Now that’s a headline that you could call inflammatory, but unfortunately it’s backed up with some physical proof.
While RDR is perfectly rendered HD title on the Xbox 360 running at 720p with 2x Anti Aliasing the PS3 version just isn’t quite up to scratch.
Rockstar has yet to confirm the technical details but investigations from two pixel counting groups have come back and nailed the PS3 down at a resolution of 644p… which is by all standards sub-HD.
While it’s disappointing to still see these sorts of discrepancies between the two consoles I have to say if you actually care about the fact that your PS3 is missing 76 pixels compared to the 360 version then you should seriously re-look at why you game.
Red Dead Redemption has been receiving rave reviews all over the planet and if you are interested in an open world, western sandbox experience then this is something you cannot miss.
Hell even if you’re not you should pick it up and use the title as a hunting game, or poker game, or horse riding simulator. And seriously who doesn’t want to rope a bad guy, tie him behind your horse and ride off into the sunset?
Source: CVG
Last Updated: May 19, 2010
Reaver
May 19, 2010 at 09:58
Nits. They have been picked.
Fox1
May 19, 2010 at 09:59
Wonders whether the HD generation of consoles will become known as the sub-hd generation? :unsure:
Anyway, its better to lose a few pixels than having to upgrade hardware :angry:
Someone
May 19, 2010 at 10:01
This annoys me as well.
I hate it when people feel awesome about themselves all because their console is 3px more or runs a at 3+ fps.
Like that one game (Tekken I think) where some idiot said its better on the PS3 coz at 400% zoom there are some jagged lines.
WitWolfyZA
May 19, 2010 at 10:20
The question stands, if its sub hd if its missing some environment scenery as well?
Cant help getting pissed if the one console has 30 more cactuses then the other, to make it run as smooth as its counter part.
Shodan
May 19, 2010 at 10:47
My question is if the PS3 is on a lower res how bad is the frame rate… I could not care to much about the pixel count but I do care for a game that does not run as smoothly as it should/could…
Wanted to get this on PS3 for the Free Online but now i am not sure anymore..
WitWolfyZA
May 19, 2010 at 11:22
despite the graphic differences , if i were you id still get the PS3 version. Seeing that the lag will be much better compared to Xbox Lives P2P servers.
Geoffrey Tim
May 19, 2010 at 11:48
Umm..the Ps3 version doesn’t use dedicated servers. Like *most* multiplat PS3 games it operates on a P2P system as well.
It’s mostly first party exclusives that get servers on Ps3 – games like Warhawk, MAG, Killzone, etc.
WitWolfyZA
May 19, 2010 at 11:53
how do you explain my next to no lag on BC 2 on PS3 then mmmmmmmm… Magic?
Where my BC 1 on Xbox 3 gives me a 2- 4 second lag gap.
Geoffrey Tim
May 19, 2010 at 11:59
BFBC2 on PS3 and Xbox 360 run through dedicated servers. So did 1, but there were fewer of them – it lagged on Ps3 as well as Xbox 360.
Red Dead Redemption doesn’t use dedicated servers though, on either platform.
WitWolfyZA
May 19, 2010 at 12:14
I just think the fact remains, PS3 has the better ratio for our crappy connections. Heck even NFS shift works better on my PS3 as what Forza 2 did chopping all over the place.(unless it was local)
I dunno I just get a better MP experience when playing on PSN as what I get on XBL.
WitWolfyZA
May 19, 2010 at 11:19
Well it doesnt look bad.. really just blurred and the lighting effects get a bit bland here is a link
http://n4g.com/news/clickout/525541
spl0it
May 19, 2010 at 11:21
This site is such a xbox fanboi site :ninja:
D4RKL1NG
May 19, 2010 at 11:44
Agreed,and not to mention all the subliminal messages…
Must…not..buy..GT5…Forza3..is..G..OD!
Fox1
May 19, 2010 at 11:59
Forza 2 :whistle:
D4RKL1NG
May 19, 2010 at 12:11
I did mean Forza 3.I used Lans’s time machine and Forza 3 is indeed the unquestionable lord and master of the universe. :ninja:
lans
May 19, 2010 at 11:47
Dont buy GT5 buy Man Furismo Jive!
eltonriley
May 19, 2010 at 12:26
I bet finding this info must have given Lazy an instant huge erection due him being bill gates’ unpaid bitch.
As for the lag issue, since joining PS3, I have never lagged once but lagged around 50% of the time on live.
Nick de Bruyne
May 19, 2010 at 13:07
That depends on the games not the service. Both consoles have been pretty good of late, but games that use the Unreal Engine 3 for instance are terrible for international play compared to games like Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2
WitWolfyZA
May 19, 2010 at 15:28
BS!! I had terrible lag playing games on XBL. MW,WAW,Far Cry 2,Madden,Fifa,RE 5 and even crackdown MP (local) and on some cases Rockband 2 are a few that jumps to mind
Face it till we get local support, which is never. The lag is just gonna keep on comming.
Nick de Bruyne
May 19, 2010 at 15:31
Strange, hasn’t been the case for me. PS and Xbox games pretty much the same. Are you using Wireless?
WitWolfyZA
May 19, 2010 at 15:41
yes im wireless, and i know what your getting at :biggrin: and no when we get host on GOW 2 im always 2nd or at least 3rd.
I remember playing MW or WAW and be running around the corner putting a whole magazine in a dudes head. just to die instantly showing me the replay of me just running around the corner. Standing still and staring at the person.
Im yet to prove my theory correct by playing BC1 on PS3 and then going over to the 360 version and come back with my verdict
Geoffrey Tim
May 19, 2010 at 15:41
What Nick said. I find PSN and XBL to perform about the same, except in titles where there’s dedicated server support.
I think you may have just had a broken ethernet port or wireless adapter. 😛
Local Xbox live support wont make games lag less, as most of them are P2p so you connect directly to the host. even if we do get support, chances of any dedicated servers being hosted locally are slim. Same with PS3. while have official support, the dedicated servers are still in Europe or US.
Gavin Mannion
May 19, 2010 at 13:25
Please note I didn’t mention lag once.. I just simply mentioned the graphical difference :whistle:
Gavin Mannion
May 19, 2010 at 13:26
and yes… it’s huge… but that’s for another post
Apocalypse ZA
May 19, 2010 at 13:33
Why complain about little ol res. We all know MW1 and 2 is 648 pixels, because by using lower rest it help the designers add more detail, and it looks stunning.
Bobby Kotick sticks by his guns
May 19, 2010 at 14:00
lol, regardless… I’m still sticking by my guns and getting the PS3 version. :happy:
WitWolfyZA
May 19, 2010 at 15:33
Well it cant look worse then what Alan Wake looks like. I mean even the cinematics pixelate,with the draw distance looking all weird and pixelated as well. That totally pissed me off i can tell you that.
Bobby Kotick snake skin
May 19, 2010 at 22:25
PS: How is Alan Wake Wolfy? Should I take the plunge and get it on Friday?
BHW
May 20, 2010 at 06:43
While Alan Wake is decidedly underwhelming in the graphics department and the lip sync on the cinematics is like something from 2002. The game itself is outstanding and definitely worth getting.
uberutang
May 19, 2010 at 15:51
@WWZA – Played Far Cry 2 on XBL… no lag ever.
International ranked games.
I think it is all up to:
1. Your ISP (shaping etc)
2. International latency
3. Netcode
V@mp
May 19, 2010 at 20:03
Personally I couldn’t care much for the resolution.
Unfortunately,as much as I was looking forward to this,I will however have to hold out until a final word arrives on the frame rate.That is apparently sub par as well and totally unacceptable :ermm: