Red Dead Redemption Reviews

KenG10 said:
Tried lassoing a horse for the first time this morning. What a frustrating experience. Spent about 10 min chasing the horses down. I didnt realize that you have to HOLD down the left trigger to keep the rope on the horse. What a pain! :mad:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the warning. This is the kind of thing I know I'd run afoul of myself. ;)
 
ManCannon said:
The size difference can easily be explained by the fact that one image is originally blurrier than the other. If you put two nearly identical images through jpeg compression but one is blurred and the other isn't the blurry image comes out smaller because there's less detail to begin with. Try it yourself if you like, throw an image into an editor, save it as a .jpeg, then blur it a bit and save it as another .jpeg and see which one comes out smaller.

I would definitely agree however that the images would better serve their purpose in a lossless format, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest tampering when the size difference varies between shots.

You can believe there's something shady you want if you like, though.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I don't stand for bullshit. I've seen this before countless times with "comparisons" I don't care how reputable you think these sites are.

Putting aside taking pictures of the tv. If the the supposed shots are Directly from the video source, why would it be different than what I see? Calibration, some sharpness setting? You explain it to me.

Just for a moment focus on the supposed ps3 shot you have with the paper kid and the 2 men plus Marsten walking passed him. I can easily pause that scene on my ps3 and bring up the image on my pc. Why would the image look so different on my pc's monitor? It wouldn't. Simple.

Right so. Stopping there we look at the lines of the buildings, the kids face, Marsten's clothes. Focus on the back of his hat. Seen how it's all blurry along the edge? That's just not how it appears on screen. The line is straight(ish, lol) and very crisp. There is no blurring along the lines of their hats, heads, or clothes. The lines of the clothing are also clearly defined.


So back on the point here.

These comparison shots are not accurate representation of what is actually displayed when you play the game.

Plain and Simple.

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

Do you have the game? For Xbox 360? What about for PS3? No, then stop talking about something for which you have no experience.

Just look at the damn images I linked at that site. http://www.reddeadforums.com/ Right on the homepage. To the untrained eye you'd say there's a clear difference. Why is the PS3 cover art a different shade of red? It's not, it's just the angle. A very slight angle that creates a glare.

Again I'm going back to one of the shots posted earlier, from your very reputable site. The one of the train against the cliff side. Notice the RED text - why is it a different shade in the PS3 version? Shouldn't they be the same? Surely graphically there would be no difference there right?

That's it, I'm done. I said I wouldn't derail the thread. If you're looking for which system to buy it on, please base this on other reason than supposed "graphic differences." Base it on maybe which you use more, or have more friends that would play with.
 
Dallows said:
I'm sorry if I don't stand for bullshit. I've seen this before countless times with "comparisons" I don't care how reputable you think these sites are.

Putting aside taking pictures of the tv. If the the supposed shots are Directly from the video source, why would it be different than what I see? Calibration, some sharpness setting? You explain it to me.

Just for a moment focus on the supposed ps3 shot you have with the paper kid and the 2 men plus Marsten walking passed him. I can easily pause that scene on my ps3 and bring up the image on my pc. Why would the image look so different on my pc's monitor? It wouldn't. Simple.

Right so. Stopping there we look at the lines of the buildings, the kids face, Marsten's clothes. Focus on the back of his hat. Seen how it's all blurry along the edge? That's just not how it appears on screen. The line is straight(ish, lol) and very crisp. There is no blurring along the lines of their hats, heads, or clothes. The lines of the clothing are also clearly defined.


So back on the point here.

These comparison shots are not accurate representation of what is actually displayed when you play the game.

Plain and Simple.

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

Do you have the game? For Xbox 360? What about for PS3? No, then stop talking about something for which you have no experience.

Just look at the damn images I linked at that site. http://www.reddeadforums.com/ Right on the homepage. To the untrained eye you'd say there's a clear difference. Why is the PS3 cover art a different shade of red? It's not, it's just the angle. A very slight angle that creates a glare.

Again I'm going back to one of the shots posted earlier, from your very reputable site. The one of the train against the cliff side. Notice the RED text - why is it a different shade in the PS3 version? Shouldn't they be the same? Surely graphically there would be no difference there right?

That's it, I'm done. I said I wouldn't derail the thread. If you're looking for which system to buy it on, please base this on other reason than supposed "graphic differences." Base it on maybe which you use more, or have more friends that would play with.
Click to expand...

I can explain it to you

it doesn't matter, that's the explaination

Just play the damn game
 
Its time to hogtie this thread and drag it behind a horse.
Anyways. excellent game. Just wish i wasn't married. haha
 
SubyJay said:
Its time to hogtie this thread and drag it behind a horse.
Anyways. excellent game. Just wish i wasn't married. haha
Click to expand...

Bah! You too? I had this game in my grubby little hands and put it back on the shelf because I was holding it with my left hand and my wedding band seemed too ominous.

This thread is going to cause my divorce IF it can stay on topic.
 
Dallows said:
So back on the point here.

These comparison shots are not accurate representation of what is actually displayed when you play the game.

Plain and Simple.
Click to expand...

I get what you're trying to say. I don't think there is anything wrong with those screen captures, but you're right. That's not how it will actually look on a big screen HDTV. It's a still image on a PC monitor 2 feet in front of you face, so you can go over it with a fine tooth comb. Honestly the only substantial difference is the grass density, but it's not that bad through most of the game.

You need to look closely to notice the slight loss of detail in things like the ground texture. In motion, I highly doubt you'd notice it really. However the actual differences you will perceive are more apparent in motion. PS3 verison has more flickering on the buildings. It's not a big difference. I've seen people complaining about the image quality and frame rate of the X360 version too. It's a console game with console graphics. Hopefully one day they will port it to PC. It will look stunning in high res PC graphics, with the toggles put on "max".

RDR is an old engine. The game has been in development since the beginning of this generation. We'll have to wait for Agent to see what Rockstar can do when creating a game specifically for the PS3.
 
The hardware in the systems aren't the same. Who the hell expects them to look identical? That is just unrealistic.
 
Dion said:
The hardware in the systems aren't the same. Who the hell expects them to look identical? That is just unrealistic.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody does, but what's funny is how people go, X system's graphics r teh betters, when it honestly doesn't make a damn bit of difference, they are so close in the graphics department that only the truly nitpicky give a shit about it.
 
Looks like a great game but I don't play games on consoles. Will buy if ported to the PC.
 
Fail said:
I don't think anybody does, but what's funny is how people go, X system's graphics r teh betters, when it honestly doesn't make a damn bit of difference, they are so close in the graphics department that only the truly nitpicky give a shit about it.
Click to expand...

I own both, PS3 holds a clear advantage.

Red Dead Redemption is an awesome game, btw.
 
Hmm... with all that's going on in the world today, what makes someone get butthurt over a negligible difference of the same game on two different consoles, when the money is still going from your pockets to the pockets of those companies that make and produce the game. Actually, I am fine with not understanding.

This game does look excellent, but I just ordered Bad Company 2 for the PC and I'll play that for awhile. I'll get this one after a couple months so I can maybe get it for a lower price.
 
Dallows said:
I'm sorry if I don't stand for bullshit. I've seen this before countless times with "comparisons" I don't care how reputable you think these sites are.

Putting aside taking pictures of the tv. If the the supposed shots are Directly from the video source, why would it be different than what I see? Calibration, some sharpness setting? You explain it to me.

Just for a moment focus on the supposed ps3 shot you have with the paper kid and the 2 men plus Marsten walking passed him. I can easily pause that scene on my ps3 and bring up the image on my pc. Why would the image look so different on my pc's monitor? It wouldn't. Simple.

Right so. Stopping there we look at the lines of the buildings, the kids face, Marsten's clothes. Focus on the back of his hat. Seen how it's all blurry along the edge? That's just not how it appears on screen. The line is straight(ish, lol) and very crisp. There is no blurring along the lines of their hats, heads, or clothes. The lines of the clothing are also clearly defined.


So back on the point here.

These comparison shots are not accurate representation of what is actually displayed when you play the game.

Plain and Simple.

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

Do you have the game? For Xbox 360? What about for PS3? No, then stop talking about something for which you have no experience.

Just look at the damn images I linked at that site. http://www.reddeadforums.com/ Right on the homepage. To the untrained eye you'd say there's a clear difference. Why is the PS3 cover art a different shade of red? It's not, it's just the angle. A very slight angle that creates a glare.

Again I'm going back to one of the shots posted earlier, from your very reputable site. The one of the train against the cliff side. Notice the RED text - why is it a different shade in the PS3 version? Shouldn't they be the same? Surely graphically there would be no difference there right?

That's it, I'm done. I said I wouldn't derail the thread. If you're looking for which system to buy it on, please base this on other reason than supposed "graphic differences." Base it on maybe which you use more, or have more friends that would play with.
Click to expand...

Upset you chose the wrong system? :rolleyes:
 
I just want to be clear, comparing screenshots of the SAME game between 2 systems is more important than playing the game itself?
 
Riddleofsteel said:
Hmm, if it runs in 720p I might be able to get away with using the 360 vga cable on my older crt.
Click to expand...

I've been playing it on my 42" 1080p TV where I usually have my 360. I moved it over to my monitor (Dell 2407 1920x1200) and it looked just fine using the VGA cable. It won't be mistaken for a PC game running at that res or anything, but it looked pretty good all things considered.


As far as console differences, I have seen both on the same TV and I agree with ARS ( http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts.ars ). I think it looks better on the 360. That said, there isn't a huge difference between the two. I think they actually overstate the difference a bit.
 
Fail said:
I just want to be clear, comparing screenshots of the SAME game between 2 systems is more important than playing the game itself?
Click to expand...

Being that I own a PS3 and a Xbox 360, I'm going to buy the game on whatever console it looks best. Why would I buy an inferior product on the PS3 when I can get a superior product on the Xbox 360. I for one appreciate the comparisons.
 
Time2Kill said:
Being that I own a PS3 and a Xbox 360, I'm going to buy the game on whatever console it looks best. Why would I buy an inferior product on the PS3 when I can get a superior product on the Xbox 360. I for one appreciate the comparisons.
Click to expand...

+1 I looked at the few comparisons out there and bought it on the 360. Glad I went that route.
 
If you have been reading this thread like me and haven't bought yet, Newegg has the game on sale for $49.99 with free shipping. No taxes for me and free shipping means I am in. Hope this helps you convince your friends to pick it up as well.

PS3 Version

360 Version
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top