woundingchaney
Regular
Crackdown wasnt pushing anywhere near the detail though. In addition the GTA world is considerably (as far as people, cars, missions, etc) more populated and interactive than Crackdown.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Technology of GTA IV/RDR *Rage Engine*
- Thread starter babcat
- Start date
Crackdown wasnt pushing anywhere near the detail though. In addition the GTA world is considerably (as far as people, cars, missions, etc) more populated and interactive than Crackdown.
More interactive? I would say crackdown was more interactive with the enviroment than GTA4 at the moment. But thats getting away from the point, I see no reason why the IQ in GTA4 couldn't match that of say crackdown. Yep it might have been an artistic decision over a technical one, but to be honest I very much doubt it.
It isn't as detailed as Gears of War, but very few games are. And you wouldn't see that kind of detail usually anyway, just when you walk up close to everything, which - due to the camera position and angles - doesn't happen that often in GTA.
I'm very impressed with the game, pretty tight art direction and a very, very consistent execution make it stand out from the crowd.
I'm very impressed with the game, pretty tight art direction and a very, very consistent execution make it stand out from the crowd.
Sorry about of topic.
A good video with comparisons with 2 versions here :
http://www.videogamer.com/videos/player.html?vid=1901.html
Sometimes im find x360 (like custscenes) version better,but in game i see ps3 better in lights and less jaggies.
(maybe some answers come with read at pages 16/17 and others in pdf Killzone 2 about SPEs doing post processing effects)
A good video with comparisons with 2 versions here :
http://www.videogamer.com/videos/player.html?vid=1901.html
Sometimes im find x360 (like custscenes) version better,but in game i see ps3 better in lights and less jaggies.
(maybe some answers come with read at pages 16/17 and others in pdf Killzone 2 about SPEs doing post processing effects)
The thing that piss's me off with comparioson video's is that they never try and set the contrast/brightness/colour at a compariable level. Both machines out-put different levels of contrast/brightness/colour and its these things that make the biggest difference in the videos, to much contrast enhances detail and noise and too much brightness washes out colours and detail and i just wish that the sites who are putting out these video's would understand this and try and set them roughly the same to portray the differences more accurately.
Yeah me too. Considering the scope of the game and what it's rendering I think they did an awesome job.
Yeah people forget this is a huge city with lots of stuff going on. Quite a difference from a game with limited palyable areas where the non playable areas can be very low-detail and static.
woundingchaney
Regular
I was under the assumption that their statements directly correlate with yours?? Are you all not speaking about how well the visual quality is given the scope and interactivity of the game??
No matter what they do, they're never going to match up the same time of day with the exact same weather conditions, so there's no way to REALLY make a fair comparison as far as the lighting goes IMO, at least not from actual gameplay videos. Maybe if somebody were to make a comparison video of all interior locations it might be more helpful.
Mintmaster
Veteran
The thing is that this time we have 720p+2xAA vs. 640p w/o AA (AFAIK), not the other way around that would indeed make the two options comparable.
One thing that bugs me is the DOF, which makes the same mistake that so many games do. For well over 5 years we've had hardware and presentations about how to do it correctly, i.e. avoid halos around the objects that are in focus. All you have to do is weight your blur samples with their distance to the focal plane and then divide by the total weight. It shouldn't cost any performance since you're texture limited.
I only saw one comparison video but the blurriness there, has nothing to do with resolution (at least directly). They do have some heavy blur filter going on maybe limited to the silhouette maybe extension of DoF. I will try to check myself this weekend.
And for a game like GTA4 I think 640p + AxMSAA is always better than 720p + BxMSAA as long as A>B since texturewise there is nothing to talk about.
Even if B=2 and A=1, the jaggy difference for stills would be minor.
Fair mistake, however I laughed a little harder since you posted while people who never heard of the site were coming here to revolt.
djskribbles
Legend
haven't seen that one yet. 360 version definitely a little sharper. ps3 version seems to have better lighting, and i like the colors more (but that could probably be tweaked with tv settings). pop-in would be a non-issue for me on both versions... looks fine. load times obviously better on ps3. is it just me, or does the water look better on the ps3 version? or maybe it was just the time of day.
overall, i prefer the ps3 version.
The chopper's not in the same place, so we may be seeing different LOD in effect. That is, the PS3 version could be using higher-res assets and fading more out, whereas the XB360 could be using lower resolution assets for a distance view and so rendering more. As is sadly too often the case, the comparison pics are never close enough to be a fair comparison!
Yap, they are not strict subset too. If you look at the water surface, you'll also find that some of the shadows are missing from the 360 version. They get generated/loaded when the chopper is close enough. On the PS3 view, the shadows are there from the get go. The view points are too different to make any detailed comparison. I like the video because it gives a good overview of the visuals.
I should fire up Lair and check my DS3 and the LOD effect. Both games are impressive in terms of scale but they focus on totally different aspects.
I should fire up Lair and check my DS3 and the LOD effect. Both games are impressive in terms of scale but they focus on totally different aspects.
Last edited by a moderator:
That would be kind of strange, wouldn't it?
Don't they quickly get replaced? The 360 is farther away and is showing more detail (not just the highlighted part, but trees as well). The PS3 is closer and is showing nothing until you get even closer. In the video, there's no original item that disappears then reappears seconds later, it just pops up on the PS3 version later as you get closer, while it's always visible on the 360 side.
It's not conclusive but to me, from this capture and from the GT comparison video, it seems that the 360 has farther distances especially when from the helicopter.