Frustrating, because I’d love to play it, but I’m not about to buy a whole new gaming system to do so. :(.
From what I heard, the codebase was so messy they probably did not want to bother with it.
And what a shame it is. I replayed first few hours just couple days ago…it has stunning atmosphere and it is Rockstar’s best game, despite the not so great Mexico part. Of course, playing the blurry 640p 25fps PS3 version just makes me pissed I cannot enjoy it on PC it deserves.
So the 360 version is better than the PS3? I held off buying either to wait for a PC version, despite zero news or rumors about it.
PS3 version is awesome. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Worked perfectly for me and my friend AND the multiplayer part is free.
Let’s talk image quality. It will come as no surprise to anyone to discover that the basic make-up of the framebuffer in both PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Red Dead Redemption is essentially identical to what we’ve seen in GTA IV and its episodic offshoots.
This entails a full 720p resolution on Xbox 360 along with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. PlayStation 3 on the other hand renders at a significantly lower resolution: 1152x640, with a very selective implementation of the blur-inducing quincunx anti-aliasing.
Quincunx anti-aliasing and sub-HD resolutions are rarely attractive bedfellows, but in direct comparison with Xbox 360, it transpired that GTA IV had something of an individual look about it. Blurred? Yes. Unattractive? Not really; certainly not in comparison to the 360 build. This was in part owing to a strange dithering effect applied to the textures on Xbox 360 only, which stippled some artwork and applied an odd watercolour-effect to the screen.
In Red Dead Redemption, this effect is gone or at least massively reduced, meaning that the gulf in picture quality between the two versions is more readily pronounced. There’s no doubt about it: just in terms of the basic aspects of the image, there’s little doubt that the 360 version presents more resolution and more detail, and this is rather more important than it would be in many other games.
but in terms of general gameplay during the all-important missions, where we have a range of characters in play, we see that the Xbox 360 sticks pretty well to the 30FPS target frame-rate, while the PS3 can fall short.
Despite already compromising in terms of resolution and frame-rate, it’s clear Rockstar had to cut and pare back the PS3 version of the game still further in order to maintain performance.
If I had to choose between buying on of the 2 console versions, it would be on 360, no doubt about it. But either way, it’s a game worth trying if you get the chance. The setting is great.
Polygon has a neat article recent where they go looking for the voice actor who played John Marston. Spoiler: Fiction and real life were somewhat parallel.
It is worth picking it up cheap with a refurb OG 360, should be able to grab the system + game for under $70.
EDIT: cheapest I can find a 360 online right now is $84, I would suggest waiting, watching cowboom, or checking CL
That’s a neat article. Thanks for linking it.
Yeah, thanks for that link Enidigm. Great read.
Red Dead Redemption is one of the rare pieces of media where I’d like to sit down with an expert and analyze many of the scenes in the game. Why is there an extended piece of silence in this scene? Is it a homage to some Western? Is it just to create extra tension? In this scene was I supposed to distrust the person delivering that line completely, even though it turned out later that he was telling the truth? Did they create this eerie music in this particular mission specifically for this moment or was it just a happy coincidence? What did the bad guy mean with this line and that other particular comment? What was he talking about? Was he just being mysterious? Why does thinking back on that scene give me the fucking creeps even now? Was that another happy accident?
The game is just full of these awkward and mysterious silences and beats in the 3rd act that are either complete genius or just complete blind luck. But they are so effective, and different, and brilliant.
Oh great, now I’ll never be able to play RDR knowing that the PS3 version is inferior. Thanks Obama!
This sounds like it would make a great thread - like one of those Cinema Interruptus screenings Roger Ebert would do where he (and the audience) would just dig into a movie shot by shot.
I also think this is Rockstar’s best game, by far. It definitely should have been ported to the PC and, more importantly, needs a sequel. Or, prequel. Or, just something set in the same era by the same folks.
Is Rockstar San Diego still around? They did Midnight Club LA and then Red Dead Redemption, and then… what? An unannounced game that they’re working on? Or did I miss an announcement somewhere? I hope they’re still around. Both of those games were superb.
Well technically it was a sequel to Red Dead Revolver but I’m not sure if that was developed by the same studio. I always wanted to take a look at the first game but never did.
Same studio, but largely different people.
Actually after reading the actual article, it seems like there’s really not much between the two. The performance is generally comparable and I honestly could not distinguish a difference in graphical quality while watching the side by side video. The 360 has a bit more foilage in outdoor areas but the PS3 as some lighting effects that is missing on the 360. So not really a big difference and probably what will happen this generation as well except perhaps with the roles of Xbox and PS reversed. Since it’s getting such good feedback on here I might actually pick it up used if I can find it cheap enough somewhere.
I think RDR is my own little Deus Ex in that every time one of these threads comes up I get the strong urge to replay it.
What I like about that Polygon story is that Rockstar didn’t just pick someone from the usual talent pool or they didn’t resort to the usual Bethesda schtick of celebrity stunt casting. It seems like they threw out a wide casting net and went with the best man for the job. They did the same thing with the guy who played Nikko in GTA4. That’s one the best-case scenarios for how Rockstar’s games feel unique. I love what professional voice actors can do, but in the end, I’d much rather have a Rob Weithoff or Ellen McClain (GlaDOS) help create a role rather than a Troy Baker or Jennifer Hale inhabit it.
It also speaks volumes about the Red Dead Redemption story that it was a confused ongoing process that took a few years to fall into place. It shows. Plus, you can’t really afford that kind of timeline when you’re using established voice actors, and you certainly can’t do it when you’re using celebrities. It makes me wonder if GTA4 and Red Dead Redemption where non-union projects. I don’t really know how SAG and AFTRA work with voiceover talent, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Rockstar somehow made sure to finagle non-union status and therefore more lenient rules for pay and scheduling.
I wonder in what order RDR was shot/made? The Mexico piece feels out of synch with the rest of the story, enough that I wonder if they made that part first, then the rest later.
The first and third act definitely have a coherency and a continuity that’s completely lacking in the Mexican portion. That would make sense if the early stuff they made before they had a handle on John’s character was all put into the Mexican section.