LensOfTruth: RDR on 360 looks and performs better. PS3 loads bit faster (link)

Link

SORRY IF OLD, but I haven't seen a post yet....

I got it on 360, and it looks great, but I only got it since all my live friends got it verse a few PSN friends I don't play with

Teh cell!!!!

Link

SORRY IF OLD, but I haven't seen a post yet....

I got it on 360, and it looks great, but I only got it since all my live friends got it verse a few PSN friends I don't play with

Squall18

You think no one else has noticed this when the game has been out almost a month now? Really? Yes it is old.

meh, people focus on the smallest of things to compare consoles....

[QUOTE="Squall18"]

Link

SORRY IF OLD, but I haven't seen a post yet....

I got it on 360, and it looks great, but I only got it since all my live friends got it verse a few PSN friends I don't play with

Metalscarz

You think no one else has noticed this when the game has been out almost a month now? Really? Yes it is old.

Ussually Lense of truth threads go up quickly, I searched and didn't see them... Then again, it's a ways back

I think everyone knew 360 version was a bit better, nothing big.

I picked up the 360 version for friends.

Either way, i'm sure people will have just as much fun with either version.

Did they test the loading times when they installed the game to the hard drive? Since doesn't the PS3 version have a mandatory install?

Here's Eurogamer's take:

"Just about the only area where PS3 commands an advantage is in terms of loading: the 515MB mandatory install shaves off a few seconds, but as the only in-game loading occurs during fast-travel between locations (using the campsite), it's hardly worth mentioning. Certainly the install doesn't grant any kind of tangible performance boost in terms of less LOD-popping or anything like that."

Oh my, the 360 version actually has an even slower loading time. The game already has an extremely long loading time on my PS3:? Atleast it has the other things going for it, and it is just by a little bit. The 360 version is better I guess.

The 360 version looks a lot better. I dont really care though, I got it on the PS3 and it was a great game.

well the pc is going to doing all of those things....oh wait never mind:P

but is the diffrence between the 2 big or small? cause I see a pic of the 360 and its look slightly better than the pc version

Did they test the loading times when they installed the game to the hard drive? Since doesn't the PS3 version have a mandatory install?

Here's Eurogamer's take:

"Just about the only area where PS3 commands an advantage is in terms of loading: the 515MB mandatory install shaves off a few seconds, but as the only in-game loading occurs during fast-travel between locations (using the campsite), it's hardly worth mentioning. Certainly the install doesn't grant any kind of tangible performance boost in terms of less LOD-popping or anything like that."

Stevo_the_gamer

meh, people focus on the smallest of things to compare consoles....

argetlam00

Hey a difference is a difference.

The game plays fine until the last mission.. if you zoom in you get around 2 fps.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

meh, people focus on the smallest of things to compare consoles....

CZVA

Hey a difference is a difference.

Well yeah it is, if the difference is significant.

[QUOTE="CZVA"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

meh, people focus on the smallest of things to compare consoles....

argetlam00

Hey a difference is a difference.

Well yeah it is, if the difference is significant.

Well you have 3000 posts. You know how things work here. Its not like people just started paying attention to these small details.

Besides, anti aliasing, higher frame rate, and more detail is pretty significant.

And its these small differences that allowed people to determine that multiplatform games run and look better on the PS3.

The PS3 version looks really blurry, and lacking in detail in comparison to the 360 version. It's actually surprisingly noticeable.

Did they test the loading times when they installed the game to the hard drive? Since doesn't the PS3 version have a mandatory install?

Here's Eurogamer's take:

"Just about the only area where PS3 commands an advantage is in terms of loading: the 515MB mandatory install shaves off a few seconds, but as the only in-game loading occurs during fast-travel between locations (using the campsite), it's hardly worth mentioning. Certainly the install doesn't grant any kind of tangible performance boost in terms of less LOD-popping or anything like that."

Stevo_the_gamer

What difference does it make?

The quote you used even said the dreaded mandatory install "Shaves off in seconds". Those seconds are made up through slightly faster loading times

WHO CARES its just a game enjoy it who cares about if it loads faster pon ps3 or looks a litttle nicer on the 360

WHO CARES its just a game enjoy it who cares about if it loads faster pon ps3 or looks a litttle nicer on the 360

Bluffdemon

[QUOTE="Bluffdemon"]

WHO CARES its just a game enjoy it who cares about if it loads faster pon ps3 or looks a litttle nicer on the 360

vashkey

WHO CARES its just a game enjoy it who cares about if it loads faster pon ps3 or looks a litttle nicer on the 360

i guess it's safe to assume the below 5 answers summarizes the responses to this thread.

1- lazy devs

2- it's a port.

3- 3rd party devs still didn't get used to developing for the ps3.

4- it isn't a good game anyway.

5- uncharted 2 /thread

meh, people focus on the smallest of things to compare consoles....

argetlam00

What else is there to do when you're putting two almost perfectly identical consoles up against eachother? =P

The 360 version is 100% more glitchy however. shabab12

And how do did you come up with this conclusion? If anything, the ps3 has more glitches solely because it's a port.

Teh cell!!!!

treedoor

i guess it's safe to assume the below 5 answers summarizes the responses to this thread.

1- lazy devs

2- it's a port.

3- 3rd party devs still didn't get used to developing for the ps3.

4- it isn't a good game anyway.

5- uncharted 2 /thread

Mystery_Writer

1. Rockstar is one of the best devs out there
2. Thanks!
3. Cool, i dont care.
4. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
5. Cow in denial

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

i guess it's safe to assume the below 5 answers summarizes the responses to this thread.

1- lazy devs

2- it's a port.

3- 3rd party devs still didn't get used to developing for the ps3.

4- it isn't a good game anyway.

5- uncharted 2 /thread

Modern_Unit

1. Rockstar is one of the best devs out there
2. Thanks!
3. Cool, i dont care.
4. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
5. Cow in denial

[QUOTE="Modern_Unit"]

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

i guess it's safe to assume the below 5 answers summarizes the responses to this thread.

1- lazy devs

2- it's a port.

3- 3rd party devs still didn't get used to developing for the ps3.

4- it isn't a good game anyway.

5- uncharted 2 /thread

Microsoft1234

1. Rockstar is one of the best devs out there
2. Thanks!
3. Cool, i dont care.
4. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
5. Cow in denial

I appreciate the effort people put into things like this, but there is no way in hell I'm ever going to sit 2 inches in front of my TV looking for subtle/negligible differences.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

Did they test the loading times when they installed the game to the hard drive? Since doesn't the PS3 version have a mandatory install?

Here's Eurogamer's take:

"Just about the only area where PS3 commands an advantage is in terms of loading: the 515MB mandatory install shaves off a few seconds, but as the only in-game loading occurs during fast-travel between locations (using the campsite), it's hardly worth mentioning. Certainly the install doesn't grant any kind of tangible performance boost in terms of less LOD-popping or anything like that."

Chutebox

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

i guess it's safe to assume the below 5 answers summarizes the responses to this thread.

1- lazy devs

2- it's a port.

3- 3rd party devs still didn't get used to developing for the ps3.

4- it isn't a good game anyway.

5- uncharted 2 /thread

Modern_Unit

1. Rockstar is one of the best devs out there
2. Thanks!
3. Cool, i dont care.
4. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
5. Cow in denial

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

i guess it's safe to assume the below 5 answers summarizes the responses to this thread.

1- lazy devs

2- it's a port.

3- 3rd party devs still didn't get used to developing for the ps3.

4- it isn't a good game anyway.

5- uncharted 2 /thread

Modern_Unit

1. Rockstar is one of the best devs out there
2. Thanks!
3. Cool, i dont care.
4. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
5. Cow in denial

someone fails at recognizing the intent of other posters :roll:

I've played both for a good solid few hours on both systems. (Admittedly I own the PS3 version and that's what I passed the game on).

There is a small bit of graphical difference, the 360 version just seems crisper and has more grass. But this is nothing game changing and is pretty much unoticable.

I did notice that 360 versions seemed to have plenty more bugs. Many that I didn't encounter on the PS3 and many that were pretty annoying. (Think dead eye not working on the last bit of the last mission).

But seriously guys, get over it, its the same game and there is nothing game changing.

Oh wait, this is systems wars.

LOL!!1!~ tHe pS3 iz stOoopid.

meh, people focus on the smallest of things to compare consoles....

argetlam00

what else is new.

I refuse to believe that.

I think lens of truth's lens is dirt. I refuse to accept that. For all ps3 owners just pop in god of war 3 then pop in red dead and your ps3 will remember why "teh cell" is graphics king and red dead should look 2x better than the xbox 360 version.

running a game like god of war 3 where there are great ( no AMAZING ) set pieces but nothing really going on vs the 2nd Open world game by rockstar that is crunching MASSIVE amounts of geometry and folliage and AI routines, And the cell and rsx weaknesses are exploited nearly EVERY time.

shouldnt Rockstar have masterd the PS3 by now?

or is it all a conspiracy or is Uncharted 2 less impressive technically than you were led to believe?

the PS3 can handle games like UC2 and GOW 3 but something like RDR is entirely different in how its coded.

you dont even see birds or animals flying around in uncharted. uncharted2 does an Amazingly convincing job with still set pieces, breakavle environments, articulated foliage ( drake vs the hellicopter on the rooftop ) but its not DOING ANYHING like RDR IS.

there is no numbers crunching going on in UC 2 and if Devs would quit lying to the public you would know why the Jungle in Crysis ( WHICH IS A SYSTEM HOG EVEN ON THE PC!! ) would short circuit the PS3 and 360 vs the tibetan village or mexican village in Uncharted 2 and RDR which taxex zero assets on the GPU.

tell yourselves whatever bed time fable you wish about the RSX but this is twice now that the 360 version of an open world massive utility ( AI, SCENERY, GEOMETRY ETC.. ) has been better on the 360.

i just dont know what else to say about it at this point.

running a game like god of war 3 where there are great ( no AMAZING ) set pieces but nothing really going on vs the 2nd Open world game by rockstar that is crunching MASSIVE amounts of geometry and folliage and AI routines, And the cell and rsx weaknesses are exploited nearly EVERY time.

shouldnt Rockstar have masterd the PS3 by now?

or is it all a conspiracy or is Uncharted 2 less impressive technically than you were led to believe?

the PS3 can handle games like UC2 and GOW 3 but something like RDR is entirely different in how its coded.

you dont even see birds or animals flying around in uncharted. uncharted2 does an Amazingly convincing job with still set pieces, breakavle environments, articulated foliage ( drake vs the hellicopter on the rooftop ) but its not DOING ANYHING like RDR IS.

there is no numbers crunching going on in UC 2 and if Devs would quit lying to the public you would know why the Jungle in Crysis ( WHICH IS A SYSTEM HOG EVEN ON THE PC!! ) would short circuit the PS3 and 360 vs the tibetan village or mexican village in Uncharted 2 and RDR which taxex zero assets on the GPU.

tell yourselves whatever bed time fable you wish about the RSX but this is twice now that the 360 version of an open world massive utility ( AI, SCENERY, GEOMETRY ETC.. ) has been better on the 360.

i just dont know what else to say about it at this point.

bryn8150

[QUOTE="bryn8150"]

running a game like god of war 3 where there are great ( no AMAZING ) set pieces but nothing really going on vs the 2nd Open world game by rockstar that is crunching MASSIVE amounts of geometry and folliage and AI routines, And the cell and rsx weaknesses are exploited nearly EVERY time.

shouldnt Rockstar have masterd the PS3 by now?

or is it all a conspiracy or is Uncharted 2 less impressive technically than you were led to believe?

the PS3 can handle games like UC2 and GOW 3 but something like RDR is entirely different in how its coded.

you dont even see birds or animals flying around in uncharted. uncharted2 does an Amazingly convincing job with still set pieces, breakavle environments, articulated foliage ( drake vs the hellicopter on the rooftop ) but its not DOING ANYHING like RDR IS.

there is no numbers crunching going on in UC 2 and if Devs would quit lying to the public you would know why the Jungle in Crysis ( WHICH IS A SYSTEM HOG EVEN ON THE PC!! ) would short circuit the PS3 and 360 vs the tibetan village or mexican village in Uncharted 2 and RDR which taxex zero assets on the GPU.

tell yourselves whatever bed time fable you wish about the RSX but this is twice now that the 360 version of an open world massive utility ( AI, SCENERY, GEOMETRY ETC.. ) has been better on the 360.

i just dont know what else to say about it at this point.

BioDogshock

Keep believing the myths started by Sony and its console fanboys. There were 2 teams working on RDR, 1 for PS3 and 1 for 360 which means this game is not a port. PS3 has been around for nearly 4 years now and that means that devs have been working with the PS3 for atleast 5 years. All the 3rd parties have already worked with its hardware and use the spu's to help with AA and other effects. Games like unchartered and God of static cameras have small draw distances and in GOW's case don't even need to have the back side of the enviroments and objects on RAM. IMO a game like Infamous is more graphicaly impressive than Uncharted.

Oh my, the 360 version actually has an even slower loading time. The game already has an extremely long loading time on my PS3:? Atleast it has the other things going for it, and it is just by a little bit. The 360 version is better I guess.

AmayaPapaya

That's if you don't install it on the 360. If installed it loads the same.

[QUOTE="BioDogshock"][QUOTE="bryn8150"]

running a game like god of war 3 where there are great ( no AMAZING ) set pieces but nothing really going on vs the 2nd Open world game by rockstar that is crunching MASSIVE amounts of geometry and folliage and AI routines, And the cell and rsx weaknesses are exploited nearly EVERY time.

shouldnt Rockstar have masterd the PS3 by now?

or is it all a conspiracy or is Uncharted 2 less impressive technically than you were led to believe?

the PS3 can handle games like UC2 and GOW 3 but something like RDR is entirely different in how its coded.

you dont even see birds or animals flying around in uncharted. uncharted2 does an Amazingly convincing job with still set pieces, breakavle environments, articulated foliage ( drake vs the hellicopter on the rooftop ) but its not DOING ANYHING like RDR IS.

there is no numbers crunching going on in UC 2 and if Devs would quit lying to the public you would know why the Jungle in Crysis ( WHICH IS A SYSTEM HOG EVEN ON THE PC!! ) would short circuit the PS3 and 360 vs the tibetan village or mexican village in Uncharted 2 and RDR which taxex zero assets on the GPU.

tell yourselves whatever bed time fable you wish about the RSX but this is twice now that the 360 version of an open world massive utility ( AI, SCENERY, GEOMETRY ETC.. ) has been better on the 360.

i just dont know what else to say about it at this point.

EG101

Keep believing the myths started by Sony and its console fanboys. There were 2 teams working on RDR, 1 for PS3 and 1 for 360 which means this game is not a port. PS3 has been around for nearly 4 years now and that means that devs have been working with the PS3 for atleast 5 years. All the 3rd parties have already worked with its hardware and use the spu's to help with AA and other effects. Games like unchartered and God of static cameras have small draw distances and in GOW's case don't even need to have the back side of the enviroments and objects on RAM. IMO a game like Infamous is more graphicaly impressive than Uncharted.