Massiveterra Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Even if the resolution of the PS3 is below 720P (which I have yet to see a reliable source saying it is), you don't notice it while playing the game and doesn't affect the gameplay experience. Both versions are almost exactly the same when you see moving images on the screen. Trust me, I have both versions at home. No one puts a magnifying glass to an HDTV while playing a game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Why is this happening? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean its the PS3 that has the Cell and the Blu Ray.Shouldn't PS3 be the one with the crisp detailed image and HD instead of sub HD gaming on general? I am asking coz i own a PS3 and i really want to know how on earth is this happening since i am not into consoles lately. The Cell doesn't matter it's not very good for handling any graphics related stuff. though it analyses cell structures and alien transmissions like a hero. as for bluRay, so what ? being able to store a lot of resources and high res textures doesn't matter when the console in question doesn't have the memory to hold those high res textures in graphics memory, or the objects. and the GPU itself is weaker and can't handle the extra polygon pushing of extra background objects. but of course when it's the PS3, missing background objects that make the scenery alive, and blurry textures doesn't matter ;) :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 It has more to do with how they code the game than the hardware. I doubt they're going to do all the work needed to make it 1:1 between the two consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplySchizo Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Even if the resolution of the PS3 is below 720P (which I have yet to see a reliable source saying it is), you don't notice it while playing the game and doesn't affect the gameplay experience. Both versions are almost exactly the same when you see moving images on the screen. Trust me, I have both versions at home. No one puts a magnifying glass to an HDTV while playing a game lol yea, but dont say that too loud. look how i was getting chewed out cause i said i preferred the copy that came with exclusives cause the advantage on the 360 copy was negligible.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Even if the resolution of the PS3 is below 720P (which I have yet to see a reliable source saying it is), you don't notice it while playing the game and doesn't affect the gameplay experience. Both versions are almost exactly the same when you see moving images on the screen. Trust me, I have both versions at home. No one puts a magnifying glass to an HDTV while playing a game If you want to know the game's resolution just check what resolution your TV is running at when playing the game or look on the back of the game case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I think I remember a certain quote from Sony saying something the lines of this: "Developers will never be able to utilise the full power of the CELL CPU". Now, they tried to play a PR spin on that by making it out that the Cell processor had unlimited/endless power, but it was infact Sony just saying that they can't develop decent tools to utilise the full power of the processor. The Cell CPU is good for certain tasks that would destroy the 360, but the 360 has a 3-core General Processing Unit where the developers can utilise the power faster and more efficiently, PS3 developers need to either develop their knowledge of paralization or cut back on certain things to get a decent FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 If you want to know the game's resolution just check what resolution your TV is running at when playing the game or look on the back of the game case. The game is upscaled to 1080p so no way to tell that way. The games are at home so I can't tell off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure the back of the box says the same thing every game says: 480p/720p/1080p But I think my whole point in my previous thread is...It doesn't matter. Because the game look almost identical with actual moving pictures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 The Cell doesn't matter it's not very good for handling any graphics related stuff. though it analyses cell structures and alien transmissions like a hero. Not completely true, as the recent first-party titles like Uncharted and GoW3 have pushed some of the graphics work onto the cell, allowing the GPU to handle straight rendering and effects like SSAO. That's why the first Uncharted ran the Cell around 30%, and U2 ran it closer to 90%. Now, I can't say for certain, but some of the problem may be related to the dev teams -- RDR isn't from R* North (GTA4), but R* San Diego, makers of Midnight Club. There was a lot of talent lost after much of the problems and revelations that came soon after MCLA was released, as many of the team members refused to be moved over to RDR instead of continuing on working on MCLA DlC or the next iteration. That may have had no effect, or some effect, but it's a consideration. Shame, tho, since that team would lose out on mad royalties since it looks like RDR will sell bunches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xilo Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I wonder how much Microsoft paid Rockstar to give the 360 a better version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 We are close to 4 years into the PS3, and 5 years into the 360, and we are getting some titles better on one, then some better on the other. Half way through their life and things keep getting better? I think that is a good thing. They are equally powerful consoles, so I suspect we will see this happen for the rest of this generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I wonder how much Microsoft paid Rockstar to give the 360 a better version. How I understand it is there were two teams. Appears the PS3 got the B team. :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin in a box Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 If you want to know the game's resolution just check what resolution your TV is running at when playing the game or look on the back of the game case. That is, though, more often than not an upscaled resolution. Alan Wake's native resolution is sub-HD, yet it's upscaled to 1080p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo003 Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Since all the techno junk has been posted ages ago comparing 360 with ps3. It now up to developers to make the game look and work flawlessly with the system, and any company not going to put more time and ~$ behind a game just for one console unless they're getting paid for. So in the end Sony didn't paid rockstar enough to delay launch and make high resolution graphics for their system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Considering the game's scale, I would happily accept sub-HD for good performance. I played the beta of this game on the 360, man was it chugging. I'm surprised how good the frame rate is in the final version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doli Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Just play the damn game on your system, if you have both systems pick one based the console exclusives for the game if there are any (I hate when companies do that). How hard is that? Just Enjoy the game and don't worry about the other console. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LingeringSoul Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Played both versions for a little while last night, Rockstar sent us both versions to review. As far as the differences between the 360 and PS3 versions, none of them matter. NONE. Especially in a moving screen instead of a static screenshot. You don't play games with a static screen. Nice. It's good to hear a level-headed take on the matter. Now I'm a little torn regarding which version to get. I can play the 360 version on my refurb system that's hanging on for dear life, or the PS3 version that apparently doesn't have as big of a multiplayer community. Hmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motoko. Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 But it has been likewhat? 3-4 years both consoles are out? Shouldn't PS3 games developers being able to utilize PS3's full power if that is the problem? I recently bought GTA IV for my PS3 and was so excited and i was googling for it just to find out more stuff and i read that GTA IV also runs on sub HD on PS3 and on HD 720p at 360? Is that truth? And if yes what the hell does subHD mean? On a console that i connect via HDMI and has Blu Ray, terms like "subHD" are unacceptable imo. Well the deal is either it runs in 640p or you'll see a frames reduction throughout the game. If I remember correctly the 360 was main platform to port to the PS3; which is strange because the PS3 version had a longer time frame to develop on (so they say). That was 2 years ago, Now I bet you for sure if they were to rework the game it would run at 720p without a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Video comparison: http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14320288/red-dead-redemption/videos/reddead_comparison_spc_052010.html What I want to know is, since the PS3 version has things removed from the background (objects, etc), did the developers actually go through the entire world, and one by one remove a certain number of objects to improve the performance? If so, that sounds pain stakingly boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Video comparison: http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14320288/red-dead-redemption/videos/reddead_comparison_spc_052010.html What I want to know is, since the PS3 version has things removed from the background (objects, etc), did the developers actually go through the entire world, and one by one remove a certain number of objects to improve the performance? If so, that sounds pain stakingly boring. They're probably meta tagged as background objects, and get dynamically removed when the player is a certain distance away, part of the LOD routinge, they probably pop away on the 360 as well, just far further away. Hedon 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 They're probably meta tagged as background objects, and get dynamically removed when the player is a certain distance away, part of the LOD routinge, they probably pop away on the 360 as well, just far further away. Ah, now that makes sense. I have NO background or knowledge of this stuff (obviously), but what you said makes sense. Thanks Hawk +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 This is a completely pointless argument. The difference are negligible if you are actually playing and not analyzing screenshots/vids of the game. Pablo2008jedi 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 This is a completely pointless argument. The difference are negligible if you are actually playing and not analyzing screenshots/vids of the game. Agreed 100%. However, people do like to discuss and debate the graphical difference on a forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplySchizo Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 The Head2Head is up on LensofTruth and the winner is the 360 by a 'shrub'. :laugh: Too bad their analyzer was on the fritz. They couldn't get frames read. Can't lose. No matter which system you get it for, you'll walk away with the same experience. It's a winner. What I want to know is, since the PS3 version has things removed from the background (objects, etc), did the developers actually go through the entire world, and one by one remove a certain number of objects to improve the performance? If so, that sounds pain stakingly boring. Yea they removed some shrubbery in exchange for performance, though there's nothing boring about it not being there. There's grass and cacti all over the place. If you're sitting there staring at a patch saying to yourself, 'there should be more grass there', then I don't know what to say. I'm more the fun-factor type (Tecmo Bowl player for life!!!). Not as critical as some of you would be I guess. And there's fun all over the place with this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 The Head2Head is up on LensofTruth and the winner is the 360 by a 'shrub'. :laugh: Too bad their analyzer was on the fritz. They couldn't get frames read. Can't lose. No matter which system you get it for, you'll walk away with the same experience. It's a winner. Yea they removed some shrubbery in exchange for performance, though there's nothing boring about it not being there. There's grass and cacti all over the place. If you're sitting there staring at a patch saying to yourself, 'there should be more grass there', then I don't know what to say. No, what I mean is that it would be boring for a developer going through their maps pulling out thousands of objects that were initially in the map so that the performance was improved. NOT that I would be bored because the objects were missing! lol. I wouldn't even notice anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Anarkii Subscriber² Posted May 25, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted May 25, 2010 I don't care for all this 360 vs Ps3 crap. For goodness sakes it's a game by Rockstar. These guys are elites in the gaming world. You KNOW you are buying a quality game for either console (or PC) from these guys. Bugs or subHD or whatever you guys wanna whinge about, this game is simply amazing. I hope you are all blown away with what they have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts