Eurogamer: 360 > PS3 GTA4

kdd · 9 May 2008 at 11:15

mmj_uk said:
Both are extremely poor, PC version is where it's at.

The non existent pc version.

Overall GTA4 is a decent enough game, it's the same price as any ps3 or 360 game ultimately and probably better than most. Buy or don't buy.

Margaret · 9 May 2008 at 11:20

Inoshishi said:
Not going to disagree, but take into account the price of the parts you will need in order to get this running as well as it does on 360/PS3, I'm betting it will be more expensive than a 360/PS3. And your getting it on consoles 6 months earlier.

To be honest a 8800GS which costs around £70 could probably do this game more justice than 360/PS3 could, you can also build a computer with said graphics card for about £350 now. (higher price, but bear in mind it's not just for games)

Before anybody says "But the PS3 has Blu-Ray too" well, it only costs £70 to get a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD combo drive for the PC now, so it'll only bump the price up a little bit.

Dutch Guy said:
Exactly what I meant, so there is a difference in 360 hardware that causes one setup to stutter more than another setup, maybe this is also an issue with older 60GB PS3's compared to newer 40GB PS3's ???

They use the same drives don't they?

I seriously doubt it.

Inoshishi · 9 May 2008 at 11:54

Jihad said:
To be honest a 8800GS which costs around £70 could probably do this game more justice than 360/PS3 could, you can also build a computer with said graphics card for about £350 now. (higher price, but bear in mind it's not just for games)

The problem with that is, we don't yet know how it's going to run on the PC, I remember when RB6Vegas first arrived, on the PC it was awful and on PS3 it was superb, PC had a terrible framerate even with decent kit at the time, go back and play it with todays kit though and its miles better.

Look at the Minimum Requirements for Assassin's Creed, it will cost more than £350 if its anything like those

Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)

RAM: 2 GB (3 GB recommended)

Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (512 MB video card recommended)

Things change I've changed · 9 May 2008 at 11:56

" (360) 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.

As it is then, both versions of the game have their strengths and weakness. Ask anyone which look they prefer when presented with co2mparison shots and you'll find that opinion is divided pretty much straight down the middle"

Yep.

"As it is then, it comes down to personal preference"

As a PS3 owner I've been saying the above on here for the last few weeks now, thankyou Eurogamer for a fair and honest comparison.

Margaret · 9 May 2008 at 11:56

Inoshishi said:
The problem with that is, we don't yet know how it's going to run on the PC, I remember when RB6Vegas first arrived, on the PC it was awful and on PS3 it was superb, PC had a terrible framerate even with decent kit at the time, go back and play it with todays kit though and its miles better.

Look at the Minimum Requirements for Assassin's Creed, it will cost more than £350 if its anything like those

Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)

RAM: 2 GB (3 GB recommended)

Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (512 MB video card recommended)

Them requirements are really not that high, the cost of them components is very low now.

Also, Vegas on PC was poor because the game was a **** port, one of the worst, not because of hardware.

For example, it ran better on my 7900GTO than it did on my 8800GTX.

Inoshishi · 9 May 2008 at 11:58

Jihad said:
Them requirements are really not that high, the cost of them components is very low now.

Yes but they are the bare minimum, so its not really going to be too great on those specs.

Anyway we really don't know until the PC version is released, I'm sure the PC version will be the best version, I played all previous GTA's on PC (except for SA) and they were fantastic.

RE Vegas 2: Yep I know it was a crappy port, thats why I mentioned it, Rockstar could do the same with GTA4 just port it over as fast and easily as possible, I can see it happening too because they are busy working on the DLC for 360.

Surfer · 9 May 2008 at 12:00

Well finally. i think this puts to rest the myth that there are untapped depths to what the cell can do...and that 2nd gen games on the ps3 would show the cell's superiority over the 360. Fact is the 360 delivers better graphical performance in games than the ps3.

Margaret · 9 May 2008 at 12:01

Inoshishi said:
Yes but they are the bare minimum, so its not really going to be too great on those specs.

Creed runs fine on 2Gb of Ram, I run the game on a 1.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo (running my CPU at stock atm) and an 8800GT (Which now costs £111, 8800GS costs half that and is still a good card)

I run the game at 1920x1080 well with my PC and mine aren't even that far above the minimum, my processor is actually under the recommended requirements.

Inoshishi · 9 May 2008 at 12:02

Surfer said:
Fact is the 360 delivers better graphical performance in games than the ps3.

If that's the case then why have I not seen a graphically better game than Uncharted on the 360?

Overall Uncharted is the best looking game I have seen on any console to date.

Margaret · 9 May 2008 at 12:03

http://i28.tinypic.com/24cbq4k.jpg

I built that machine as a mock up ages ago (no idea why it is still in my basket actually) and that'll run Assassins Creed great.

Bear in mind OCUK isn't the cheapest all the time and you can probably get better deals on the OCUK site now, I made that build months ago.

PC's really aren't that expensive at the moment.

Edit: To back up my reasoning that 2Gb is more than enough for Creed you can check the setup they used here for testing the games performance; http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ5MywyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Dutch Guy · 9 May 2008 at 12:03

Surfer said:
Fact is the 360 delivers better graphical performance in games than the ps3 in games that have been designed to run on both consoles

Edited

Inoshishi · 9 May 2008 at 12:05

Jihad said:
http://i28.tinypic.com/24cbq4k.jpg

I built that machine as a mock up ages ago (no idea why it is still in my basket actually) and that'll run Assassins Creed great.

Bear in mind OCUK isn't the cheapest all the time and you can probably get better deals on the OCUK site now, I made that build months ago.

PC's really aren't that expensive at the moment.

Thats fair enough then matey, I get all my PC Components for free so don't keep up with the prices.

Margaret · 9 May 2008 at 12:06

Inoshishi said:
Thats fair enough then matey, I get all my PC Components for free so don't keep up with the prices.

Surfer · 9 May 2008 at 12:08

Inoshishi said:
If that's the case then why have I not seen a graphically better game than Uncharted on the 360?

Overall Uncharted is the best looking game I have seen on any console to date.

Should naughty dog decide to bring the game to the 360 i think they would easily be able to match the ps3 version on graphics.

No use fighting about this anymore....in the majority of cross-platform titles the 360 comes ahead. GTAIV was the big one. I mean if anyone can get the best out of the ps3 its surely Rockstar? And if they couldnt do it (match the 360s performance level) then its clear that technically the 360 is better.

yep its humble pie time i'm afraid.... dont bother me that much because my ps3 has bluray capabilities as well and the graphical difference in games is not enough imo to make it a BIG deal.

Whats the next big cross-platform game coming out on both ps3/360 ?

Things change I've changed · 9 May 2008 at 12:10

Surfer said:
Fact is the 360 delivers better graphical performance in games than the ps3.

oh please, we've already done this debate to death, when the PS3's hardware is utilised properly then it matches or betters the 360, burnout paradise for example ?, had slightly better textures and better AF, Dirt, one of the only Multi-platform games to have the lead development on the PS3 and it actually ended up being the better version because of it, anyway I've already explained this here,

lowrider007 said:
Pretty much every game that has been released as multi-platform has had the lead development on the 360 and then ported across to the PS3, usually with no real optimisations done to the code, there are a few exceptions to the rule like COD4, Burnout Paradise for example, but then these titles were pretty much identical on both systems which are prime examples that the PS3 can do just as well when optimised properly.

But with that said, I'm not saying Sony are not to blame in this respect because I know from listening to many pod-casts from different developers that Sony this time round were really dragging their heals when it came to working with developers and even issuing them with a ps3 development kit, many had their hands on the Microsoft's development kit a good year earlier, thats one of the reasons why I say the year lead helped,

Microsoft jumped in early this time around and struck up healthy relations with many big publishers/developers and it's paid off so far but I still believe that Sony can turn it around, well, maybe not turn it around, level the playing field at least, they've already halved the cost of the PS3 development kit back in 07 as an incentive for developers but we won't see the effect of that for a while yet.

Also don't forget about the PhyreEngine that Sony was pimping out at GDC this year, (the same engine that Dirt was developed on), A completely free multi-platform engine from SCE that is apparently very easy to develop on, more information here http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/21/gdc08-phyreengine-sonys-new-free-cross-platform-engine/.

Inoshishi · 9 May 2008 at 12:12

Surfer said:
Should naughty dog decide to bring the game to the 360 i think they would easily be able to match the ps3 version on graphics.

No use fighting about this anymore....in the majority of cross-platform titles the 360 comes ahead. GTAIV was the big one. I mean if anyone can get the best out of the ps3 its surely Rockstar? And if they couldnt do it (match the 360s performance level) then its clear that technically the 360 is better.

yep its humble pie time i'm afraid.... dont bother me that much because my ps3 has bluray capabilities as well and the graphical difference in games is not enough imo to make it a BIG deal.

You make it sound like the PS3 version of GTA4 is absolutely awful? There is basically no difference between the two, and 90% of reviews are saying the PS3 version is better, so either all those reviewers are wrong or your wrong.

Have you actually played both versions? I have and being honest there is no real difference between the two, nothing worth arguing over anyway.

MikeHunt79 · 9 May 2008 at 12:12

Roll on PC version :cool:

Margaret · 9 May 2008 at 12:12

lowrider007 said:
oh please, we've already done this debate to death, when the PS3's hardware is utilised properly then it matches or betters the 360, burnout paradise for example ?, had slightly better textures and better AF, Dirt, one of the only Multi-platform games to have the lead development on the PS3 and it actually ended up being the better version because it, anyway I've already explained this here,

Not really great examples though.

Burnout was the lead on PS3 so a port and Dirt came out months later after the 360 version so it had additional development time. (Which I believe Codemasters publicly stated they used to work on the PS3 version some more)

I don't think it's very fair to compare ports directly, if GTA IV was built from the ground up on both consoles then that's one of the more fairer comparisons, I don't really know whether it was lead on PS3 or 360 or indeed built up for both separate.

Inoshishi said:
You make it sound like the PS3 version of GTA4 is absolutely awful? There is basically no difference between the two, and 90% of reviews are saying the PS3 version is better, so either all those reviewers are wrong or your wrong.

Have you actually played both versions? I have and being honest there is no real difference between the two, nothing worth arguing over anyway.

I really do think the reviewers are wrong in this case, graphically and performance wise the 360 does have the edge even though it's pretty small, however it does have more pop-in and increased loading times (though I still prefer the colours on the Playstation 3)

I definitely noticed the framerate difference between the two though, that's one thing that really stood out for me.

Macro · 9 May 2008 at 12:15

Inoshishi said:
There is basically no difference between the two, and 90% of reviews are saying the PS3 version is better, so either all those reviewers are wrong or your wrong.

Clearly that's not true unless the only reviews you've read are on PS3 sites and magazines...

wannabedamned · 9 May 2008 at 12:16

Inoshishi said:
Have you actually played both versions? I have and being honest there is no real difference between the two, nothing worth arguing over anyway.

I also have, and it's true. No difference between them that's so harsh it makes one version terrible. To be honest, I'm pretty sure if i saw the game running on a screen, I'd only beable to tell the difference between them due to vivid colour on the 360 one.

Nothing else atall.