Red Dead Redemption PS3 vs Xbox 360: “PS3 is Pathetic”



After the release of Rockstar’s GTA western Red Dead Redemption, the major topic for discussion is not the game itself but instead the alleged inferiority of the PS3 version, which Rockstar claims is “identical” but critics claim runs at a lower resolution and with significantly degraded visuals.

The two versions are compared below, with the Xbox 360 on top:


The major difference is said to be a likely 640p resolution on the PS3 (upscaled to 720p), compared to full 720p on the Xbox 360, a not insignificant 20% difference. Other apparent inferiorities include less grass, rougher antialiasing and lower framerates.

Opinions range from calling the differences a matter of personal preference to condemning the PS3 as the inferior console.

The game itself is being heralded as a masterpeice and certain Game of the Year candidate, so whatever platform squabbles ensue, the game itself is beyond reproach.

Even so, players are wondering just why a game with a budget in the hundreds of millions is suffering from the same lazy porting which afflicts so many supposedly identical “multiplatform” games.

Leave a Comment


  • Anonymous says:

    I can’t believe i read people using this invalid “porting” argument. Bunch of idiots, you don’t know anything about game development.

    And seriously, people are saying that Rockstar is lazy? that the game s ugly? (the fucking GOTY). My God, fuck off, just FUCK OFF….

  • Basically what it seems to come down to on the shitty PS3 ports is that they make the games for the 360, which can’t handle the BluRay data storage capabilities of the PS3. So when the port’s put together the PS3 is shortchanged by having to work upward off of inferior hardware, and you end up getting a “good enough” product instead of what the PS3 could REALLY manage.

    Just think how bad it would be if the games were MADE for the PS3 and then ported to the 360…you’d either get half the game cut out to fit on the 360 disc or you’d get a 360 game that runs 3-4 discs long and STILL looks like shit.

  • Anonymous says:

    Who gives a shit about slight changes? Come on! It’s the contrast and aliassing…
    Companies tend to do better for the platform that is doing better (sell wise) than the others so they can increase their profits. But for minor differences such as these, what’s the big deal here? Grow up…all of you.

  • Anonymous says:

    so many dumb comments, yes xbox 360 version looks better but FFXIII was better on ps3 then 360. Its all about how the programmers tackle the project, nothing to do with the system. This argument has been going on which is a beefier powerhouse and too be honest I havnt seen a game one either system blow the other system out of the water. Each system has there own powerhouse games that show off there tech. Only difference between the two is sony has blu ray while xbox has better online funcionality. That is it.

  • FUCK FUCK FUCK… that is the LAST time I get convinced to get a multiplatform game on the PS3 just for the fact it has “exclusive content.” That exclusive content was just a complete scam in the first place too. 2 outfits and one of them you had to join their “social club”. I knew there was something off with the ps3 version… like I saw waay too many jaggies and its not friendly to my TV screen. Not friendly meaning, the blackness is just too black. I’ll be riding at night, then a rain storm hits, forget about it!! It’s so pitch black, the only way i can see anything on the screen is if i turn on dead eye. So many other shit i could complain about but ill get off my soap box…

  • Anonymous says:

    Wow, a slight loss in graphical fidelity. The game is AMAZING. It’s worth the money it costs, and if you think it’s easy to port games, then I’d like to speak to you about a bridge.

  • Anonymous says:

    Was considering buying this, but if they can’t be arsed making a proper port then i can’t be arsed paying full price for this, gonna wait till it drops below $25 or gets a PC port so i can download it not giving them a penny… yes i am mad.

  • Anonymous says:

    Hi all, is anyone having brightness problems? My tv contrast and brightness is set to about 80% which is more than bright enough to watch normal tv. When i enter a building or a mine i cant see my own hand 2 inches in front of my face…? and yes my brightness, contract are all set to max in the game? Plus my display settings are all done automatic and iv never had this problem with any other games? Any info would out out alot! Thanks all

  • stonedmafia says:

    I just got a new replacement ps3 from sony 2hours ago, I baught this game and played for 30minutes and the bleuray failed. now my ps3 is broken. again. FUCK !

    another month waisted omfg.

  • Anonymous says:

    this is pointless. since when rockstar games give us great graphics?
    older games usually beat this game at graphics, i mean, its not about ps3 or 360 being inferior one to other, it’s your personal war against a console what we are reading.

  • Anonymous says:

    PS3 can kiss y behind for all I care.

    I hold up that yes, it MAY have better graphics, it can’t handle those graphics. Fallout 3; Dear god it got choppy during the more action packed sequences along with quite a few of the DLC areas. Borrowed the 360 from a friend, and it ran more smoothly. I can care less how good or bad the game looks. Is it fun, should be the main point of discussion.

    Eh, whatever. Fanboys will simply send hateful replies against me for this comment. As long as I”m having fun, I don’t really care if it’s in 720p or 1080p. Seeing MW or Mass Effect in hi-def, it is indeed awesome. But it won’t effect how I play the game.

  • Anonymous says:

    Who gives a fuck in the end. I’m buying it for ps3 which i got in the first place to play MGS 4. My wife wanted a Wii for Super smash Bros, and I’ve chosen to get an Xbox in the summer so we can play Fable 2 and then Fable 3 later. And while I went over this damn article I was also ordering starcraft 2 collector’s for my PC. Do graphics really matter in the end?

    I feel cheated by all of this exclusivity, sony and microsoft are screwing us all up the arse by treating people as percentages of market share, not as valued customers. If this industry was in any way fair we’d all have undifferentiated games available on differentiated consoles, not this festering battle between the world’s biggest collective dick (Microsoft) and a bunch of stuck up douchebags (Sony).

  • Anonymous says:

    I will just comment on how hilarious I find this. When Halo 3 came out, everyone made a huge stink about it being 640p, but XBOX fans guarded it fiercely. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it looks like they feel like they are to good for 640p.

  • Anonymous says:

    I have to stare at the two pics for a long period of time to notice any major differences. Honestly, the visual differences are trivial.

    I’m still pissed at Rockstar for ruining the only franchise that made them viable (gta), and then they follow it up with a genre I despise (westerns, not sandbox). Of all the gta sandboxes that could have been made (zombie gta, classic monster gta with vampires, werewolves, and other goodness, futuristic gta with a future city, dinosaur gta, gta in space, etc, etc.. and western is what we get, with noir coming up next… Bleh!)

  • Anonymous says:

    Who cares? Red Dead Redemption is boring as hell. Gonna sell it this weekend at my buddy’s store. Can’t believe I pre-ordered this crap. Had more fun playing Lost Planet 2.

  • Anonymous says:

    Wow. Yeah. Very noticeable difference. I wish developers wouldn’t play the graphics game. Much less the content game where they withhold content for a different console. In the end, the customer loses.

  • Anonymous says:

    I’m holding off on this game. I purchased GTA4 the day it came out for the PS3 and have always thought it was horrible. I was unable to see far and everything was always blurry, other then the new features, story, and physics GTASA on my old Xbox looked superior. GTA4 would look nothing like the game trailers, I just assumed they used a Xbox 360 or my HD TV was damaged.

    I played with the PS3 video output configurations and could never find an ideal setting. I toyed with the in game brightness and it helped… a little.

    On the other hand Gran Turismo 4 Prologue and FFXIII run perfectly. *shrug*

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually, from what I remember hearing, they used a PC testbed running at absurdly high resolutions for all those screenshots and early trailers, which is why the actual games don’t look at good as all the advertising for them. Still, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the PS3 version had problems. Rockstar seems to focus on one lead platform (usually 360), and just shits out the other ports to rake in money from other console owners.

      I’m really glad I’m not one of the clueless masses and know to read about this stuff to make an informed purchase. I would be pissed if I ended up getting the shitty port and had frame rate issues just because I didn’t follow this crap on the internet.

      • Anonymous says:

        Developing on the Xbox 360 is closer to developing on a windows PC then the PS3.
        It has three general purpose CPUs vs a single general purpose CPU and SPUs.
        Other issues the Xbox uses direct X while the PS3 uses a modified version of OGL call PSGL.

        They simply rushed the port to the PS3.

        It’s nothing new I remember seeing stuff like this back in the Amiga and ST days.

        If a game came out first on the ST or PC the Amiga port sometimes was lackluster compared to other Amiga games.

  • Anonymous says:

    Eh, oh well. It’s not like the game is actually different. I bought FFXIII on 360 because I didn’t want to bother replacing my broken PS3 just to play it. Sure it doesn’t look as good but who cares. If I wanted to stare at a work of art I’d buy a painting, I buy games to play them.

    Of course I’d still prefer developers to actually put effort into their ports, but…

  • Anonymous says:

    PS3 fanboys always have an excuse. They like to point out the games that look better (which are very few) are superiour and claiming that it’s the better version.

    Then we get something like this and their excuses start pouring in like, “graphics don’t make the game” or “I can’t even see the difference” and “it’s the same game, what’s the difference?”

    PS3 fanboys are the worst.

    • Anonymous says:

      All fanboys do that. It isn’t only noticeable on one side of the spectrum.

      And BTW, there really is no excuse for such horrid quality. PS3 has the ability to pull off better graphics. Rockstar is full of lazy assholes, is all.

  • Anonymous says:

    Maybe I’m just an old man at the decrepit age of 23 but I can still remember when the hottest console on the market was the NES. While I can see maybe a slight fuzziness in the PS3 version what’s the big deal?

    It’s still highly realistic in terms of graphics, it still looks good, and I’ll wager it plays just the same.

    So the graphics on 2 different sets of hardware aren’t identical, why is this important?

    Neither one looks bad and the inferiority of the PS3 version is minimal at worst.

  • News flash sometimes ports stink when the architecture of the original system is significantly different from what the game was ported to.

    The Xbox 360 has three PPEs while the PS3 has one PPE and eight SPUs.

    To fully take advantage of the PS3 the engine would need to be partly rewritten and they were to lazy too do that.

  • Ero-Kurage says:

    I think it comes down to the nbr of consoles sold, X360 being more than than PS3, so if I were RockStar or any other developers, I would also put more time & effort on X360 version which will bring in more revenue. All just business which is $, this generation, PS3 is 2nd choice in developers’ eyes, even I only own PS3, but that’s the truth. Since I am not planning to waste my $ on a red-ring console and get myself upset, I will stick with the PS3 version.

  • Anonymous says:

    Majority of 3rd party multiplat american games are crap on the PS3. That’s why Sony’s 1st party shows them how it is done, problem is. These 3rd party developers don’t or refused to learn a thing or two from Sony’s 1st party.

  • Anonymous says:

    It’s a VIDEO game. Of course graphics is important. Why else do people buy HDTV? For the lulz? Resist the temptation to be morons, even though you buy into the PS3 “potential” hype that never materialize.

    Go tell Sony to stop being dicks and build a console time that is friendlier to program. Sony is just too full of its past successes.

    • Anonymous says:

      Friendlier to program? Uh, dev’s have stated that PS3 is not at all hard to develop games with. In fact, it’s much easier.

      And yes, PS3 has potential. But do the developers use any of it? I’ve only seen a few do it (Santa Monica and SE, mostly). Western developers are just lazy pricks, is all.

  • Anonymous says:

    I just you guys are just too noob to admit that PS3 is superior than gaybox in anway.Looks at Uncharted 2 nd GOW3 do u think this graphic could outbeat that ? think again noob.So you guys take this kind of shit can compare.What a noob.get a life if u r too poor and can’t afford a shit ass gay box than go and become a prostitute and sell u butt for living asshole

  • Anonymous says:

    Artefact just can’t hide his preferences, if the 360 version was the inferior one he would be like ‘Xbox shows how inferior he is compared to the superior PS3’ but just because the PS3 version is the inferior he says is a ”matter of personal preference” or is just a ”lazy porting”…

  • baronight says:

    This is the biggest Rockstar game in term of it scale…full with awesomeness

    people just being nitpicky over small graphic issue
    this is not Bayonetta case where loading time vary significantly…

  • Anonymous says:

    Another issue with optimization. In exchange for the shitty post, PS3 users get free exclusive content.

    The same thing happened with GTA4 by the way. It seems that Rockstar either doesn’t want to improve on PS3 development due to game engine limitations or that they’re just lazy.

    Read Dead Redemption is a game that takes place in the barren empty near-lifeless desert. I wonder how much console power it takes to render a large flat texture with 2D grass on it?….

  • Anonymous says:

    True, there is a slight difference, but really…..


    It’s a game that they made for YOU, just be happy and play it!

    Really, how pathetic do you have to be to constantly nickpick at tiny diffs between consoles!

  • the difference is noticible. but in my opinion a difference that is hardly worth complaining about.

    if this is was a game with beautiful moe girls in it i would be concerned, but with mainly rough tough burly western men, i don’t give a shit really as long as there is no performance gaps between the two like bayonetta.

  • 640p? You sure it’s not a typo for 540p?
    640p tells me nothing but 540p would actually be 960×540: a really common resolution since it’s half 1080p – quite a few anime are actually rendered at this resolution and just upscaled (Seikon no Qwaser comes to mind, for example).

  • Anonymous says:

    I still don’t get all these side by side graphics comparings. As long as it still plays just as well I at least wouldn’t give a shit about a slight difference; I don’t think I’ve fapped to a game for having slightly better graphics in a long time. So it’s just all about being pretty games now?

  • Barbarian of Gor says:


    I was going to go on my “Look up one of those ads for Q-Bert, Frogger, etc.” on 9 competing home computer/console systems from the Atari 2600 to the Amiga and then Bitch and whine yer X-Box is somehow better when it works” rant. But, yes, it seems the 360 does have twice the resolution. Are you sure there’s no way to adjust the video? Isn’t PS3 supposed to be HDTV capable also?

    Looks like it’s the exact game/gameplay though. And ’cause I dont’ got a HDTV I don’t really care. All the old CRTs are SOooooo cheap now…

  • That is becus game companies are cheap and dont try to develop a game for ps3 better.. it has bluray disc… it is proven that Uncharted 2 & God of War 3 are the best games graphically to date.. nothin on 360 can touch them.. but multiplatform games need tot ake some extra time to use the ps3’s features to good use like santa monic studios and naughty dog..

  • Anonymous says:

    Looks practically identical to me. Perhaps I’m just not staring at it on super high-def, blown up to maximum and going over it with a magnifying glass jotting down notes on pixel density.

    Sony Derangement Syndrome strikes again.

    • I use a regular monitor by all standards, yet when I watch these pics in full resolution, the differences are staggering.

      Number 8 should be quite obvious, even without zooming in. Look at the windows of the boat and the (lack of) details on the houses on the riverbank (left-hand corner). The XBox (top) displays everything properly, the PS3 version (bottom) has a lot of details missing and is seriously blurry.

      For all the money you pay for the PS3, you’d expect a high-performance system, yet the ‘lesser’ XBox360 is blowing it completely out of the water.

      However, a better question is probably, is the game any good?

  • Anonymous says:

    It’s not even a big difference. The only difference I saw is in that one image with less grass, but that’s it. If it’s upscaled to 720p on the PS3, which is the same resolution as on the 360 version, then they’ll be the same, right? So it’s pointless to compare.

    But this better be worth getting. I have high expectations for this game, so I hope those expectations are well met.

    • erochichi says:

      Upscaled 640p is really not as good as real 720p. Upscaling mainly magnifies the image, but can`t better the resolution from what it was. It can include some contrast manipulation and sharpness filtering, but can`t create data which isn`t there.

  • SpideyPHL says:

    I’m not really seeing a huge difference. I also heard the same thing about GTA4, which turned out to look better on the PS3 in actual gameplay since it had much less pop-in (for reasons I don’t want to go into, I own both versions, so I am not just talking bs). If I had to choose between a slightly higher resolution and not having obstacles and pedestrians pop in 10 feet in front of me, I’d choose the latter.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’ve always wondered about this. I purchased GTA4 the day it came out for the PS3 and have always thought it was horrible. I was unable to see far and everything was always blurry, other then the new features, story, and physics GTASA on my old Xbox looked superior. GTA4 would look nothing like the game trailers, I just assumed they used a Xbox 360 or my HD TV was damaged.

      I played with the PS3 video output configurations and could never find an ideal setting. I toyed with the in game brightness and it helped… a little.

      On the other hand Gran Turismo 4 Prologue and FFXIII run perfectly. *shrug*

  • Anonymous says:

    If youre going to spend what the PS3 originally cost was like $500 then of course you want it to be lightyears more superior than a system thats been out much longer with a 42% failure rate.

    Considering that games can’t even push the PS3 to its limits means its OVERPRICED AND OVERRATED.

    When the Wii, DSI and 360 still outsell your system by millions then you gotta wonder if you could have saved half of the price of a PS3 and go to a strip club and get some titty bar action instead of putting faith into Sony.

    And i hope Sony charges monthly fees for the PSNetwork just to dick slap PS3 owners. Just cause.

  • Anonymous says:

    Wow. People are still talking about the PS3 Vs. XBox360 once again on graphics? When you look at it, there isn’t much of a difference. Also, look at games life Final Fantasy XIII, Bayonetta, (Super) Street Fighter IV, Tekken 6, Resident Evil, etc. and compare and contrast on which graphics are better.

    We don’t live in the 5th Gen (PS/N64) era where you can simply see the graphical difference, or even the 6th generation where graphics are slightly graphically different. The consoles are powerful enough to show that the majority of players, even the hardcore players, won’t see much of a gameplay difference unless it’s bad programming or frame rate slowdowns.

    If you guys want to “blame” the consoles, why not research the development times for Rockstar itself? Less spent programming on what they think is a less comfortable system should ring you a bell.

    • Anonymous says:

      Other than the grass comparisons, I also had a difficult time telling which picture was from which console. If I hadn’t been told one was of a lower quality, I wouldn’t have known.

  • Anonymous says:

    Seriously Sankaku, do you have to do another graphic console comparison? Do you have to always bring console wars again? Is there anything else you can do instead of sparking nerd rage or something? Grow some balls Sankaku, it’s already mid 2010 and consoles have been out for a while.

  • Anonymous says:

    Sony should have doubled the PS3’s available RAM during design to match the 360’s. Then developers would have an easier time of porting if they made a game initially for the 360 and half of this graphical detail bullshit wouldn’t be an issue.

    • The PS3 and the Xbox 360 have almost the same amount of RAM available.
      You might be confused because the 360 uses a single 512 MB GDDR3 RAM shared between the CPU and the GPU while the PS3 has only a 256 MB GDDR3, but it has an additional 256 MB XDR DRAM of which 224 MB are also accessible to the GPU.

      Still, these memory differences are the least worries about porting a game between these consoles…

  • Anonymous says:

    Last three show some differences with problem of shadowing and textures. The grass would be the least of my worries. Current gen differences don’t bother me none like last gen, RE4 PS2 vs GC.

  • Anonymous says:

    Is there really a difference here? Really, I don’t see any difference between any two of the comparison pictures that are supposedly exactly the same, just different consoles.

      • Anonymous says:

        well, at least you dont need to wait halv a year to get your console back (my PS3 brock down 2.feb last year, and i got a new one back 17.sep after god knows many emails… )

        and if you look at the “omgz look at thiz, xbox gotz 50% failrate” they are all based on anonymous internet feedbacks, but if you look on feedback for those contry’s that got those you see som quite other numbers…
        (here X360 got 4,56% and PS3 got 3,11%… and Wii got 0.34%)

        i wounder how many that responded that they have got a RRoD X360 on those “tests” realy even got a X360?

        and no, im not a fan, i got all the 3 new-gen systems
        and the X360 and the PS3 has bouth its positive and negative sides but some dickheads dont know when to stop ditching the other system becase they are to lazy
        to get money to buy the other…

        • Anonymous says:

          to “21:21 20/05/2010”

          think that dude is scandinavian (mostly norwegian) or so when i hear how long they use on repair.
          and mostly he got all 3 and all the pre ones becase “hardware” is cheap here but you need to pay like 499 (76$) for a x360 game and 649(99$) for PS3 game so most people here dont have many games…

          the Service to Microsoft up here is outstanding, you got RRoD or hdd failure they send a door-to-door transportcar whit a new unit and it takes max 3 days to you get it…
          Sony are the second slowest company when it comes to repair next to Apple here (got a defect Ipod or Iphone just before last cristmas? you get a new in gift to next since they where to lazy to fix the old…)

          dont have the Wii as it sucks and the games are shitty priced here but have the X360 and PS3 myself.
          dont know anyone that have gotten a repair on the X360 of people i know so i when i read about the fail rates here on SC i think it most be some “US ONLY” models that are realy realy bad…
          but that would not be first time US got the shitty hardware

          well, PS3 going to win the “war” sooner or later anyway dough…

        • Anonymous says:

          you’re claiming other people are bullshitting us with anonymous feedback but how can we trust you (anon) when you say you have all three.

          I can tell you right now that I have no doubt about those failure rates as I have friends(notice the plural usage of the word) who are on their third or fourth xboxes. I have all three as well and thankfully none of them have broke down but I have had my first xbox(not 360) suddenly emit smoke as I was starting a game and I can honestly say IMHO Microsoft has no issue with giving you the cheapest, shittiest, most volatile hardware they can and still have insurance that at least half of the sold units will survive through the duration of your warranty.

          PS3 on the other hand lost money on hardware costs. Shitty ports aside, PS3 has a hell of a lot more potential and more highly rated exclusives than 360(of course that’s the critics’ opinions but w/e). Everything else is multi-platform.

  • Anonymous says:

    wow who cares about graphic if its the exact same game, i own neither console or any for that matter but to base a game on looks is shallow. so shut of haters and enjoy the good gaming.

  • Anonymous says:

    actual difference:
    360 runs at 720p with 2xMSAA
    PS3 runs at 640p with Quincunx AA (makes edges somewhat blurry)

    Also, judging by the screens, it appears PS3 doesn’t have quite as much grass in some areas. Oh well, it doesn’t bother me much as long as the PS3 version runs well. I’m probably getting it anyways.

  • Anonymous says:

    it doesnt look like that big a difference to me at all. i mean the thing i’ll pay attention to the most is definetly how many blades of grass is in that patch over there… Both systems look good. you’d think people would complain about distinct gitches or something, not a fickle thing as a slight resolution. if shit gets blocky and starts going Goldeneye Get Down, then yeah

  • Anonymous says:

    meh, can someone point me towards any obvious differences in those pictures? I own both concoles so if I could actually see any difference I might be able to decide buying it on 360 instead of ps3.

  • I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing the great difference between the consoles! I read everyone saying “PS3 went cheap on their visuals” but I could not tell you what was different. I bet you if someone labeled the PS3 graphics as the x360’s and vice versa, no one would be the wiser. It’s all bunk.

  • Anonymous says:

    To all the people that think that gamma is the only real difference: look more closely. Try opening one of the sets of comparison images in separate tabs and switching back and forth, and you will see the differences much more easily. For instance, in the last two images, the storefronts on the 360 version have more detail, and the PS3 version is missing the cart next to the building (look between the group of 3 guys and the single guy with his back turned).

  • Anonymous says:

    As a test, I looked at all of the image sets without reading which was which, and I couldn’t see any difference at all. I still can’t even after knowing which one is supposed to look better.

    There have been legitimate cases of inferior versions on different consoles, but most of these claims are just fanboys making up crap to add fuel to the console flame wars.

  • Anonymous says:

    HAHAHAHAHA – So its BAYONETTA 360 vs PS3 all over again ^_^

    All these PS3 fanboys raging about how superior their system is…

    …more like all they do is point our the Wii and 360’s flaws in order to make their Sony Penis larger.

    The wii is a gamecube with stupid motion controls – which revolutionized gaming btw and let anyone play their games. OH and Sony is Making the PS3 MOVE wand that looks even more like a DILDO.

    The 360 fails a lot – well its also half the price of a PS3 and has more people on Xbox Live than PS3’s free network. OH and Ken Kutaragi wants to charge for PS3 Network soon =P LOL.

  • Anonymous says:

    When will people start getting this:
    CPU: Xbox360 PS3 (AA implementation is also faster on the former, thanks to eDRAM)

    Unless you include the Cell SPUs in the rendering process, most multi-platform games will look better on the 360.
    In most cases only games which are exclusive to PS3 or where the PS3 was the lead development platform will look better graphically on PS3 than on 360.

  • RaspberryKisses says:

    xbox = easy to code for. PS3 = hard to code for. And this is a result. PS3 have so much potential (power) ,but money, time and experience is needed to realize it’s potential. Sony should have gone with simpler CPU.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thing is, every PS2 port was inferior. The ps2 only pawned the market because of the games it had that the other’s didn’t.

        Thus, the Ace Combat, Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy, Tekken, Time Crisis and Virtua Fighter rages.

      • RaspberryKisses says:

        well play station brand was already widely known and it had a support of developers while xbox was newcomer and have very little good games and developers. For 7th generation Microsoft had gotten serious and now it’s serious rival of Sony. And it’s good because either companies can’t relax and slack off.

  • Anonymous says:

    Programmers a.k.a Laziest workers ever, if there is something they don’t like is being told that they’re doing it wrong and it’s not what we asked for or wanted. Hate working with programmers >_<

  • this is not surprising at all. most american devs hate the ps3 for some reason. only ones that had the balls to actually show wat the ps3 can do is naughty dog. other devs just raise their middle fingers in the air at sony. it could racism, countries pride, or just laziness….who knows.

    ex. big budget game, mw2

    • Anonymous says:

      Because Sony as a company is Notorious for treating Game developers like crap and unlike in the Japanese market where Sony is big shit. Nintendo and Microsoft could easily squeeze Sony out of the market in America. If you don’t believe me then you should look up why Crash Bandicoot the Playstation Mascot went from the PS exclusive to Multi Console.
      Plus with the whole PS3 Legal Issues about the Linux feature being removed it makes one wonder if Sony would be a viable Game Console Company later on. So it’s understandable for Game developers to start distancing themselves from Sony a bit just to protect from any potential backlashes they may happen if Sony Console Division goes under like a lead weight like Sega’s did.

    • I was going to wait for the PC version… However Rockstar recently said they have “no plans” for one. It seems likely one will be eventually released, but that could be a year later (and you would look a fool waiting for it if didn’t come).

      My imported PS3 version is in the post.

      And they wonder why PC ports have low sales…

      • Anonymous says:

        It doesn’t help that most of their PC versions tend to have massive game breaking bugs on release, as well has horrendous frame rates on systems that should be running circles around the game otherwise.

        Companies lately seem to think it’s cool to just drop a beta quality product as release on the PC because “they can patch it later” and then wonder why people mainly buy the console version instead where it usually “just works”. Key word there being usually. These games are just getting too big for the lazy companies and impatient investors making them these days.

      • Anonymous says:

        Bluray means nothing but more space and lower access speeds. It doesn’t improve graphics, it doesn’t actually do much at all.

        Some games, like God of War 3, eliminate load times by simply copying the code redundantly throughout the entire disc, thus needing the entire disc to store a game that should, theoretically only require a third of it. But the bluray read speed is so damn slow that its the only way to keep read times down. That or installs. Though if you’re installing things you’ve instantly removed the advantage bluray has over DVD9, so it doesn’t matter.

        • Anonymous says:

          exactly anon 18:54…different class of laser altogether for blu(its in the name, though its more of a violet laser). the previous class of optical tech was a red color if you ever happened to look in a top loading disc player like the old cd players or maybe a dreamcast. With higher capacities you need to have faster reads otherwise your videos will take forever at the bitrate of something like a bluray movie

        • Anonymous says:

          lolwat. Bluray spins slower, yes. *But reads more per spin*. You can not equate RPMs to read speed like you could CD to CD, or DVD to DVD. Think of the switch from CD to DVD for instance. We went from more often then not 40x with a CD down to more like 16x with DVD drives *AND YET STILL IT READ MORE DATA PER SECOND*. Different technology, bro. Functions different.

    • RakkaKaze says:

      You mean Disgaea 1 ~<3

      Also, 360 is notorious for making things that shouldn't shine… shine…

      Such as the edge of worn, old, wood. Why the hell is only the edges of it shiny?!

      • Don’t you mean makai kingdom? =D

        still I agree with both you and dash… Unessesary shinyness is a bit rediculous…
        And the level of difficulty of games has been in decline…

        This is why I find myself accualy using my ps2 more than my ps3, 360, and back up-gamecube (wii)…where when I accually beat a game 100%, it’s because I want to and not for stupid achievements/trophies…

    • We are on an age of gaming where people thinks that, if a game doesnt has infinite continues that spawn u in the same spot where u died, its a hard game, and that graphics are more important than gameplay.

      Miss old times with games with 2d graphics but 3d movement 🙁

    • Anonymous says:

      Well, the PS3 grass looks like it was drawn by a N64, but otherwise the differences are very very minor. I don’t think you will notice when you’re actually playing the game.

    • Ghost Dog says:

      I’m not surprised. This tends to happen when the developers make the game on the 360 first. The way their schedules run, they end up putting the ports together very quickly to make their deadlines. This is why I prefer PS3 exclusives.

    • Anonymous says:

      brb going on photoshop. I love the 360

      *Takes the same image from 360, adds a 5-10% blur*


      Just to warn you, you all got MASSIVELY TROLLED.

      Going to actually buy the game soon looks good, but please don’t believe everything you see. These type of blur effects take just seconds in photoshop.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, the ps3 version is much inferior to the x360 one. But this doesn’t ruin your experience on playing the game. I haven’t played the game yet, but I think unless there are some bugs the experience it’s the same on both consoles. If there weren’t these comparisons you wouldn’t have noticed those differences anyway.
      I’ll probably stick with the x360 version since I have both consoles, but if I only had a ps3 this wouldn’t have taken me away from buying the game.

        • Anonymous says:

          Well I believe, that it might be somewhat flaming to point out that the PS3 has been rushed out because of the xbox360. Sony is well aware that the PS2 will not win the Xbox once the 360 comes out. Therefore the PS3. The PS3 is clearly a console that is not for its era. One Specs, two programing logic, three cost. It is clearly made for the this very generation. Now.

          The Xbox360 is dated.

        • Anonymous says:

          It works minimally as a tie-breaker.

          You have to keep in mind the hardware you’re utilising, with the higher rate of self-destruction of the 360, if it’s multiplatform and that the difference isn’t so incredibly high that it would detract from your gaming experience, then get it on the more reliable platform.

          If there’s game breaking glitches, hiccups, actual gameplay differences, then get the one that was properly done.

          And that’s if you’ve got both a 360 and PS3. And this isn’t a matter of “Get a job”. Some people do, but they simply don’t have the extra cash for another console at the moment.

          In short. Yes Anon 12:51, you’re being a graphic whore. A very discreet graphic whore who doesn’t pass off as one, but you are a grahic whore.

        • Anonymous says:

          yeah, sure – I remember myself flaming 360 users when heavy rain came, I flamed HARD, oh so hard. Right guys?

          jeez don’t lump me together with raging nerds that bother caring in the first place. It works in a tie-breaker, and for anyone to not see this in the exact thing it is displaying (lazy development) then so be it. Take your discussion to some other playground.

        • Anonymous says:

          People always say this, but as soon as some game comes out for the PS3 promising 4D graphics ,*cough* Heavy Rain *cough*, they always proclaim how inferior the 360 and all it’s games are.

          Both consoles are evenly matched except that the 360 is easier to program for. Best thing to do is, if you’re a PS3 fantard, is to hope that devs learn how to program for this processor before the PS4 comes out because Sony, so far, is not going to change to something better and easier. If they don’t, you’ll see the fall of the Playstation and that would be sad.

        • Anonymous says:

          No uuuuu.

          It’s not as if graphics matter much, but if the gameplay between them is the same, why not buy the one with better graphics? Graphics don’t matter much, but they do help in a tiebreaker.

      • Anonymous says:

        do you even know what you are talking about?

        The issue is that DX9 is better than OpenGL2.0 only OpenGL 3.0 overshadowed DX9. And PS3 uses OpenGL ES 1.0 (the lightweight embedded systems opengl for phones, which is managed by an non profit organization the Khronos Group, Inc.)

        DX9 != OpenGL. They function differently.

        Most video game programmers are DX programmers not GL programmers.

        So for the most part they recreate the features of DX9 and attempt to make the graphcis look as good but does not always end up that way.

        DX9 is a desktop computer rendering library.
        OpenGL ES 1.0 is OpenGL 1.0’s slower cousin and OpenGL 1.0 was released January, 1992.

        So before you raise your console war banner “Think for one F’ing Second” Just like the great Christian Bale said.

        • Anonymous says:

          No matter what they use, PS3 has proven in multiple instances, that if the coders know what they are doing, they can rip anything out from PS3, unlike the Xbox360. Think Final Fantasy XIII, Uncharted 2 and so on.. platform enables everything, but if the makers aren’t interested in making a great game..

      • Anonymous says:

        its using the same engine that was used on gta4 which had these same resolution and problems either way i dont care ps3 still gets agent

        not to mention that the ps3 has already shown it can handle alot more complex games than this so i can say its not the hardware but developers game engine and coding