so has this actually been confirmed. would be really funny if it were...

*tries to hold in tears*

i have no issues with my ps3 copy.

looks ace
plays ace
feels ace
sounds ace

if it is in 630p i couldnt give a damn, it looks better than the other version

@ NJ4

IMO 720p native rendering at rock solid 30 FPS should have been the minimum for HD consoles (optimise to be at least on this level).

When you introduce very different new technology and have to deal with legacy software which needs to be significantly adapted it will take a while like I predicted years ago.

@NJ oh no no no, I find it hysterical trust me xD But one thing thats pretty much been ESTABLISHED this generation, is that the first game on the PS3 generally tends to be the trial run. The second games almost always run infinitely better. All of EA's crappy sports ports, Resistance compared to Ratchet, Pro Street compared to Burnout ( I know I know completely different devs but I can't recall any major companies so gimme a freebie!).

Then Rockstar of all companies (who no offense, ALL of they're previous generation games had massive technical flaws, which is fine for the scope they're trying to portray, but not exactly guru's of hardware), makes they're first game on the PS3 (which is inherently an absolute bitch to learn) and skimps on the resolution to get a better performing game, at LEAST they didn't bust a Lair and just try to maximize and let the performance suffer because of which.

I'm all kinds of down for proving who's got the bigger hardware penis don't get me wrong, I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't let Rockstar be that judge xD

Then, it is true. Well... anyway I'll be playing the 360 version and hold the ps3 purchase when FF come out.

so is it true ?

(just dicovered the thread)

Just as it didn't matter with Halo 3 on 360, it doesn't matter now. There's more to graphics than the resolution. Halo 3 ran at slightly lower and made up for it with lighting effects and some of the textures, in order to keep as much stuff on the screen as possible without dropping frames. GTA IV on PS3 looks better in some aspects because dropping the resolution allowed for some better effects to laid over the top.

They are different systems and will have different specs on different aspects. The side by side videos look very comparable, with some slight differences - some plusses for each side.

When it comes down to it, if the game is fun and there are no crippling deficiencies on either side, it really doesn't matter. Judging from the 10s dumped onto both platforms in reviews, this converstaion is kind of pointless.

point is there are dozoens of NATIVE 1080p games on PS3 there are like 3 on xbox.... Halo 3 is microsofts BIGGEST GAME. if bungie could NOT do it on a game the size of halo then i can NOT be done.......

The issue here is not "can the ps3 do it" its "why didnt rockstar do it".... the issuse with halo is "it can NOT be done"

Thats is why it does not make a difference. A 3rd party game vs THE NUMBER ONE exculsive game on the planet........ if i had to put money down id think halo would be in 1080p not GTA4... a 3rd parties 1st next gen game on ps3 and its on 2 different systems vs and second party game on one system that had a budget of only god knows what.......

NJ5 you dont see the point so i had to spell it out for you...

I perfectly see that, but the hipocrisy is still visible and true from some people.

By the way, what are those dozens of 1080p native PS3 games? Let's filter out the ones with framerate problems and/or simple graphics, and see what remains. I just did a quick search and it seems to me that some of PS3's best games in terms of graphics (Uncharted and R&C) are 720p.