[ricki1980]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=137829

"First things first. Xbox 360 runs at full 720p (1280x720), whereas the PlayStation 3 code takes a 20 per cent hit, being natively rendered at 1152x640 before being software-upscaled"

"the PS3 port just tends to look like a blurrier version of the original Xbox code: not impressive considering that typically, PS3 hardware - and sometimes software - is more expensive"

"GTA IV is a kind of weird combination of the two. Both versions feature heavily post-processed visuals, in particular when it comes to depth-of-field effects. Objects in the distance on both versions are blurred in an effort to match the natural focus of the human eye. Where post-processed blur meets the upscaling effect of PlayStation 3, the result usually looks very good indeed - a little softer, of course, but rarely distracting. A slight change of hue (particularly noticeable on indoor cut-scenes) also makes the PS3 version look slightly warmer"

"Technically speaking, Xbox 360 really should be winning this contest hands-down, but bizarrely, it doesn't. There's support for proper hardware-assisted anti-aliasing, eliminating a great deal of the jagginess of the PlayStation 3 version, plus it's running at full-fat 720p"

"However, Rockstar has introduced a 360-specific post-processing effect that dithers just about every texture on-screen. It's an effect not present at all on the PS3 version and serves to introduce an oil-painting-like effect to the overall look of the game, particularly on background objects. Unfortunately, it also seems to actively distort the edges of detail in the textures and occasionally looks really ugly"

Some interesting comments. The fact that the PS3 can not even manage real 720p is very significant I suggest.

Thoughts please.

[Astraeus]

I think Eurogamer's Xbox 360 bias has long been a source of debate on these forums. So I'll take any comment they make on the argument of which console is better with a fistful of salt.

[nil102]

Originally Posted by ricki1980

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=137829

Some interesting comments. The fact that the PS3 can not even manage real 720p is very significant I suggest.

Thoughts please.

I assume you mean in this game and not every game..We tried both versions of the game through the same TV and marginally preferred the PS3 version although the difference is a matter of taste rather than technical ability

[onkeh]

Pointless flame bait. These sort of threads should be against the rules.

[tigandken]

Originally Posted by ricki1980

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=137829

Some interesting comments. The fact that the PS3 can not even manage real 720p is very significant I suggest.

Thoughts please.

I'm not sure it's particularly significant. The consensus seems to be that this was designed for the 360, then ported to the PS3. Read whatever you want to into the politics of that ($50M from M$ probably helped), but that of course means the PS3 version may not be optimal. It certainly made me realise that the 360 is a very capable gaming machine - and that perhaps by being a better all-rounder the PS3 may not be quite as perfect a games machine.

But the truth is, there's nothing to chose between them; and on that count, the PS3 (as a machine) wins in my book for being better at all the other things (noise, reliability, BD, out-of-the-box functionality etc.).

I guess the remaining question is whether clever programming can release more power from the PS3 - or whether we're seeing the best there is. For my money, MGS4 and the 1080p Wipeout HD will be tests of this.

[HRL]

I've played both for a few hours and prefer the PS3 version. Very little between the two as far as I could tell. The 360 version also suffered from drops in framerates. Not played either version online yet.

In regards to having seen the best that the PS3 can do already, I'd be incredibly surprised if that were so. Just compare a 12-18 month after launch PS2 title with something like Gods Of War II and you can see that it took a hell of a long time to get the most of of the PS2. I suspect the PS3 is no different in that respect.

My biggest gripe with the PS3 is that we're still getting ported versions more often than not. It'll be nice when more games are developed from the ground up on the PS3 platform.

[Bushido]

Best put in the GTA forum section me thinks...

http://www.avforums.com/forums/grand-theft-auto-ps3/

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Bushido

Best put in the GTA forum section me thinks...

http://www.avforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=368

It already is.

[KSK MAfio]

Originally Posted by onkeh

Pointless flame bait. These sort of threads should be against the rules.

I don't agree, I find the info interesting...

[m4rkie23]

Originally Posted by KSK MAfio

I don't agree, I find the info interesting...

i also find it interesting....but at the same time pointless.

there will never be a clear winner. there will always be supporters of both consoles for a multitude of different reasons. so i dont see why people do argue/discuss about them?

If the question was asked, which console is better, there couldnt be an un-biased answer that would not get arguments. period

[Br0ken]

Is that saying the PS3 cannot output 720p in this game, or the PS3 just cannot output at 720p at all?

[SparkShot]

That was a bit of a wierd comparison, they said they thought the ps3 version looked better then went for the 360 one.

[Tonks01]

why ZOMG!!!603P LOLZ threads dont matter :

http://kotaku.com/385237/gta-iv-runs...hats-that-mean

[raymondo1]

that article is fan boy rubbish, it indicates ps3 version is vastly inferior
i have both versions, and after initially playing xbox version i switched to
ps3 version, mainly cos my mates who got this have ps3s for live play
it may look little blurier but runs better, loads quicker (try switching to map screen etc, its more responsive on ps) and has less texture pop up.
mate called in last night - he is a 360 man - played ps3 version and thought it looked slightly better.
but really theres not much in it
one week we have ign saying ps3 version better
next week this

[Brutos]

It's all down to opinion at the end of the day.

Personally i prefer the 360 version, the blur and lack of AA on the PS3 version was to much for me.

But both versions are pretty close so either way you end up with a great game.

[redmarkred]

Having now played both it's definitely better on the 360 imho! No AA on the PS3

[Matt TRD]

I also own both and have to say that although the 360 version is sharper looking I prefer the style of the PS3 version as it looks more cinematic for some reason.

The PS3 version did take some fine tuning but in the end I managed to find settings that I am now very happy with.

Also the 360's noise really does annoy me although my Elite is quieter than my original, for me it's still too loud.

[TankTopLover]

Originally Posted by redmarkred

Having now played both it's definitely better on the 360 imho! No AA on the PS3

Means nothing,it looks smoother on the ps3.

[Usama]

Originally Posted by Matt TRD

I also own both and have to say that although the 360 version is sharper looking I prefer the style of the PS3 version as it looks more cinematic for some reason.

The PS3 version did take some fine tuning but in the end I managed to find settings that I am now very happy with.

Also the 360's noise really does annoy me although my Elite is quieter than my original, for me it's still too loud.

Same here.

[SyStemDeMoN]

moan moan moan. personally, i hope this is released on PC soon, as they look so much better and run a lot better, gfx then comes down to what system u have.

i personally prefered vice city and san andreas on PC when compared to any of the consoles.

[TankTopLover]

Originally Posted by SyStemDeMoN

moan moan moan. personally, i hope this is released on PC soon, as they look so much better and run a lot better, gfx then comes down to what system u have.

i personally prefered vice city and san andreas on PC when compared to any of the consoles.

I hate playing games on my pc though,much prefer it on consoles.

[Arthur Hucksake]

Originally Posted by SyStemDeMoN

moan moan moan. personally, i hope this is released on PC soon, as they look so much better and run a lot better, gfx then comes down to what system u have.

i personally prefered vice city and san andreas on PC when compared to any of the consoles.

I like gaming on a 40" screen though, that's PC gamings downfall.

Sure you can hook up via HDMI with the right kit, but everytime i've seen that there's always some problem or other.

Too much hassle.

[JENeric]

Originally Posted by Arthur Hucksake

I like gaming on a 40" screen though, that's PC gamings downfall.

Sure you can hook up via HDMI with the right kit, but everytime i've seen that there's always some problem or other.

Too much hassle.

It's no hassle at all. For the past 5 years I've had my PC's hooked up to TV's. First I had a computer connected via a S Video cable to a 29 inch Sony Trinitron 4:3 crt set. Then I had a more recent PC connected via VGA to a 32 inch Sammy LCD. Now I have a computer connected via HDMI to a 42inch Sharp 1080p panel. I've had no problems whatsoever, and it's as easy as pie to do. I don't play many pc games now, but it's great for playing all my media files. And I love being able to surf the net, while sitting on the sofa, using a wireless keyboard & mouse.

[SyStemDeMoN]

Originally Posted by JENeric

It's no hassle at all. For the past 5 years I've had my PC's hooked up to TV's. First I had a computer connected via a S Video cable to a 29 inch Sony Trinitron 4:3 crt set. Then I had a more recent PC connected via VGA to a 32 inch Sammy LCD. Now I have a computer connected via HDMI to a 42inch Sharp 1080p panel. I've had no problems whatsoever, and it's as easy as pie to do. I don't play many pc games now, but it's great for playing all my media files. And I love being able to surf the net, while sitting on the sofa, using a wireless keyboard & mouse.

hes right, its no prob at all, i got 2 8800's SLi'ed and get 1920*1080 fine. if peeps prefer consoles then thats their personal preference, where as FPS is better on PC's and thats becasue they are easier to control with a mouse(again my opinion) 3rd persons are normally better on consoles. its just i had san andreas and vice city on PS2 and PC, but only ever completed them on the PC. just found that it looked better and played slightly better on a PC tis all.

with all the peeps moaning about dropping frame rates, and GFX looking a bit ropey, the PC would deliver this game at its full potential.

[delta_42]

Just like San Andreas I'll probably pick it up for the PC too when it comes out and play it at 1920*1200. Assuming SLId 8800GTs will handle it!

As for now, I can either sit staring at the screen nit-picking the graphics, or I can play an exceptionally engrossing game. I'm going for the latter.

[Doctor Hades]

Originally Posted by Brutos

It's all down to opinion at the end of the day.

Personally I prefer the 360 version, the blur and lack of AA on the PS3 version was to much for me.

I completely agree with you. I've got both games and think the 360 version just looks that little better better graphically, thanks to native 720p support and anti-aliasing. The 360 version also has a better framerate as the Eurogamer article proved. Also I've not noticed any difference at all in the level of pop in in both games despite the PS3 version having 3.4 GB of data installed to the HDD, it can be bad at times in both games, especially when travelling at speed, not that it effects the gameplay in any way. The PS3 version does have slightly nicer shadows and a more vibrant colour palette though.

Once you start playing the game, though the blurriness and jagginess of the PS3 version fade to insignificance and I can't say I enjoyed that version any less than the 360 version. In fact, I've actually found I've clocked up more platime on the PS3 version; some 45 versus 40 hours on the 360!

It's a great game on both platforms but the PS3 version has obviously had to be compromised to get it running at the same performance level as the 360 version hence the lower rendering resolution and lack of AA. Sad but true.

[TankTopLover]

Originally Posted by Doctor Hades

I completely agree with you. I've got both games and think the 360 version just looks that little better better graphically, thanks to native 720p support and anti-aliasing. The 360 version also has a better framerate as the Eurogamer article proved. Also I've not noticed any difference at all in the level of pop in in both games despite the PS3 version having 3.4 GB of data installed to the HDD, it can be bad at times in both games, especially when travelling at speed, not that it effects the gameplay in any way. The PS3 version does have slightly nicer shadows and a more vibrant colour palette though.

Once you start playing the game, though the blurriness and jagginess of the PS3 version fade to insignificance and I can't say I enjoyed that version any less than the 360 version. In fact, I've actually found I've clocked up more platime on the PS3 version; some 45 versus 40 hours on the 360!

It's a great game on both platforms but the PS3 version has obviously had to be compromised to get it running at the same performance level as the 360 version hence the lower rendering resolution and lack of AA. Sad but true.

Why would you play it on both? Thats 85 hours in total you have spent playing this game since release?

[m4rkie23]

ive got a friend doing this too. or so he says.
he is 35 percent through on both platforms, is taking different routes with each game. is a lot of time gaming, but then i spose if you enjoy it, why not