green.pixel
Veteran
Thanks. 
The Technology of GTA IV/RDR *Rage Engine*
- Thread starter babcat
- Start date
Headshot81
Newcomer
I finished playing RDR(ps3) at friends house once again, and right off the bat the lower resolution is noticeable. We ended up having to playing 7ft away from the 23inch monitor(across the room ). The AA mixed with the blur looses a little too much definition on objects, at respectable distances, when compared to the 360. best way i could describe is if you were looking at the game through your glasses that are just "slightly" fogged.
Frame rate dips are there. I always get dips when im not alone: in town,during missions, riding alongside , heavy vegetated areas. When looking at the comparison screenshots, the ones which show more "grass" on the xbox version when compared to the ps3, i noticed there are some areas on the ps3 where it matches the 360's grass "coverage", and runs smoothly.
Online has issues too, there seem to be "spots" on the map where you stay invisible, meaning that when you approach certain spots you cannot see any character models or animals, you only see footprints, and from my experience it frequent.
Honestly, what do you think is patchable? Any official word From Rockstar on both builds?
i apologize if its been discussed already?
). The AA mixed with the blur looses a little too much definition on objects, at respectable distances, when compared to the 360. best way i could describe is if you were looking at the game through your glasses that are just "slightly" fogged.Frame rate dips are there. I always get dips when im not alone: in town,during missions, riding alongside , heavy vegetated areas. When looking at the comparison screenshots, the ones which show more "grass" on the xbox version when compared to the ps3, i noticed there are some areas on the ps3 where it matches the 360's grass "coverage", and runs smoothly.
Online has issues too, there seem to be "spots" on the map where you stay invisible, meaning that when you approach certain spots you cannot see any character models or animals, you only see footprints, and from my experience it frequent.
Honestly, what do you think is patchable? Any official word From Rockstar on both builds?
i apologize if its been discussed already?
(((interference)))
Veteran
Ok, going back to my earlier post - can anyone pull out their 360s HDD and see if the game looks any worse off when running without a HDD?
If not, how can the 360 version, running solely from DVD better the PS3 version which has a HDD and a mandatory install and Bluray (which allows for redundant assets to reduce seek times).
And from the PS3 OS thread, the OS memory allocation is down to 50MB whereas back when GTA4 launched it was in the region of 96 MB, which is a significant gain -so it's strange that they're still using the same sized framebuffers as used in GTA4.
And AFAIK the 360's OS is still at 32 MB, which is only a 18 MB advantage - surely that can't explain how it's able to perform better - even without a HDD is it?
If not, how can the 360 version, running solely from DVD better the PS3 version which has a HDD and a mandatory install and Bluray (which allows for redundant assets to reduce seek times).
And from the PS3 OS thread, the OS memory allocation is down to 50MB whereas back when GTA4 launched it was in the region of 96 MB, which is a significant gain -so it's strange that they're still using the same sized framebuffers as used in GTA4.
And AFAIK the 360's OS is still at 32 MB, which is only a 18 MB advantage - surely that can't explain how it's able to perform better - even without a HDD is it?
I know who I sound like repetitive here but again to me it's simply bad optimization in the parallel work between spe and rsx (not mean bad programmation, lazy developers, there is a little more complicated). Unfortunately no one know how works the code so it isn't easy to understand the exactly 'fault'. Probably the engine is designed more for an extremely edram bandwith usage & data streaming in dvd & so on...another problem could be the split RAM vs the 'unified' RAM of 360. A game programmed in a sole RAM becomes a massive problem rearranged in a split RAM with different speed in reading & writing. Ubisoft the first time on the ps3 have encountered a lot of problems too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would it look worse? It might have a bit more pop in, but generally all HDD install does in improve load times doesn't it?
The problem is you are trying to make a conclusion based on very little known information. There is no 'fault' to be found here. Rockstar will have done the best they could with the time, money and knowledge they had (which I imagine is a lot)
Saying the lower resolution and reduced detail is due to 'bad optimization in the parallel work between spe and rsx' is outrageously specific. While that could well have been a contributing factor (as a hypothesis) it would be unlikely the only problem. And that's assuming there is a problem in the first place (which we will never know!).
Perhaps the better conclusion is simply that the game looks amazing on both consoles. It just looks slightly better on one of them.
I have the opinion that GTA4, despite it's issues, is the greatest technical landmark for this console generation. From everything I've seen of RDR, it looks to be just as good (it releases today in the UK).
I'm not sure about the best which could be possible simply watch some strange technical decision (QAA more pop in etc) evitable. I'm not try to outrage the work of the developers however & I'm sorry if give this impression.
May I ask why ?
Statushock
Newcomer
He took the disagreements about his conclusions in the DF head to head feature of Ninja Gaiden II/Sigma 2 as an offense. Apparently most of the NeoGAF denizens are.... very civil
He actually knows his stuff. He called Alan Wake's resolution as it was (sub-HD), even while the developer's themselves denied his findings. He also has a track record that's completely unbiased. That's something that's hard to come by on any internet website or forum.
MazingerDUDE's credibility is as solid as a rock. I hope he continues to do what he does best with all of his technical knowledge. Somebody has to do the dirty work, no matter how many insecure "gamers" get snippy about the results.
Well denying and misleading are different. :smile:
Wasn't in regards to resolution but the differences in the engineering of the titles. I don't remember what it was, but as you may have noticed, there are disagreements (sometime borderline flaming) around here that are acknowledged. Not many get offended around here, but I guess egos can get in the way at times. Luckily for us, the developers here don't take any "disagreements" seriously and keep giving us their 2 cents.
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't it obvious game is tech pusher when looking at all things that are done?
Billy Idol
Legend
Things which are obvious for you tech ninjas, are not so obvious for me to be honest. That is why the answer to his question interests me as well. I would never get the idea to call GTA4 good looking. I even watched my buddy playing it on a mighty PC - maybe it is just the art style, but I am sure looking forward on what tech is being pushed, to get a better idea!
EDIT: On the other side, the stuff shown about RDR makes me wonder if this is my next graphics king?
Last edited by a moderator:
You did not happen to notice the huge city and the lots of people and cars and such, with the all dynamic lighting, shadows, with some physics and stuff thrown in?
There's no game with as complex a world as GTA4 as far as I know. Just Cause 2 seemed to have a lot less going on and a lot more procedural content, and PC based MMOs with large worlds aren't that detailed or dynamic either.
There's no game with as complex a world as GTA4 as far as I know. Just Cause 2 seemed to have a lot less going on and a lot more procedural content, and PC based MMOs with large worlds aren't that detailed or dynamic either.
It's actually a hard question to answer. It's not one specific thing I can point to and say 'that!' (as is the case with a lot of other games).
Perhaps technical marvel isn't the right term. As a combined, coordinated effort for a team I feel GTA4 is unmatched. While I'm not all that keen on the humor, or even the core gameplay and game design, I feel you can look at any specific area of the game and see work that is absolutely top class across the board, especially when considered the exceptionally tight resource and performance restrictions.
The stand out for me is the audio.
It is simply mind boggling in it's scope and quality (when you really listen to it).
The animation and physics in the game is top class too. However taken as part of a huge game world, with a large number of characters and vehicles on screen at all times - where they probably only get a tiny slice of memory, cpu and streaming time - then it's simply exceptional.
The vehicle physics alone have a sense of weight and realism you rarely see (which, ironically, is probably why most people didn't like them
). Look carefully and they are even properly modeling the clutch, etc.Something as simple as bumping into another pedestrian while walking along the footpath.. An absolutely trivial event, yet it's handled as well as any other game. The technical details of such a small event are actually quite vast - touching on many, many areas of the engine.
On top of a simply staggering amount of content, fitting within less than 7GB and streaming in response to the player's unpredictable whims.
TheWretched
Regular
I for one loved the physics, and the procedural animation within GTA... just making random passangers trip felt satisfying. Or driving a motorcycle and bailing out. It was... nice.
The rest (i.e. lighting, shadowing etc.) wasn't what I expected though. I've finished GTA4 twice on PS3 (story mode mostly) and the episodes on PC... since my PC isn't a top of the line product (rather a good laptop), I decided, I sacrifice the lighting and shadows to allow for higher framerate. Playing the game at a steady 30+ fps was MUCH more fun than the added fidelity. Plus, most of the time, you are occupied doing stuff anyways, so the graphics don't need to be as "perfect" as they can be, on PC... yes, the high res shadows look splendid, but... even the low res ones do their job fine. Same goes for the reflections (putting 100% into traffic is much more fun... then the city is MUCH livelier).
The rest (i.e. lighting, shadowing etc.) wasn't what I expected though. I've finished GTA4 twice on PS3 (story mode mostly) and the episodes on PC... since my PC isn't a top of the line product (rather a good laptop), I decided, I sacrifice the lighting and shadows to allow for higher framerate. Playing the game at a steady 30+ fps was MUCH more fun than the added fidelity. Plus, most of the time, you are occupied doing stuff anyways, so the graphics don't need to be as "perfect" as they can be, on PC... yes, the high res shadows look splendid, but... even the low res ones do their job fine. Same goes for the reflections (putting 100% into traffic is much more fun... then the city is MUCH livelier).
To be honest there are different free roaming better graphically but every time I'm quoting something of different, I receive a lot of 'not' 'Rage is better' 'you are wrong' etc etc so it is useless even to refer to anything
The only thing which Rage is absolutely the better compared to the others, is the incredibile care for the details of the IA of citizen life (& creatures now). But for the rest is good for me but not the best. However I repeat I'm not try to blame R works here, don't let me wrong again.P.S.
Ah I have forgotten the deferred light...the light too are the better in a free roaming. Until Cryengine 3 coming.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Idol
Legend
It's actually a hard question to answer. It's not one specific thing I can point to and say 'that!' (as is the case with a lot of other games).
Perhaps technical marvel isn't the right term. As a combined, coordinated effort for a team I feel GTA4 is unmatched. While I'm not all that keen on the humor, or even the core gameplay and game design, I feel you can look at any specific area of the game and see work that is absolutely top class across the board, especially when considered the exceptionally tight resource and performance restrictions.
The stand out for me is the audio.
It is simply mind boggling in it's scope and quality (when you really listen to it).
The animation and physics in the game is top class too. However taken as part of a huge game world, with a large number of characters and vehicles on screen at all times - where they probably only get a tiny slice of memory, cpu and streaming time - then it's simply exceptional.
The vehicle physics alone have a sense of weight and realism you rarely see (which, ironically, is probably why most people didn't like them
Something as simple as bumping into another pedestrian while walking along the footpath.. An absolutely trivial event, yet it's handled as well as any other game. The technical details of such a small event are actually quite vast - touching on many, many areas of the engine.
On top of a simply staggering amount of content, fitting within less than 7GB and streaming in response to the player's unpredictable whims.
So you guys are talking about "general" game technology.
I asked about graphics technology...but thanks for the answers!
Billy Idol
Legend
Ups, yeah you are right
!But doesn't the city (all buildings) help to render scenes, as you only see limited stuff due to buildings covering view?
At least, the same argument was used when judging the graphics of Infamous, which seems to be similar to my untrained eye regarding huge city+dynamic lights...sans the weather, which doesn't change in infamous (iirc).