Has anyone noticed graphical problems on RDR? (ps3 version)

Hey, i just want some honest opinions on the graphics of RDR. Ive heard that the ps3 version is inferior and i just want to know if there are

1. blurry textures

2. flat textures

3. things popping in the screen, and tearing in the screen

stuff like that. any input would be appreciated, thank you.

Everything seems fine for me, after playing for over 3 hours.

Only issue I have noticed is a little bit of pop-in in distant objects, but no more than, maybe even less than GTAIV. But this is to be expected with the RAM limitations on these consoles.

Overall, the game is absolutely gorgeous and looks fantastic.

I havnt really noticed anything to crazy, a little pop in like the above guy said. \

Im not really one of those people who really actively looks for things like this though.

is it blurry or smooth

is it blurry or smooth

i've been hearing talks about the PS3 version is rendered in "sub-HD".... is that true?

i've been hearing talks about the PS3 version is rendered in "sub-HD".... is that true?

Jinroh_basic

I have noticed what seems to be a sub-hd blur cast over the screen as if the game wasnt using all my tvs power...in comparison i play just cause 2(pc version) on the same tv and the crispness is mindblowing.feels like 1080p on my 720 bravia.Anyways i was able to set my tv to a cinema setting which warmed the brightness and enriched the color 10xfold.Now the game atleast looks playable but there is a definite stinch of non optimization.I dismissed all the topics of people complaining about rdr not being on pc but now i understand.The game itself is a masterpiece tho and with a some playing around with setting it can look near picture perfect but its not set good out of the box.

Sorry but real gamers play gameplay not graphics.8)

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

i've been hearing talks about the PS3 version is rendered in "sub-HD".... is that true?

MethodManFTW

so it's true then? i'm sorry but...... it's a pretty major gimp no matter how i see it. it's not just about the graphic quality, which as you said is probably a minute difference. it's more about respect. our system has better hardware and we pay just as much for the game..... it irks me that we have to suffer substandard product for no reason at all.

[QUOTE="MethodManFTW"][QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

i've been hearing talks about the PS3 version is rendered in "sub-HD".... is that true?

Jinroh_basic

so it's true then? i'm sorry but...... it's a pretty major gimp no matter how i see it. it's not just about the graphic quality, which as you said is probably a minute difference. it's more about respect. our system has better hardware and we pay just as much for the game..... it irks me that we have to suffer substandard product for no reason at all.

oh well. i doubt you will notice any difference at all.

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

[QUOTE="MethodManFTW"] technically. ps3 versions native resolution is 640p and the 360's is 720p... to normal people i would assume they look virtually the same.GramDubs

so it's true then? i'm sorry but...... it's a pretty major gimp no matter how i see it. it's not just about the graphic quality, which as you said is probably a minute difference. it's more about respect. our system has better hardware and we pay just as much for the game..... it irks me that we have to suffer substandard product for no reason at all.

oh well. i doubt you will notice any difference at all.

no mate, it's not about that. first lemme get this outta the way - i'm not trying to dissuade people from getting/enjoying this game. it's your hobby and your money, not mine. but to me, this is very irritating. did you pay less? nope. is your system inferior? superior, in fact. so why do we have to settle for second best for no reason at all? while gameplay means alot in this hobby, there's something else that means even more to me personally. it's called respect, which i expect to receive fully when i deserve it. as it is, it's unlikely that i will get this game. :(

[QUOTE="GramDubs"]

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

so it's true then? i'm sorry but...... it's a pretty major gimp no matter how i see it. it's not just about the graphic quality, which as you said is probably a minute difference. it's more about respect. our system has better hardware and we pay just as much for the game..... it irks me that we have to suffer substandard product for no reason at all.

Jinroh_basic

oh well. i doubt you will notice any difference at all.

no mate, it's not about that. first lemme get this outta the way - i'm not trying to dissuade people from getting/enjoying this game. it's your hobby and your money, not mine. but to me, this is very irritating. did you pay less? nope. is your system inferior? superior, in fact. so why do we have to settle for second best for no reason at all? while gameplay means alot in this hobby, there's something else that means even more to me personally. it's called respect, which i expect to receive fully when i deserve it. as it is, it's unlikely that i will get this game. :(

if you dont get the game your just going to cheat yourself from a great experience. and many many reviewers have said that they dont notice a difference between the 2 versions. in fact some have said that the ps3 version looks more realistic, and less hand drawn. im going to send you some videos of it.

[QUOTE="MethodManFTW"][QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

i've been hearing talks about the PS3 version is rendered in "sub-HD".... is that true?

Jinroh_basic

so it's true then? i'm sorry but...... it's a pretty major gimp no matter how i see it. it's not just about the graphic quality, which as you said is probably a minute difference. it's more about respect. our system has better hardware and we pay just as much for the game..... it irks me that we have to suffer substandard product for no reason at all.

good lord you folks need to chill out big time....(the complainers) RDR is a superb game...dont sell yourselfs short over nothing....the game has breathtaking visuals. no matter what console....good lord...

To the TC...no visual problems for me here.

Only thing I've noticed is pop-up objects and textures, but it's completely fine.

good lord you folks need to chill out big time....(the complainers) RDR is a superb game...dont sell yourselfs short over nothing....the game has breathtaking visuals. no matter what console....good lord...

To the TC...no visual problems for me here.

hawk549

You only really notice these things if your going to compare them in the first place. Why does it matter that theres a few blurry textures? The game looks amazing on the PS3. That is all that matters really.

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

[QUOTE="MethodManFTW"] technically. ps3 versions native resolution is 640p and the 360's is 720p... to normal people i would assume they look virtually the same.CleanNJerk

so it's true then? i'm sorry but...... it's a pretty major gimp no matter how i see it. it's not just about the graphic quality, which as you said is probably a minute difference. it's more about respect. our system has better hardware and we pay just as much for the game..... it irks me that we have to suffer substandard product for no reason at all.

nope dont worry game runs fine

You're not the only one who thinks this way. I'm sick of developers making Xbox 360 versions of games superior. Almost every multiplat out there is in some way superior on the 360. If it's developed on the 360 and then ported to PS3 it's somewhat understandable, since most developers are lazy asses. But if a game is built from scratch on both consoles like RDR there is absolutely no excuse to gimp the PS3 version. It's ridiculous.

For what I've read, I'm not probably picking this game, at least until it gets reeeeeaaaally cheap :P

I'm still catching up with some PS3 exclusives and by the looks of it, I'm not planning to pick up too many multiplats since devs aren't exploiting the most pwerfull console of this gen.

BTW, this rumor I've read that most multi plats only use the main PS3 core, is this also one of those cases?

so then 360 has better graphics than ps3? like on a whole. Oh well, i only have ps3 so i'll get it for that. i know some people who have modded 360's and will get their copy either for free or about 5 bucksBow-T_88

no the ps3 has better graphics then 360, just games like this are easier to develop on DVD's instead of blu rays, therefore they are made on the 360 and then ported onto a blu ray, this isnt true with all multiplats, like FF13, and RE5 to name a few. i have seen footage of both versions and dont see much difference, oh well

It looks great I haven't noticed anything wrong so far.

So it's true then? i'm sorry but...... it's a pretty major gimp no matter how i see it. it's not just about the graphic quality, which as you said is probably a minute difference. it's more about respect. our system has better hardware and we pay just as much for the game..... it irks me that we have to suffer substandard product for no reason at all.

Jinroh_basic

It's pretty damned ridiculous - 5 years and 100 million dollars and they can't make the game in high-def. Yet other developers do it all the time with far less money and time.

I'm quite happy to wait until it goes on sale. Probably a pretty big sale.

No, its fine

Played for 5 hours, game looks dandy to me

[QUOTE="Bow-T_88"]so then 360 has better graphics than ps3? like on a whole. Oh well, i only have ps3 so i'll get it for that. i know some people who have modded 360's and will get their copy either for free or about 5 bucksGramDubs

no the ps3 has better graphics then 360, just games like this are easier to develop on DVD's instead of blu rays, therefore they are made on the 360 and then ported onto a blu ray, this isnt true with all multiplats, like FF13, and RE5 to name a few. i have seen footage of both versions and dont see much difference, oh well

Ive noticed all kinds of artifacts and a crazy amount of aliasing. All that is forgiveable though, its the framerate that has a hard time staying above 20 fps that really bugs me. What is the excuse for this on a closed platform, do they not test these games at rockstar?

So is the framerate good or not good? that's my only question.:D

[QUOTE="GramDubs"]

[QUOTE="Bow-T_88"]so then 360 has better graphics than ps3? like on a whole. Oh well, i only have ps3 so i'll get it for that. i know some people who have modded 360's and will get their copy either for free or about 5 bucks-Unreal-

no the ps3 has better graphics then 360, just games like this are easier to develop on DVD's instead of blu rays, therefore they are made on the 360 and then ported onto a blu ray, this isnt true with all multiplats, like FF13, and RE5 to name a few. i have seen footage of both versions and dont see much difference, oh well

So is the framerate good or not good? that's my only question.:D

X-Jlagerwaard-X

Rockstar surely makes great games, but they completely fail when working on ps3 games, they develop for 360 and that's a fact, they have always done it. I don't own gta IV and will wait to purchase read dead. I was thrilled about this game but someway i agree with the OP. It's a matter of respect. Playstation 3 has a lot of power and capacity, more than the 360, and games like uncharted 2, god of war 3, metal gear solid 4, final fantasy 13, infamous and killzone 2 shows it pretty clear, no 360 games can achieve a graphic like that.

Sad but true, rockstar games will always look better on the 360, it's not a matter of power, rockstar's developers just focus more on the 360 version. period.

But for istance, final fantasy 13 looked worse on 360 (almost in the same way as red dead does on ps3) but 360 owners still bought the game, and I think this makes sense, it won't be a slightly more blurred texture to ruin my gaming experience, sure, I will still stick to ps3 exclusives first, before buying read dead.

sad sad story dude.

[QUOTE="X-Jlagerwaard-X"]

So is the framerate good or not good? that's my only question.:D

TerrorRizzing

I have had no issues with the framerate. I do see some popping textures and I can where some of the game is a bit blurry and not as sharp but overall the game has no issues graphically that make playing it on the PS3 any less of an experience.

My goodness there are a lot of whiners on this thread. I can say RDR looks excellent on my TV (even when set to 1080p), it runs smooth (definitely more than "20 fps") and I see only minor graphical pop-in. You will see the pop-in on the 360 version to, you guys realize this right?

Yesterday my sister stopped by while I was riding the horse around and the first thing she said was "Damn, I thought you were watching a movie!".

+1 for blowing everything out of proportion.