Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Graphics greatly improved on the complete edition

70 replies to this topic
Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#61

Posted 06 June 2011 - 12:24 AM

QUOTE (Magic_Al @ Jun 5 2011, 23:52)
QUOTE (Official General @ Jun 5 2011, 17:43)
I'm not gonna continue repeating myself. Eurogamer is 360-biased, everyone knows that, and I don't believe every single thing thats put in front of me by people like them. Rockstar have not officially admitted or confirmed using lower resolutions for the PS3 version. Why don't you just read the online reviews of GTA IV and RDR on major gaming sites like IGN over again. You will see that most of them do not claim that the 360 version is better than the 360 version. I just can't see what you and others see - I've seen both versions of GTA IV and RDR on the PS3 and the 360 and I don't see any real differences, and I definitely don't think the 360 versions look better and thats the truth on my part. I'm not changing my view on this subject just because others try to coerce me to.

Did you see that they said the PS3 version of L.A. Noire is better? There's no 360 bias. They're calling it like they see it. GTA IV and RDR got the same kind of review because they were made the same way. Rockstar San Diego developed RAGE for the 360 and the first RAGE games kept coming out skewed that way. L.A. Noire was made differently, it came out better for the PS3, and Eurogamer reported that.

I'm not "coercing" anyone. I'm pointing out that there's a way to tell the difference between opinion and fact: it's fact when they give enough evidence that other people can look for themselves and find the same truth on their own.

I don't accept those opposing claims to my views on this subject as facts. Its as simple as that. So what you are saying there means nothing to me, no disrespect.

Magic_Al
  • Magic_Al

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006

#62

Posted 06 June 2011 - 02:51 AM

QUOTE (Official General @ Jun 5 2011, 18:24)
I don't accept those opposing claims to my views on this subject as facts. Its as simple as that. So what you are saying there means nothing to me, no disrespect.

Almost everyone agrees the visual difference between consoles is slight. It doesn't impact the enjoyment of the games for most people. But some people are videophiles and audiophiles, whose idea of fun is knowing if they're getting the maximum technical performance on every spec. DigitalFoundry is catering to them. Nobody's forced to agree with the opinion parts of their articles, but I don't get the denialism about the factual parts. They're technical measurements. People can prove them right or wrong by measuring. Who's doing that? And now, the same author and process that produced pro-360 reviews in the past has produced a pro-PS3 review of L.A. Noire. That doesn't seem biased to me.

You saw an improvement in graphics in the GTA IV Complete Edition for PS3 compared to the original edition for PS3. No one's posted visuals or measurements of that, and Rockstar hasn't claimed it. It's fair for you to say what you saw, and maybe the Complete Edition does look better. I haven't seen it. But when DigitalFoundry makes a comparison, with details and examples, you cite lack of confirmation from Rockstar as a reason not to believe it. So I concede that what I'm saying may mean nothing to you, and that I don't know what claims you'll accept as facts, because you don't seem to have a consistent standard of proof. No disrespect.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#63

Posted 06 June 2011 - 06:24 PM

QUOTE (Magic_Al @ Jun 6 2011, 02:51)
QUOTE (Official General @ Jun 5 2011, 18:24)
I don't accept those opposing claims to my views on this subject as facts. Its as simple as that. So what you are saying there means nothing to me, no disrespect.

Almost everyone agrees the visual difference between consoles is slight. It doesn't impact the enjoyment of the games for most people. But some people are videophiles and audiophiles, whose idea of fun is knowing if they're getting the maximum technical performance on every spec. DigitalFoundry is catering to them. Nobody's forced to agree with the opinion parts of their articles, but I don't get the denialism about the factual parts. They're technical measurements. People can prove them right or wrong by measuring. Who's doing that? And now, the same author and process that produced pro-360 reviews in the past has produced a pro-PS3 review of L.A. Noire. That doesn't seem biased to me.

You saw an improvement in graphics in the GTA IV Complete Edition for PS3 compared to the original edition for PS3. No one's posted visuals or measurements of that, and Rockstar hasn't claimed it. It's fair for you to say what you saw, and maybe the Complete Edition does look better. I haven't seen it. But when DigitalFoundry makes a comparison, with details and examples, you cite lack of confirmation from Rockstar as a reason not to believe it. So I concede that what I'm saying may mean nothing to you, and that I don't know what claims you'll accept as facts, because you don't seem to have a consistent standard of proof. No disrespect.

For the last time, I gonna say this. There are only two things I consider facts in all of this. One - if Rockstar actually AND offically confirmed to everyone that GTA IV and Red Redemption on the PS3 is not full HD or of slightly lower quality than the 360 version. Two - (well this is nearly a fact, not fully), the conclusion of seeing these games run on the PS3 (and the 360)with my own eyes. Rockstar did not confirm anything of the kind. And my eyes tell me I'm viewing a full HD game. I'm sorry but for me, thats concrete evidence, not the words of some obsure, mr-nobody pixel counter I've never heard of.

You don't have to believe me about the Complete Edition on the PS3 looking better than the original. I won't force you to do so. I know what I've seen, and thats an improvement for sure. If you don't see it I respect that you don't. If you think GTA IV and RDR are sub-HD on the PS3 then fine. I don't believe those claims one bit unless Rockstar says so. Contact them yourself, get an answer and if its what you say it is, then you win hands down. Until then, I have my own reasons for sticking to my views.

dro0001
  • dro0001

    Fo Shizzle

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2006

#64

Posted 07 June 2011 - 06:56 AM

QUOTE (Magic_Al @ Jun 5 2011, 05:53)
QUOTE (dro0001 @ Jun 4 2011, 20:22)
RDR was made on the PS3 first and check out how much better it looks on the 360, it runs smoother and it looks better and runs at a higher resolution. Proven.

http://www.eurogamer...mption-face-off

RDR was NOT made on the PS3 first or that quality difference wouldn't have happened. It's true Rockstar did the "Old West Project" trailer for Sony back in 2005 but the fact is PS3 hardware didn't exist back then in anywhere close to final state. Microsoft was much further along and got the 360 out a year earlier than the PS3, and more importantly Microsoft got functional development hardware in the hands of game studios, and this resulted in the 360 being the lead console for development of Rockstar San Diego's RAGE technology and all RAGE games prior to L.A. Noire. There's no PS3 version of Rockstar San Diego's first RAGE game Table Tennis which came out before the PS3 did.

RDR being 360-led is evident in the quality difference in rendering and the fact that all previews, screenshots, and trailers were from the 360 version. L.A. Noire is the first RAGE game with the PS3 as the lead console and this is why L.A. Noire is by far the best looking RAGE game on the PS3 yet.

PS3 hardware was available mid 2005 and red dead redemption was in the making then.

ikt
  • ikt

     

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2006

#65

Posted 07 June 2011 - 09:13 AM

It's a good thing we can all agree console versions look like sh*t compared to the superior PC race because they have lower rendering resolutions, worse performance and most important, lower overall quality regarding draw distance, texture resolutions, shadow and reflection resolutions.

BarbwireALE
  • BarbwireALE

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2011

#66

Posted 16 April 2012 - 04:34 PM

The Complete Edition for Ps3 is definitely sharper than the original version. I just bought the complete edition by giving back the original one and i can see there is no f'n blur ! The Sun looks great ! The Shadows etc. So yes i can confirm that the GTA IV Complete edition has better graphics wink.gif

NewportByChrysler
  • NewportByChrysler

    LC R29

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

#67

Posted 17 April 2012 - 06:21 AM Edited by NewportByChrysler, 17 April 2012 - 04:34 PM.

QUOTE (BarbwireALE @ Monday, Apr 16 2012, 11:34)
The Complete Edition for Ps3 is definitely sharper than the original version. I just bought the complete edition by giving back the original one and i can see there is no f'n blur ! The Sun looks great ! The Shadows etc. So yes i can confirm that the GTA IV Complete edition has better graphics wink.gif

Post dates, POST.DATES.

urbanfire
  • urbanfire

    Ze Fire of da City

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2009

#68

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:15 PM

I don't have the complete edition, but I have the EFLC edition (just the expansion packs). And I wholeheartedly agree, EFLC had crisper, cleaner graphics. I think original ps3 vanilla was made with 640p (not 720p like xbox), but they got the hang of it and fixed it for eflc and complete edition.

BarbwireALE
  • BarbwireALE

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2011

#69

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:12 AM

QUOTE (NewportByChrysler @ Tuesday, Apr 17 2012, 06:21)
QUOTE (BarbwireALE @ Monday, Apr 16 2012, 11:34)
The Complete Edition for Ps3 is definitely sharper than the original version. I just bought the complete edition by giving back the original one and i can see there is no f'n blur ! The Sun looks great ! The Shadows etc. So yes i can confirm that the GTA IV Complete edition has better graphics wink.gif

Post dates, POST.DATES.

i know the post date man, but i don't care because now the last date in the topic is 2012 so now it is update wink.gif

GTAboyWonder
  • GTAboyWonder

    Die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2012

#70

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:04 AM

Sorry for going Off-Topic here but, I've recently bought GTAIV:CE, and I wanted to know if the songs from both TLaD and TBoGT play on IV? Or does the IV songs play in both DLC's?

Magic_Al
  • Magic_Al

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006

#71

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:21 AM

QUOTE (GTAboyWonder @ Tuesday, Apr 17 2012, 21:04)
Sorry for going Off-Topic here but, I've recently bought GTAIV:CE, and I wanted to know if the songs from both TLaD and TBoGT play on IV? Or does the IV songs play in both DLC's?

With the CE you have the same radio experience as with the separate GTA IV and EFLC discs. You only get the GTA IV soundtrack to combine with the others by buying TBOGT and TLAD as DLC. However the DLC installation does not include Vice City FM, Self-Actualization FM, or RamJam FM which you get when you don't have the GTA IV stations.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users