Red Dead Redemption's sub-HD PS3 display: Analysis

CVG: The PlayStation 3 version of Rockstar's Red Dead Redemption suffers from a number of deficiencies compared to its Xbox 360 brethren, experts have revealed - with the sub-HD rendering resolution being one of many.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
techie2954d ago

Lots of differences between the games - which is a shame. Man up Rockstar.

LTC2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

but framerate, pop in and so on. A great shame since it was mostly PS2 owners that supported R* last gen. We have just been kicked in the balls.

I dont buy Square games no more and now R* may be joining them.

Sez 2954d ago

No offence. But don't you guys think your overreacting alittle too much. Now some of you are putting R on your list of games dev's your not going to support because of the problems with this game. But later on when R release "THE AGENT" the same people will be saying they are one of the best out dev's out there and how that game will be one of the best ever made for the ps3.

If you only own one console. Would you have even notice a diffrence in the 360/ps3 version. If it was for these site comparing both games. If your happy with the version you brought and you enjoy the game. Stop worrying about which one is better. Just get the game and support the dev's. Your favorite console weather it's ps3/360 isn't going to win everytime.

Another One2954d ago

I have a question. Why can't we just enjoy a great game without bitching and moaning about minor differences in graphics, pop-in, and other minor issues?

If it's a great game, then play it. Who cares about a few minor issues?

Kleptic2953d ago

well its obvious that this time around the 360 version does seem to be unanimously described as 'better'...where as GTAIV, the first iteration of the this engine, was a mixed in the PS3 did some things better, such as draw distance and framerate, but was still at a lower resolution with different AA...

all I know is that for made no difference to me...played both versions regularly and honestly could never tell anything other than the PS3 having slightly different coloring compared to the 360...

with RDR who knows...seems it runs worse than GTAIV, now having framerate and pop in issues...but whatever...a great game is a great game...and Rockstar never released an open world game that didn't have minor flaws like this...

what I am really hoping for is that this game isn't as overrated as GTAIV was...thats really all that matters to me...GTAIV received reviews just as high, if not higher than RDR has so far from the well known reviewers...and to me was very underwhelming compared to previous GTA's...I never played revolver have no standards for this type of game as of now...still seems to be a must buy for nearly anyone though...

Wrathman2954d ago ShowReplies(2)
FangBlade2954d ago

Who cares. It's not like RDR was supposed to be a graphical beast or something. RDR was never hyped for graphics. So what's the big deal? If it was Crysis 2 or Brink I would've been disappointed but RDR? nah..

Fishy Fingers2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

So you wouldn't be making noise if the PS3 version was the better of the 2?

FangBlade2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

Why would I? like I said, RDR wasn't suppose to be a graphical showcase. If it was Crysis 2, I would be really, really disappointed. Dont forget, RDR runs on the same engine as GTA IV, which is 2.5 years old.

Greywulf2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

be a fun western game. I mean thats not even a huge audience to begin with.

It only became a hot story when the 360's saw that the PS3's res was sub HD. In the face of all the Alan Wake laughter.

So this whole thing now is that they are trying to pretend that It being subhd is the same as taking 6 years to make a console exclusive on the 360 that utilizes the sole power of it,then turning up SubHD/low polygon models and falling on its face. So thats the same thing... Except.. its not. Thats all this RDR nonsense is.

RDR was made by rockstar. Rockstar did this last time with their same engine that they are using. Its an open world game, performs as expectantly.

CVG is going overboard into this though, I don't recall them going into alan wakes below RDR resolution & analysis. Its as if RDR is the biggest expected title of the year.

edit: @ Fishy

Nope. Why? Its a multiplatform game? Its like people always miss the reason that PS3 owners make issues of multiplats. FF was a giant LOL because it was claimed the 360 could run the game identical, it couln't. It highlighted the space & compression issues. That was about it.

PS3 owners don't really have to rely on a multiplatform version being better than another, since the exclusives are so beyond them to begin with. Multiplatforms are as close enough to equal than they have been. The PS3 version is rated just as high minus having 900 PS3 only sites giving the game 100%'s.

360 owners on this site justify the failings of their exclusives with multiplatforms. That door doesn't swing both ways.

Seriously, ask me if the PS3 version being subhd (like GTA4 with the same engine) Is going to bother me when I buy the game? Ask me if I look towards multiplatforms to see my ps3 shine?

maxcer2954d ago

the big deal is you ps3fanboys tried to shit all over alanwake and conviction for subHD visuals, now that this is getting some attention its all moot because you pick and choose what games we can criticize.

KingME2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

If it didn't bother you, your mouth would be running like an outboard motor on a speed boat. It does bother you, so just man up and admit it.

In addition, just as PS3 fanboys claim that the reason why they never shut up about current PS3 momentum and software sells is because the 360 fanboys were saying two years ago that the PS3 doesn't have any games. Well, perhaps if you guys would shut up about the PS3's superior power and graphics and let the console speak for itself then perhaps this wouldn't be a big deal.

Karma's a B!tch isn't it. Now to be honest with you, I don't think it's that big of a deal, however I do see how some people feel a need to rub it in your faces.

I think that if a game looks great, plays well, and people like it, the who gives a damn whether it's 560p, 640p, of 720p. But obviously a very large population of N4G does this these silly technical numbers matter. The funny thing is, If this game was reported as 1080p (just trying to make a point.) even while being 640p, some of the people talking smack would be bragging on it being 1080p simple because the morons can tell the difference anyway, they just need something to whine about.

I think the game looks great on the PS3.

hoops2954d ago

LOL. Who cares? You guys like Greywulf sure did when Alan Wake was getting hammered for being subHD. Now the shoe is on the other fanboy foot and you clowns cant handle it. LOL
Goes to show you being a rampant fanboy will bite you in the A$$

Kleptic2953d ago (Edited 2953d ago )

as someone that thoroughly enjoyed Alan Wake, and loves Remedy...yet only owns a PS3...I can see where it would get annoying having 50 articles up about its Sub HD visuals...when the game is actually really good, and looks notably better than most 360 titles...

but 360 owners have to see the glaring issue with this...RDR is a multiplatform title developed on an engine that we've seen engine that was 640p the last time it was on the PS3 also...its not necessarily surprising that the new game is the same, right?...

criticize that all you want...treat it equal to the 360's 'graphical king' Alan Wake (which it arguably is, actually) being sub hd...if you are saying that the native resolution of particular game doesn't really matter..than I would fully agree...but if you are saying it makes the PS3 overall 'weaker' than the 360 or something...thats where a comparison such as this is completely pointless...

put up the 360's exclusive offerings against exclusives on the PS3...its been done before, and we all know the result...the games that are easily standing at the top of the list for best looking console games this generation...are ALL exclusive to the PS3...and ALL have absolutely state of the art tech incorporated into their renderers...killzone 2, Uncharted 2, God of War III, etc. ALL run at native 720p...and are untouchable so far this generation visually for a lot more reasons than that...

all I am saying is that we get it...its fun to push back when given the opportunity...but one thing you'll notice is that 360 owners seem to always be pushing back with a superior version of a multiplatform title...yet find themselves constantly defending games built from the ground up for their system (Halo 3, halo ODST, SSC, Alan Wake, etc.)...where as PS3 owners seem to be pushing forward with unequaled visual quality through exclusive content...a fan of either system has to realize how pointless it is to argue either way, because in the end it doesn't matter...So the 360 wins another multiplatform comparison...but still blatantly loses the argument of which system overall has the most impressive looking who cares either way?...

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2953d ago
HammockGames2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

Personally, I'm too busy enjoying the game to worry about pixel counting or comparing how it looks on another platform.

I think it looks & plays great - and yeah, I have the PS3 version.

Enjoy the game on your platform of choice and leave it at that.

RedDevils2954d ago

fanboy like to complaint whenever they can

Nike2954d ago

Personally, I think those guys complaining are ungrateful.

Though my friends have PS3s and 360s and I can play at their places, I have a low-end PC at home. Even if Red Dead Redemption came out for it (which it so far isn't), I wouldn't be able to play it.

Cherish the opportunity, people. Some of us don't even get it.

deadreckoning6662954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

If I had a 360, I'd get the 360 version. Thats all I'm gunna say.

"Who cares
Personally, I'm too busy enjoying the game to worry about pixel counting or comparing how it looks on another platform."

So, if you don't care, whyd u click on an article that revolves around pixel counting?

HammockGames2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

This is a gaming website, and I enjoy gaming.

Hard to understand, huh?

Besides, fanboys need to cool down about this type of stuff. It's usually overblown. No?

Christopher2954d ago

I question why they left in the blur elements from GTA4 instead of using the technology they used in the two GTA4 Liberty City Stories games, which showed a vast improvement from their predecessor with regard to sharp edges and textures.

cyborg69712954d ago

Who knows, time, money, although the latter isn't the issue.

All I do know is all of this pixel counting frame rate debate this gen is driving me mad. My first home system was an pong game. And if we were counting pixels in the atari era, we could do it on one hand.

The only thing you need to ask is, how good is the game? And if the majority of peeps say yes and that said game is up your ally buy it on the console you have the most friends with or enjoy playing with. (If there is online mp). Otherwise stfu.

All of this crap started when the 360 came out. The chest pounding was deafening. Now five years later the only thing they have to hang their hat on is a multiplat. That is so sad.

Ps3 exclusives graphically are compaired to other ps3 exclusives, and in some cases top tier pc games. So this game is not a win for the 360 fans but a lose for ps fans.

I think it's time to catch up R* come you can do better than that.

Buy the way how is the MP I'm on the fence about this game.

Genesis52954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

Well I've been playing the PS3 version on my 40" screen and it looks gorgeous. I honestly don't see any of this stuff they are talking about.

I'm just enjoying the game. You guys have fun counting pixels

inveni02954d ago

It is different, but it's not THAT BAD....I mean, I'm not as mad about it as I was about FFXIII. I think I can live with this. I was happy enough with GTA4, so this doesn't slice my crotch any worse.

HolyOrangeCows2954d ago

Still looks a heck of a lot better than Halo and Splinter Cell.

mikeslemonade2954d ago

It's kind of obvious that Rockstar lead the development on the 360.

On another thought the controls need to be fixed. The game feels like a beta. I have trouble climbing things like ladders and ramps because the controls are so clunky and slow.

mookins2954d ago

Just like how 360 fanboys attacked the multiplatform versions of games on the PS3?

Army_of_Darkness2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

Damn R*! WTF man! even squareenix first game(FF13) did a way better job(in terms of production/ quality), even though the story sucked and all... But still, 2 games from R* for the ps3 and both inferior to the 360 version... how Pathetic! I'm not even looking forward to Agent anymore to be honest with you...

yes, I know, there are different divisions of R*, but that don't mean the quality standards should be any different!

inveni02953d ago

I'm only disagreeing because I'm still looking forward to Agent. I don't think Sony will let them botch an exclusive. It's probably why we haven't seen ANY of it. Sony probably refuses to show it until it's up to snuff.

Army_of_Darkness2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

it always matter for most ps3 owners(including myself)... its just that I find it odd that it suddenly matters now to 360 owners..

davidj882954d ago

"I just find it odd how resolution now matters". It's like saying "my dog shit looks better because it's in a higher resolution than your dog shit", Fact is it would still be dog shit.
I'm not saying it's a bad looking game but if it was then resolution would have no bearing whatsoever, fact is i'll be loving every minute of it on my PS3 tomorrow when it's released here in the UK.

Inside_out2954d ago

This game has alot of other problems beside the resolution...tree's missing...words missing from signs....draw distance....Resolution is the least of the problems...What Rockstar have to say about this?...

Does this mean Agent is sub-hd???....

Aquanox2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

Red Dead Redemption is one of the best looking games ever created and it's one of the two best games of this year along with Mass Effect 2.

The difference between both according to these screens is abbysmal. I thought these kind of differences are a thing of the past but I was wrong.

Xbox 360 is the best home of RDR undoubdtedly.

A big blow for those how believed that the sub HD 360 version of FF XIII was because of hardware and not optimization. RDR shows what the Xbox 360 can really do in a much more demanding game given the Open World nature of this game.

JokesOnYou2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

"The differences don't end there with missing objects, less foliage density, and missing shadows further plaguing the PS3 game."

"On the Xbox 360 trees are well alpha-blended; this combines foreground objects with the background to create the effect of transparency. The PS3 game doesn't achieve the same quality, resulting in trees suffering shimmering artefacts."

"There are a number of Level of Detail (LOD) issues on the PS3 game as well, making shadow and texture pop-in more apparent when you approach buildings. You'll even spot missing text on a number of background signs in the PS3 version. Self-shadows on characters are also often missing, which makes character's faces appear a tad flat"

"Perhaps most importantly, the framerate of the PS3 game is not up to par."
-CVG http://www.computerandvideo...

I wonder why we don't see names like Greywulf, Too Pawned, obama, Pennywise, sikbeta, Sevir04, raztad, snaz27, dog beliefs and so many more of the sony faithful on n4g, all calling for a lower score for the ps3 version of RDR, like they did in many of the FFXIII reviews, in regards to the 360 version(links below), hell at least it was only a case of the 360 version being sub-hd. While ps3 version of RDR is missing things and doesn't run as well as the 360 version. Yet you wont see 360 fans begging for lower scores on Bayonetta reviews or here in this RDR comparison thread. Really, its just comical, I would almsot believe sony soldiers had a backbone if some of the same ones who were so vocal about reviewers giving the same score for both FF versions had showed up and took the same stand with RDR. Now for the record I don't believe reviews should have lowered the score for either 360 version of FF or ps3 version of RDR, simply because the majority of the reviews state you likely won't notice the difference without the games being side by side= When a GAMER actually PLAYS this game he won't notice, unless of course he's really just a pixel counter is disguise playing both version side by side. lol
-and there was plenty more hatin threads just like these, karma is such a beeatch.


booni32954d ago

that you wont enjoy the game? If so, you should go last gen for a month or so to remember how games used to be judged on how fun they were and not there framerate, resolution, HD , IE LOOKS!!

does the phrase dont judge a book by its cover mean anything this day and age?

kevnb2954d ago

a game with a terrible framerate is much less enjoyable. If I was playing a game on my pc and the framerate was that bad, id be looking for patches, lowering settings etc...
end of day, this game is not up to par technically. Its such a kick ass game that people play it anyway though.

kevnb2954d ago

with a good framerate, the framerate is terrible on both platforms. same as gta iv was. There better be a pc version, because I cant play this junk.

masterg2954d ago

I haven't tried the game on either console yet, but the images used here are useless.

Look at the PS3 text at the top right corner. Look how bad the image is compressed. The PS3 text is filled with pixels and distortion. When you compare than to the 360 image you can see that this image is not compressed nealy as hard.

I call you out That is an awful comparison.

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 2953d ago
yoghurt2954d ago

maybe I have sub-HD eyes, because I really cannot see hardly if any difference - and i suspect it#ll bother me even less so when I am actually playing the game

JonnyBigBoss2954d ago

I can't either, and I have 20/20 vision. I think people are just bored and want to overanalyze everything.

BeaArthur2954d ago

Keep beating the dead horse. What is this like the 5th article on this subject in the last 2 days?

Game13a13y2954d ago

^^^ agree, hoorraay.... the 360 version has superiour version than the PS3, but that's only visible when you pause and compare screen by screen...well anyway....lets celebrate!!

Nike2954d ago

"Keep beating the dead horse."

I think this well might be dry. Let's keep pumping it just to be sure. :D

WMW2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

i just want to know why 360 fanboy see this as something to brag about? when a bad port looks better, plays and has a higher res then most 360 games do. that is just embarrassing. even reviews don't say the 360 version is much better. i guess that is to be expected though after scc and aw failed to be the AAA goty masterpieces they were hyped to be. any small advantage is a win for 360 fanboys and the media haven't had anything to talk about lately. this is just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

BeaArthur2954d ago

Same reason PS3 fanboys see the same type of things as something to brag about. Their idiots.

tatotiburon2954d ago

love every second of the game and i unlocked some clothes for my avatar

rroded2954d ago

but hey any bit of bad news for the ps3 is big news for the pro 360 crowd eh XD

JonnyBigBoss2954d ago

That's sick. That reminds me of people in the military who are happy to kill people. It's disgusting, and everyone should want others to be happy rather than condemn them for preferring something else.

ceedubya92954d ago

Just realize that your statment goes both ways.