Gamepro compares the two versions and points out the graphical differences.
gamepro your the best. great comparison video. they look nearly identical, great job.
But we all know who wanted this to be a big deal.. The people that waited for a 6 year subRDRMGS4hd game. Woops. and again, I still don't quite get how its the same thing? Its not like anyone said resolution alone makes or breaks a game. Just when a hyped game is thrown at the top dogs of the industry, then fails miserably. No one has claimed RDR is a second coming, am i right? Or did I miss something.. I mean, its multiplatform... right? Heres a note. Just stop comparing your games to others. You'll save embarrassment in the future. Enjoy what you have, even if its under RDRhd.
im pretty sure you missed something - RDR is being called one of, if not the best games of the generation. its gotten higher reviews from the big gaming publications than your beloved second coming of christ Uncharted 2, and if you took out all the 100%s/10 out of 10s/A+++s that the official sony sites/magazines gave Uncharted 2, RDR would be sitting higher on Metacritic too (as it is its only a single point behind, so it is clear it would be higher without all the fanboy sites giving U2 100/100). also, you say this: "Its not like anyone said resolution alone makes or breaks a game. " PS3 fanboys like to think that resolution is what makes a game. Alan Wake was supposedly rubbish purely based on resolution. Splinter Cell Conviction was supposedly rubbish because of its resolution. Halo Reach is supposedly going to be rubbish because of its resolution (despite actually doing 2 frames of just shy of 720p instead of 1 single 720p frame).
But its hype literally came out of no where, the HOTTEST stories on N4g have been due to the PS3's resolution. This is a fact. IHYF, I dare you to find someone on N4G claiming AW is bad because of its resolution. You wouldn't find a fanboy saying that because MGS4 itself was SubHD. Not nearly as low as Alan Wake, but still. Resolution doesn't make or break a game. Its not the same genre as Uncharted2 either, not sure where that comparisons came out? I know u guys have a tough time swallowing its universal praise w/o trips to paris and 800 dollar swag bags, but hey. Its there. GTA4 was scored high as well, and we all know it wasn't the best game ever made. For someone who hates fanboys, you're using their same tired arguments about Metacritic & Scores. UC2 was a good game that won many awards. More importantly, it won G D C awards, not awards from PlaystationMagazine. Give props where props are due. Yep, its sure to be a good title, but its looking like its having bugs already in MP, identical to GTA4's bugs. History is repeating itself over again. And you're forgetting something, Its a multiplatform game. Its on the PS3 & The 360, and more than likely the PC. UC2 isn't the second Christ of anything, its a well done game and deserved the scores it had since it was an 89% due to only not having Multiplayer. You need to go somewhere else with that. AW's metacritic has nothing to do with its resolution, it has to do with being a linear repetitive game. Fanboys, clearly including yourself, Love to make up arguments. Let the record stand that no one on this site has ever said that Alan Wake is bad because of JUST its resolution for the simple fact that the person saying that would be ignoring MGS4, and would be a total moron. So why listen to the total moron? Alan Wakes failure is because it was COMPARED to the "second coming" Uncharted2, and failed to even meet the resolution for the competition. And it really isn't just resolution. Alan Wake runs low polygon models in game, and Pre-rendered cut scenes with higher polygon models & effects, unlike the second coming. Animation, Textures, Lighting. Its everything that can't compare. I stay silent on this site mostly, but Jesus christ you keep seeing this dimwitted rebuttal from fanboys on this site. AW was compared to every single PS3/PC exclusive under the sun as this amazing marvel of technology. Remedy themselves in their own trailer claimed it utilizes the full power of the Xbox360. That is totally different than RDR, which previous title was SubHD as well on the PS3, and everyone managed to still have a great time with it. Fact is this, if someone was claiming resolution made a game, you'd have an argument. Unfortunately, No one is, outside of people in the former open zone. Open your eyes. RDR isn't getting thrown at UC2/Killzone2/MGS4 or anything either. Which would also validate your argument. And What kind of dumbass argument is "IF you took out all the AAA scores from sony magazines", have you seen any 360 game review? Sony has about 4 magazines compared to 10-15 "XBOXLUVERZ.org" sites on metacritic. You hate fanboys but stop making it so easy to get yourself owned. Scc & AW are supposed to be heavy hitting graphical marvels, and were hyped as so. Which is why they are scrutinized. Halo reach is just using HDR lighting W/deferred rendering. No magic, and its done on the PS3 in 720p @ 30fps all the time. If sony fanboys are saying the 360 can't run complex engines, and each graphical beast from the 360 comes out SUBHD...Whats the argument?
wow, so much wrong there i dont know where to start..... ill give it a go though. 1. "IHYF, I dare you to find someone on N4G claiming AW is bad because of its resolution." go read ANY of the 'alan wake is sub-720p' articles. there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of sony fanboys in there claiming that exact thing. 2. i know resolution doesnt make or break a game. i never said it does. 3. i brought Uncharted 2 up purely based on the fact that that guy was saying noone was expecting big things from it, and that noone cares cause its multiplatform. i was pointing out that people were expecting big things from it, people were hyped for it, and even though its multiplatform it is getting better reviews from the game that that guy - Greywulf - thinks is the greatest game of all time. 4. i never said anything about Alan Wakes metacritic score, i dont know why youre bringing it up? 5. "Let the record stand that no one on this site has ever said that Alan Wake is bad because of JUST its resolution" well the record wont stand as that, because thats 100% false. 6. "And What kind of dumbass argument is "IF you took out all the AAA scores from sony magazines", have you seen any 360 game review? Sony has about 4 magazines compared to 10-15 "XBOXLUVERZ.org" sites on metacritic. " well thats a flat out lie. im also talking about fanboy sites, not just official ones - of which sony has dozens. 7. "Halo reach is just using HDR lighting W/deferred rendering. No magic, and its done on the PS3 in 720p @ 30fps all the time." well thats not true. Halo Reach renders 2 individual frames, meaning almost twice as many actual pixels as 720p, to preserve as much dynamic range in the HDR lighting as possible. no PS3 games do this. none. 8. "You hate fanboys but stop making it so easy to get yourself owned. " the simple fact that you think you 'owned' me says wonders. 9. "If sony fanboys are saying the 360 can't run complex engines, and each graphical beast from the 360 comes out SUBHD...Whats the argument?" Gears of War 1 and 2 were sub-hd? Forza 3 was sub-hd with its constant 60fps/720p was it? i suppose you also want to disregard the sub-hd MGS4? or the VERY sub-HD ratchet and clank games?
I mean, calm down for a moment. I literally just said that MGS4 is subhd, so any fanboy claiming Resolution & resolution alone gimps a game, would be contradicting themselves. How did you miss this, oh right. High on "ZOMG RDR IS SUBHD ON THE PS3! That means resolution doesn't matters!!" -- Right? Take a moment and read before shooting yourself in the foot. Go read any subHD AW thread.. Again, I said you won't find anyone saying AW is lame because of its resolution & resolution alone, not sure how many times I can repeat this with you ignoring it. I said its because AW is the single title that was hyped and compared to the top Ps3 titles. Its nice to see you pull out Ratchet & Clank, while thats great and all, It still supports the idea that Resolution & Resolution alone doesn't mean anything. Since those titles were enjoyable, and weren't heralded as the "second coming". Great point! Compare Ratchet to banjo. Which it runs all over. Its true, no one gives a damn about RDR as some technical showpeice. Its Rockstar, they are expected to deliver a certain level, but the age old "open world" adage applies to it, that since its on such a large scale, its clearly not going to be a graphical marvel. Looks great, of course. Just as GTA4 did. Exclusive titles exclusively use the hardware for a software to run on, which is why they are used as the bar for console achievement. Not a game that is meant to be equal on both consoles, how are you not grasping this? They are literally meant to run identical. You claim the record is false, yet can't even bother to find anyone of any reputation on N4G outside of some 1 bubble douchebag like nasim or something saying 'flop'. You wont find it because its not true. Its just you crying at this point about how some fanboy said something. I already went over each facet of Alan Wake, its textures/models/animation, Everything isn't stacking up to the big hitters out there. You can ignore it all you wan't, and I'll continue to repeat it. You can't find anyone, because no one said resolution alone flops a game. If they did, See: MGS4/Ratchet. You cry about Sony fansites, yet ignore the fact that if you factored that in for the 360, there are more 360 only sites reviewing 360 titles, that are counted on Metacritic. If you're talking about PS3fanboys.net, then what the hell do you expect? Yet those sites aren't factored in Metacritic. I'd ask you to point at 1 source of a PS3 "fansite" being on Metacritic, and well, just like the fanboys you cant find. You wont be able to find any. Halo Reach doesn't render 2 full diffuse/specular/normal map/depth frames, You're talking about buffers. Which you clearly have no idea about. What you're talking about would apply more to 3D than a simple HDR lighting pass. Naughty Dog wins awards for their technology, Bungie doesn't. And it wins GDC awards, not fanboy awards. Which You wont dare refute. We will all have to wait to see reach, just like we waited for Alan Wake, since no 360 title comes close to UC1/UC2/GOW3/Killzone2 etc. Uncharted2's multiplayer alone runs over all things 360, unlike Gears1 & 2 (UNREAL ENGINE lol) gimped multiplayer modes with reduced models/textures. If you want to focus on the word "owned" on a videogame website community,thats fine with me. Because you're not addressing any of the facts saying that: 1. RDR's hottest news is news its not HD. It was lukewarm on the site before any of this. Great game, people are buying it. 2. RDR was never compared to any graphical showcase. 3. RDR's visuals were never hyped on n4g by anyone, since its a sandbox game. Which is always the case with sandbox console games due to console limitations.
Gears uses the Unreal engine, which also runs on the PS3, and isn't exactly at the level of Uncharted or Killzone, which you know full well is true. You can pretend it is, but again. See UC2's GDC awards. Lower polygon models, inferior animation & texturing. Shaders, everything. And oh yeah, the Unreal engine isn't an exclusive engine for the 360. Forza3 runs 8 cars, that are lower polygon than the cars when you start the race. When the cameras shoot all around the car. They are then swapped out for higher resolution cars at replay. They reduced the particle effects as well. And oh yeah, the engine tints the windows of the vehicles when driving to hold the framerate. Great examples there. Old tired Unreal engine games. Won an award back before anything else was out in 2007. Wake me up when you have a coherent argument that doesn't just make up horseass when talking about disregarding things that I already mentioned. You want to pretend Gears2 performs as well as Uncharted2, thats fine. You guys have to pretend a lot these days. Gt5 does 16, in a higher resolution & detailed cars @ 60fps. Again, you shot yourself in the foot & fell down the stairs. Even prologue does this. 2010 the 360s graphical beasts: Gears of war, and forza. lol, really? Halo3 was touted as a graphical beast with its HDR lighting, subhd. Alan wake touted as a graphical beast. Subhd. Gears 1 looked amazing for the time. Gears 1.5 didnt. The unreal engine & forza's engine aren't complex engines. Sorry to burst your bubble. They are all great games, but not exactly the God of War's or Gran Turismos of the industry. People give MS props for rushing out a console, and advertising well, as well as XBL. No one gives props to sony for investing into first party studios that release amazing titles for their hardware that raise the bar upon each release. That prove you can have the bells and whistles, and in 720p+, since its an HD console. Thats the truth.
woOow! i just realized that IHateYouFanboys it's actually one of the worst xbox fanboys on n4g..shame on you. u are just attacking others comment with non-sense anti-ps3 crap. shame shame on youu.
IHateYouFanboys I read your reason for bringing up UC2, but it's not a valid one. Metacritic and any one or two individual sites (no matter what they are) being used to determine the quality of a game is stupid in the first place, but then spinning the information to suit your opinion is even more out of place. There are several sites that have given UC2 a higher score than RDR that are definitely not "sony fanboy" sites (which is silly, because, one, Sony has far fewer PS3/Sony specific sites than the 360 does, and two, many of those PS3 sites are harsher on PS3 games than most other sites). Come back when RDR has received more than 1/3 the amount of reviews that UC2 received. Your post made me want to respond, which annoys me because I don't like comparing games in the first place, and I also am really enjoying RDR at the moment. Anyway, enjoy your games, because that's the whole point to them.
@IHateYouFanboys I've been playing RDR for about 4 hours now, and I can tell you that it is NOT better than Uncharted 2...not even close. The reason it is reviewing better is because it's on 360, and that's a fact. I've also been playing Mass Effect 2 on PC for about 6 hours now, and it's not better, either. I'm beginning to think that games are reviewed based on how they compare to the rest of a system's library. If you compare RDR to Any PS3 exclusives, it's only worth about a 8.6 so far, imo. If you compare it to 360 exclusives, it's probably worth more like a 9.2.
Wii4hire just owned the shiot out him!
Greywulf you're the biggest hypocrite on this site.
if someone were to say they see a difference in the vid... deserves a punch in the face...
I don't see a difference, I see many differences.
Me too. They pointed all of them out in the video. Texture pop-in, worse looking trees, framerate issues etc. In any case they are pretty minimal and not something that would distract you while playing either version. Just get it :)
damn, thats the best comparison, you can actually switch to full screen. i giggled when watching this, you gotta be kidding neogaf dude was so exaggerating, besides only this sites and neogaf and some fanboy sites too out there knows theres a difference, but casual gamers no way!!, theres no way that they notice any difference! alright, theres some shadow pop in, thats it?!
The fact that they have to zoom in really close and go into slow motion to demonstrate any of the differences between them is pretty telling. Both versions both look really good.
Why does this video run like ass. 2FPS!!!
"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 http://n4g.com/news/486946/... http://n4g.com/news/486892/... http://n4g.com/news/486399/... -Heres a small sample of Greywulf thoughts on FF reviews: " Its bull. It just highlights the hilarious double standard. Its as if the 360 version is perfectly equal to the ps3 version with its clear problems. The problems big enough for other multiplats haven't been as severe." http://n4g.com/news/486722/... -Now heres Grewulf when theres clearly a rez difference among other problems on ps3 version of RDR: "But we all know who wanted this to be a big deal.. The people that waited for a 6 year subRDRMGS4hd game. Woops. and again, I still don't quite get how its the same thing? Its not like anyone said resolution alone makes or breaks a game." -lmfao, talk about a fanboy double standard and there was plenty more hatin threads just like these, karma is such a beeatch. JOY
Greywulf by far is the biggest hypocrite on this site. All one needs to do is go back to his earlier posts on anything Xbox360 resolution related and view how he is flip flopping here. When AlanWake, SC, Halo were Subhd he went ape shi**, now one of the biggest games this year and scoring over 94% is subhd on the PS3 version, he is NOW SPEWING how RESOLUTION DOES NOT MATTER and it's a MULTI[LATFORM GAME....Well hate to break it to ou GreyWulf, but Multi-platform games are bought more then exclusives in most of the cases for the obvious reasons. If the Xbox360 version was subhd you would be all over N4G.COM blasting the Xbox360 version. You are like Sarah Palin....
Good comparison, had to run it from my PS3 browser as could only get 2FPS on my zx spectrum calculator of a PC. Think the only real difference between the two is the resolution, its clearly higher on the 360 but the difference is not as noticable as GTAIV. Its a shame but not a big deal.
Actually, the 360-Version looks much better. The whole look at the game is much more impressive on the 360. I'm glad of having both consoles.
Not as huge a difference as I thought.
This is clearly an Xbox 360 buy. No question.
in the beginning the ps3 version looks to have better lighting, and when it comes to the fence the 360 has a sharper image. they both have there pros and cons. i really recommend this video. great job guys. nasty..nice name patna!
the PS3 version does not look better in any possible way. it has less detail, more texture pop-in, less self-shadowing, lower resolution, terrible anti-aliasing that blurs the entire screen, and worse LOD. it literally has nothing that looks better than the 360 version. @PimpHandHappy: im sure it does look good on your PS3/Bravia............but it would look BETTER on your bravia running on a 360, guaranteed.
it looks great on my 52 Bravia using my PS3... maybe i should pause it more and get up close because it looks awesome
I agree with the guy above me. This video highlights the blurry quincunx aa on the ps3. Overall, I would say that ps3 fans probably won't notice the 'hazey' effect unless they then immediately play the game on 360. To most honest gamers, the difference is quite apparent. It's funny, when ps3 fans talk about UC2 vs Gears of war 2, or FFXiii, they seem to have the sharpest eagle eyes and discerning gamer pallates that one can imagine. Resolution, animation, pop-ins etc are of utmost importance in declaring the ps3 king of the hill. Yet, somehow, inexplicably, this skill is lost when we compare Rdr and hundreds of other multiplats, both old and new. Weird huh?
Exactly. You summed it up perfectly, commodore64....the ps3 fanboys way overexaggerate how good the ps3 exclusives are and then somehow they can't see the same kinds of differences when it comes to a multiplatform game. Somehow they can see when a ps3 exclusive is 5% better than a 360 exclusive but they somehow cannot tell when a multiplatform game is 5% better on the 360.
OK lets be honest here RDR looks worse on the PS3 and if one were to play both it'd be obvious what they'd stick with however you seem to use this as some sort of "proof" that the PS3 never was more powerful than the 360 ignoring games such as God of War 3, Killzone 2 and especially Uncharted 2 which have done each indivdual graphical task better and combined with solid framerates. Could this show that the PS3 has difficulty being programmed for certain engines, yes! does this mean it is now suddenly proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the 360 is more powerful? no. You are a fanboy and in true fashion you distort things into a shape and form you like as to suit you needs the difference is you try to cover that by stealth trolling...because lets face it you have some sort of grudge with the PS3 and unless it slept with your mother I think you should let it go or if you hate the PS3 because of the idiocy displayed by PS3 fanboys well I think it's time to grow up? Don't you?
funny when i see a name like that then see a fanboyish comment not sure what you mean when you say "blurs entire screen" because it looks really sharp its not KZ2 sharp of course and im sure the 360 version is also not as sharp as KZ2 or the long list of graphical "award winning" monsters that PS3 has popped out over the last couple years but a game of this size i would never expect that... fact is it still looks amazing 2me and is one of the best looking games this year so far
"not sure what you mean when you say "blurs entire screen" because it looks really sharp its not KZ2 sharp of course and im sure the 360 version is also not as sharp as KZ2" firstly, you obviously have poor eyesight if you cant see that the entire image is blurred on the PS3. id get that checked out if i was you :). secondly, both RDR and Killzone 2 use the AWFUL Quincunx Anti-Aliasing method. do you know what that is or what it does? let me tell you. anti-aliasing is a method used to get rid of 'jaggies' - where a straight line gets the 'stair stepped' appearance. Quincunx is the single least processor intensive Anti-Aliasing method around, and as such is generally the one that most PS3 games use (360 on the other hand generally uses 2xMSAA as its given "for free" by the 10mb of EDRam on the GPU. to my knowledge, not a single 360 game uses Quincunx) the problem lies with the Quincunx method. to reduce 'jaggies', Quincunx AA literally blurs the entire frame. by blurring the entire frame, it reduces the sharpness of the jagged edges, making them less noticable. the downside though, is that the entire image is now blurred. for a good article on this with examples, read this: http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... ) and i just want to point out that this is NOT debatable. this is how the method is done, and Red Dead on the PS3 and Killzone 2 both use this method. they both have QAA, and as such they both blur the entire image. the 360 version of Red Dead does NOT use this method, hence why it looks so much 'cleaner' and has more defined texture detail and edges. Killzone 2 is not 'sharp' in any meaning of the word. the developers even said they specifically went for the 'analogue' look (ie. like its filmed on an old video camera, not HD digital). it uses QAA, which is half the reason all the textures lack detail. now some people do prefer the blurry look as its not as 'sharp'. personally i prefer seeing more detail and having a little bit more aliasing than losing a lot of detail just to reduce aliasing.
The differences are minor, that's not really the point though. Here we have a system capable of matching the 360 and in many ways surpassing it, why couldn't Rockstar spend the time in developing it properly? Especially when they claim to have a dedicated PS3 dev. team? A PS3 gamer's money is just as good as a 360 gamer's, so why should PS3 gamers get even *marginally* less than others? It all comes down to the fact that Rockstar wasn't interested in investing the time to learn from the GTA IV issues and develop (graphically) the same game on both consoles. Their saving grace is they made a fantastic game, so this won't hurt sales--just their reputation among the PS3 community. Shame on you Rockstar, now let me get back to skinning wildlife. P.S. To soften the blow for fellow PS3 videophiles; a good comparison shot: http://img130.imageshack.us...