Aliasing: Just the Fact of Life for 720p Displays

[MosquitoSmasher]

rdr doesnt even have constant 30 fps and its not even 720p loool (speaking about the ps3 version)

PS3 version only has 680p. Xbox has 720p native and 2x AA

The PS3 version of RDR looked better to me than the 360 version. I personally preferred the PS3 look.

 

Unless Rockstar said otherwise, it looked 720p to me and says so on the box.

You can't be serious about that. There have been several analysis videos of this, done by Digital Foundry and Lens of truth and the difference was quite big. PS3 clearly the much lesser version. I respect your opinion that you like the PS3's look better, but i don't understand it one bit. Especially because it's simply a fact that it didn't run at 720p at all.

 

Either way....even if these previews say it runs pretty smoothly, they said that about GTA IV as well and i've encountered PLENTY of bad framedrops in that game. Sure, with a 60 inch tv compared to much smaller tv's it's much easier to notice, but we shouldn't expect wonders. RDR was smooth most of the time, except for some framedrops here and there.

[iNero]

rdr doesnt even have constant 30 fps and its not even 720p loool (speaking about the ps3 version)

PS3 version only has 680p. Xbox has 720p native and 2x AA

The PS3 version of RDR looked better to me than the 360 version. I personally preferred the PS3 look.

 

Unless Rockstar said otherwise, it looked 720p to me and says so on the box.

You can't be serious about that. There have been several analysis videos of this, done by Digital Foundry and Lens of truth and the difference was quite big. PS3 clearly the much lesser version. I respect your opinion that you like the PS3's look better, but i don't understand it one bit. Especially because it's simply a fact that it didn't run at 720p at all.

 

Either way....even if these previews say it runs pretty smoothly, they said that about GTA IV as well and i've encountered PLENTY of bad framedrops in that game. Sure, with a 60 inch tv compared to much smaller tv's it's much easier to notice, but we shouldn't expect wonders. RDR was smooth most of the time, except for some framedrops here and there.

and therefore Im looking forward to the 360 Version. cause its possible that it will look even better ( at least in resolution probably)

[Kushi_Pete]

Well I'm guessing the pic is from the PS3 version because there is not much distance blur.

For example:

 

X360: If U look next to the pickup truck U can see distance blur.

 

 

PS3: Look to right of Franklin, there is not as much distance blurr.

 

But that does not matter since the game isn't even finished yet.

[Official General]

 

rdr doesnt even have constant 30 fps and its not even 720p loool (speaking about the ps3 version)

PS3 version only has 680p. Xbox has 720p native and 2x AA

The PS3 version of RDR looked better to me than the 360 version. I personally preferred the PS3 look.

 

Unless Rockstar said otherwise, it looked 720p to me and says so on the box.

You can't be serious about that. There have been several analysis videos of this, done by Digital Foundry and Lens of truth and the difference was quite big. PS3 clearly the much lesser version. I respect your opinion that you like the PS3's look better, but i don't understand it one bit. Especially because it's simply a fact that it didn't run at 720p at all.

 

 

I'm very serious. This is not no fanboy stuff coming from me. I nearly believed the PS3 version was bad because of biased reports, and those stupid inaccurate analysis and video comparisons, until read the reviews and played the game myself. I've seen both versions of RDR and I did not llike the look of the 360 version, it looked a bit too colorful, too sharp and quite bright. The PS3 version had a more natural, smoother and slightly realistic look, that is just my opinion. RDR on the 360 just had a few more blades of grass, and that was the only major visual difference I noticed. I personally did not see any real visual evidence that 360 version looked much better than the PS3 version and that is the truth.

 

Ask Miamivicecity, he recently bought the PS3 version of RDR (he also owns the 360 version) and he too agreed with me.

 

I'm not that much into pixel-counting and graphics analysis websites, they don't make the games, and to be honest I never visit them. And I won't be staring anytime soon. I'd rather believe the words of the games makers themselves. I've said many times, if Rockstar confirmed a PS3 version of their game was not 720p, then I'd have no argument. My standards of evidence of this nature are that it must come directly from the source.

 

I don't wanna argue about it, because it will go in circles, but I only explained my view in a bit more detail because it appeared you wanted me to do that.

 

@ iNero

 

F**k all that. Why not actually see the PS3 version of RDR for yourself running at full HD settings ? That is the best way to judge. If you did, it might be something different you are saying.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Official General

[Flashify]

I'd rather have distance blur than flickering pixels.

[rdfdsv]

As a guy that grew up playing PS1 I clearly have the right to direct a f*ck Off at you.

Seriously, who cares? The game will be so fun.

[Agni]

The more I see threads like this the more I hope there will NEVER be a PC version

>"I don't want others to have the version they want because I'm a jealous twat!"

 

DO you realize how dumb you sound?

Someone sounds mad

The only one who sounds mad is you.

[iNero]

rdr doesnt even have constant 30 fps and its not even 720p loool (speaking about the ps3 version)

PS3 version only has 680p. Xbox has 720p native and 2x AA

The PS3 version of RDR looked better to me than the 360 version. I personally preferred the PS3 look.

 

Unless Rockstar said otherwise, it looked 720p to me and says so on the box.

You can't be serious about that. There have been several analysis videos of this, done by Digital Foundry and Lens of truth and the difference was quite big. PS3 clearly the much lesser version. I respect your opinion that you like the PS3's look better, but i don't understand it one bit. Especially because it's simply a fact that it didn't run at 720p at all.

 

 

I'm very serious. This is not no fanboy stuff coming from me. I nearly believed the PS3 version was bad because of biased reports, and those stupid inaccurate analysis and video comparisons, until read the reviews and played the game myself. I've seen both versions of RDR and I did not llike the look of the 360 version, it looked a bit too colorful, too sharp and quite bright. The PS3 version had a more natural, smoother and slightly realistic look, that is just my opinion. RDR on the 360 just had a few more blades of grass, and that was the only major visual difference I noticed. I personally did not see any real visual evidence that 360 version looked much better than the PS3 version and that is the truth.

 

Ask Miamivicecity, he recently bought the PS3 version of RDR (he also owns the 360 version) and he too agreed with me.

 

I'm not that much into pixel-counting and graphics analysis websites, they don't make the games, and to be honest I never visit them. And I won't be staring anytime soon. I'd rather believe the words of the games makers themselves. I've said many times, if Rockstar confirmed a PS3 version of their game was not 720p, then I'd have no argument. My standards of evidence of this nature are that it must come directly from the source.

 

I don't wanna argue about it, because it will go in circles, but I only explained my view in a bit more detail because it appeared you wanted me to do that.

 

@ iNero

 

F**k all that. Why not actually see the PS3 version of RDR for yourself running at full HD settings ? That is the best way to judge. If you did, it might be something different you are saying.

I dont need to compare them to know that 720p is better than 640p

[Official General]

 

rdr doesnt even have constant 30 fps and its not even 720p loool (speaking about the ps3 version)

PS3 version only has 680p. Xbox has 720p native and 2x AA

The PS3 version of RDR looked better to me than the 360 version. I personally preferred the PS3 look.

 

Unless Rockstar said otherwise, it looked 720p to me and says so on the box.

You can't be serious about that. There have been several analysis videos of this, done by Digital Foundry and Lens of truth and the difference was quite big. PS3 clearly the much lesser version. I respect your opinion that you like the PS3's look better, but i don't understand it one bit. Especially because it's simply a fact that it didn't run at 720p at all.

 

 

I'm very serious. This is not no fanboy stuff coming from me. I nearly believed the PS3 version was bad because of biased reports, and those stupid inaccurate analysis and video comparisons, until read the reviews and played the game myself. I've seen both versions of RDR and I did not llike the look of the 360 version, it looked a bit too colorful, too sharp and quite bright. The PS3 version had a more natural, smoother and slightly realistic look, that is just my opinion. RDR on the 360 just had a few more blades of grass, and that was the only major visual difference I noticed. I personally did not see any real visual evidence that 360 version looked much better than the PS3 version and that is the truth.

 

Ask Miamivicecity, he recently bought the PS3 version of RDR (he also owns the 360 version) and he too agreed with me.

 

I'm not that much into pixel-counting and graphics analysis websites, they don't make the games, and to be honest I never visit them. And I won't be staring anytime soon. I'd rather believe the words of the games makers themselves. I've said many times, if Rockstar confirmed a PS3 version of their game was not 720p, then I'd have no argument. My standards of evidence of this nature are that it must come directly from the source.

 

I don't wanna argue about it, because it will go in circles, but I only explained my view in a bit more detail because it appeared you wanted me to do that.

 

@ iNero

 

F**k all that. Why not actually see the PS3 version of RDR for yourself running at full HD settings ? That is the best way to judge. If you did, it might be something different you are saying.

I dont need to compare them to know that 720p is better than 640p

Well like I said, I'll believe the PS3 version is less than 720p if Rockstar says so. Until then I'll believe my eyes and the what it says on the box.

 

Lets leave it at that

Edited May 7, 2013 by Official General

[Agni]

I dont need to compare them to know that 720p is better than 640p

Well like I said, I'll believe the PS3 version is less than 720p if Rockstar says so. Until then I'll believe my eyes and the what is says on the box.

 

Lets leave it at that

>"I am wrong, but by god will I continue to believe I'm right regardless of constant evidence to the contrary"

 

 

[Saliva]

It really doesn't bother me.

[Official General]

I dont need to compare them to know that 720p is better than 640p

Well like I said, I'll believe the PS3 version is less than 720p if Rockstar says so. Until then I'll believe my eyes and the what is says on the box.

 

Lets leave it at that

>"I am wrong, but by god will I continue to believe I'm right regardless of constant evidence to the contrary"

Yeah, deal with it

[IDredMan]

The more I see threads like this the more I hope there will NEVER be a PC version

>"I don't want others to have the version they want because I'm a jealous twat!"

 

DO you realize how dumb you sound?

Someone sounds mad

The only one who sounds mad is you.

Never have I seen such a cool, calm, and mature post in my entire life.

 

 

 

I really hope you understood the sarcasm.

[Meezarawcks]

I'll be too busy focused on the gameplay then to worry about the jagged edges you speak of.

[IDredMan]

I'd like to bring up that RDR didn't really look all that different from Xbox to PS3.

[fridaynightscream]

I don't give a rat's ass about the graphics, the OP needs to f*ck off.

[The-San-Andreas-man]

On consoles, unless you have a giant TV with an HDMI cable for your console, you wouldn't be able to tell if a game had AA or not if you were given a comparison. I don't get how a few damn pixels being jaggy somehow makes the game unplayable. Even on a PC if you disable AA, games still look good. Stop overreacting about such a small part of the graphical presentation over the game.

[gtamann123]

The more I see threads like this the more I hope there will NEVER be a PC version

>"I don't want others to have the version they want because I'm a jealous twat!"

 

DO you realize how dumb you sound?

Someone sounds mad

The only one who sounds mad is you.

Never have I seen such a cool, calm, and mature post in my entire life.

 

 

 

I really hope you understood the sarcasm.

Believe me no console player is jealous of the PC version. I will happily trade worse graphics for the ease of using a console anyday. Instead of putting up with the constant headache that is PC gaming.

[iNero]

On consoles, unless you have a giant TV with an HDMI cable for your console, you wouldn't be able to tell if a game had AA or not if you were given a comparison. I don't get how a few damn pixels being jaggy somehow makes the game unplayable. Even on a PC if you disable AA, games still look good. Stop overreacting about such a small part of the graphical presentation over the game.

then u have never played BF3 on consoles for sure

[Meezarawcks]

On consoles, unless you have a giant TV with an HDMI cable for your console, you wouldn't be able to tell if a game had AA or not if you were given a comparison. I don't get how a few damn pixels being jaggy somehow makes the game unplayable. Even on a PC if you disable AA, games still look good. Stop overreacting about such a small part of the graphical presentation over the game.

then u have never played BF3 on consoles for sure

I played it on PS3.....and???

[iNero]

On consoles, unless you have a giant TV with an HDMI cable for your console, you wouldn't be able to tell if a game had AA or not if you were given a comparison. I don't get how a few damn pixels being jaggy somehow makes the game unplayable. Even on a PC if you disable AA, games still look good. Stop overreacting about such a small part of the graphical presentation over the game.

then u have never played BF3 on consoles for sure

I played it on PS3.....and???

if u havent noticed aliasing in BF3 on consoles, u either have something with you eyes or u only played N64 before

[Agni]

Never have I seen such a cool, calm, and mature post in my entire life.

 

 

 

I really hope you understood the sarcasm.

You are the last person who should call someone out on their supposed immaturity.

 

[The-San-Andreas-man]

On consoles, unless you have a giant TV with an HDMI cable for your console, you wouldn't be able to tell if a game had AA or not if you were given a comparison. I don't get how a few damn pixels being jaggy somehow makes the game unplayable. Even on a PC if you disable AA, games still look good. Stop overreacting about such a small part of the graphical presentation over the game.

then u have never played BF3 on consoles for sure

Actually I have, and I only noticed slight jaggyness on my huge TV. Even with that, it affected literally nothing. AA has to be one of the most bitched about graphical features, and I have no clue why. Games didn't even have AA like 12 years ago, and nobody complained then.

[iNero]

On consoles, unless you have a giant TV with an HDMI cable for your console, you wouldn't be able to tell if a game had AA or not if you were given a comparison. I don't get how a few damn pixels being jaggy somehow makes the game unplayable. Even on a PC if you disable AA, games still look good. Stop overreacting about such a small part of the graphical presentation over the game.

then u have never played BF3 on consoles for sure

Actually I have, and I only noticed slight jaggyness on my huge TV. Even with that, it affected literally nothing. AA has to be one of the most bitched about graphical features, and I have no clue why. Games didn't even have AA like 12 years ago, and nobody complained then.

because 12 years ago we havent played in HD...

 

I doubt you even know what aliasing is after this comment...

[Dick Valor]

All you graphics whores are just that... whores. Can't wait till R* f*cks you, kills you, and takes your money with the next epic installment of GTA.

 

IV and RDR (which I play on PS3) remain my favorite video games ever, despite the "640p," "jaggies," etc. V is only going to look better so the petty nitpicking here is trollish at best.

 

Didn't any of you kiddies ever play games like Super Mario Bros? Ultimately, it's the gameplay that counts. I'm sure most of you graphics whores aren't exactly "lookers" yourselves.

[Meezarawcks]

On consoles, unless you have a giant TV with an HDMI cable for your console, you wouldn't be able to tell if a game had AA or not if you were given a comparison. I don't get how a few damn pixels being jaggy somehow makes the game unplayable. Even on a PC if you disable AA, games still look good. Stop overreacting about such a small part of the graphical presentation over the game.

then u have never played BF3 on consoles for sure

I played it on PS3.....and???

if u havent noticed aliasing in BF3 on consoles, u either have something with you eyes or u only played N64 before

No I get your point but did it make the game any less enjoyable for me? No it did not. That fact alone should make you understand that people have the right to choose. I get you don't like the aliasing on consoles, but the aliasing doesnt bother me so lets agree to disagree and get over it.

[Agni]

On consoles, unless you have a giant TV with an HDMI cable for your console, you wouldn't be able to tell if a game had AA or not if you were given a comparison. I don't get how a few damn pixels being jaggy somehow makes the game unplayable. Even on a PC if you disable AA, games still look good. Stop overreacting about such a small part of the graphical presentation over the game.

Your eyes are not the eyes of everyone else.

 

I'm a tech-head and a fan of computers and it's very easy for me to tell that there's no AA on games--every console games suffers a lack of AA. It's not a deal-killer (resolution matters more for how good a game looks) but it's definitely there.

 

Then again I'm hyper-sensitive to these kind of things.

[iNero]

On consoles, unless you have a giant TV with an HDMI cable for your console, you wouldn't be able to tell if a game had AA or not if you were given a comparison. I don't get how a few damn pixels being jaggy somehow makes the game unplayable. Even on a PC if you disable AA, games still look good. Stop overreacting about such a small part of the graphical presentation over the game.

then u have never played BF3 on consoles for sure

I played it on PS3.....and???

if u havent noticed aliasing in BF3 on consoles, u either have something with you eyes or u only played N64 before

No I get your point but did it make the game any less enjoyable for me? No it did not. That fact alone should make you understand that people have the right to choose. I get you don't like the aliasing on consoles, but the aliasing doesnt bother me so lets agree to disagree and get over it.

On certain points like on maps with many object and edges, it sometimes was a mess to see an enemy because of the pixelated edges

[UberVIIX]

Graphics today sometimes hurt games more than they help. More time, effort, and funds go into making games LOOK good as opposed to actually BEING good. Most game companys seem to think as long as it looks good, they can release games with sub-par gameplay. In the days of the PS2/Xbox1, we saw this effect far less, because graphics sucked all around, so companys had to make up for it by making the gameplay stellar.

It was the only way to stand out. Today the argument can be made that the advancements to graphics today has lead to sub-par games being released. They just try to make up for it by making it pretty. If you wrap a turd in shiny wrapping paper, at the end of the day its still just a piece of sh*t...

Edited May 8, 2013 by UberVIIX

[r34ld34l]

im playing videogames since 1991 so i can't care less about your 720p crap. im guessing that you are a 14 years old PC fa**ot so f*ck you.

Wait wait, you are playing games since 1991, yet you call him PC fa**ot. True gamer should know about hardware, which is better and which is not and which he prefer. You are probaly 13year old kid. No old school gamer would start flame war.