • TRUTH #179 2 years ago

    UC 2 is very liner, has fixed cameras to get a more graphical dynamic look, does not have great AI or many characters onscreen, characters are actually quiet small, all paths are fixed routes, the cartoony vibrant color in UC 2 will always look more charming then real life color use as in RDR, ACII, had no sandbox elements, was not an open world game, most things that looked great where scripted events (truck in alley, helicopter attack, vehicle shoot-out).. the cost and with Sony's best development tools was some of the highest in video games (£40m) - no other game has been made on that scale (except GT5, which is the most expensive probably).

    UC2 best looking game - well yes & no - how far ahead is to more complex/larger more populated games like RDR, ACII, which are doing a hell of a lot more then UC 2 in many areas, yet can still look amazing. It's fairly easy to make games look more amazing that don't require the process to go into large open areas/sandbox/populated/non scripted and advanced A i/ physics / interaction with area..or all, such as RDR. ACII, GTA IV, then to make games that don't require them by using scripted, fixed cameras, simple AI, fixed routes etc etc...Like UC2. That's the difference in UC2 to RDR and ACII.

  • starhope #180 2 years ago

    Lol, we still find the same old bullshits... basic logic is cleary absent here.

    - It's an open world, thus better than PS3 exclusives : what about Gears of War ? The last Splinter Cell ? Mass Effect ? This is so easy to make a beautiful "corridor" game, so why is there not a single "corridor" game on 360 comparable to the best PS3 exclusives ?

    Logic 1 - Nonsense 0

    - Sony has better developers and blablabla... : 360 is an older console, thus better known. 360 is far easier to develop for as explained by any developer. In Fact, 360 is almost a standard PC. Thus any normal person will understand that there is not a single excuse to explain why 360 is outperformed.

    Logic 2 - Nonsense 0

    We want facts, not poor and easy speculations. Claims need to be supported by facts.

    Facts : PS3 exclusives are technically and graphically more impressive than anything seen on 360.

    Case closed.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 18:26

  • smelly #181 2 years ago

    @starhope: Fact - the game PLAYS just as well on both machines

    Fact - mario galaxy looks better than anything on either of the other two consoles - and it's not even in hd.

  • starhope #182 2 years ago

    This "debate" is over. Alan wake demonstrated how the 360 hardware is limited.

    This console is unable to make better than its older games. Like i said, this is an easy console, so its whole power has been shown since a long time... Halo 3, Gears 2, Alan Wake, Forza 3 (etc.) each of these game are technically similar.

    And that's why 360 exclusives aren't especially better than third-party games. Indeed, developers don't need to make a special work to use its power.

    PS3 is different. Its architecture is unique, so specific developers (ND, SM, Guerilla etc.) who have more tools make a better job.
    Edited by 3 at 26/05/10 @ 18:59

  • TRUTH #183 2 years ago

    ..obviously Starhope has no idea on fact or understanding of game development as you can see by his rather fanboy comments.

    RDR has been said to be one of the best looking games, esp as more complex/sandbox/open world game - and does look better/sharper on the 360. Previously 360 has always used middleware software; never opting to use, or, develop software or tools esp for 360 , as Sony does for exclusives...the reason is simple: Money, ease of development and quicker, more easy...Yet with some of the best looking games like Crysis 2, Rage, Dead Space 2 looking better then many if not all 1st party games - how could you state that 360 is limited when it can run these games/software, also fact the 360 has never really been pushed to it's advantages because of this. Also wasn't Rage the game (from the makers of Doom) running on it's latest build, reported by game journalist as one of the best seen graphically and effects etc...and was it not running best on the 360 ?...Yes it was!!!

    By the way Alan Wake was never specially developed for 360 - it was a PC, then 360 & PC, then 360 only...It had a very small development team (42 people), small funding and problems with finance - causing the many delays. Also the game scored a healty 83/100 on Metacritic score - so it's not a bad game at all. Also some of the effects esp lighting, weather, particle and even some views are really impressive.

    Don't make up things, or comment unless you know!
    Edited by 3 at 26/05/10 @ 19:33

  • Badassbab #184 2 years ago

    starhope-

    There are a few obvious limiting factors on 360. One is disc space and the other is HDD which isn't standard. But the fact that Alan Wake produced those stunning visuals on 6.8GBs (of which most were taken up by CG) with 30 odd people is quite an achievement on the old thing. I know it's sub-hd but it still looks better than the vast majority of console games and it's sandbox roots are clearly evident when playing the game. It's an impressive engine that isn't even a 360 exclusive engine (since it started out as multi platform).I'm sure they can make it even better.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 19:18

  • WJF #185 2 years ago

    'this is an easy console, so its whole power has been shown since a long time... Halo 3, Gears 2, Alan Wake, Forza 3 (etc.) each of these game are technically similar.'

    I'm confused. In what way are those games technically similar, other than the fact they're running on the same system? I mean, if I said 'Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2 and Little Big Planet are all technically similar' where would I be wrong, using your logic?

    You can use programming lingo if you like, but I suspect you know fuck all about it.

  • smelly #186 2 years ago

    You guys are removing my will to ever play games again.

  • Kryon #187 2 years ago

    Aww, smelly, mate, I thought that happened when you purchased the Wii? No? Oh, and 'starhope' (gayest name EVER, BTW). What nonsense are you rambling? A games consoles worth can only be judged by its games. The majority of games on 360 and PS3 are multiplatform, and as me know, the VAST majority of those are superior on the 360, hence the 360 has the better games in general, exclusives are subjective, some like Gears, some like Uncharted, but the fact remains that the 360 has in general the best games catalogue. FACT, hence is the better games console.

    Now, this debate is over, KTHNXBYE.

  • BuckEntropy #188 2 years ago

    "In Fact, 360 is almost a standard PC."

    Bullshit 1 - Facts 0

    =(

  • starhope #189 2 years ago

    Well, i'm not going to waste my time anymore... this is my last post. Once again, PS3 exclusives are talking for me.

    TRUTH, RDR isn't especially more advanced than GTA4. Indeed, there is an evolution. But the main difference is only graphical... and this is because their open world is fairly empty. This is not a complex town like GTA4. Technically, RDR is better but not by much.

    If this game runs better on 360, that's ONLY because it's a multiplatform game... as usual, they are better on 360. This console is easier to develop for. Moreover, there are more 360 than PS3... so why should developers waste their time with the PS3 ?

    Crysis 2 ? Please... this is pathetic... we've seen almost nothing of this game... moreover, Crytek said that the game is actually better on PS3 : [link url=http://www.p roduct-reviews.net/2010/04/14/crysis-2-is-performing-better- on-ps3-than-xbox-360-crytek/
    ]http://ww w.product-reviews.net/2010/04/1...[/link]

    Anyway, if those games are nice, NOBODY (or maybe just 2 or 3 persons among 1000...) dared to say that they are comparable to Uncharted 2, GOW3 or Killzone 2.

    Since you like Digital Foundry : "It's games like this, along with Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and Killzone 2, that give the platform holder ownership of the bleeding edge of console gaming technology in the current generation."

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-makin g-of-god-of-war-iii?page=4
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/the-ma...[/link]

    See ? Even the biased Leadbetter can't deny the facts... once again, you are nuked by them.

    Badass, please... stop your laughable excuses... like i said, 360 is almost a basic PC. Anyone knows that. And we don't know when they really decided to leave the PC version. Anyway, working on PC is like working on 360.

    This is a small team but ND too. Remedy is probably even smaller, but did you forget the 5/6 years of development ? To get what at the end ? A very very sub-hd game (540p, much lower than the usual 640p). But Alan Wake is still comparable to other 360 exclusives since it makes some things much better (lightings for example). Moreover, they used 1 year only for technical issues (said by themself). We saw the result... while Remedy is among the best developers from a technical standpoint... i'm affraid.

    Resolution is one of the biggest achievement. Crysis Warhead could run on this gen with a poor resolution, but a game like Half-Life 2 would be IMPOSSIBLE in 1080p.

    There is no excuse... not a single excuse... this console is too old and too simple... so if this power was the same than the PS3, we should see it.

    CASE CLOSED.

    Bye !
    Edited by 4 at 26/05/10 @ 20:58

  • BuckEntropy #190 2 years ago

    I'd really like to see this "basic PC' that's running a triple core PowerPC lacking out-of-order execution.

    starhope, the only major component in either of these consoles that could be called off-the-shelf is the RSX.

    Try again.

  • oupe #191 2 years ago

    Don't feed the troll. Ignore buttons are there for a reason :)

  • starhope #192 2 years ago

    Ok, specially for you Entropy and then i stop definitively.

    Why basic ? Because the 360 architecture has nothing particular.

    Its power is another story. But even in this field, and this is normal for an old hardware, there is nothing particular. Just check some recent middle PC.

    But apparently, its CPU is a unique thing... that's probably why Alan Wake is in 540p... why Forza 3 can't even compete with the old GTP5 : [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit alfoundry-forza3-evolution-article
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...[/link]

    Too easy... lol...

    Now i'm waiting for the next fanboy excuses about Killzone 3, especially when people will realize the difference with Gears of War 3... which will almost the same than Gears 2 (graphically).
    Edited by 3 at 26/05/10 @ 21:29

  • BuckEntropy #193 2 years ago

    starhope... it seems clear that driving through glorified wallpaper (in 1080p!) is the best for you, so that makes PS3 the best console for you. So why can't you just enjoy the games and be happy with it? Why the need to piss in the neighbor's yard?

    But good job abandoning your own line of argument there; the only relevant point about 360's architecture is that it's not just like DEVELOPING for a PC. It's proven easier to tap than PS3, but the same sort of idiosyncrasies of any console are in play for 360 as well. But if you genuinely somehow equate "unique" with "powerful" I guess it's really up to you to explain why Cell has yet to prove it's capable of significantly better base performance than the 360.



  • TRUTH #194 2 years ago

    starhope

    GOW 3 has not even been shown you twat!.

    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 21:49

  • funkateer #195 2 years ago

    @TRUTH
    "Also wasn't Rage the game (from the makers of Doom) running on it's latest build, reported by game journalist as one of the best seen graphically and effects etc...and was it not running best on the 360 ?...Yes it was!!! "

    Not it was not (at least not the last time Rage was shown). The PS3 version was just not shown.

    A recent quote (may 4, 2010): "When asked about the PlayStation 3 version, Willits said that the PS3 demo was definitely an option for the event, but he opted for the Xbox 360 instead. "Our program director actually said 'Do you want to take the PS3? I think it's actually running better,'" he said."

    Full article:
    http://ww w.tomshardware.com/news/id-soft...
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 22:04

  • Loghorn #196 2 years ago

    @dudefella & starhope: It looks like you bought the wrong system. It's been known time & time again that the PS3 is the wrong system to play most multiplats on.

    ronuds said:

    Why is everyone chalking up the differences to "lazy devs"? The teams probably had a certain amount of time and money to make the game and did the best they could in that time and with that money. Don't fault the developer because it's overly difficult to develop for the PS3. They have to balance the budget and taking an extra however-many months to bring both versions in line with one another isn't good business.

    Blame Sony - they're the company who devised the difficult console to develop for. You expect these devs to spend more money on the console which is probably going to provide the least profits? For once point the finger where it deserves to be pointed already and stop blaming everyone else.

    Yes, with infinite time and money you can create a very good looking product on the PS3. Unfortunately, not every developer has the luxury of infinite time and money. If the PS3 was developed with developers in mind and not Sony's bottom line, you wouldn't have this problem.

    I don't hate the PS3 - I think it's a good console. But let's get real already, can we please? If we're going to play the blame game, know who you're blaming and why.

    Awesome post. At least someone gets it.
    Edited by 2 at 26/05/10 @ 22:58

  • Dapper_Dan #197 2 years ago

    I bought this game on PS3 first, played it for a few days, but took it back and swapped it for the 360 version after reading this article. 360 looks better to me, textures are sharper, can see detail further away and more foliage on 360 (This to me was probably the most noticeable aspect), HOWEVER; whether it's because of the differing AA methods, or different resolutions I don't know, but on certain objects (generally buildings) jaggies seem to be more visible on 360 than PS3. Overall though, definitely looks better on 360 (Although with the aircraft engines that power the 360's cooling fans, it probably sounds better on PS3).

  • Kryon #198 2 years ago

    starhope is a french man pretending to be a girl....

  • rider2006 #199 2 years ago

    "I bought this game on PS3 first, played it for a few days, but took it back and swapped it for the 360 version after reading this article. 360 looks better to me, textures are sharper, can see detail further away and more foliage on 360 (This to me was probably the most noticeable aspect), HOWEVER; whether it's because of the differing AA methods, or different resolutions I don't know, but on certain objects (generally buildings) jaggies seem to be more visible on 360 than PS3. Overall though, definitely looks better on 360 (Although with the aircraft engines that power the 360's cooling fans, it probably sounds better on PS3)."

    Dapper_Dan just install the game to the hard drive. Problem solved as you mentioned about "Aircraft engines" noise. The noise is not from the fans, it's from the DVD drive. So one you install the game on the hard drive, the dvd drive is not in use after booting up the game.

  • Dapper_Dan #200 2 years ago

    @ rider2006
    Yeah I've installed it to the HDD. X360 is still fairly loud compared to PS3, even without the DVD drive being accessed (OK I admit, maybe "aircraft engines" was a bit of an exaggeration :p).
    Not loud enough to be a problem, but it is a noticeable difference during quiet sections of the game.

  • TRUTH #201 2 years ago

    Jesus!...do you guys have rabbit ears. I have a 360, it's louder then the PS3, but, not the fuss you guys are making - over exaggeration.

    Yes RRD is one of the most gorgeous looking games, and I'm playing it on the PS3.

  • Grievous1976 #202 2 years ago

    Just reading through the comments and it seems to me that the majority who have a minus rating must have upset the PS3 Fanboys! At the end of the day both machines have their good & bad points.

  • DoctorFraud #203 2 years ago

    Again, LOL @ idiots like starhope thinking UC2 and KZ2 are graphical benchmarks.

    UC2 was really nothing special apart from a decent streaming engine and KZ2 consisted of a few shades of incredibly low texture grey and a shitload of frame drops.

    Many games look much better than these two distinctly average games.

  • sharky_ob #204 2 years ago

    If you put spaces before your punctuation you are a mong.

  • mukki #205 2 years ago

    well I think I will get the Dreamcast version...

  • MrsPacMan #206 2 years ago

    you're a funny fucker mukki

  • RKOwned #207 2 years ago

    Seriously, watching the video, theyre isnt that much difference.

  • zaftxx #208 2 years ago

    the 360 is better at open world games its simple as that. 360 has more usable ram for graphics..

  • muscleblade #209 2 years ago

    @starhope

    Mass effect 2 looks better than any PS3 exclusives exept for maybe UC2, but thats arguable as that game is smaller in scope.
    Gears 2 looks better than Killzone 2 so dont get what you mean really.

  • IvorB #210 2 years ago

    Right. Was amped for this game but gonna pass after this. I'm a PS3 owner that's decided not to support developers who can't get platform parity. There was the excuse in the beginning of alien Cell hardware but it's been a few years now. We've had Uncharted, God of War, Heavy Rain etc so we know the PS3 is capable. Yes, I am a graphics whore and, yes, it would piss me off playing the graphically inferior version for no reason other than the developer couldn't be arsed. So take that, Rockstar, if I end up getting it I'm gonna buy the game secondhand.

    As noted by others as well it's funny there is no outcry from the writer as we saw for FF XIII. That was hilarious.

  • Retroid #211 2 years ago

    IvorB: "As noted by others as well it's funny there is no outcry from the writer as we saw for FF XIII. That was hilarious."

    Not really comparable, that's why. The resolution would have to be much lower (360 FFXIII's 1024x576 v PS3 RDR's 1152x640) and various parts of the engine would have to be broken aswell as dialed-back. Oh, and video encoded in the laziest way imaginable.

    But PS3 RDR is far better than that, and I must say that even if you wait until the price drops, it's a very good game and well worth picking up on either format!

  • freakzilla #212 2 years ago

    Does anyone have a summery of all the face offs? How many PS3 "wins"?

  • Retroid #213 2 years ago

    The closest to that is probably this page which includes IGN & Lens of Truth face-offs too.

  • NoKamiFujiwara #214 2 years ago

    Due to friend list preference, I had to get this for the PS3 and after some five hours into the game I'm starting to regret it. There are hardly any jaggies, sure, but that comes at the cost of the whole screen being smeared and the further into the horizon you look, the worse the impression. If humble DICE can achieve practical platform parity with their second big game for current gen, so should Rockstar with resources pouring out of doors and windows.

    When I play the game, I'm unconsciously inching myself ever closer to the screen just to see thing clearer. To no avail, of course. I guess I might pick this up for the XO as well in a couple of years when they release the inevitable GOTY edition...

    EDIT: One pretty big thing that hardly anyone seems to remember in these (in the end pointless ;D) face-off debates is that (correct me if I'm wrong) XO upscales every single game to 1080p by hardware whereas the PS3 can only do so by software, resulting in much poorer results. I have yet to see a PS3 game besides MW2 that by default prefers 1080p over 720p. Believe me, the difference is there and quite noticeable on a 42" 1080p screen. You can almost always force the PS3 to output 1080p by de-selecting the 720p option in the screen settings, but why should you when any mediocre telly seems to do a better job at upscaling. Even the almighty Uncharted 2 looks less crispy and sharp if upscaled by software rather than by telly. Not so with any XO game: hardware upscaling by console always produces better results than my Panasonic 42S10 plasma screen (year 2009 lineup, I think).
    Edited by 1 at 30/05/10 @ 11:23

  • Retroid #215 2 years ago

    NoKamiFujiwara: "When I play the game, I'm unconsciously inching myself ever closer to the screen just to see thing clearer. To no avail, of course."

    Sounds a bit like when I first got a PS3 and had to play Resistance on my old livingroom TV (only HD displays in the house were VGA monitors) - I kept thinking there was something wrong with my eyes, rubbing them, squinting, trying playing with my glasses.

    I'm certain this isn't as bad as that experience, mind!

  • Retroid #216 2 years ago

    @NoKamiFujiwara

    Actually, I think Sony have said the PS3 does have a hardware scaler but for some reason it can only be used to scale horizontally(!). That's the reason games like GT5P have odd resolutions like 1280x1080 - because they can easily scale it horizontally, but not vertically. Same with Wipeout, so far as I know it never deviates from 1080 on the vertical but alters resolution on the horizontal and then uses the hardware to scale it.

    The 360's scaler will scale anything to anything - so it never has to switch the resolution of the TV. Which is handy since my main TV loses picture and sound for a few seconds every time it has to change resolutions.
    Edited by 1 at 31/05/10 @ 01:08

  • Retroid #217 2 years ago

    @Masterflaw: "Xbox doesn't have a magic detail generator."

    No-one has said it does. But I'd rather have the 360 do the upscaling than most TVs I've used.

  • Retroid #218 2 years ago

    No, I know what you mean, but I set my 360 to output to the native resolution of the screen I'm using - so 1080p if it's on my main livingroom TV and 1680x1050 if I'm using my 22" monitor. This way the TV doesn't have to do any resizing / upscaling itself on the signal.

    I've used some LCD displays with horrible lag when they're doing the rescaling themselves so I'd rather the 360 did it.

  • skyrend #219 2 years ago

    I'll wait for the bargain bin for this game, which is more than I did for the godawful Bayonetta port.

  • Nebula #220 2 years ago

    Mafia 2 on PC looks a lot better than this, a LOT!

  • TheSpaz #221 8 months ago

    On the last image, the lighting difference is due to cloud coverage casting a shadow on the ground. Yes, this game has cloud shadows. This is the first game I've ever seen to implement that.