-
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
plagiarize
Banned
i wasn't saying that people could decide which look was best and then buy the game. i was saying that people would be able to buy the game for whichever system they were going to anyway, and then convince themselves that they prefer that look, not the other way around.Linkzg said:
seriously... most rationalising comes after the fact... and now everyone has an out.
It actually is different, though. Halo 3 does not use any anti-aliasing which results in a rather jaggy image. Call of Duty 4 used a lower resolution than Halo 3, yet produced a cleaner image as a result of its AA. GTAIV on PS3 runs at a higher resolution than CoD4, uses 2x AA like CoD4, and also relies heavily on post processing effects such as depth of field (which helps combat jaggies). The image quality should be much cleaner than Halo 3.
That excellent PS3 shot a couple pages back should prove that much.
That said, these arguments ARE a tad ridiculous. The two games seem incredibly close, which is a huge feat considering how much more demanding a game like this is next to your average multiplatform release. It really demonstrates just how much love R* put into this game on both platforms. The framerate on both versions is far smoother than any previous console GTA game and the visuals appear roughly the same.
Francias Castiglione
Banned
Diablos said:So the PS3 GTAIV is 630p, while the 360 version is true HD but with that weird dithering effect. Very strange.
I really don't like that dithering effect that I've been noticing for as long as there have been GTAIV screens, so I'll still probably go with the PS3 version, even if it's upscalingIt just looks cleaner.
Could be the upscaling algorithm interpolating the shadow dithering, which is why I wonder if Rockstar could do the same for the 360 version with a patch.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Did Rockstar possibly do this for GTAIV PS3? Sounds like Dark10X is on the case.
Kill Your Masters
Member
Constant frame Rate, less Pop-ins, smoother experience, no/less tearing > resolution (for all games)
And I'm saying this as (currently) 360 only owner, getting the 360 version.
And I'm saying this as (currently) 360 only owner, getting the 360 version.
San Andreas was shit on my PC (it was running good, looking better than PS2, but had serious sound issues, plus the brightness always regulated itself way down)
Oh man, this thread better go into the archives...
Dot50cal, don't get the 360 version!! You have to play with us and the rest of the GAF Burnout crew!! What would birdman say!
On a serious note, I'm guessing the resolution means that GTA on PS3 will definitely be able to upscale to 1080p (or i) for those with non 720p sets, so thats good for them. I'm on a 1080p plasma and didn't notice any sort of resolution problems with MGO, it looks gorgeous...
Dot50cal, don't get the 360 version!! You have to play with us and the rest of the GAF Burnout crew!! What would birdman say!
On a serious note, I'm guessing the resolution means that GTA on PS3 will definitely be able to upscale to 1080p (or i) for those with non 720p sets, so thats good for them. I'm on a 1080p plasma and didn't notice any sort of resolution problems with MGO, it looks gorgeous...
but thats 650p... 630p is a WHOLE new ballgame...
plagiarize
Banned
upscaling would reduce the dithering... but i thought the dithering was an intentional look like a paint filter in photoshop. course, unless Rockstar come out and say something, we can't know.Francias Castiglione said:
Zombie James
Banned
fanboi said:
That they couldn't achieve an HD resolution on an HD console? They both look the same (more or less, despite coloring differences) but from a technical standpoint it's disappointing.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
From those two screens posted few pages back, PS3 version looks lower res, as confirmed, but it also looks much cleaner. Better AA or something? Just look at the overhanging wire on both screens.
If that picture is norm rather than exception, it's safe to say that whatever they did with PS3 version makes the whole thing look really damn good, and I'm not surprised most reviewers preferred it, despite being sub-720p. That video cap looks almost CG-ish in how good the lighting looks, and how nicely everything blends together.
I don't know what it is, but as Puppetmaster said, it almost looks like two completely different engines, going just by those two pictures.
If that picture is norm rather than exception, it's safe to say that whatever they did with PS3 version makes the whole thing look really damn good, and I'm not surprised most reviewers preferred it, despite being sub-720p. That video cap looks almost CG-ish in how good the lighting looks, and how nicely everything blends together.
I don't know what it is, but as Puppetmaster said, it almost looks like two completely different engines, going just by those two pictures.
Kill Your Masters
Member
Too much aliasing.Sandman7 said:
supermackem
Banned
Balthier said:
You seem upset, does it bother you that much would you even have noticed if it wasnt pointed out.:lol
Again, Halo 3 was only jaggy due to the lack of AA and its approach to visual design. Both CoD4 and GTAIV PS3 use lower resolutions yet have a much smoother appearance overall as a result of anti-aliasing and, in the case of GTA, the post processing.Xdrive05 said:
Does THIS look bad to you?
Xdrive05
Member
Yoboman said:
You don't? That's a pretty significant thing, man (just check the H3 thread). I mean, reviewer's opinion vs. 630p? Really no difference? I'm not even that big of a videophile, but 630p is a dealbreaker for me. And Halo 3 pisses me the hell off because of 640p. Not that the PS3 version is a turn now because of that (obviously, less pop-in, better loads, is great), but shit that still sucks.
By the way, does this explain the difference between "more clinical VS softer"? Would seem to.
dark10x said:Again, Halo 3 was only jaggy due to the lack of AA and its approach to visual design. Both CoD4 and GTAIV PS3 use lower resolutions yet have a much smoother appearance overall as a result of anti-aliasing and, in the case of GTA, the post processing.
Does THIS look bad to you?
Looks blurry.
Wax Free Vanilla
Member
630P :lol
But seeing as I have the superior version from a visual, framerate, loading and pop-in perspective, myself, and I'm sure millions of other gamers who purchase the superior PS3 version don't care what resolution it's running at.
It does give some ammo to the xbox fans who try and defend their inferior version - should be fun to read their inane rambling. :d :lol
But seeing as I have the superior version from a visual, framerate, loading and pop-in perspective, myself, and I'm sure millions of other gamers who purchase the superior PS3 version don't care what resolution it's running at.
It does give some ammo to the xbox fans who try and defend their inferior version - should be fun to read their inane rambling. :d :lol
If it's true it just goes to prove resolution is only part of the equation. A game can look "better" even if it's being rendered internally at a lower resolution, depending on AA, lighting, post-processing, etc. These zoom-in shots of both versions are interesting:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1153784&postcount=507
Either way, they need to count pixels from a better source than an IGN grab to confirm it.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1153784&postcount=507
Either way, they need to count pixels from a better source than an IGN grab to confirm it.
Xdrive05 said:
Halo 3 and GTA4's resolutions aren't very comparable. GTA4 has AA, Halo 3 doesn't. Check here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10952062&postcount=2638
- Status