Red Dead Redemption Thread

Robert1986 said:
Its just Rockstar being lazy with the PS3 version.

Technically, the PS3 is much more capable at displaying better graphics than the other consoles.
Click to expand...

Presume you mean the 360 is the lead console, how can they be lazy, I am clueless in what goes into to make the same game but on 2 formats.

Shamikebab said:
Don't let us go down that road...
Click to expand...

I am not, just curious.
 
It's a certain type of laziness, I guess. More "the game needs to be out by this date". The PS3 is much harder to code for, but is certainly very capable (FFXIII/U2); but R* would have spent so much time producing the game's content, that there wasn't much left to optimise the title for the PS3. They appear to have just got it playable - like GTA4.

It's a shame because it's not like the PS3 is incapable; if R* had all the time in world to tweak and optimise RDR it could run identical or perhaps even look and run better than the 360 version. But time is money.

Gone the way of GTA4, I'm afraid: sub-HD and no AA. Rockstar don't care, though, us pre-release scrutinisers are probably not even 1% of the people who will buy this game.
 
That's not being "lazy" though. I hate it when the average gamer calls devs "lazy". Both versions will be optimised as best they can be given the time and budgetary constraints placed by the publisher.

I assure you any dev who crunches 12 hour days for months is not "lazy"
 
Last edited:
cheets64 said:
what happened to BLU RAY AND ITS POWER
Click to expand...

FF13.

ahem, back on topic.

sean said:
That's not being "lazy" though. I hate it when the average gamer calls devs "lazy". Both versions will be optimised as best they can be given the time and budgetary constraints placed by the publisher.

I assure you any dev who crunches 12 hour days for months is not "lazy"
Click to expand...

saying they're lazy doesn't mean they sit around all day munching on donuts. Plenty of devs have managed to make games for the PS3 just fine.

Are you saying devs aren't lazy when it comes to porting games to the PC? GTA4 on the PC was a joke at launch.
 
Last edited:
Robert1986 said:
Are you saying devs aren't lazy when it comes to porting games to the PC? GTA4 on the PC was a joke at launch.
Click to expand...
Of all the things I'd call the team which ported GTA IV to the PC, "lazy" wouldn't be at the top of the list.

I see where you're coming from but to suggest laziness on the PS3 version is rather unfair given that it's known to be trickier and more time consuming to code for. Its memory is also split 50/50 between RAM and VRAM which, for a massive sandbox game, has got to be a massive PITA to work around.
 
sean said:
That's not being "lazy" though. I hate it when the average gamer calls devs "lazy". Both versions will be optimised as best they can be given the time and budgetary constraints placed by the publisher.

I assure you any dev who crunches 12 hour days for months is not "lazy"
Click to expand...

I was just going to post this. The fact is, PS3 only shines for exclusive games as the devs can dedicate all their time to optimising for the one console.

The performance of Red Dead Redemption appears to be an improvement over GTAIV on PS3; the framerate is much better regardless of resolution/AA.
 
Last edited:
Let's make one thing clear, I was not insulting Rockstar.

I know it is harder to make games for the PS3, it's just a pity that the consoles superior power is wasted due to the lengthy process of developing games for it, compared to that of the 360.

There are still no concrete comparisons out yet, and the differences don't seem to be huge, due to the nit-picking that is going on :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom