The first two loading screens of Red Dead Redemption (Blu-ray vs. DVD) were compared in a new video.
Wow ziyad really now ? Must the first comment always be the dumbest one on the article ? I can name a whole bunch of games Sub-Hd on the 360 but I choose not to stoop to your level.
Next stop: comparing how large is the letter M for Mature. It's mesmerizing how stupid people get to sacrifice their integrity & news materiel for the sake of clicks.
The funny part is the PS3 and Xbox360 have almost the same amount of sunhd games running on their system and most of them are still great. This whole resolution thing for consoles is getting out of hand. A great game is a great game regardless
Have I missed something? What is with all of the comparisons between the Xbox and PS3 versions of RDR? Its all iv seen on N4G the past few days...
people like to beat a dead horse......., speaking of horses, I need my copy to get here
I see what you did there. xD
Yeah, and this is the silliest one so far.
The next big thing will be... End credits comparisons...Silly names from helpfull imployes on each platform lol
PMSL! Love it!
360 fans have to grasp on this, since its all they have. Now they are the "IT BEST BE HD OR NOTHING" Why didn't they say this with FF13, Alan Wake, Splinter Cell? Who cares if its sub-HD? Would I like the title on par with 360? Sure, but its not going to kill me. Excellent game will be excellent regardless. Reminds me of my xbox friend who mocked GTA on PS2 cuz the cars were not shiny. FFS, play the game.
@ silverslug. The reason this is such a big deal, is because we have been told so very many times by the ps3 fanboys about how the ps3 was going to be the second coming of christ and how the 360 was holding it back, DVD problems, etc etc. Now, in 2010, we have an astoundingly good AAA multiplat game in the form of rdr. The game is huge and its awesome. However, it simply looks better on the 360. It was not held back by dvd, nor did the fact that the 360 is now five years old stop the 360 version from looking better than the ps3 version. Not so long ago we had fanboys proclaiming that SE had to gimp the ps3 version of ffxiii to accommodate a multiplat release on 360. Yet, strangely, I have not seen a SINGLE ps3 fan suggest that in the case of RDR it may have been the ps3 that held back the 360. What gives? Are developers to blame... again? Is it a conspiracy against PS3... again? It just seems so weird and reeks of a double standard amongst the ps3 camp. Have you not noticed? Don't let it worry you. The game is still ok on ps3.
Whatever commodore. You'll be eating your words when agent comes out. And the karma you talk about is what's coming to the 360 camp and has been for years, in the form of goty's for multiple years and the fact that ps3 exclusives look miles ahead of any 360 exclusive. Troll harder next time.
You hit the nail on the head in your own comment.... "Now, in 2010, we have an astoundingly good AAA multiplat game in the form of rdr. The game is huge and its awesome. However, it simply looks better on the 360." That is exactly the point, it is a MULTI-PLATFORM GAME. Of course its going to look better on the 360, most of them do because developers are too lazy to makes good ports that make full use of the PS3's power. Games like RDR, Alan Wake, and probably Halo:Reach have maxed out the 360, it is not capable of too much more. And yet even those games don't even hold a candle to games like GOW3, BOTH Uncharted games, Killzone 2, etc. The 360 version wasn't held back at all, it is what it is. The fact of the matter is that programmers and developers don't want to take the time to learn how to make use of the PS3's superior power to take advantage of everything that they could. SO actually, in a way you could say that the 360 is holding back the PS3 because it made the developers comfortable with programming for one thing, so when you throw something else into the mix that is more complicated, yet light years ahead in terms of power, they can't handle what they don't know. And like Cyborg6971 said, for the sake of all of us and yourself, try trolling harder next time.
The problem is simple, 1. Console A fanboys attack Console B by exploiting technical flaws or spoiling a big game. 2. In retaliation, Console B fanboys attack Console A by exploiting technical flaws when they become available or spoiling a big game. 3. Step 1 continues. It gets even more tragic when normal gamers get caught in the crossfire. :(
@commodore64 Your point is a moot one at best, considering that the same argument could be used with FFXIII, where the format was a factor (PS3: 1080p/720p or 360: 576p). We were told that both versions would be similar, yet in that regard the PS3 version was superior in all regards (load times, visuals etc.). If RDR wasn't limited to 1 disc, I make you a bet that you'd be singing a different song. It comes down to the game and generally which is lead platform when it comes to which looks better for most multi-platform games. Most are too minor to even call superior. Seeing as the PS3 version plays the same without any major load issues for RDR, I don't see what the major problems are. http://www.lensoftruth.com/... Considering that the best games from a visual standpoint this year; have been PS3 games (GOW3, Heavy Rain), not the visually hyped 360 games (Splinter Cell: Conviction, Alan Wake) which have all been sub-HD, how strong is your argument?
1. Killzone2 2. Uncharted 2 3. Resistance 1 & 2 4. MGS4 5. God Of War 3 6. Little Big Planet 7. MLB0+ 8. GT5 Now if you think a console that runs that, is holding back: 1. Alan Wake 2. Splinter Cell 3. [Insert any Unreal engine game here] 4. Forza3 You are kind of making what I call, a bad choice. I'm not going to pretend to be momma goose and that all games have their good points and bad, No. The PS3 has shown above and beyond any multiplat or 360 exclusive at this point that it can perform and *STREAM LOAD* said performance with ease. Technologically speaking. Sure, You can pretend the games are underwhelming, so use a third party for accolades like GDC, in which the PS3 took home technological awards. In the face of everything multiplat & 360. What 360 title is there that suggests a question of whether or not it could be done on the PS3? Oh right, absolutely none. How many articles are on N4G about [Some underwhelming 360 game] Vs PS3 Exclusive. The 360 has yet to show any title of any significant scale or technology that isnt a multiplatform engine, or subhd. Its not the other way around for a reason. Multiple platform games in every single game generation have differed, although their goal is to be identical. Thats the point. Which is why Exclusives that Exclusively use the hardware, like Alan Wake, are to show what the hardware can do. Game generations have always been about exclusives & the good-multiplats to fill the middle. This generation with MS's weak first party has some how become all about multiplatform games. Glad I don't have to sip that kool-aid. You morons will be arguing forever about the differences between Multiplats, because there will always be differences. Just like theres a difference between a game running on an apple vs pc. Ati Vs Nvidia... I mean jesus. Theres never going to be an end to this. Which is why PS3 fanboys laugh at the 360's graphical juggernauts that can't hit HD or have to run with lower quality models(forza3) to hit HD.
No one was complaining when it was all about FF13 on 360 compared to the PS3 version but then again PS3 fans are very 2 faced I could pull out soo many articles where PS3 fans are slating 360 games for sub hd.
2005 ''Seriously, at this point the PS3 is nothing more than high profile vaporware.'' 2006 ''the PS3 is offering an online service no where near as comparable as Live, no HD cables, not one good game, a nonproven Blu-Ray, and everybody keeps talking about potential this potential that…well freakin do something then!! Face it PS fans, your glory days are over.'' ''The Playstation is just way too hard to take advantage of. SURE! ON paper, it has a lot better of specifications than the 360 and capability… GEE IDONT KNOW, HOW ABOUT THE PS3 ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING FOR ONCE??!??!! TO PROVE ITS SO CALLED “POTENTIAL” AND POWER? I know Microsoft can prove with their 360''
I don't know do they play the game or not, all they do is complaining and comparing pixel that they need to sit 20cm away from their gigantic tv to notice it, that is just really sad
Most people just like to have the bigger internet penis by saying my console is better because x game runs better than yours
Is that they do it on <300 dollar systems.... Sad sad sad.
then you add HDD, Wifi and its a 400 dollar system. Sad, sad.
Why would you run wi-fi if your playing online? Fail #1 HDD is included for <300 Dollars on both systems. Fail #2 You've Failed. HDD is included in the Pro/Elite. Arcade isnt in the discussion; its the red headed stepchild of consoles. @Below Wi-fi (Wireless G) cant even stream 720/1080P properly (Which was one of the benefits of Wireless N); its not the right connection for competitive play. Its very inconsistent and will add additional latency. Wired connection is ALWAYS the best route, even if you bust your ass installing it. Why would I go with a second rate connection?
Not really on topic but I've never had any problem playing online through my PS3 WiFi. Since you brought it up, Im just saying... :) And I think SilverSlug was taling about the 360 arcade not having a HDD. Something to think about...
I never said that Wifi was Best. Just that I never had any problem with it. I'm an I.T. tech and I always tell my customers that wired connections are best especially when they are remoting in from home My Wifi is simply more convenient for my gaming needs. Can't have cables running all through my house.
It was fine then, and it is fine now. It is sufficient to get the job done on consoles. People need to stop wifi bashing since there are plenty of us who use this method daily to game online without any hiccups. Most bottlenecks occur @ the service provider versus user's home network equipment, especially nowadays in the USA. Many places outside the US have service providers who offer a faster service by default for the same or cheaper. But even as it stands wifi is fine... and cheap. If anything ask Microsoft why they charge close to $100 for wifi adapters. Especially since I paid less than $45 for my D-Link Xtreme N Router... and I love it.
Whether you care to admit it or not, it's not about bandwidth, it's about PING. As soon as you go wireless, be it a,b,g or n, your ping jumps. For games, that jump is often a deal breaker. For web browsing, videos, whatever, it's fine. If you're serious about online gaming, you don't use a Wifi connection. Plain and simple.
I only started getting into hardcore gaming media in 2008. When i bought GTA4 for my PS3 i didn't know nor care what version was better or whatnot, i just wanted the game. I miss those days where no one was arguing what version was better in my world.
Me too bro.
There have always been comparisons. Spectrum vs C64 Amiga vs Atari ST Mega Drive vs Snes But back then the differences were clear. Now we argue over 10 pixels and 10 seconds. and FYI the Amiga Ruelz
:@ ATARI ST/E FTW hehe
Tons of prepubescent kids ruin the website, like they do online gaming. But there are some old fat disgusting 30+ year old fanboys on here too that wouldn't know truth even if it came in a can of slimfast.
i totally agree with u exclusive .. i personally love both consoles can can pick what i love and hate on both of em.. but the general fact is that they deliver on their strong points with finesse.
@Mr Exclusive I'm not a fan of the noise regarding most HD multi-platform games either. As long as they look relatively similar while playing the same, I'll buy it for the system I own. I think the 360 gets a lot of slack b/c MS has been calling their system the premier HD console since the Wii overtook them. 360 fanboys are calling the 360