Lens of Truth - Head2Head: Red Dead Redemption

IMPORTANT: You will need to register on the site in order to view the article.

Lens of Truth puts both versions of Red Dead Redemption under it's microscope.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
kaveti66163068d ago

Is it really? I had the feeling it was just Grand Theft Horse.

jmare3068d ago

It is in no way Grand Theft Horse. While there is an abundance of killing, the world's morality doesn't necessarily make it a crime. Also, there are very few missions where you are required to commit crimes, e.g. stealing, murder, etc. Again, since the game is set in the old west, murder is not as black and white as in GTA.

The story is more about redemption, hence the title, rather than being an asshole/criminal.

inveni03068d ago

I've put about 12 hours into it, and my overall feeling has been pretty 'meh'... There's some interesting happening, but mostly it's just riding around through barren lands. It's not bad by any stretch of the imagination. But, when it comes to an open world, I'd rather play in Empire City.

Spydiggity3068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

I have (looking at my stats right now) 26.5 hours in this game. i've killed nearly a thousand people, and i've harvested 30,000 pounds of meat. i have found that while it doesn't come as naturally to me as it did when i was a kid, some games are still able to draw me in to a point where i get lost in the world. this is one of those games.

it really is GTA in the west, but the west is enough to make it an improvement. i thought GTA 4 was great, but i still agree with the arguments about it getting old and repetitive in some instances. this game does have that element of wash, rinse, repeat but because of the way the game draws you in and presents itself, you don't feel as strongly against it. you care enough about the world that you feel compelled to do what you can to make a change (good or bad). i personally think it's a shoe-in for GOTY if no surprises come out between now and end of far, it's easily the best, most varied game i've played. sure god of war looks better, but it's a one dimensional game. splinter cell was great fun, and the co-op really added to that experience. but this game offers so get so much 'bang for your buck' that i can't see a game toppling this for a while.

when i was in the store, i stood there for a good 10 minutes holding alan wake and red dead, and i can honestly say this was the right choice (although i did play the first 2 chapters of aw at a friend's place and it's great fun too).

bottom line...get this game. doesn't matter which system you get it on (you can see from the video that the differences are nearly non-existant), just get it.

EDIT: before a certain group of "gamers" in our beloved n4g community think that i was insulting gow and flame me for the next 8-10 hours...i wasn't. gow is a ton of fun...especially if you enjoy button mashers. my point was not meant to use this game to detract from the quality of gow, but rather to use the quality of gow to explain just how great rdr is.

lh_swe3068d ago

RDR does take a lot from the GTA mould but it is I can asure you a completely different game aside from the engine and other things like the lock on and such.

But there is just soo much more to this game and everything from the mini-games like poker, breaking in horses to doing tasks for strangers feel genuine and expertly executed. Towns bustle with life the landscape is rich (not only in terms of beautiful scenery but with activity), the life in this game feels more real than any other open world game has portrayed from the crazy mounts of different animals to the top notch acting even from the most menial characters.

From a sheer technical standpoint this game does a lot show what good production values can bring but this game brings a true western feel with an engaging story some light RPGish elements and some truly time consuming side activities which will keep you occupied for hours on end.

Genesis53068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

You know how to get rid of that little bit of blur on the PS3 version. Adjust the sharpness on your TV. That is what I did and now everything has a very sharp and distictive edge around it.

It's like they run these comparisons on the exact same settings. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Adjust your sharpness and your noise reduction and you'll get a really good picture. It still running in 720p on the PS3. It's just upscaled 720p.

Anon19743068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

"Each console had its pros and cons but in no way could either console be considered a loser here, nor an unplayable version. Look at it this way: Is a game that loads 2-5 seconds slower unplayable? How about a game that has less brush on the ground? And even though the Xbox 360 had higher resolution, the PlayStation 3 used the lower resolution to blur shadows better and give better depth of field."

By the way some people are carrying on you'd think there was some major differences between the two versions. Clearly that isn't the case here and looking at those screen shots the differences were slight. LOT certainly thinks the differences are negligible.

Just another case of fanboys making a big deal out of nothing. Knowing the differences are so minor, I'll buy this on my PS3. I'm on my 4th 360 and I'm always concerned this console will finally kick the bucket without any warranty. Being able to play worry free is much more important to me than a couple of extra shurbs. That and I don't have to pay extra to play online, and the PS3 version has exclusive content.

Rainstorm813068d ago

But empire city dosent have anything on liberty city let alone the world of RDR.

Infamous' side mission were soooo repetitive doing the same 5-6 missions in every area of the city. RDR's random side missions have moe variety than the side quests on Infamous.

I own and enjoyed infamous but you cant compare Sucker Punch's first PS3 outing to the open-world masters over at R*.

UltraNova3068d ago

I had between 50-80 times more fun with Infamous than i did with GTA. As a matter of fact I had fun for about an hour with GTA then I realized its more of the same hour after hour and nothing like San andreas. So I would say Bravo to Sucker punch for their first try on PS3.

Anon19743068d ago

Looking at my previous comment I can't see what there is to disagree with, yet the disagrees are always there. Just so I understand, those jamming the disagree button - what are you disagreeing with?

The LOT article states the differences are minor and each system has their specific strengths and weaknesses. Do you not agree with their conclusion?

I stated that certain fans seem to be making a big deal out of nothing. To me, backed up by this article, that seems a given. Is that what you disagree with?

I stated I'll pick this up on my PS3 as minor graphical differences are outweighed by concerns about my 360's lifespan, concerns completely warranted in my opinion given the troubles I've had with the 360 console. Do you disagree with my right to make that decision, or just think it's worth taking the risk for a few more shrubs, like LOT said, versus playing on solid hardware?

You see, when you just jam the disagree button, I have no idea what you're disagreeing with. It's meaningless. If you have a point to make, make it. If there was a town hall meeting and you yelled from the back "I disagree!" and then left, do you really think that accomplished anything? We know you disagree, but to what?

These are forums for gamers to exchange ideas. Why not take part?

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3068d ago
JsonHenry3068d ago

The better clarity of the 360 version is noticeable on the 720p video. Especially the more detail on things in the distance and the extra thick foliage.

Other than that not much of a difference. Just wish I had bought the game for the 360, but I promised a friend I would get it for the PS3 so I could play with him.

Official General3068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

I dont see the big fuss about extra thick foilage. If anything the Playstation version in this scene reflects reality. In real life, a hot and dry, semi-desert environment with cactus plants will more than likely have less grass and more shrubs, which is what is portrayed in the PS3 version. Thick grass is more common in temperate prairie-type country or vast plains, not semi-desert. Anyone who disagress with this obviously has no knowledge of nature or natural habitats, they just probably wanna think more grass is prettier to look at, and must be the better version.

EDIT: Dont get smart Json Henry. I did not say that the desert is completely empty of foliage. Do not put words in my mouth. I said in real-life there is less grass in drier, desert environments, which is in the environment portrayed in this screenshot comparison. I did mention you have more shrubs and bush-type of vegetation in semi-desert areas, which is correctly and realistically portrayed in the PS3 version, along with less grass.

JsonHenry3068d ago

You have never been out west if you think that most of the desert is completely empty of foliage.

corneliuscrust3068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

I've heard of far reaching justification, but damn!

Less objects on screen = more realistic?

wow man. Would you honestly have said the same thing if the situation was reversed and the 360 version had less foliage?

game plays great on both systems. there's no need for this. You don't have to defend your choice to anyone.

inveni03068d ago

Not nearly as big a difference as FFXIII. I've been playing the PS3 version, and the sub-HD isn't what disappoints me. The aliasing is pretty distracting sometimes. Other than that, it looks as decent as I'd expect from R*.

specialguest3068d ago

The 360 version gets the win for sharper texture and details.

tplarkin73068d ago

The 360 has a better framerate, too. I noticed it through the whole comparison, but it is obvious at about 4:57.

Dannagar3068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

I personally hate to get involved in fanboy discussions because they can be so stupid. However, I live in New Mexico, the home of the wild west. Anyway, I can assure you that your reasoning of the Southwest desert landscape is incorrect. When I think of our natural landscape in the SW, the dead weeds are thick. There aren't huge gaps in the fields where no weeds grow. They grow everywhere and on anything. The landscape is pretty well covered. You're just wrong. Honestly, it's just not realistic to try and create the SW landscape in a $60 video game. None the less, more foliage is more realistic.

mantisimo3068d ago

You live in the wild west? OOh do you spit baccy into a bucket? I'd like to spit baccy too. :(

Arnon3068d ago

"However, I live in New Mexico, the home of the wild west."

Uhh... I'm pretty sure that the "home of the wild west" is Texas, of which I live in, and of which this game takes place in. Yes, a real Texas/Mexico desert looks like the one in RDR. Cowboys originated in the north part of Mexico, which later became Texas, so I'm sure New Mexico has nothing to do with this game or argument for that matter.

Aside from this, you are absolutely correct in the fact that a true south desert is covered in dry foliage, along with canyons and rivers.

Dannagar3068d ago

First off, I didn't exclude other regions. However, most of the western legends (such as Billy the Kidd) spawned within Arizona and New Mexico. Do some research. Much of Landscape in Arizona and Texas is the same as New Mexico. Obviously it differs as you get closer to the ocean in Texas and California.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3068d ago
Noctis Aftermath3068d ago

Having to register to view the article? how did this even get approved?

Megaton3068d ago

Right, and the site's #1 contributor approved it too.

Spydiggity3068d ago

are you serious? when the other comparisons came out, all we heard from the fanboys was "wait for lens of truth." now it's here and there's a problem?

it's a youtube video for christ's sake. copy the url from the embedded link and go watch the HD version there. people will complain about anything...geeze.

and i think the vid we get here tells enough info. the games look basically the same minus some minor, barely noticeable differences. spend more time with rdr and less with comparison vids. if you have the option, get the version that has more of your friends playing. if you only have one system, just get it. simple as that. game is great

Megaton3068d ago

Er, Lens of Truth don't just use vids. They have multi-page articles with in-depth analysis of each comparison as well. You can't submit something if it requires registration to view, which would be the problem here.

GameOn3068d ago

The only clear difference to me is that there seems to be a lot less grass in the PS3 version.

Spydiggity3068d ago

and it doesn't even seem like a lot less...just some.

i got this for 360 cuz half my friends list told me they were getting it and wanted to form posse's, but if i had the ps3 version, i'm sure i'd be just as happy. game is great regardless of the amount of grass. :-P

Tapewurm3068d ago

I have said it before.....just doesn't look the same as what I am seeing on my PS3 and my Sony Bravia with HDMI.........Mine looks much sharper than what they are showing here...this fuzzy stuff just isn't showing it's face on my set up....makes you wonder????

Genesis53068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

I posted a little earlier. You probably have your TV's sharpness adjusted properly. I swear it gets rid of any fuzziness. I am using a 40" Bravia and HDMI too.

divideby03068d ago

I agree...I have an XBR9 and you dont see any jaggies in the game as many said there were..
Is it because the TV is upscaling ? I know the XBRs have hands down the best scalar on the market

divideby03068d ago

blind DAs = typical fails and are:
samsung TV owners who dont know what a scalar is....
360 owners
or and I was hoping for an intelligent comment about the game not being scaled.

FACTUAL evidence3068d ago

I BARELY see the difference. I can only see that the 360 version is a tad bit darker, and the grass looks way better than ps3's. Other than that not much to go by. If you're trying to get this game I'd say buy it on W/E console your friends are going to play on, or the console you prefer. Either way it looks like you're going to get a bang for your buck. ENJOY!

HolyOrangeCows3068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

Members only? Screw that. Even if its free, I'm not wasting my time just to see what I already know.

EDIT: I can skip right to the Youtube video anyway. Double screw registering.
EDIT 2: Wow, what a piss poor, over compressed video.

boodybandit3068d ago

look at the texture (or lack there of) on the rope (it looks like a piece of paper with brown lines drawn on it) and the yellow round (or should I say hexagonal/stop sign) ball on the post.

Are we really debating frame rates and resolutions of a game of this graphical quality? This isn't exactly pushing or raising the bar here. I can see differences but enough to take away my enjoyment of either version? Heck no. If the game play doesn't suffer why debate slight graphical differences?

Some of my friends have it for the 360, others the PS3 and none of them are complaining about any gameplay issues. That's all that matters.

Man In Black3068d ago

But it sure as hell isn't as huge a difference as the ridiculous amount of articles that came flooding in suggested. I've got it on PS3, and it looks amazing, even on my shitty SDTV. It's funny how none of those articles mentioned the faster loading times for the PS3 version.

evildeli3068d ago

Looks like the article is available to the public now

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3068d ago
yoshiro3068d ago

well one version can be sub HD but no one would say...very identical...

n4gno3068d ago

identical..which is better than uggly ports, but not a good thing for ps3 owners, ps3 would always have a better version, with optimisations.

life doomer3068d ago

It's hard to spot the difference when in motion, either way fanboys are going to nitpick for no apparent reason. There is no need to continue these comparisons, it's still the same game all around.

tplarkin73068d ago

The resolution is obviously higher on 360. And, the 360 framerate is higher, too. You can really see the framerate difference at 4:57.

IdleLeeSiuLung3068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

I thought that the graphical difference would be minimal, but the missing shadows made that one picture of the PS3 version look really weird. There were no shadows under the dock! It was quite visible too.

Graphics don't make a game though, so buy whichever based on your preferred platform.

commodore643068d ago (Edited 3068d ago )

I agree IdleLee.

I looked at the ps3 shots in disbelief.
The disparity was readily apparent.

The 360 shots seemed so much more crisper and lifelike.

Occasionally I wondered if the developers had purposely gimped the ps3 version. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case as the developers had obviously been forced to reduce the ps3 resolution as well as reduce the polygon count to get it to perform on par with the 360.

Those graphical details might make little overall difference to the gameplay, but some of the guys on n4g are pretending they don't exist.

How these fanboys justify their own denial is beyond me.

In addition LOT gave the loading time win to the ps3, despite the fact that a mandatory HDD install is required.
It seems a bit funny that they didn't opt to do an optional 360 install, and then compare THOSE loading times.
Seems weird that a forced HDD install got the nod over the immediately playable disc option?

I guess ps3 fans need something.

Rdr is a good game on ps3, no question.
However, there can be no doubt it is simply better on 360.
I just don't understand how people get so uptight over this.

stonecold13068d ago

scence in the ps3 version the sun is coming from the window the 360 is version part of that scene is dark ive noticed end of statement

jay23068d ago

Oh cool, PS3s loading times are faster that's something.

snesfangirl3068d ago

since it only loads part of the games graphics...