Graphics greatly improved on the complete edition

[œaœa]

Here we go again.

 

It is an accepted fact in the gaming industry that the PS3 is a more powerful machine overall than the 360. When you add up the all total specs and capabilities of both machines, the PS3 is definitely the more powerul machine. PS3 exclusive games like Uncharted series, God of War 3, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Heavy Rain prove this. Certain games on the PS3 simply cannot be made in the same way on the 360 without having to comprise the size, memory and visual quality of the game itself. The PS3 is a more powerful machine, but its not 'way more' powerful than a 360. I'm not gonna get all nerdy and start quoting different specs, but most gamers should know this already, and if you don't you are just being in denial.

I agree. I'm not a fanboy as I know both systems but I do play with my PS3 more because I don't really care for online play. I also read somewhere that GTA IV was dumbed down for the 360 only because there wasn't enough disk space. I'm not trying to start a fanboy war here but everyone should play the system they prefer. PS3 has its games and so does the 360. PS3 is more about single player adventure and racing games while 360 is only about shooters.

[super_slav]

 

Just because it was released a year before the PS3 doesn't mean it has to have a weaker GPU, newer doesn't mean better, it is already proven that the 360 is more powerful so there is no need for debate.

The 360 has a slightly more powerful GPU than the PS3. The equivalents are roughly a Geforce 7900 for the 360 and a 7800 for the PS3.

Not that much more powerful in that aspect. The PS3's SPU is more reminiscent of GPU architecture than CPU though and is capable of much more than the RAGE engine has taken advantage of.

 

And did someone mention that the 360 had more RAM? Well, it has 512mb shared video and system RAM whilst the PS3 has dedicated 256mb for both. However, the PS3's system RAM is at crazy frequencies despite its small quantity.

 

Basically, it's hard to tell.

 

 

It never ran like crap for me even with the original version. Or you're just trolling.

Personally I think that <30FPS is 'running like crap'.

lol the 350 has 474mb dedicated to games from its 512mb, the 360 version of the game runs smoother, and has less pop up and isn't as grainy and doesn't look like someone smeared Vaseline on the screen.

[Mr.Moffat]

 

lol the 350 has 474mb dedicated to games from its 512mb, the 360 version of the game runs smoother, and has less pop up and isn't as grainy and doesn't look like someone smeared Vaseline on the screen.

 

Right, first off both systems had the vasaline as u call it effect and the ps3 version whatever people might say about differences on each console had much less pop up

.

 

Kid get a life your either trolling or just one of those weird ocd fanboys who litrally cannot even comprehend that another system may be better in some places.

 

drop the ignorance and grow the hell up

 

 

 

[ikt]

At the time of release of IV, developers haven't been able to access all the power of the CELL processor, because it's a new architecture. Previous API's weren't compatible and newer functions haven't been discovered yet. On the 360, they could work with a more used architecture, but still not common. The PPC was powerful too, but also had it development limits at its time. Another important factor is that the RAGE engine just got developed from scratch. Not everything could've been optimised. All those factors added up to eachother make it easy to conclude GTA IV runs sh*t on everything.

[super_slav]

 

lol the 350 has 474mb dedicated to games from its 512mb, the 360 version of the game runs smoother, and has less pop up and isn't as grainy and doesn't look like someone smeared Vaseline on the screen.

 

Right, first off both systems had the vasaline as u call it effect and the ps3 version whatever people might say about differences on each console had much less pop up

.

 

Kid get a life your either trolling or just one of those weird ocd fanboys who litrally cannot even comprehend that another system may be better in some places.

 

drop the ignorance and grow the hell up

I didn't specifically say there was no Vaseline effect on the 360 there is almost twice as much on the PS3 and buildings pop up when flying around on the PS3 version, I have played both, The biggest reason I like the 360 version more is because the 360 controller, the stick are not as loose as the PS3 controller an positioned better.

Edited May 31, 2011 by dro0001

[Ash_735]

I aint a fanboy or a troll im just mentioning

 

x360 and PS2 specs are 7 generations behind latest tech again not a troll or fanboy

And what's your point? You were moaning about 'GTA IV looking like crap on PS3' .

Well, the PS3 isn't as powerful as the 360 and it was the direct cause of the delay of GTA IV.

See, isn't that down to the developers and how they make the game? Look at L.A.Noire, it looks better on PS3 because Team Bondi actually spent time on their PS3 engine unlike Rockstar did with RAGE during GTA IV and RDR.

Well look at mafia 2, the graphics on that game are better than la noire and it looks way better on the 360 than the PS3, 360 has twice the RAM for use with games, 2 more cores on the CPU and a newer GPU from a better GPU manufacturer.

Mafia 2 was a badly done port, that's like judging the PS3's power by looking at GTA4.

 

The PS3 is SLIGHTLY more powerful than the Xbox 360, BUT it's also a lot more complicated to code and program for, that's why more skilled developers and exclusive teams (Naughty Dog, Insomniac, ICE Team, etc) can squeeze soo much power out of the PS3 where as lazy third party studios (Rockstar Games, 2K, Activision, etc) simply port the Xbox 360 versions, and since the Xbox 360 set up is different to the PS3 set up, naturally, they look like crap on the PS3 because the games trying to use what isn't there but not using what is there!

 

L.A.Noire only looks better on the PS3 because Team Bondi pushed their already exclusive PS3 engine up first and had the PS3 as lead project, other developers and studios have also switched to PS3 first in recent years including the likes of EA, by putting more effort and working out the PS3 engine to make that look as best it can, it's easy to then break down the PS3 engine and re morph it to work on the Xbox 360 than it is for the process to work in reverse.

 

That way both versions looks near identical and perform well and that way it leaves the PS3 versions to actually take advantage of the PS3 SPU's.

[Official General]

@ Ash_735

 

Bullsh*t. Total bullsh*t. Rockstar's games do not look like crap on the PS3. I have both GTA IV and RDR on my PS3 and they look superb in full HD settings on my Sony Bravia TV.

 

GTA IV had differences on both the PS3 and 360 versions, but as far as graphics are concerned, they were more or less on an equal level. The PS3 and 360 versions of GTA IV both had their pros and cons. Some people stated that the PS3 had more smoother, more realistic graphics, and on the other hand some stated that the 360 had sharper graphics and brighter colours. The PS3 version was criticized for having a bit too much blur in the background draw distance (a problem now fixed in the Complete Edition) and the 360 version was criticized for looking a bit cartoony and less realistic because of its bright colours and over-sharpness. The 360 version also suffered from a lot of pop-in too.

 

I noticed the same thing with Red Dead Redemption. 360 fanboys screamed that their version of the game looked better than the PS3's, with one reason being their version had slightly more blades of grass !! In reality, both the PS3 and 360 versions of the game looked good on an equal level in their own way. I saw both versions and they both looked great. Again with similar differences from GTA IV - RDR looked sharper overall on the 360 than the PS3, but in my eyes that was not necessarily a good thing. It looked too sharp for me, and again it was a slightly too bright aswell. I preferred the PS3 version, it still looked sharp, but it also looked more smoother, detailed and more realistic. But others may disagree with me.

 

My point is that by judging from official industry reviews, both the two biggest Rockstar games of this current gaming generation looked great on both the PS3 and the 360, but to say one looked better than the other is clearly a matter of personal preference or subjective opinion. Its not like the 360 versions of these games looked ground-breakingly stunning compared to the PS3 versions, because they did not. And I don't know how you can say these games looked like crap on the PS3 and they clearly do not. You are over-dramatizing the differences here man.

 

I just hope you aint one of those guys that automatically believe those silly rumors of PS3 sub-HD games and those dumb, exaggerated online PS3 vs 360 graphics comparisons for multi-platform games, despite the fact that you have never even seen a PS3 version of these games running to judge.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Official General

[Ash_735]

@Officer General: Why take the negative and not the positive? GTA IV and RDR are inferior on the PS3, what you prefer doesn't come into it, they render at a lower resolution and have some slight problems.

 

Now the positive, L.A.Noire looks better on the PS3, both versions render at the same level but the PS3 versions has improved SSAO and a better framerate (not the mention the physical aspect of all being on one disc).

 

Now, You've tried arguing with me in the past, you NEVER pay attention to anything positive I have to say, instead you always bitch and moan about anything slightly negative against the PS3. Dude, chill it, and let the big boys talk instead of screaming "BULLsh*t YOU TALK BULLsh*t" and "IT LOOKS GOOD TO ME!!!", because those paper thin counter arguments (when there isn't even an argument) just make you look petty trying to defend Rockstar and the PS3, they DON'T need defending. When the company actually puts the effort and work in, the PS3 versions can look really good and out perform the Xbox 360 versions, I'm not slating the PS3, far from it, I'm bringing up the case of certain Developers not using the PS3 properly.

 

edit: And just to clarify dude, I'm not having a go at you, but in terms of stats and real figures and details, you can't ignore them and just scream that "I think it looks better" and that's it, it just doesn't make sense, learn to separate you opinion from fact. GTA IV looks better on the Xbox 360, but I prefer to play it on the PS3.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Ash_735

[Magic_Al]

I aint a fanboy or a troll im just mentioning

 

x360 and PS2 specs are 7 generations behind latest tech again not a troll or fanboy

And what's your point? You were moaning about 'GTA IV looking like crap on PS3' .

Well, the PS3 isn't as powerful as the 360 and it was the direct cause of the delay of GTA IV.

See, isn't that down to the developers and how they make the game? Look at L.A.Noire, it looks better on PS3 because Team Bondi actually spent time on their PS3 engine unlike Rockstar did with RAGE during GTA IV and RDR.

Rockstar San Diego's credits in the L.A. Noire manual tell us that L.A. Noire is using RAGE, in collaboration with engine coders from Team Bondi. This time the PS3 was the lead development console and inferior PS3 performance seen in previous RAGE games was finally eliminated. RAGE was never intended to be a 360-biased engine, but it seemed that way in earlier games because RAGE was developed before the PS3 was released. Rockstar San Diego did Table Tennis as the first RAGE product in 2006, and there is no PS3 version. Agent is slated to be a PS3 exclusive, so it was essential that the PS3 flavor of RAGE improve. From Rockstar San Deigo's perspective, L.A. Noire may be to Agent what Table Tennis was to GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption.

[Prometheus]

 

PS3 exclusive games like Uncharted series, God of War 3, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Heavy Rain prove this. Certain games on the PS3 simply cannot be made in the same way on the 360 without having to comprise the size, memory and visual quality of the game itself.

He's right. Just compare them to the 360 exclusive games.

Forza 3 - Gran Turismo 5,

Gears Of War 3 - Metal Gear Solid 4 (3rd Person Shooter),

....

[Official General]

 

@Officer General: Why take the negative and not the positive? GTA IV and RDR are inferior on the PS3, what you prefer doesn't come into it, they render at a lower resolution and have some slight problems.

 

Now the positive, L.A.Noire looks better on the PS3, both versions render at the same level but the PS3 versions has improved SSAO and a better framerate (not the mention the physical aspect of all being on one disc).

 

Now, You've tried arguing with me in the past, you NEVER pay attention to anything positive I have to say, instead you always bitch and moan about anything slightly negative against the PS3. Dude, chill it, and let the big boys talk instead of screaming "BULLsh*t YOU TALK BULLsh*t" and "IT LOOKS GOOD TO ME!!!", because those paper thin counter arguments (when there isn't even an argument) just make you look petty trying to defend Rockstar and the PS3, they DON'T need defending. When the company actually puts the effort and work in, the PS3 versions can look really good and out perform the Xbox 360 versions, I'm not slating the PS3, far from it, I'm bringing up the case of certain Developers not using the PS3 properly.

 

edit: And just to clarify dude, I'm not having a go at you, but in terms of stats and real figures and details, you can't ignore them and just scream that "I think it looks better" and that's it, it just doesn't make sense, learn to separate you opinion from fact. GTA IV looks better on the Xbox 360, but I prefer to play it on the PS3.

Believe all that stuff if you want to, I dont. There is no concrete evidence or official confirmation from Rockstar that the PS3 versions of GTA IV and RDR run at lower resolutions, and both games say 720p on the box, nothing lower. I've seen both versions and I cannot see the major difference. I think both games on the PS3 look great. I can't take the word of online pixel-counting nerds. Until Rockstar official says otherwise then I'm sorry I don't accept that. Don't tell me they definitely won't do that because other game developers like Bungie and Remedy have done so before. Also by the way, why not read the reviews of GTA IV on IGN and other sites ? Quite a nuber of them claimed that the PS3 version looked slightly better than the 360 version, because it looked more realistic. I'm not lying, go and check it for yourself. And none of the main gaming sites claimed that the 360 version of RDR looked better, especially IGN, because I read the reviews of that game closely before I bought it. Most sites (except biased ones) claimed that the PS3 and 360 versions of RDR pretty much were equal (save a few more blades of grass on the 360 version lol).

 

I'm not defending anyone. I don't care about Rockstar or the PS3 in that way - I'm just stating my views on a certain subject. If I think something is bullsh*t, I will speak my mind like anybody else. This is a forum, I thought that was ithe purpose. I genuinely believe those Rockstar games-PS3-version-being-inferior stories are complete crap. None of them have been verified or conclusively proven to be true. If I thought the PS3 versions looked rubbish AND also Rockstar confirmed these claims I'd believe them and I'd believe you. None of these things is the case. I have no problem with you having your own personal views, but don't force me to accept them, as I wont. I'm sticking to my views for justifiable reasons and I still disagree with you. I'll end that subject there.

 

On topic: Now people can see that the Complete Edition looks slightly better than the original GTA IV, I knew I was not seeing things.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Official General

[Ash_735]

 

Believe all that stuff if you want to, I dont. There is no concrete evidence or official confirmation from Rockstar that the PS3 versions of GTA IV and RDR run at lower resolutions, and both games say 720p on the box, nothing lower.

And that's where you will always fail in arguments. No offense, but you've just shown your knowledge on the subject in those sentences.

 

I am really sorry, but in this kind of subject, you really shouldn't be arguing, it's clear you don't know the facts, your opinion is getting in the way, and apparently to you, the actual FACTS are just rumours and speculation from "pixel-counting nerds". Do you even know how it is done? Do you know the process of how the game is analyzed and to what resolution it output or how much frame buffer is used to calculate these things? I'm going to say a big NO on that because that leads to FACTS.

 

Again, I am really sorry, but I'm just amazed how you can write paragraph after paragraph on this yet don't know a thing about what you're arguing against. And when evidence is presented "it's bullsh*t!"

 

OPINION is not FACT.

 

edit: Can you tell the difference between these two images? Just curious

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2011 by Ash_735

[Magic_Al]

Agree with Ash_735. You shouldn't need official statements to tell you what's real, especially since it's unrealistic to expect the seller of a product to point out unintentional imperfections.

 

The good news is Rockstar San Diego appears to have totally solved RAGE's PS3 issues as of L.A. Noire and the knowledge should carry over to the next GTA and all future Rockstar games. Red Dead Redemption is the last time anyone will be able to brag and/or complain about resolution difference.

[Official General]

@ Ash_735

 

I'm sorry but I deal with concrete evidence and the evidence of my own eyes. Its as simple as that. The fact remains that these sub-HD PS3 rumors have not been comfirmed by Rockstar. I myself have seen PS3 versions of Rockstar's games and my opinion is that they look great and they look full HD. Now when I put my views together with this fact (No confirmation from Rockstar), I can only conclude that the sub-HD rumors are bullsh*t. End of. Show me official proof and I will capitulate. Until then I have no more to say on that matter.

 

@ Magic_Al

 

There was nothing with Red Dead Redemption on the PS3. Its looks brilliant. I really cannot see what fuss with the PS3 version of RDR is all about. I have the damn game, its definitely up there with the best looking PS3 exclusive games in terms of graphics. I've seen the 360 version - I don't see how it looks better. It looks different, but not better. Well you are entitled to your own view regardless.

[Ash_735]

@ Ash_735

 

I'm sorry but I deal with concrete evidence and the evidence of my own eyes. Its as simple as that. The fact remains that these sub-HD PS3 rumors have not been comfirmed by Rockstar. I myself have seen PS3 versions of Rockstar's games and my opinion is that they look great and they look full HD. Now when I put my views together with this fact (No confirmation from Rockstar), I can only conclude that the sub-HD rumors are bullsh*t. End of. Show me official proof and I will capitulate. Until then I have no more to say on that matter.

Can I have the same drugs you're on, I want to ignore facts and blissfully think I'm always right to despite evidence being in front of me.

[Official General]

@ Ash_735

 

I'm sorry but I deal with concrete evidence and the evidence of my own eyes. Its as simple as that. The fact remains that these sub-HD PS3 rumors have not been comfirmed by Rockstar. I myself have seen PS3 versions of Rockstar's games and my opinion is that they look great and they look full HD. Now when I put my views together with this fact (No confirmation from Rockstar), I can only conclude that the sub-HD rumors are bullsh*t. End of. Show me official proof and I will capitulate. Until then I have no more to say on that matter.

Can I have the same drugs you're on, I want to ignore facts and blissfully think I'm always right to despite evidence being in front of me.

Yeah you can get them anywhere on a street corner in a ghetto near you.

[super_slav]

I aint a fanboy or a troll im just mentioning

 

x360 and PS2 specs are 7 generations behind latest tech again not a troll or fanboy

And what's your point? You were moaning about 'GTA IV looking like crap on PS3' .

Well, the PS3 isn't as powerful as the 360 and it was the direct cause of the delay of GTA IV.

See, isn't that down to the developers and how they make the game? Look at L.A.Noire, it looks better on PS3 because Team Bondi actually spent time on their PS3 engine unlike Rockstar did with RAGE during GTA IV and RDR.

Well look at mafia 2, the graphics on that game are better than la noire and it looks way better on the 360 than the PS3, 360 has twice the RAM for use with games, 2 more cores on the CPU and a newer GPU from a better GPU manufacturer.

Mafia 2 was a badly done port, that's like judging the PS3's power by looking at GTA4.

 

The PS3 is SLIGHTLY more powerful than the Xbox 360, BUT it's also a lot more complicated to code and program for, that's why more skilled developers and exclusive teams (Naughty Dog, Insomniac, ICE Team, etc) can squeeze soo much power out of the PS3 where as lazy third party studios (Rockstar Games, 2K, Activision, etc) simply port the Xbox 360 versions, and since the Xbox 360 set up is different to the PS3 set up, naturally, they look like crap on the PS3 because the games trying to use what isn't there but not using what is there!

 

L.A.Noire only looks better on the PS3 because Team Bondi pushed their already exclusive PS3 engine up first and had the PS3 as lead project, other developers and studios have also switched to PS3 first in recent years including the likes of EA, by putting more effort and working out the PS3 engine to make that look as best it can, it's easy to then break down the PS3 engine and re morph it to work on the Xbox 360 than it is for the process to work in reverse.

 

That way both versions looks near identical and perform well and that way it leaves the PS3 versions to actually take advantage of the PS3 SPU's.

Mafia 2 was not a port but was made from scratch on all systems.

[d0mm2k8]

@ Ash_735

 

I'm sorry but I deal with concrete evidence and the evidence of my own eyes. Its as simple as that.

http://kotaku.com/385237/gta-iv-runs-at-63...whats-that-mean

 

This is about the most concrete evidence I can be bothered to find.

PS3 GTA IV does run at a lower resolution, but you will barely notice the difference (I do but that's me).

 

 

All games on consoles look ugly to me anyways, being the super-PC graphics whore I am.

[Official General]

@ Ash_735

 

I'm sorry but I deal with concrete evidence and the evidence of my own eyes. Its as simple as that.

http://kotaku.com/385237/gta-iv-runs-at-63...whats-that-mean

 

This is about the most concrete evidence I can be bothered to find.

PS3 GTA IV does run at a lower resolution, but you will barely notice the difference (I do but that's me).

 

 

All games on consoles look ugly to me anyways, being the super-PC graphics whore I am.

Thats not concrete evidence, thats just an article from an independant gaming site known to be biased in favour of the 360 (Kotaku definitely is). Let define what I mean by concrete evidence - an official statement from Rockstar confirming this. Just like Bungie did for Halo 3 and Remedy did for Alan Wake. Until then I will not accept anything less than that.

[super_slav]

@ Ash_735

 

I'm sorry but I deal with concrete evidence and the evidence of my own eyes. Its as simple as that.

http://kotaku.com/385237/gta-iv-runs-at-63...whats-that-mean

 

This is about the most concrete evidence I can be bothered to find.

PS3 GTA IV does run at a lower resolution, but you will barely notice the difference (I do but that's me).

 

 

All games on consoles look ugly to me anyways, being the super-PC graphics whore I am.

Thats not concrete evidence, thats just an article from an independant gaming site known to be biased in favour of the 360 (Kotaku definitely is). Let define what I mean by concrete evidence - an official statement from Rockstar confirming this. Just like Bungie did for Halo 3 and Remedy did for Alan Wake. Until then I will not accept anything less than that.

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.net/articles/digitalf...mption-face-off

[nkjellman]

I dont know realy if I can tell any difference. I guss I could say that the color may be better on Complete Edition, rather than reguler GTA IV/EFLC. But Im not 100% on that.

[Magic_Al]

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.net/articles/digitalf...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.

[Official General]

 

@ Ash_735

 

I'm sorry but I deal with concrete evidence and the evidence of my own eyes. Its as simple as that.

http://kotaku.com/385237/gta-iv-runs-at-63...whats-that-mean

 

This is about the most concrete evidence I can be bothered to find.

PS3 GTA IV does run at a lower resolution, but you will barely notice the difference (I do but that's me).

 

 

All games on consoles look ugly to me anyways, being the super-PC graphics whore I am.

Thats not concrete evidence, thats just an article from an independant gaming site known to be biased in favour of the 360 (Kotaku definitely is). Let define what I mean by concrete evidence - an official statement from Rockstar confirming this. Just like Bungie did for Halo 3 and Remedy did for Alan Wake. Until then I will not accept anything less than that.

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.net/articles/digitalf...mption-face-off

I disagree personally. I just don't understand why some people think the 360 version of Red Dead Redemption looks so much better than the PS3 version.

 

I remember before RDR was released there was so much pre-release hype on how much better the 360 version looked than the PS3 version with all these comparisons (360 version looked better, sharper, had more blades of grass on the foreground). And I'll tell you all the truth - I was looking very forward to playing RDR, so I was actually quite scared that the PS3 version was gonna look like sh*t compared to the 360 version. I would have been very angry also. I read the reviews very carefully on major gaming sites like IGN, but none of them stated that the PS3 version was inferior to the 360 version and the scores for the two versions were the same. But the many online PS3 v 360 version comparisons were kinda confusing me aswell. So I just went ahead and bought my PS3 copy of RDR. To my surprise (and great joy) the PS3 version looked fantastic. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. I was totally blown away by the stunning visuals and the whole game itself. I've played the 360 version on my friend's 360 and I really don't think it looks better than the PS3 version. I think they generally look the same, but I prefer the PS3 version and I'm not saying this just because I have a PS3. The 360 version looks a bit more crisper, brighter coloured and with more sharpness, but the problem is that there is too much of that effect - it looks a slight bit cartoony. The PS3 version gets the balance right - still very detailed and sharp, but not too much sharpness, plus more 'realer' colours that are not too bright and smoothed around areas that matter. Take this how you want, but that is my real experience and genuine view on this subject.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Official General

[Mr.Moffat]

 

v 360 version comparisons were kinda confusing me aswell. So I just went ahead and bought my PS3 copy of RDR. To my surprise (and great joy) the PS3 version looked fantastic. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. I was totally blown away by the stunning visuals and the whole game itself. I've played the 360 version on my friends and I don't think it looks better than the PS3. I think they look the same, but I prefer the PS3 version and I'm not saying this just because I have a PS3. The 360 version looks a bit more crisper, brighter and sharper, but the problem is that there is too much of that effect - it looks a slight bit cartoony. The PS3 version gets the balance right - sharp, but not too much, more 'realer' colours that are not too bright and smoothed around areas that matter

 

Yup, nowdays any multiplatform game looks almost identical bar a slight few tiny differences (and both consoles will do certain things better), I just thinks it hilarious and pathetic how people shout from the roof tops in an ignorant and superior tone how their version of the game has more detailed clouds. it is utterly pathetic.

[Official General]

v 360 version comparisons were kinda confusing me aswell. So I just went ahead and bought my PS3 copy of RDR. To my surprise (and great joy) the PS3 version looked fantastic. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. I was totally blown away by the stunning visuals and the whole game itself. I've played the 360 version on my friends and I don't think it looks better than the PS3. I think they look the same, but I prefer the PS3 version and I'm not saying this just because I have a PS3. The 360 version looks a bit more crisper, brighter and sharper, but the problem is that there is too much of that effect - it looks a slight bit cartoony. The PS3 version gets the balance right - sharp, but not too much, more 'realer' colours that are not too bright and smoothed around areas that matter

 

Yup, nowdays any multiplatform game looks almost identical bar a slight few tiny differences (and both consoles will do certain things better), I just thinks it hilarious and pathetic how people shout from the roof tops in an ignorant and superior tone how their version of the game has more detailed clouds. it is utterly pathetic.

@ Mr.Moffat

 

Thank you, you have said exactly everything I've been saying all along. They can all fool themselves as much as they want, multiplatform games look pretty much the same on both the PS3 and the 360, and it has been this way for the last 3 years now (including GTA IV and RDR). The two versions will look slightly different, only simply because they are on different consoles, and each version will have an equal amount of pros and cons. But generally they are the same, its just a matter of personal opinion as to which one is better.

 

And you are definitely right about all this stuff being pathetic. The crazy and strange thing about all of this is that there are people who are still strongly convinced that the 360 versions of these games look a great deal better than PS3. On top of it all, they try really hard to convince (or force) everybody else like me and you to believe their exaggerated and misleading claims backed up with speculative and weak evidence like biased articles, unfair/fabricated side-by-side TV comparisons and the findings of geeky, pixel-counting nerds who don't work for Rockstar or any game developer, and have nothing else to do. Thankfully with RDR I was smart enough to actually buy the game for PS3 and find out for myself - and I found out that these 360 hype men were talk rubbish all along.

[Mr.Moffat]

 

@ Mr.Moffat

 

Thank you, you have said exactly everything I've been saying all along. They can all fool themselves as much as they want, multiplatform games look pretty much the same on both the PS3 and the 360, and it has been this way for the last 3 years now (including GTA IV and RDR). The two versions will look slightly different, only simply because they are on different consoles, and each version will have an equal amount of pros and cons. But generally they are the same, its just a matter of personal opinion as to which one is better.

 

And you are definitely right about all this stuff being pathetic. The crazy and strange thing about all of this is that there are people who are still strongly convinced that the 360 versions of these games look a great deal better than PS3. On top of it all, they try really hard to convince (or force) everybody else like me and you to believe their exaggerated and misleading claims backed up with speculative and weak evidence like biased articles, unfair/fabricated side-by-side TV comparisons and the findings of geeky, pixel-counting nerds who don't work for Rockstar or any game developer, and have nothing else to do. Thankfully with RDR I was smart enough to actually buy the game for PS3 and find out for myself - and I found out that these 360 hype men were talk rubbish all along.

 

Yeah I mean fair enough a few years ago people could argue the whole console comparison thing as their was differneces, eg gta 3 era on xbox compared to the ps2 yeah they looked miles better, but today? oh it looks sharper and more vibrant colours? really . hell you can only notice thses minute differences if you put them side by side, you probably would'nt tell the difference unless they were pointed out to you with a magnifying glass.

It's complete fanboyism, and its just people in my view, trying to completly justiy why they spent a few hundred bucks on their choosen system over the rivial, so they grasp at anything. I've watched those comparison trailers on gametrailers and most of the time one just looks slightly darker, hell you could prob just adjust your tv if it annoyed you that much, but nowdays eg LA noire they look IDENTICAL!!

yet the comments for the video have people arguing about stuff that I for the life off me can not notice!

 

to end it is just blatant fanboyism, and if its not then get a f*cking life and play the games instead off getting angry that the ps3 version has slightly less colourful shoes or whatever.

 

[Official General]

@ Mr.Moffat

 

Thank you, you have said exactly everything I've been saying all along. They can all fool themselves as much as they want, multiplatform games look pretty much the same on both the PS3 and the 360, and it has been this way for the last 3 years now (including GTA IV and RDR). The two versions will look slightly different, only simply because they are on different consoles, and each version will have an equal amount of pros and cons. But generally they are the same, its just a matter of personal opinion as to which one is better.

 

And you are definitely right about all this stuff being pathetic. The crazy and strange thing about all of this is that there are people who are still strongly convinced that the 360 versions of these games look a great deal better than PS3. On top of it all, they try really hard to convince (or force) everybody else like me and you to believe their exaggerated and misleading claims backed up with speculative and weak evidence like biased articles, unfair/fabricated side-by-side TV comparisons and the findings of geeky, pixel-counting nerds who don't work for Rockstar or any game developer, and have nothing else to do. Thankfully with RDR I was smart enough to actually buy the game for PS3 and find out for myself - and I found out that these 360 hype men were talk rubbish all along.

 

Yeah I mean fair enough a few years ago people could argue the whole console comparison thing as their was differneces, eg gta 3 era on xbox compared to the ps2 yeah they looked miles better, but today? oh it looks sharper and more vibrant colours? really . hell you can only notice thses minute differences if you put them side by side, you probably would'nt tell the difference unless they were pointed out to you with a magnifying glass.

It's complete fanboyism, and its just people in my view, trying to completly justiy why they spent a few hundred bucks on their choosen system over the rivial, so they grasp at anything. I've watched those comparison trailers on gametrailers and most of the time one just looks slightly darker, hell you could prob just adjust your tv if it annoyed you that much, but nowdays eg LA noire they look IDENTICAL!!

yet the comments for the video have people arguing about stuff that I for the life off me can not notice!

 

to end it is just blatant fanboyism, and if its not then get a f*cking life and play the games instead off getting angry that the ps3 version has slightly less colourful shoes or whatever.

Exactly Mr.Moffat.

 

In the last gaming generation, there were obvious differences because the original Xbox was more powerful than a PS2 - no one argued with that. With the PS3 and 360 this is not the case. The PS3 is clearly a more powerful machine (as exclusives show), but most multiplatform games look and run on equal levels on both the PS3 and the 360, at least from since late 2007.

 

In the PS3's first two years of release, (2006-2007) yeah its was definitely fair to say that the 360 had the better deal in SOME of multiplatform games back then, for instance games like The Orange Box. However, since late 2007, most major multiplatform titles generally look and perform the same on both the PS3 and the 360. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was one of the first multiplatform games to signify this change in trend. And you are also correct about the TV settings - some 360 multiplatform games are sometimes considered being brighter in colour than their PS3 counterparts - however all you have to do is adjust your TV settings and change the display to your taste (Which is why random online TV console comparisons are very susceptible to bias and fabrication, and also why I don't trust them!).

 

Anyone still talking that nonesense about multiplatform games (especially GTA IV and RDR) still looking superior on the 360 compared to the PS3 are clutching at straws or beating a dead horse. Those days were long gone, even before the release of GTA IV. If it makes them happy they bought a 360, then fine so be it. But its still hard to believe that this pathetic rubbish still gets spewed out by some people.

 

 

[Magic_Al]

It's not rational to claim that observable facts are fabricated or suggest that no one can see any difference unless they're biased. That's a defensive position that's just as bad as exaggerating the differences.

 

Eurogamer's Digital Foundry Face-Offs aren't biased. In their L.A. Noire Face-Off, they show in great detail why the PS3 version is better. Their previous Face-Offs of RDR and GTA IV showed in great detail why the 360 versions are better. The judgments are based on observable facts and their articles show the evidence to support their statements.

 

Until recently, Rockstar struggled more with the PS3 than the 360. It's a fact that the 360 came out a year before the PS3. That means programmers have a year more experience with it, and the software tools they use to make 360 games are a year more mature. That matters. It took until L.A. Noire for Rockstar, with Team Bondi's help, to get their RAGE technology caught up on the PS3 side.

 

The only thing I'm a fanboy of is reality-based truth. Rockstar has always tried to make both versions the same. There are technical reasons why that was difficult. It's interesting to see the results of facing those challenges. It appears, with L.A. Noire the problems have finally been beat. There will still be cosmetic differences but not quality differences like resolution and performance.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Magic_Al

[Official General]

It's not rational to claim that observable facts are fabricated or suggest that no one can see any difference unless they're biased. That's a defensive position that's just as bad as exaggerating the differences.

 

Eurogamer's Digital Foundry Face-Offs aren't biased. In their L.A. Noire Face-Off, they show in great detail why the PS3 version is better. Their previous Face-Offs of RDR and GTA IV showed in great detail why the 360 versions are better. The judgments are based on observable facts and their articles show the evidence to support their statements.

 

Until recently, Rockstar struggled more with the PS3 than the 360. It's a fact that the 360 came out a year before the PS3. That means programmers have a year more experience with it, and the software tools they use to make 360 games are a year more mature. That matters. It took until L.A. Noire for Rockstar, with Team Bondi's help, to get their RAGE technology caught up on the PS3 side.

 

The only thing I'm a fanboy of is reality-based truth. Rockstar has always tried to make both versions the same. There are technical reasons why that was difficult. It's interesting to see the results of facing those challenges. It appears, with L.A. Noire the problems have finally been beat. There will still be cosmetic differences but not quality differences like resolution and performance.

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.

[Magic_Al]

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.