wwinterj Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Please don't compare RDR with GTA. They are two completely different games, GTA has 100x more things going around, you can't get the same graphical performance like in RDR, not possible on current consoles. I completely disagree. Red Dead Redemption was R* last open world game so the natural thing would be for GTA V to look just as good if not better than Red Dead Redemption. Based on the gameplay trailer it looks like it is. The yoga and wildlife parts for example look stunning. I love how people like yourself claim things are not possible on current gen consoles yet games like GTA V, the last of us and no doubt others continue to amaze me by how beautiful they look. It's not so much how much graphical power the console has but the way the game is optimized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sleepy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The Franklin shot looks better, but that doesn't disregard the fact that the helicopter shot looks like absolute horsesh*t. And dyz, take a break from the internet. I think you should take a break from life. You just went full retard, you never go full retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosquitoSmasher Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 YouTube compresses the video to make it look a bit worse. I'm so sick of this pathetic excuse. It's fanboyism mixed with ignorance at it's finest. Compression does NOT make trees disappear. Compression does NOT make muzzle flashes go from looking like a smooth thin, high quality blade of fire, into a massive fart of fire from a Doom1 gun. Sorry, but that's not how it works. You guys need to cope with the fact that you've been duped. All those "screenshots" were likely running on a PC build with increased geometrical detail, higher resolution textures and more advanced shaders. Deal with it. I am still buying my Special Edition for the 360 and will have FUN. But I know for a fact that I will be disappointed with the visuals, until I get my PC copy on Steam and get to tear it up on my rig in my signature. If you can't afford a PC, then yeah you better tell yourself these horrible graphics don't matter. when pc version will be out the console fan boys will do something like this No they wont. Cause they will have played this badboy for hours and hours already and loving it to death basically. Same with GTA IV and Max Payne 3. We are all well aware that a PC version will be worlds better in terms of looks and performance, but we really don't care that much. At least I don't...if I had cared that much, I would've quit with consolegaming, but I didn't. I think its best if people compare trailers to eachother and not screenshots. Cause except for a few screenshots, there are A LOT of misleading screenshots out there. Lots that look so goddamn clean and crisp, that theres no way its from the console. Take that shot of Franklin in the car where he's flipping the cops off....that one is so goddamn crisp and clean, no alisiasing or ugly things to see that it could no way be a true un-altered screenshot. The trailers however...except for some things in trailer 1 can all be compared to eachother quite well. I believe compared to trailer 2 and the three character trailers, there's little differences in the gameplay video, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) The comparison could have been a lot better if you would have downloaded the first trailer, the second trailer and the gameplay video; and then you could have made the screenshots, and saved it as PNG instead of JPG or JPEG. The quality would be a lot better and the comparison would be fair. I just noticed that IMGUR automatically changes the format from PNG to JPG. Strange. So I decided to upload my images to another host and it works fine. That's how one of your screenshots look like (click to see it in 720p): That's how it looks like when you do it correctly, and save it as a PNG (click to see it in 720p): Clearly, your screenshots are pixelated and blurred, which makes a fair comparison impossible. I will shoot you a PM later with all screenshots in a higher quality. Edited July 12, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian GTAForums Crew Chat Thread - The Sharks Chat Thread - Leone Family Mafia Chat Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosquitoSmasher Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The comparison could have been a lot better if you would have downloaded the first trailer, the second trailer and the gameplay video; and then you could have made the screenshots, and saved it as PNG instead of JPG or JPEG. The quality would be a lot better and the comparison would be fair. I just noticed that IMGUR automatically changes the format from PNG to JPG. Strange. So I decided to upload my images to another host and it works fine. That's how one of your screenshots look like (click to see it in 720p): That's how it looks like when you do it correctly, and save it as a PNG (click to see it in 720p): Clearly, your screenshots are pixelated and blurred, which makes a fair comparison impossible. I will shoot you a PM later with all screenshots with a higher quality. That screenshot right there. Compare that to the exact same location in trailer 1 and you will see that it has improved in the gameplay video. Its quite impressive what R* managed to create here on this old hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAaLEX117 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The comparison could have been a lot better if you would have downloaded the first trailer, the second trailer and the gameplay video; and then you could have made the screenshots, and saved it as PNG instead of JPG or JPEG. The quality would be a lot better and the comparison would be fair. I just noticed that IMGUR automatically changes the format from PNG to JPG. Strange. So I decided to upload my images to another host and it works fine. That's how one of your screenshots look like (click to see it in 720p): That's how it looks like when you do it correctly, and save it as a PNG (click to see it in 720p): Clearly, your screenshots are pixelated and blurred, which makes a fair comparison impossible. I will shoot you a PM later with all screenshots in a higher quality. Can you also post the screenshots of the plane flying near the cliffs, the mountains and the muzzle flare, so we can have a decent comparison? I'd do it myself, but I deleted the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy_Vercetti_Mob Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) There you go, different weapon, different flash: I saw the footage, it still has that unrealistic red irregularly shaped circle around the fire. Although much better than the one we saw in Michael's scene. Real life weapons also have that red-ish outline, so it's not "unrealistic": http://www.biggerhammer.net/mgshoot/kcrfal...barlow_hk51.jpg Apparently, that looks nothing like this one. Maybe Michaels part of the game play video (muzzle flare) is old and so it the fire and perhaps Franklins is the newer (muzzle flare) one....just saying Edited July 12, 2013 by Tommy_Vercetti_Mob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy_Vercetti_Mob Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The Franklin shot looks better, but that doesn't disregard the fact that the helicopter shot looks like absolute horsesh*t. And dyz, take a break from the internet. I think you should take a break from life. You just went full retard, you never go full retard. LMFAO!!!!!!! probably the funniest thing ive seen on the forumz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Frenzy! Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Wow...just...wow. no threes!!! Yep. This right here hurts me, big time. Very disappointed that they had to strip a lot of the forests. Look how barren things look in the gameplay trailer Where's our forests R*???? They cut also the bridge where the train is on and tunnel, did they also cut it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieSmalls Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Wow...just...wow. no threes!!! Yep. This right here hurts me, big time. Very disappointed that they had to strip a lot of the forests. Look how barren things look in the gameplay trailer Where's our forests R*???? They cut also the bridge where the train is on and tunnel, did they also cut it? Watch the goddamn trailer and you will see it. NO, THEY DIDNT CUT THE BRIDGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Frenzy! Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Wow...just...wow. no threes!!! Yep. This right here hurts me, big time. Very disappointed that they had to strip a lot of the forests. Look how barren things look in the gameplay trailer Where's our forests R*???? They cut also the bridge where the train is on and tunnel, did they also cut it? Watch the goddamn trailer and you will see it. NO, THEY DIDNT CUT THE BRIDGE. Relax, I can't watch the trailer and thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucid121 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Rockstar should have recorded from xbox, ps3 graphics are inferior to xbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnGTA Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) Rockstar should have recorded from xbox, ps3 graphics are inferior to xbox. Wow, that's just an extremely ignorant statement to make. You see, it depends on how much they adapt a game to the specific console. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are equally able to deliver the same quality of graphics - just look at the games that are specifically made for each console, and you'll see that the graphical ability is the same. You have to understand that there's a difference between the graphical beauty in games that are ported from one console to another, and games that are specifically made for each/both consoles separately. So ported games don't tell the full story, regarding a specific consoles ability to produce great graphics. In other words - your statement is totally irrelevant and extremely ignorant. Edited July 12, 2013 by HighOnGTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnGTA Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 To anyone who keeps thinking that the bridge is removed in the screenshot from the gameplay-trailer - no more confusion: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saliva Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Even with HD screen caps, the difference is undeniable. I understand why they've had to reduce the graphics and textures and I'm okay with it. But the difference is pretty obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Official General Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 These lack of trees in the trailer compared to the screenshot still have really caused a great deal controversy on here now lol. Who knows, maybe it's just because it's in a gameplay video ? Maybe it might be different when we actually play it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAVwillbeEPIC Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 These lack of trees in the trailer compared to the screenshot still have really caused a great deal controversy on here now lol. Who knows, maybe it's just because it's in a gameplay video ? Maybe it might be different when we actually play it ? Well, this forum is typically retarded. Rockstar shouldn't take notice of idiots here. I think it looks better tbh. More natural and not too many trees surrounding one bloody rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Official General Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 These lack of trees in the trailer compared to the screenshot still have really caused a great deal controversy on here now lol. Who knows, maybe it's just because it's in a gameplay video ? Maybe it might be different when we actually play it ? Well, this forum is typically retarded. Rockstar shouldn't take notice of idiots here. I think it looks better tbh. More natural and not too many trees surrounding one bloody rock. Lol I know it's funny. And from what I remember, LA does not have a huge amount of trees in the natural environment around it, it's mostly rocky, dry and semi-arid bush country. The places with trees are probably in very remote areas deeper in the mountains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRkL3AD3R Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 These lack of trees in the trailer compared to the screenshot still have really caused a great deal controversy on here now lol. Who knows, maybe it's just because it's in a gameplay video ? Maybe it might be different when we actually play it ? What you see in the gameplay video is what you will get when you put the disc in your console on September 17th. The ACTUAL gameplay footage as they put it recorded from a PS3, at the end of the trailer. Those trees were removed for performance reasons. I'd bet my freaking ass on that one. Rockstar has a history of not doing LOD's properly, this is why on PC if you crank view distances to max there is no freaking low quality LOD's for sh*t in the distance, it just extends the distance it can load ANY objects in at all. And it loads their highest quality LOD which is what tanks performance on the PC build. They probably were having trouble doing LOD's of trees and so they decided to go with NO trees in this particular area, which was heavily forested. How will you know if this theory is correct? When you get the game on the 17th and you get in your first airplane/helicopter, fly over a forest and look down at the trees. If they are sprites and spin around so they are always facing you, then this theory is false and the trees were removed for artistic reasons. HOWEVER if the trees are 3D and they do not spin around, then it means my theory is correct and they failed to create proper LOD's for the trees, which would allow them to draw MORE trees and at a greater distance. Either way, you guys need to STOP saying compression is the reason why the trees are gone. Compression has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Sure it'll make them look like ugly greenish squares, in the absolute worst case scenario, but it will not make them disappear. Rockstar made them disappear, and only time will tell as to why that is. What I'm really hoping for is like others have said, some kind of vegetation or detail object density slider so we can bring that awesome world immersion back to the game. I already know I will be disappointed in walking around hiking through the mountains because it will be like Blood Gulch on Halo 1 original. Just barren empty region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAaLEX117 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Looking at this again, wouldn't they have removed the trees to make the area more...accessible? I mean for off road vehicles sucks as dirtbikes, quads, etc.? So many trees clumped together on an already steep slope would make the area pretty much off-limits for anything other than hikers. The reason I'm saying this is because in some areas they've actually added vegetation (the hills near the dam). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieleng Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Those trees were removed for performance reasons. I'd bet my freaking ass on that one. Rockstar has a history of not doing LOD's properly, this is why on PC if you crank view distances to max there is no freaking low quality LOD's for sh*t in the distance, it just extends the distance it can load ANY objects in at all. And it loads their highest quality LOD which is what tanks performance on the PC build. They probably were having trouble doing LOD's of trees and so they decided to go with NO trees in this particular area, which was heavily forested. How will you know if this theory is correct? When you get the game on the 17th and you get in your first airplane/helicopter, fly over a forest and look down at the trees. If they are sprites and spin around so they are always facing you, then this theory is false and the trees were removed for artistic reasons. HOWEVER if the trees are 3D and they do not spin around, then it means my theory is correct and they failed to create proper LOD's for the trees, which would allow them to draw MORE trees and at a greater distance. Either way, you guys need to STOP saying compression is the reason why the trees are gone. Compression has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Sure it'll make them look like ugly greenish squares, in the absolute worst case scenario, but it will not make them disappear. Rockstar made them disappear, and only time will tell as to why that is. What I'm really hoping for is like others have said, some kind of vegetation or detail object density slider so we can bring that awesome world immersion back to the game. I already know I will be disappointed in walking around hiking through the mountains because it will be like Blood Gulch on Halo 1 original. Just barren empty region. Rockstar would never use 2D trees in their open world games (like JC2 & FC3). If the tightly packed trees were removed for performance reasons, does that mean the area in this screengrab will also be barren in the final game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMoney120 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Those trees were removed for performance reasons. I'd bet my freaking ass on that one. Rockstar has a history of not doing LOD's properly, this is why on PC if you crank view distances to max there is no freaking low quality LOD's for sh*t in the distance, it just extends the distance it can load ANY objects in at all. And it loads their highest quality LOD which is what tanks performance on the PC build. They probably were having trouble doing LOD's of trees and so they decided to go with NO trees in this particular area, which was heavily forested. How will you know if this theory is correct? When you get the game on the 17th and you get in your first airplane/helicopter, fly over a forest and look down at the trees. If they are sprites and spin around so they are always facing you, then this theory is false and the trees were removed for artistic reasons. HOWEVER if the trees are 3D and they do not spin around, then it means my theory is correct and they failed to create proper LOD's for the trees, which would allow them to draw MORE trees and at a greater distance. Either way, you guys need to STOP saying compression is the reason why the trees are gone. Compression has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Sure it'll make them look like ugly greenish squares, in the absolute worst case scenario, but it will not make them disappear. Rockstar made them disappear, and only time will tell as to why that is. What I'm really hoping for is like others have said, some kind of vegetation or detail object density slider so we can bring that awesome world immersion back to the game. I already know I will be disappointed in walking around hiking through the mountains because it will be like Blood Gulch on Halo 1 original. Just barren empty region. Rockstar would never use 2D trees in their open world games (like JC2 & FC3). If the tightly packed trees were removed for performance reasons, does that mean the area in this screengrab will also be barren in the final game? That area looks just like the screenshot of the mountains from the trailer with all the trees. Maybe certain parts of the mountains have lots of trees and when you are flying over the mountains, less trees. Just by looking at that screenshot you just grabbed I'm happy. I like the amount of trees in that screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sleepy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Rockstar would never use 2D trees in their open world games (like JC2 & FC3). If the tightly packed trees were removed for performance reasons, does that mean the area in this screengrab will also be barren in the final game? Regardless if trees or not... Look at the "corrals", 2D, same sh*t applies to a lot of stuff, even IV had 2D "trees".. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrevorPhillipsEnterprise Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Rockstar would never use 2D trees in their open world games (like JC2 & FC3). If the tightly packed trees were removed for performance reasons, does that mean the area in this screengrab will also be barren in the final game? Regardless if trees or not... Look at the "corrals", 2D, same sh*t applies to a lot of stuff, even IV had 2D "trees".. Does it matter? You're crying over nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigabomber Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Rockstar would never use 2D trees in their open world games (like JC2 & FC3). If the tightly packed trees were removed for performance reasons, does that mean the area in this screengrab will also be barren in the final game? Regardless if trees or not... Look at the "corrals", 2D, same sh*t applies to a lot of stuff, even IV had 2D "trees".. Does it matter? You're crying over nothing. If around 25% of the map is for underwater exploration, then yes, it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieleng Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) Rockstar would never use 2D trees in their open world games (like JC2 & FC3). If the tightly packed trees were removed for performance reasons, does that mean the area in this screengrab will also be barren in the final game? Regardless if trees or not... Look at the "corrals", 2D, same sh*t applies to a lot of stuff, even IV had 2D "trees".. It's supposed to look like that, it's Plate Coral: http://1.2.3.9/bmi/blog.mailasail.com/paua...g3Ix2ArOO4N.jpg Plus, there were no 2D trees in IV. Admittedly they weren't very good looking trees, especially compared to those in RDR. Edited July 12, 2013 by jamieleng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sleepy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Rockstar would never use 2D trees in their open world games (like JC2 & FC3). If the tightly packed trees were removed for performance reasons, does that mean the area in this screengrab will also be barren in the final game? Regardless if trees or not... Look at the "corrals", 2D, same sh*t applies to a lot of stuff, even IV had 2D "trees".. Does it matter? You're crying over nothing. Are you people reading with your butts? Did I complain or something? Posts like these make me slap myself. "CRYING OVER NOTHING HURR DURR1!!1!" Bitch, did I complain? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalgaryJay Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 This may have already been brought up, haven't read the whole thread. But RE: trees, something that just dawned on me is, maybe its just because its the PS3 version. The reason I say this is, in RDR, its been proven the 360 had substantially more shrubs/grass/foliage on the ground than PS3 in head to head screenshot comparisons. Since the gameplay vid was done on the PS3, maybe you'll see more trees on the 360. And this ISN'T meant to start a stupid, tired console war. I own both. And its just friggin trees, not really a big deal. Just had to point out the RDR comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigabomber Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 This may have already been brought up, haven't read the whole thread. But RE: trees, something that just dawned on me is, maybe its just because its the PS3 version. The reason I say this is, in RDR, its been proven the 360 had substantially more shrubs/grass/foliage on the ground that PS3 in head to head screenshot comparisons. Since the gameplay vid was done on the PS3, maybe you'll see more trees on the 360. And this ISN'T meant to start a stupid, tired console war. I own both. Just had to point out the RDR comparison. I figure this will be true, but maybe a couple of more shrubs, not 50 more trees as were seen in the earlier screenshots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieleng Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 This may have already been brought up, haven't read the whole thread. But RE: trees, something that just dawned on me is, maybe its just because its the PS3 version. The reason I say this is, in RDR, its been proven the 360 had substantially more shrubs/grass/foliage on the ground than PS3 in head to head screenshot comparisons. Since the gameplay vid was done on the PS3, maybe you'll see more trees on the 360. And this ISN'T meant to start a stupid, tired console war. I own both. And its just friggin trees, not really a big deal. Just had to point out the RDR comparison. No, the differences in RDR were so minimal, it makes me wonder how it even happened at all. It was just some areas had more grass on the ground, but all the trees & larger bushes etc were exactly the same. I'll bet the little I own that they will be virtually identical in that area. I was a little worried we won't get fields of long grass like RDR, but the 'hunting' scene in the trailer seemed pretty lush with foliage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now