-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The GTAIV Comparison Head-to-Head Thread Episode V: An Epic Tale of ManBoobs and Woe
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
- Status
rollingstart
Banned
Loudninja said:
they forgot the car aftertouch, bowling, and darts which were mentioned in the IGN head to head.
Karma said:
If there is a review that says this, then it matters...but there hasnt been one that has said that either the PS3 or 360 version has a better frame rate than the other one.
I don't exactly understand what you are trying to imply.
a Master Ninja
Member
Could different Xbox 360 hardware revisions be creating different gameplay experiences?
You may remember the notable technical shortcoming the 360 version of Burnout Paradise compared to the PS3 version was it would briefly hitch-up when you hit a "streaming zone" for loading another chunk of the city. In a patch released this week it was supposed to be fixed. For some, the patch did exactly what it was supposed to, on other people's machines it somehow made the streaming issues worse. Criterion took down the patch and is trying to find a solution.
Is there a history of different hardware revisions resulting in differing game performance? With all else being equal for what is going on with the software, is it possible that a game like GTAIV could perform slightly different on a near-launch 360, a Zephyr 360, and a Falcon 360? Different drives, different CPUs, etc.
You may remember the notable technical shortcoming the 360 version of Burnout Paradise compared to the PS3 version was it would briefly hitch-up when you hit a "streaming zone" for loading another chunk of the city. In a patch released this week it was supposed to be fixed. For some, the patch did exactly what it was supposed to, on other people's machines it somehow made the streaming issues worse. Criterion took down the patch and is trying to find a solution.
Is there a history of different hardware revisions resulting in differing game performance? With all else being equal for what is going on with the software, is it possible that a game like GTAIV could perform slightly different on a near-launch 360, a Zephyr 360, and a Falcon 360? Different drives, different CPUs, etc.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Mrbob said:
Let Niko guide you, my son.
Unless you just plan on buying the game in September again, as some people have suggested, which is certainly a valid tack.
Clinton514
Member
Loudninja said:
Whoa wtf. Looks like they got beef.
Ploid 3.0
Member
chubigans said:
I almost thought you were saying GTA had flick reloading. That would have been cool. And Garnet maybe I don't want a button being wasted on reload! Wish Half Life2 had flick reloading because I want flash light, zoom, kneel, and other crap off of the analog clickers.
Edit: Wait OMG you can flick to reload!!! PWN PWN
Moar moar devs please.
MrToughPants
Brian Burke punched my mom
Ok PS3 wins.
TotalRecallTripleNip.gif
Deus Ex Machina
Member
_leech_ said:
Really not that shocking at all.
CowboyAstronaut
Banned
Loudninja said:
Wow talk about completely unnecessary.. Such a thing really isn't worth that much attention.
Slayer-33
Liverpool-2
fortified_concept
Banned
Next time someone accuses Sony fans of a persecution complex targeted against certain internet sites I'll mention this kotaku "article".
Geek said:
How about just putting this in your review:
"As for the six-axis controls on the PS3, don't bother turning them on. They don't work very well, unfortunately."
There, I would have saved Kotaku writers the countless number of brain cells they spent in thinking up "witty" analogies like "third nipple".
Karma said:
:lol
You may not want to go there.
What is known at this point, is that the 360 rev can achieve a higher framerate in certain situations (particularly indoor scenes). However, you have to take the good with the bad. In more complex scenes, the 360 is also prone to dropping more frames than the PS3 according to some of the reviews.
Until we get a better feel how that balance works out, its hard to say what gets the upper hand. PS3 version is more stable overall, but 360 version achieves higher framerates at times, along with lower at times.
Gully State
Member
CowboyAstronaut said:The driving comments are bullshit is what it is
If one prefers the ps3 controller, then by all means, but for IGN (or anyone for that matter) to be going around making claims that the driving feels better in one version of the game than it does in another is simply blowing smoke up people's asses and trying to fuel the console wars.
Yea I got to play and beat a pre-release (non-final) build of the ps3 version couple days ago so I agree that the ps3 version is awesome, but after seeing both final builds of GTA4 side by side I know now beyond a shadow of a doubt that a lot of sites are playing pretty heavily to the console wars. Both versions are damn near identical. Both versions look amazing and both versions run amazingly well.
If anything, the one thing I will agree with is that the PS3 version has a certain look about it, no doubt helped by the cleanness of it all that helps to give it a very cool look. A look that I will say honestly I prefer over the 360 version's look, but wait because this is usually where all the fanboys go off and start beating the drums of victory. Just because I prefer the look of the PS3 version shouldn't be confused to mean that the 360 version doesn't look downright amazing as well.
There is nothing significantly less appealing in the visuals department for the 360 version. The best way to explain the differences is to say it comes down to personal preference. How serious is the difference? I'll tell you how serious it is. It's like one person preferring MGS4 to have a blue filter and another person preferring MGS4 to have a red or green filter.
The PS3 version has a smoother look to it that just makes it come off as really impressive. The 360 version looks just as good, repeat, just as good, but doesn't come off as smooth looking as the ps3 version because there is a slight difference in how things are handled. The 360 version, in my opinion jumps out at you more, but already knowing how big a leap GTA4 is over previous games in the series one doesn't necessarily need for the game to jump out at you in such a manner to stand out. In this regard I prefer the smoother look that gives the ps3 version a more homey down to earth and, admittedly, realistic look which I feel works best in a game like GTA. This probably wont make sense to some people, but reviewers likely aren't saying the ps3 version looks better because it's pumping out superior graphical features, they are likely saying this because the ps3, of the 2 versions, is using a more subdued style in how it presents the exact same graphical features that can come off as more appealing to certain types of people and looking less like "hey, we have all these improved visual features so we are going to make sure you see them by really making them stand out so our work doesn't go unnoticed"
Most average everyday gamers who look at these games side by side likely wont be able to tell a damn difference between them and it was even hard for me to do, because the slight differences that are there between the 2 versions wasn't immediately apparent to even me. The 360 isn't doing anything less impressive, it's just displaying things in a different way. If anything, the cutscenes are what really help to show the difference. In certain cutscenes the look of the 360 version will make it stand out above the ps3 version, but then in other cutscenes the more subdued look is an advantage for the PS3 version and the 360 version might be looking like it's trying to do too much in a scene where it doesn't require it. This isn't some stealth framerate talk. This is just a difference in visual presentation of the same exact graphical features.
Some reviews need to make that explicitly clear. There are certain blocks for example where the ps3 version will look like it doesn't have textures as high a resolution as the 360 version, but that isn't the case it's just how the PS3 handles the displaying of it. Then there are specific parts in the game where the 360 will look like it's at a disadvantage.
A certain type of lighting and visual filter will work best in some situations and not so well in others.
I'm entirely sure if I take some gamers aside and have them pick a decisive winner between the 2 I would probably end up seeing opinions split between them.
This thing is so touchy you have to be careful what you say, but the muddy that Kotaku calls the ps3 version is probably what I would call subdued, but in many instances that look ends up making the ps3 version look more appealing to me, but then there are times when that may not be the case. But in general, I really like the way the ps3 version is displayed, but both versions are equally impressive. It's a matter of opinion is all. There is no clear cut superior, at least not to me there isn't.
The most sensible comment I've read all day. Those are my exact impressions. One thing that all this arguing does point out is that the current methods used in 3rd party port comparisons are way too qualitative. All it is really is heresay and conjecture used to generate more traffic by playing to the ire of fanboys. And in the end we're suckers for going to these sites and drawing our conclusions from them. If they really wanted to be informative to the consumer, there would be more quantitative tests. Count framerates in various instances, clock loading times, test performance across all SKU's...etc.. not just stuff like "well the _______seems to have better framerates", or" ________ has more vibrant browns."
Elios83 said:
Oh no. Someone wrote an article that explains why you shouldn't bother with motion controls!
The worst part about the SIXAXIS tutorial is that when you take it and fail, you're dropped off at the Liberty City airport, not where you were when you opted into the tutorial.
MrToughPants
Brian Burke punched my mom
Jeseus said:
:lol
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
whats flick reloading?
TheDrowningMan
Member
iceatcs said:
Maybe I've just gotten bad information.
In a funny way, I hope so as I'll feel less bad for buying the PS3 version if I do opt for that. :lol
CowboyAstronaut
Banned
Thanks for adding my post to the OP because what it all boils down to is people really need to know, regardless of what platform they get this game for, they are going to have an incredible experience.
Just go out and buy the game that even at the end of this generation, will still be one of the best games around.
I can't praise the quality of this game enough.
Just go out and buy the game that even at the end of this generation, will still be one of the best games around.
I can't praise the quality of this game enough.
fortified_concept
Banned
Karma said:
Other reviews say the opposite though. So your point is kind of moot right now.
edit: Oh it's kotaku? :lol:lol:lol
BenjaminBirdie said:
Well that is the thing. I've never came close to finishing a GTA game before, but what if...what if this is the one I actually want to complete? Plus Madden hits mid August and after that its almost all madden all the time for me.
I just checked the magic 8 ball and it told me to check back again later. What a damn tease!
I would have loved to have an option for a full 3.3GB install on my 360 hdd. Launch DVD drive might equal problems for me.
rollingstart
Banned
Karma said:
If you want to consider that one, go ahead, I kind of saw this coming anyway. However, Kotaku isn't the most reliable and trust worthy source of information about games. They don't have an agenda or anything, they just are pretty amature and I would trust the several other reviews which claim there is no difference in framerate.
fortified_concept said:
Well, not the opposite. All reports (from actual reliable sources) are that the framerate is the same on both versions.
fortified_concept
Banned
Slayer-33 said:
Meaningful and somewhat informative GTA news and vids go to the official GTA thread. THIS IS WHERE WE FIGHT
like the idiots we are.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Dante said:
ah interesting
Ken Masters
Banned
Loudninja said:
:lol
they weren't even trying to hide the PS3 hatred
True, so I remove you from the collective princesses at GAF who get their ire up when we post something negative about a feature of a PS3 game. I think I'm just becoming increasingly annoyed at the assumption that we're trying to "balance" the console comparison by trying to save you 10-15 minutes of your GTA IV playing time.Loudninja said:
Number of samples remain the same, just the resolve pattern changes. Since it's not built into hw, you'd have to do AA-resolve in Software.Onix said:
Which yea, means a bit of (main)memory+performance overhead but nothing major (like doing software upscales or what not, it's practically free). Not as simple as on PS3, but if it actually improved IQ, no sense in not doing it.
Doc Evils said:
When it was used with Army of Two, I was like "eh that's kinda pointless"
But it gets really good to use, to the point where if I'm playing any game other than Army of Two (which I only played for ten hours or so) I try to flick reload. :lol
It works really, really well. It's more natural to me than pressing square for some reason.
- Status