• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

RSTEIN

Comics, serious business!
Ok, here's a serious question (really):

I haven't seen the game with my own eyes on either system. Let's say the PS3 version is indeed smoother and more 'realistic' and more 'dramatic.' The 360 has artifacts, isn't as smooth, and more vibrant colours (according to some).

Why wouldn't Rockstar also downscale the 360 version for it to also achieve the same softer look (that a lot seem to prefer) that the PS3 has? Why make the 360 work extra hard?

(I probably have an ass-backwards idea of how everything works)
 

soco

Member
this thread has already spawned so many bits of awesome. every new page if full of new laughs. the number of reach-arounds helps :)
 
dark10x said:
Again, Halo 3 does not use anti-aliasing, had framerate issues throughout, and was built specifically for ONE platform with a massive budget behind it.


Halo 3 is picked on simply because it did not use any while still struggling to maintain a solid framerate.


Struggling to keep a stable framerate? The only time I get slight problems is when people are grenade spamming Snowbound or strange dips because of Xbox Live co-op. Other than that, I get buttery 30s in SP, Live, and LAN co-op and my 360 is 6 months after launch. :D This isnt just on my 360 either, its the same for my bro, except for some reason he doesn't get frame dips on Live Co-op (weird I know)
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
with the day/night and weather cycles, how could you possibly compare the two versions down to such things as color pallette?
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
cyberheater said:
How does he know that GTA4 is more demanding then Halo 3. Pure supposition and bullshit. And the rest is arguable either way.
You've selected one point out of all of that and suddenly he's full of shit?

Regardless, it's true that none of us could truly make that call, but I think it's almost common sense to assume that a linear first person shooter would be somewhat less demanding than a massive open world game like GTA.
 

65536

Banned
KookyBastard said:
Struggling to keep a stable framerate? The only time I get slight problems is when people are grenade spamming Snowbound or strange dips because of Xbox Live co-op. Other than that, I get buttery 30s in SP, Live, and LAN co-op and my 360 is 6 months after launch. :D This isnt just on my 360 either, its the same for my bro, except for some reason he doesn't get frame dips on Live Co-op (weird I know)
He's talking about the stutter that the game has. Personally, I'm not sure whether I'd call it stable or not. It generally kept close to 30fps if I remember correctly, but seemed to drop a frame here and there for whatever reason. It's not like the framerate was all over the place. (note: I haven't played Halo 3 since it came out really, but I seem to recall it being relatively smooth, stutter aside)
 

jmd494

Member
RSTEIN said:
I actually prefer MORE pop-up. It really makes the world come alive... trees sprouting everywhere, new construction projects popping up all the time... new public works projects (parks, railings, trash cans, etc.) always underway. I think the real thing here is the 360 version is built to handle this dynamic, always evolving process that is true to a real city. The PS3 clearly can't handle it.
Hell yeah!

They should bullet-point that on the back of the 360 case as:

"Dynamic landscapes appear and disappear right before your eyes (and your front bumper)!"

The official in-store guide magazine could read:

"If you think what you're seeing when you're playing is cool...wait till we tell you all the shit that loaded after you were long-fucking gone"

Or a pro-tip could read:

"When seemingly stuck behind some invisible obstacle, pause the game and go make a sandwich. When you get back, the obstacle will be visible"
 

squatingyeti

non-sanctioned troll
belvedere said:
The king troll calling others the same thing.

Classic.

Yeah, what have I been trolling? You *** ages people are so easy to point out. I await your eventual meltdown to a ban like the rest. Have fun and be sure to report your success to the others. LOL.
 

urk

butthole fishhooking yes
Ynos Yrros said:
We need someone to confirm that 630p stuff. That Quaz guy seems to be less and less believable.

Less and less believable as in the guy who's yet to be wrong while analyzing dozens of titles?
 

Doube D

Member
So all this 630p crap is because of some dude counting pixels off of images taken from IGN???? Or is there more to it. Not saying its not true, but people round here seem to have nonexistent thresholds for facts... whats the official word from R*?
 

squatingyeti

non-sanctioned troll
Ynos Yrros said:
We need someone to confirm that 630p stuff. That Quaz guy seems to be less and less believable.

WAT?

Does it really matter that you're missing some P? Didn't stop Halo, unless you just wanted a reason to troll it. Maybe some people are just reaping what they....ah who gives a shit.
 
squatingyeti said:
Yeah, what have I been trolling? You *** ages people are so easy to point out. I await your eventual meltdown to a ban like the rest. Have fun and be sure to report your success to the others. LOL.
Dude, take it easy it's just an internet forum.
 

Dever

Banned
guise said:
PS3 has a yellow tint, 360 has a blue tint... but they're both the same

2nu4m77.jpg

Ahh that shit blew my mind when I saw it in the Mind blowing stuff thread. Almost gave me a headache.

Seriously though, if you only have one HD console, leave this thread immediately. Your version is just fine, no matter which one it is.
 
Doube D said:
So all this 630p crap is because of some dude counting pixels off of images taken from IGN???? Or is there more to it. Not saying its not true, but people round here seem to have nonexistent thresholds for facts... whats the official word from R*?
R* said the pixel-counting dude is ligament.
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
dark10x said:
You've selected one point out of all of that and suddenly he's full of shit?

Regardless, it's true that none of us could truly make that call, but I think it's almost common sense to assume that a linear first person shooter would be somewhat less demanding than a massive open world game like GTA.

Yes but assuming is not the same as knowing.

Resistance and Halo 3 both have very large vistas and a ton of polygons rendered with effects. Are they both less demanding on hardware then GTA4 which displays a very aggressive LOD system?

Are the massive open worlds seen in a single frame on GTA4 more detailed then the equivalents on Saints Row?
 
Minsc said:
Holy shit that's horrible if that is what AA looks like on the PS3. It's as bad as RE4 looks on the Wii to me.

Fake shot?


That's just a bad shot, but I wouldn't say either version is any better in the AA department to be honest. There are times when it can look super clean, but then there are times when you see something like what you see up top, but then that is also a really badly taken picture that totally loses the atmosphere of the game.
 
Tieno said:
Because after all that time that he's been doing this, no other guy spawned that would copy him.

I just like having more than one source on things.

Seeing how this is a rather big difference in resolution, don't you think that reviewers would notice it?
 

soldat7

Member
dark10x said:
Again, Halo 3 does not use anti-aliasing, had framerate issues throughout, and was built specifically for ONE platform with a massive budget behind it.

GTAIV on PS3 actually uses anti-aliasing and lots of post processing to produce a more pleasing image than Halo 3. The game is also much more demanding and development was started first on XBOX360. If anything, both issues (pop-in and resolution) are being blown out of proportion.

In fact, I highly doubt most people here would have actually noticed the lower resolution if it hadn't been pointed out (andrewfee being an exception, of course). Most people don't seem to notice or care when a game is rendered in a slightly lower resolution provided the game uses anti-aliasing of some sort. Halo 3 is picked on simply because it did not use any while still struggling to maintain a solid framerate.

Just for the record I've been through the Halo 3 campaign 3 times (once fully co-op online) and have played the multiplayer non-stop since launch. There are no 'framerate' issues in Halo 3. And as far as GTA being 'much more demanding', well I'm not sure you can back that up with anything resembling evidence.

It's indeed funny though listening to everyone fight over the differences between the PS3 and 360 version, although it's not outside the realm of possibility for the PS3 version to be the superior-looking version, despite what many might want to think.

To me it sounds like they're both about the same, one has mild acne scars and the other an out of place facial mole.
 
Doube D said:
So all this 630p crap is because of some dude counting pixels off of images taken from IGN???? Or is there more to it. Not saying its not true, but people round here seem to have nonexistent thresholds for facts... whats the official word from R*?

Well, he hasn't actually got a real screen grab of the ps3 version to test, but he is usually right.....
 

Crushed

Fry Daddy
Tieno said:
i heard this one time quaz was on a forum and someone asked him to count the pixels in uncharted but quaz didn't like uncharted because he was stupid and hated sony so he said no so that someone who asked him decided to ask him again but he told quaz that the game was halo and quaz counted the pixels and said that the game was like a billion googlezillion p and then the other guy told him it was uncharted and quaz was all like "no i do not like the ps3 and sony argh this is poop it is like negative infinity p" but everybody saw him and they all laughed and quaz cried and left the boards forever and the ps3 version of gta4 sold all the copies in the world and microsoft went bankrupt and then this girl that sits in front of ynos yyros in geometry who's really hot thought that he was really cool for defeating microsoft so she became his girlfriend and they had sex
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Are the massive open worlds seen in a single frame on GTA4 more detailed then the equivalents on Saints Row?
I suppose we can't say for sure, but every shot I've seen of GTAIV suggests that it looks SIGNIFICANTLY better than Saints Row in every single way.

andrewfee said:
He's talking about the stutter that the game has. Personally, I'm not sure whether I'd call it stable or not. It generally kept close to 30fps if I remember correctly, but seemed to drop a frame here and there for whatever reason. It's not like the framerate was all over the place. (note: I haven't played Halo 3 since it came out really, but I seem to recall it being relatively smooth, stutter aside)
That's exactly right. The stutter bothered me as it occured throughout most of the single player game. You'd occasionally stumble across a section where this was not an issue, but those were uncommon. Now, multiplayer was much worse in that the stutter remained AND slowdown became rather common.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom