____________________
Loading Times: does not specify if RD:R on 360 was installed.
Loading: Although the PlayStation 3 came with a typical mandatory install, the install was rather small. In five samples of load times, the PlayStation 3 loaded faster than the Xbox 360. The differences are significant enough to believe that the samples are not just flukes.
| PlayStation 3 Load Times | Xbox 360 3 Load Times |
|
Sample 1: 18 seconds Sample 2: 18 seconds Sample 3: 21 seconds Sample 4: 18.5 seconds Sample 5: 20 seconds |
Sample 1: 22 seconds Sample 2: 24 seconds Sample 3: 25 seconds Sample 4: 24 seconds Sample 5: 24 seconds |
| Sample Average: 19.1 seconds |
Sample Average: 23.8 seconds |
Roll over the image to see the differences.
Roll over the image to see the differences. Notice the Xbox 360 version looks sharper.
Roll over the image to see the differences.
Roll over the image to see the differences. Notice the Xbox 360 has a better draw distance.
Conclusion: Without stronger numbers to support the performance section, we believe both consoles ran at around 30 frames a second with almost no screen tearing, and some small frame drops. However, the analyzer would not have realized that more shrubs equates to the Xbox 360 pushing out more polys. So even though both consoles ran at the same rate, the Xbox 360 proved to be doing more work. The PlayStation 3 won the category for load times, however the Xbox 360 won the graphics category. This results in the Xbox 360 winning this Head2Head for Red Dead Redemption. Once again we did not have a perfect console here. Each console had its pros and cons but in no way could either console be considered a loser here, nor an unplayable version. Look at it this way: Is a game that loads 2-5 seconds slower unplayable? How about a game that has less brush on the ground? And even though the Xbox 360 had higher resolution, the PlayStation 3 used the lower resolution to blur shadows better and give better depth of field. It’s just that when it comes down to it, the Xbox 360 was able to push out more polys resulting in more brush, filling the scene more. Our advice is to get the game, not matter which console, and have fun in the Old West and thank Rockstar for making a kick butt westerner.
 |
||
| G R A P H I C S | ||
 |
The Xbox 360 wins with more shrubs (Monty Python would be proud), higher resolution, and better draw rate for shadows. |
 |
| P E R F O R M A N C E | ||
|
Frame rate was @ 30 frames with very little screen tearing, and some dropped frames, but overall, pretty consistent on both consoles, which made us think about the shrubs again. A decrease in shrubbery makes us think they were taken out to optimize performance. |
|
| L O A D I N G | ||
 |
Although the PlayStation 3 had a small install, it beat out the Xbox 360 for load times. |  |
| O U T C O M E | ||
|
Xbox 360 wins this Head2Head by a shrub. Although the PlayStation 3 has an equal performance rate, it sacrificed resolution, draw distance, and most of all, our extra shrubs (how many objects it can handle at a time) to do so. It is still important to note that the PlayStation is still worth buying and a small lack of shrubs shouldn’t deter you if that is your preferred console. |
|
___________________
Red Dead Redemption: PS3 vs 360
We first picked up on the fact that the PS3 version of Rockstar’s Red Dead Redemption was visually inferior in terms of resolution yesterday, reporting on information from the Beyond3D forums. Since then, other sites (presumably with access to both versions) have listed some more of the differences.
It’s worth re-iterating that Rockstar sent TheSixthAxis the Xbox 360 version of the game to review, which we scored 10/10, but it’s also worth noting that this in itself isn’t unusual; with multi-format releases we normally get the Xbox version, sometimes with a handy, informative review guide that highlights any differences between the two versions.
So, what are those differences?
Resolution
Firstly, as we said yesterday, the PS3 version of Red Dead Redemption runs at a significantly lower resolution than the Xbox 360 version. 640 by 1152 pixels, in fact, compared to the Xbox 360’s 720 by 1280, which is 184,000 pixels missing, or about 20%. What does this mean? Well, you’ll actually see less on the PS3 version, with a lower resolution display blown up to fill the same physical space on your TV screen, as can be seen in these comparison shots.
Anti-aliasing
The Xbox 360 version of RDR looks super sharp, but with nicely smoothed edges where the edges should be, due to the 360’s 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing which specifically targets the edges of polygons. The PS3 version, however, uses an ‘all over’ quincunx effect which simply blurs the overall image just before you see it. Coupled with the lower resolution, this quincunx effect actually serves to make the image even more blurry, which is a shame.
Missing Objects
The PS3 version, in spite of simpler visual post-processing effects as mentioned above, still manages to actually have missing objects throughout the game. Indeed, areas of grass are more patchy, shadows are simpler (and sometimes missing) and the overall effect is a less densely populated landscape, which is particularly noticable when compared with the Xbox 360 version in the same areas. The trees in particular look blocky and simplified on the PlayStation 3 version. Does this affect the game? No, but it’s frustrating to see.
Simpler Objects
Textures appear more basic and low resolution, there’s some missing self-shadowing, the level of detail pop-ins are more obvious, and there are missing characters on signs in the PS3 version. Naturally, the polygonal models are the same where really important (the main protagonists) but again, in terms of what’s out there in the backgrounds and the scenery, it’s a little more basic than we’d have liked.
Framerate
And yet, despite all this, the PS3 version doesn’t manage to hold up the same framerate as the silky smooth Xbox 360 version. It’s hardly bad (and there’s some argument as to whether it’s even better than the one in Grand Theft Auto IV) but, according to reports, not nearly a constant frame rate which is actually suprising given the graphical chops and changes presumably made to actually assist the frame rate. This is the only key area which affects gameplay – how much is probably down to the individual gamer.
So, there you have it. A 10/10 game with some glaring visual differences. We still have no reservation in recommending the game, because it’s utterly brilliant, but if you’ve got a choice between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions (and have equal number of mates playing either) then we’d probably have to suggest you plump for the Xbox version. Here’s hoping Rockstar manage to patch out some of the above issues for Sony-only owners, though.
_____________________________________________________
Ars Technica
Red Dead Redemption 360 vs. PS3: our thoughts
Our review copies of Red Dead Redemption have arrived, which means it's time to get to work on some coverage. Rockstar sent both a PS3 and a 360 version of the game, and many people are wondering which version to get, so we thought we'd do a quick comparison.
This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.
Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.
Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!
Why did we decide to write this post for this particular game? It's rare we get sent both copies of a game, and there has been some discussion about which one to get. Let us know if this is something you're interested in seeing in the future, and we'll try to provide more of it when we can.
_________________________________________________________
Kotaku.com
Red Dead Redemption PS3 Versus Red Dead Redemption Xbox 360
The great thing about multi-platform games is that owners of different consoles get to play the same game. But what about when the game isn't exactly the same?
As it has been pointed out (via website CVG), the Xbox 360 version of cowboy game Red Dead Redemption runs at 720p, while the PS3 version runs at 640p. Meaning? Meaning that the PS3 version of Rockstar's Red Dead Redemption is at a lower resolution. There also was a discrepancy for the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Rockstar's last huge game Grand Theft Auto IV. I got the PS3 version of GTAIV — it was fine!
Previously, SEGA's action game Bayonetta also seemed to suffer from multi-platform discrepancies with the Xbox 360 looking sharper than the muddier PS3 version.
NeoGAF - View Single Post - Red Dead Redemption - 360 & PS3 comparison thread (Bish-approved!) [NEOGAF]
_________________________________
NeoGaf
upper: 360
lower: PS3
upper: 360
lower: PS3
upper: 360
lower: PS3
640P + QAA makes some blurry image quality similar to that of GTA4.
upper: 360
lower: PS3
upper: 360
lower: PS3
There're some significant loss in foliage making some epic scene on 360 looking down right pathetic on PS3.
On 360's side, trees are well alpha blended looking very smooth overall.
PS3 on the other hand, trees are processed with alpha test creating some serious shimmering artifacts.
There're some LOD issues on PS3 as well. As you approach buildings, shadow pop is very apparent on PS3 where it is very smooth on 360.
There're some missing self shadows on PS3, making its characters look rather flat.
LOD is a lot more aggressive on PS3, change in geometry and object pop etc are a lot more noticeable.
The frame rate is much worse on PS3 too.
It is definitely NOT better than GTA4.
It's just that the nature of game makes frame rate issues less noticeable.
(You drive 200MPH in middle of crowded city in GTA, where you ride horse on barren wasteland in RDR)
Probably one of the worst port ever.
Funny how RDR got free pass from IGN when Bayonetta & Lost Planet 2 got picked for their flaws.
PS4 Preordered - 06/11/2013 @09:30am
XBox One Preordered - 06/19/2013 @07:57pm
"I don't trust #XboxOne & #Kinect 2.0, it's always connected" as you tweet from your smartphone - irony 0_o
