I love how most of us have no clue about the technology behind these machines and we assume so many things just so we can justify one purchase over another.

sisedi

Okay, just to be clear. Which version am I supposed to be trolling over the internet? I need this information, Kotaku. I've got e-cred at stake.

Tale

@interstate78: so i'd imagine this is why i'm seeing a grainy image? it's being upscaled at 1080p?

Feendawg

Man gotta love the double standard many attached to the PS3 camp bashed Halo 3 on this and now it doesn't matter on GTA4. While in truth it really didn't matter then people need to remove their fanboy blinders. Both systems have there strengths I went 360 cause of friends on live getting the game, DLC, Achievments and 1080i support on my ancient HD TV.

Konchu

You all seem to forget that the 360 will use its hardware upscaler to turn the 720p into 1080p

So to me this purchase is turning into a no-brainer.

1080p vs. 630p ? tsk tsk tsk.

interstate78

@Crawl to China:

Check out the article on Wikipedia about Interlaced versus progressive. That's why only 540 vertical lines are displayed with 1080i.

[en.wikipedia.org]

I agree with the comments that state that resolution doesn't matter if the game is good. COD4, Halo 3 were still enjoyable and worth my $60.

At the same time I do feel deceived by Sony and Microsoft (and the cable company) for over promising and under delivering. These marketing claims are the primary reason people spend thousands of dollars on HDTVs.

Rockstar, IW and Bungie all needed to make concessions to get their games running at the proper framerate on these "next gen" systems. You can't really blame them for doing the best with the platforms available.

ozzzy

@Andy D.: umm, Halo3 had a MASSIVE shitstorm article about its non-720p-ness. So much so that all the fanboys came out of the woodwork and freaked.

CoD didnt, because it was the same on both consoles, and it ran perfectly, and by now people are used to it, there is MORE then just CoD and Halo that are non-HD resolutions...

Scazza

Thank you for posting something no one realized and ultimately is innocuous and just fuels the fanboy war.

ortegar

@Feendawg: I had asked earlier in the post but I doubt anyone saw it (or chose to ignore my question):

I only had bout 15 minutes to play the game on my lunch break but i noticed the world seemed very grainy. Is this on purpose or is it because I have my 360 set on 1080p? Or am I just crazy?

Feendawg

Kotaku is a like a dealer. And it deals fanboy bait. And we're all junkies.

akashhhhh

@Andy D.: I remember seeing it reported extensively on almost every gaming site I visit for both of those games. Bioshock too.

rotcepsurt

@Sigma-D: Can't say I agree with you more, but it seems to be happening with all of the big releases. Bioshock (widescreen issue), Halo 3 (scaling issue), COD4 (scaling issue), and now GTA4. Some people will never be happy, and if this issue wasn't there, they would find something else to bitch about.

rotcepsurt

@Andy D.:

Huh? did did you miss the entire halo discussions about this?

Jomo7

Wii would make the best paper weight.

he point of a paperweight is to hold down papers that you can see.

The ps3 would be the worst. I can hide a newspaper under that thing.

Thinking about it the 360 may start the papers on fire.

Wii it is!

Techguy1138

Geez! A freaking quadruple-A title comes to the next-gen boxes that can help em catch up to the damned Wii...and now it's descended into an issue over resolution being 630P?

This is like freaking Wiitards complaining over a game like Metroid Corruption not having 100% 16x9 because of minute little black bars at the left and right edges.

By the way...any former GTA haters loving this game? I wanna know!!

cirej2000

This war reminds of the golden days of the TRS-80 when it was supposed to have 64x16 text resolution but somebody made a golf game that was 64x10. Woooooboy, that was a nasty fight that eventually led to the downfall of the trs line. Obviously it will happen here as well. ;)

GPman

@Andy D.:

In case you've forgotten, it was news THEN too. I saw news articles all over the place about it.

Hickeroar

"From only about 10 feet away, most people cannot tell a 720p image from a 1080p image on a 42" television"

You stay at that distance when you're watching news, or anything that doesn't require you to do eye-twitching action (i.e games). I'd stay up to 5 feet away at 42", judging from how at a 22" everyone plays 1.5-2.0 feet away.
And at that distance, the 1080p goodness is visible and is pure bliss ^_^.

But, notice how a digital SDTV signal (from real footage) can look so great despite the resolution. With code for the current-gen gpu-processors (shaders), 4x MSAA, edge-antialiasing, depth-of-field, motion-blur and good lighting... you can produce lifelike results ;). And it's all technology that exists today. I'm just waiting to see if Resistance2 will have that final piece of the puzzle (edge-antialiasing) ^^.

But for now, that 720p signal could give an edge to x360, if you want to spot a moving pixel 1km away :P

Ahh, btw GT5 can handle that resolution and framerate because there is not much overdraw, and the scenes are relatively simple.

One can wonder how I am a PS3 fanboy (I really am) :P

somarix

Seeing as how I don't use a very hi-def TV at all, just a flat 27inch, I really could care less.

PS3 gets the vote because I refuse to pay for Live.

laughingmangits

Hehe, we didnt see this article when COD did it, or Halo, or every other recent game on both platforms, but when its GTA4, all of a sudden its news.

Come on people.

Andy D.

The game looks great, plays great and is basically the damn same on both systems. Also the multiplayer is kick ass, I dont have time to sit down and count pixels on a game this massive and heavily detailed. My only gripe is the damn GTA A.I. is in full effect with me trying to do a mission and the person Im with will stand and do nothing or spin around in circles and die or a random car hits them at the end of a mission and I fail because of that.

ichiban1081

I never thought I'd say it, but at this point, I am:

This is fucking retarded. Are we seriously nit-picking now? I mean, the game hasn't been out 24 hours and all of a sudden, everyone's a fucking perfectionist.

If you bought the game and you like it, I commend you. If you bought it and are still bitching about resolutions, colors, and graphics, get over it, get a life, shut your mouth and play your game.

I'm done. By the way...DON'T BAN ME!

Sigma-D

@OrionnoirO: While that example isn't exactly what's going on here, that's the basic idea. It's actually more like the PS3's GPU's instruction set is less-strongly optimized, so that many operations take more cycles to complete on the PS3 than the 360. So even if you have more cycles, if your operations are using more cycles you can end up completing fewer operations in the same amount of time.

Cloral

Strange of them to upscale on PS3 when there is no dedicated hardware scaler...

fuchikoma

@AsWater:
The most irritating thing about all this is that RS hasn't confirmed this yet and as of now it's all guesture.

Hickeroar

@pronounconnoun:

What?? i = interlaced. p = progressive. This is 630p.

Hickeroar

@Crawl to China:

Short answer, because of bandwidth. Long answer:

[en.wikipedia.org]

SG79

"In short, it's not just the size of your P, but how you use it that matters."

LOL @ quote.

While a part of me doesn't care about the number because the game does look good, another part of me hates that Rockstar is saying its 720P when it isn't.

AsWater

@OrionnoirO:

Truth. Especially when it comes to GPUs. Their architectures are so wildly different that MHZ barely mean a thing anymore.

Hickeroar

What's with this "lines of resolution" talk? That would be 630i.

pronounconnoun

I hate to say it, but I preferred things last generation when every game looked better on the xbox and so we didn't bother discussing it and we all went about our business buying and playng games.

Though in fairness, the last 90p is where the fun is presented.

Ess

@TOCATL:
@homernoy:
@FlashIV:

Indeed. It gratifies me very much to read these kinds of responses.

@mind in rewind: It might matter to PC gamers who have an alternative option, though.

Atheist Jew

@goddessakasha:

The number of mhz isnt all that matters :)

Take for example (easy example, to explain gist), a dual core processor at 2ghz, vs a single core processor at 2ghz. Do you really believe they will be the same speed? Same difference in this case.

OrionnoirO

@Mark Wilson:

I agree completely. Though we've seen it in tons of games already that go unnoticed. Even older games like COD3, which had different sub HD resolutions in both versions.

SG79

Who cares. The only value this has is for fanboys to wage their idiotic flame wars.

t0yrobo

COD4 runs at 600P on both systems. It looks fantastic. So, really, does it matter? No.

mind in rewind

I like how GTA is actually able to be displayed at 1280x1024 resolution to fit my VGA monitor, something that almost never happens with X360 games, usually it's letterboxed to 1280x720

mikemil828

Man, being a numbers guy I didn't believe it at first, but after looking at some comparison shots on various sites, I've gotta say that the lighting and PP effects definitely make all the difference for the PS3 version. It really does LOOK better. Color me surprised. PS3 version it is.

Hickeroar

@Atheist Jew: I like the way you think, exactly what I did with Bioshock and Call of Duty 4

FlashIV

Oh, if only we could go back in time and see the fanboys out for blood when Halo 3 came out.

Lou3000

"most people cannot tell"

Is there a true statistic somewhere of this, by scientific testing methods?

I seem to remember something about "the human eye cannot tell the differance between 30-60fps" and that happened to be a completely false rumor floating around everywhere.

I'd really like to see proof. As a graphics whore myself, I can certainly discern between differant resolutions, framerates, and texture qualities. maybe not subtle differances like 720p to 680p, but i'm sure i would notice 90 lines less.

impreza

lol, double standards abound...

I guess since people "like the softer look", it doesnt matter that it is the exact same issue as has been used to complain about games in the past... Halo 3 was a great example to whoever brought it up. Halo 3 also used the lower res/upscaled to make the game look better while running smoothly, yet people complained about it.

OrionnoirO

@kidko: I believe it is upscaled to a standard resolution

Lou3000

@mva5580: , SG79: thanks guys :)
So, why is it that only 540 are displayed?

Crawl to China

@Crawl to China: Actually in both cases the number refers to the vertical resolution. 1080p is 1920x1080 progressive scan (1080i is interlaced), and 720p is 1280x720 (there's no commonly available interlaced variant).

Doomstalk

@The Whaleman: AND @NitrousO:

SEGA CD: FTW! Sheer size and menacing obsoleteness...

Glen-L-Ivet

@TOCATL: Uh.. what?

The PS3 has a 550mhz Nvidia and the 360 has a 500mhz ATI.

goddessakasha

I didn't think HDTVs could support non-standard resolutions. Huh.

kidko

@Doomstalk: Agreed. I couldn't see Halo 3 wasn't 720p on a 106" display, and I doubt I'll see that GTAIV isn't. I can however see that Mario Kart Wii is disappointingly low resolution on such a big display... but for some odd reason the game is still fun as heck. And honestly... that's all I ask for on either console.

The Whaleman

Hogwash!

Poppycock!

Poppywash!

Hogc... Wait.

Pics NAO or it didn't happen!

kosbee

@Crawl to China:

1080p: 1920x1080 / likewise for 1080i, though only 540 out of 1080 are displayed.

720p: 1280x720

SG79

Looks beautiful on my tv, that's all that matters.

gamerholic

@SG79: Fair enough, but I'm more trying to keep in mind that reducing resolution can matter - so far we've seen excellent companies making good use of the idea (liked Bungie and Rockstar). But I'd hate to see widespread abuse of upscaling.

Mark Wilson

@Atheist Jew: I'm with you there. Also, by the time it comes out on PC I will have a 790i mainboard at the heart of my computer, and will be running Vista Ultimate 64 bit vs the 32 bit version I'm using now.

I think addressing 4gigs of memory or more is going to really make a difference in games like this, as well as most games in the future.

homernoy

Oh btw guys, if none of you know already, COD4 ran at:

1024x600, both versions.

There are many many other games that run at sub HD resolutions. But when one version does and other doesn't.. you know the rest.

SG79

@Crawl to China: 720p = 1280 x 720 progressive scan

1080i = 1920 x 1080 interlaced

mva5580

next topic: why are ps3 users getting 'cannot connect to game provider', and are we going to bash them as bad as microsoft was bashed here for their downtime after christmas?

dazinith

This wasn't a big deal with Halo 3, and it's not a big deal with GTA IV. If the game looks good, it looks good. End of story.

Doomstalk

@Cloral: The only difference i saw in the comparison video was that the textures of the objects in the 360 version are a little more polished, just a little...

TOCATL

not enough to divert me from the game. still so enjoyable. now i can't wait to get off work to play again

kw4k

I could care less.

Halo 3 was running at around the same resolution, but it did not detract from the fun I was having while playing it. And since I just bought the PS3 version too, the same applies here.

FIRST!!!

@SG79: What resolution do 720p and 1080p translate to? i always see one or the other and don't actually know what's equivalent.
I assumed 720p was 720xsomething and 1080p was 1080xsomething.

Crawl to China

[Mandatory fanboyism.]

nonpareil

LOL, "...not the size of your P". Good one Mark.

AsauPrime

You mean that games can look good even if the picture isn't outputting to HD? Really? You don't say! I could have sworn that anything below 720p would cause irreparable damage to your eyes and the eyes of your unborn children.

megaStryke

As long as the games fun and looks decent who cares? As far as I've heard it looks almost completely identical on both systems.

I have both systems but I picked GTAIV up for the 360. Not because it looks better or plays better....it because of those damn achievement points! GRRRR! I will 2 times outta three pick up a game for the 360 over the PS3 just because of the points. I am so embarassed...

BionicCommando1

And constantly bringing up the fact that he PS3 version runs at a lower res with no AA is only making 360 fanboys making the argument look foolish. You're coming right out and saying a lower res game with less post processing effects looks better than your game running at 720p native and 2x MSAA. Good job guys/gals!!

firelogic

This was the exact opposite reaction from the PS3 fanboys when a couple of 360 games were determined to have less than 720 resolution.

Lou3000

Hmmm, the console that tout "full HD experience" can't even deliver this game in full 720p? What's up with that? But looking at all the videos I've seen, I honestly prefer the PS3 version. Hopefully I will not see all the imperfection on my 55" TV. Can't wait to get out of work and play this damn game.

thegunshow

does this game look grainy to you? I have my 360 set on 1080p settings. If i reduce it to 720p would that fix it? Or am I crazy and the only experiencing this problem?

Feendawg

this post is total bullshit

jove

@jackal888: But if you're bashing Wii games for being lower resolution, you're a winner, eh?

emag

@NitrousO: Oh no, my fiancées old defunct Sega Mega Drive (Genesis) makes a much better paperweight than your NES!

The Whaleman

Soooooo PS3 version > 360 version still

depward

@TOCATL: So I suppose that's the reason why GT5:P and MGS4 look head and shoulders better than anything on the 360 with the uber powerful GPU? Thanks for the info.:)

firelogic

Oh no, more fanboy fodder.

Sounds like Halo 3 all over again.

OGHowie

@Cloral:

According to Quaz (the same guy who exposed Halo3, MGO etc), the filters and other post processing effects are different in both versions.

The 360 version does run at 1280 X 720 with 2X MSAA.

SG79

@kspraydad4: One word: Gran.

Seriously, if you're gonna fanboy about it... at least spell the game you're raving about right ;)

The Whaleman

@Atheist Jew: Mee too, also by then the 9600gt will cost a little less, and the new ati 4800 line may be at a good price...

TOCATL

@The Whaleman: Without a doubt my NES. You can only blow life into it so many times :(

NitrousO

@TOCATL:

There is a 10MB frame buffer in addition to 12-15MB extra RAM available to developers so they made use of it.

SG79

I can only imagine the feeding frenzy occurring on the GameFAQs and NeoGAF message boards right now.

Nightshift Nurse: Mile High Colonic

I don't believe they decided to take away lines of resolution on the PS3 to add filters the 360 didn't have as this article seems to imply. Both have the same filters, they just took away some resolution on the PS3 to help it make framerate because, as TOCATL pointed out, the PS3's GPU isn't as fast as the 360's. But if playing the game you can't tell the difference, then who really cares?

Cloral

Quaz got a look at a direct screen shot, and it's actually 1152 X 640. Same as Halo 3, and there is no AA.

[forum.beyond3d.com]

But Mark, 1152X640 isn't "fast approaching" SD at mere 640X480.

Furthermore, this is a rendering resolution not the actual output. Consumer electronics standards required a signal to be HD, as in either 720p or 1080p. So you won't see the raw resolution, but an upscaled image. Add post processing, and you've got a reason why most preferred the slightly softer look of the PS3 game.

Houser mentioned that already, but no one knew what he meant by it up until yesterday.

SG79

6 minutes and counting until I can leave work and head to gamestop

ttocs

Resolution and pixel counting is for losers. If you are busy counting resolution with GTAIV you really have lost the point of the game.

jackal888

@TOCATL: 2 words ... Grand Turismo

kspraydad4

It's kind of funny to see that the lower resolution in fact helps the game look a little better ( veeeeeeeeeery little ), the 360 version is identical except for some sharp edges that i don't like ( easy to see in the part of the video with the logo of the game...).
And that's the only difference.
So either version is perfect :)

symphony_of_the_night

@CYG: Wrong! What cares is that we have something to argue about! ZOMGWTFBBQ! THERE'S A FLY IN MY PS3SOUP!

Fanboys would use anything to argue... down to which console makes the best paperweight.

The Whaleman

@Darth Navster:

Heh.
You have to admit the irony of the PS3 fans pointing to the Halo resolution and then this occurring is kind of funny though.

NitrousO

GPU, the GPU in the ps3 is weaker than the one in the 360, weaker gpu less resolution...

TOCATL

I didn't realize the 360 version was only running at 720p.

So, this means if I wait for the PC version and pump it out of my system to my Sharp AQUOS LCD HDTV I can play it at 1080p, right? If that's true, I now have one more reason to wait for the PC release.

Atheist Jew

I'm starting to think that multi-platform games are actually adding more fuel to fanboy fires than exclusives. Now they pick every last detail apart and blow it out of proportion to fit there arguments.

liquid_kore

Numbers, numbers, numbers. Where is the soul?

Fulgurator

Agreed that this topic is pointless. The same happened when it was revealed (shocking!) that Halo 3 was not 720p - but in some ways above 720p.

[Plot+sound)x graphics]to the power of gameplay*controls = gamevalue.

Resolution ain't nuthin but a number.

lionkitten

Interesting to know, but seriously who cares about numbers, the game looks great in both consoles. Thats what matters, right???

CYG

Thank you for that sane post. Unfortunately, if the Halo 3 fiasco was any indication, this will not be enough to stem the tide of dickwads arguing about it.

Darth Navster

Yaknow, now I don't know which version to buy. I've got a hefty sized TV and I'm afraid the difference might be kinda obvious to me.

Hickeroar

This may explain why the textures on the Xbox 360 version look a little cleaner, but honestly, both games look great, so who cares?

DugDawg

After seeing that comparison on game videos I prefer the look of GTA on the PS3 as the colours have a warmer feel to them.

dsmx

It means there's just one more thing for idiotic fanboys to yell and scream about. That's all it means.

mva5580

lol

ZeroGinc

doesn't bother me. from what i've seen the ps3 runs better and looks much better than the 360 version.

if it hadn't been pointed out that it ran in 630p and not 720p i would never have known.

shemmy

So, Halo then?

Moonshadow101

Thank God someone brought some sense to the madness. Who cares if both games look almost identical.

Strider-No.9

So, Halo 3 ran at like 600p, right? But it was still the BEST GAME EVAR!!!!

So whatever.

ShirtGuyDom

@Candlejack:

I'm still trying to decide what system to buy it for, if I decide to buy it (renting it from Gamefly first, as always), but your picture comparison helped.

When I clicked on the 360 it was just a picture. But when I clicked on the PS3 image, my eyes blurred. It's like looking at something that's lightly out of focus so your eyes try to adjust...but there's no sharp image to adjust onto, the image itself is slightly blurred.

So if I like the game (and how could I not?), make mine 360.

Islandkiwi

See, as others have fairly pointed out, this WAS a big issue back when Halo 3 was released. Stories popped up EVERYWHERE and fanboys pointed fingers and laughed and picked and prodded and went on and on and on.

But now this is NOTHING? Even though graphic comparisons between the two versions has been a source of discussion for MONTHS? And the supposed superiority of the PS3 for graphics has been proselytized for YEARS?

The truth is it wouldn't have mattered at all if it wasn't made such a big issue with Halo 3. But it was, so fair is fair.

DARTH_TIGRIS

720p, DLC, and no freezing on intro cinematic.

360 ftw?

kabes

Are we sure the 360 version isn't doing this as well? One of the first things I said when the 360 version loaded up was that it didn't look 720p, and that it looked similar to Halo 3 which used 640p to fit two frame buffers into the 360's 10MB of eDRAM. It wouldn't surprise me if they designed the game around this resolution and just used it on the PS3 as well.

photoboy

For the record its very clear for me to see on my 1080p screen that it isn't running in 1080p. It's not even squinting. The difference between 720p and 1080p is actually really easy to see.

I guess I sit about 4 foot from my 42" Aquos.

Does anyone really sit 10 feet away??

PlayingKarrde

If you can't see the difference, then you shouldn't complain about it

DoubleV

The box says it supports 1080p. What's up with that then?

PlayingKarrde

Alright, where's the pc version. That's the only one that can give true 1080p. I'll still be getting the ps3 version though.

pooster

@Techguy1138: Actually, the portables would probably make best paperweights. The DS has a pretty square form factor that would make the paper stay flat and is small enough to make them very visible.

The Whaleman

@kidko: yeah, it's upscaled. this is just the base resolution the game is putting out.

Mark Wilson

Never in my life have I seen a game being called better because it has a "WARMER" colour.

This is the end.

WatershipDown

Oh, and here are two native pictures straight from the source, to express what I meant.

[i26.tinypic.com]
[i27.tinypic.com]

The PS3's objects and models look a lot smoother and more filtered, while the 360 is sharper, which pronounces the aliasing. The latter doesn't look as good imho.

However, when you look at Niko's head and especially the ears, you can tell the difference from 360 to PS3. That's a big plus for the 360 in my eyes as it's simply sharper and more "hi def".

Also mind that the colours are so different because the weather is dynamic and not the same in both gaming instances.

Candlejack

I thought that everyone didn't care about graphics when it came to GTA games. C'mon guys, where did the old feelings go? -_-

Magic Emperor Anima

@Hickeroar: True. But its still another pattern of this generation that I despise. And I fear it'll be a continuing one.

AsWater

Tisk Tisk Tisk, i got both systems and was still debating on which to get. but now im for sure getting the 360 version. i dont care how you swing it, 630p no thanks. ill take my 720p, exclusive dlc, over everything else. People can be in denial all the want. Just like UT3 is way better for the ps3. its great having both systems, because i dont have to justify things to make myself feel better for getting the shit end of the stick.

Nate00

I'm wondering when people are going to quit taking the vertical resolution, adding a "p" to the end of it and thinking it means anything.

There's no such thing as "630p". 720p is 720p because it's a standard agreed upon by the ATSC. It means 1280x720. There is no such "630p" standard. What is 630p supposed to be, 2039404x630? 1x630? What?

Looking at the thread linked here, it seems that when people say "630p" they mean 1120x630. That's 23% fewer pixels than 720p.

That's a significant difference, but not huge even if it is the case.

I don't quite buy it anyway. I'm not really seeing any proof in the linked thread, other than people judging stuff by screenshots on IGN. And as we all know, IGN are technical wizards when it comes to taking screenshots.

badasscat

If it looks good who cares. Rather than squabbling about details that you have to strain to see you could be playing the game.

Personally GTA has never really held my interest so I won't be picking this one up unless I try my friends copy and decide that I really do like it (it seems to be doing a lot of neat things that are different). Even if I do though I'll be picking it up on the ps3 and not bitching about the fewer pixels.

demonknightinuyasha

I have to say that even at 630p (or because of it, some might argue) the game looks more appealing to me on the PS3.

I've seen some side by side screenshots taken straight from PS3 and 360 and while the 360 version looks a little cleaner, maybe sharper, this points out the lacking anti aliasing a lot more. On the PS3, edges are much smoother and the game "looks" better.

That doesn't change the fact that I'd expect 720p AND all the smoothness, lighting & effects on the PS3. By that, I was let down.

Maybe the next GTA IV spinoff will convince otherwise.

Candlejack

mines runs @ 1080p 80gb

Ahpepheee

People's eyes really can't tell the difference unless they're an AV buff. With a screen less than 42, people can't even tell the diff between 720p and 1080p like Mark sed. 52" TV shall see...

But we just added fuel to people's bitching and the "360 version is better" arguement...

ph15h needs followers

@SG79 , ozzzy: thanks for the info. Good to know.

Crawl to China

easy way to ward off retards

put 1080p on your computer screen, you see everything?

put 1024x768 on your computer screen
you still see the same everything just blown up.

gravy, your not seeing less, your seeing the same thing its just not "deeper"

Zaos

Lol. Look at how the PS3 fanboys who made fun of Halo3 for the same issue scurry away and claim it doesn't matter now. God I hate you all. It never mattered, and still doesn't now.

I_Hate_This_Place

This concerns me, I expect my games to have 720 lines of resolution. In fact I plant my face up against my TV and count every line to be sure.

maniacmayhem

The PS3, supposedly a more powerful machine, has a lower resolution? That's news to me. What is the reason for this?

It almost seems that Rockstar made the games slightly different on purpose.

alby13

if you have a PS3 then buy the PS3 version, if you have a 360 then buy the 360 version and if you are lucky enough to have both consoles then flip a coin- THEY ARE THE SAME-

mpar01

@Orionsaint: Technically, yeah. But the game is being rendered at 720p then upscaled to 1080p. Upscaling is like an intelligent stretch, so it's not a true resolution.

Mark Wilson

@Fulgurator: Amen

Sunjammer

Was playing earlier on my ps3 and was thinking at times that it looks pretty good and at other times was thinking what the hell am i looking at?
Sometimes it does look quite jaggy on the cars and it DOES look low res.This bothered me so much that i hit the ok button on my LG tv remote which displays the resolution the tv is running.I was half expecting a lower res than 720 tbh,it showed 720p nonetheless.
The misty,fuzzy, foggy look of the lighting is also pissing me off a bit.Its got the same kinda look as rainbow six vegas did on pc and makes you think you need glasses after a while.Real life just doesnt look like that and i dont know why programmers insist on putting it in games.To hide bad textures perhaps?Think i`ll get it on pc when it comes out too.Feeling a bit dissapointed with it atm.

UFO

@Vulgar Display of Power!: MGO is the most fun I've had online this year. It doesn't look that great but it's hardly terrible.

superbabyproject

Thats the same Definition that halo 3 runs at, so clearly its not that big of a step down because i thought halo looked great.

leimeisei

But my TV runs at 1080p and I have the 360 set to 1080p. Does that mean my copy of GTAIV will run at 1080p?

Orionsaint

Hey, let's take a walk down memory lane:
[kotaku.com]

"We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet's propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven't mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."

Okay, okay, someone update me on the rules again. Is a game only good if it reaches a certain level of HD prowess?? Is the rule seasonal or only tied to particular franchises?

Tepoz

I've read through pretty much that entire thread now where this "info" is coming from. And I plain and simply do not see any proof of anything. I consider this a non-story.

Clearly, that community believes in Quaz51 - the one guy who has definitively stated this is a "630p" game (again, that number means nothing). But he's just one guy, judging based on screenshots he's finding around the net and that other people are sending to him. And he's arriving at these numbers by simply counting pixels from screenshots. But it's just not that simple.

Moreover, anyone who questions him is literally kicked out of the thread. It's like a little cult. And that's a huge warning sign - whenever I see behavior like that, it immediately has me questioning whether this community can be at all objective. A community that's confident in the findings of its "leader" would let those findings stand up to public scrutiny - this community just demands apologies and then kicks people out. (I haven't registered there, but I've been reading some of the posts from those who have specifically to question these results, and I've seen the reactions of both long-standing members and moderators.) They clearly want to believe what they want to believe without having to offer any proof.

I say we leave them to their little endeavor and say "good luck" and move on. I don't really think there's anything noteworthy to see here.

badasscat

@thegunshow: It's not the Console fanboy, it's the Dev. It's not the console makers fault the dev didn't make it 1080p, i really can't stand all these fanboy gloating from all three sides. Atleast they didn't mek it crap by making it for all three systems then we would all be bitching that they didn't put it on the PS2.

Jopan

I just so can't get upset over this. Halo3 looked GREAT at 630p (or 640p or whatever it was), and I hear that Dark Sector on the PS3 has the same resolution, and I am really looking forward to playing it - Eurogamer says it looks great on either system. I'm not worried.

DorkimusPrime

@rotcepsurt: It's sad that this generation, so much focus and attention has been given to fanboy numbers fodder when the misspent energies could have gone towards the games themselves.

And the worst part is that everybody is suddenly an expert on 720p, 1080i, AA, GPU and CPU architectures, game development, etc. From somebody who's an actual software developer and PC enthusiast, it's tiring to see the same misconceptions and "arguments" - if they can be called that - repeated ad infinitum from those passing along the crufty remains of a very long game of tech telephone.

Datheron

@firelogic:

MGO Looks & plays terribly & GT5:P Is only a fraction of a game, so whats your point?

Vulgar Display of Power!

I like how people are swapping the word washed out with "warmer". LOLzzz

smokinpantssausage

@cirej2000: me :D

Derigor

Good thing that they have found a way to avoid framerate dropping, always drop something until it runs smoothly, resolution will do just fine. Seems that both MS and Sony have overreached to HD with their hardware.

ara

Between more pop-in and unstable framerates and 90 lines missing, which do I choose? I choose the one that's least noticeable during gameplay... the one missing 90 lines.

Looks like it's still PS3 for me right now, unless I still find myself interested in the game later on in the Fall when the DLC becomes available. Then I could just sell my PS3 version and buy it again for the 360.

I was never in the whole Halo 3 arguments, so I'll continue to stay out of it.

flashtut

Damn, the PS3 power machine still can't beat the 360.

The only reason the PS3 version would look better is because your screen is too small, or too blurry to notice a difference.

ostartero

It's hardly the same as the difference between ST/Amiga or C64/Zx Spectrum back in the day is it?

My word, most consumers don't care about this kind of thing, and there's a reason for it. It's frustrating, dull and makes very little difference to your enjoyment of the game. What does is the game freezing, which seems to be happening to both versions.

Not that I'd know for sure, because my special edition isn't getting here 'til tomorrow.

superbabyproject

@Candlejack: "I've seen some side by side screenshots taken straight from PS3 and 360 and while the 360 version looks a little cleaner, maybe sharper, this points out the lacking anti aliasing a lot more. On the PS3, edges are much smoother and the game "looks" better."

The 360 version uses 2x anti-aliasing. The PS3 uses NO anti-aliasing. Instead, they used a blur filter over the whole image to hide the lower resolution and the lack of AA.

Rectangle

@Islandkiwi: I think it also has to do with the time of day in the ps3 pic. It's so much darker on that one. I hope he'll be able to post more comparisons.

pooster

Reduce resolution to add more filters on PS3? Yeah, right... The one and only reason is the resolution drop saves memory and achieves framerate, otherwise there would've been an angry mob of PS3 owners crying all over the internet why the PS3 version had noticeably worse framerate than the X360 one ...

mx5

From only about 10 feet away, most people cannot tell a 720p image from a 1080p image on a 42" television.

Excuse me... do the test it on blind people (no offense!) but who doesn't see the difference should go and let his/her eyes check by a doctor.

*LOL*

retronaut

=@Scazza:

Yeh but thats not the point is it, compromises had to be made on the more expensive (and according to Sony cough powerhouse that is the PS3) but not the 360 version so why is that?

Why are many developers (including kojima...Sony's bitch) having to make so many concessions for the PS3?

I guess it proves the PS3 is a blu-ray player first and a games console second. Perhaps Microsoft got it right after all.

jigglypoofs

@badasscat: I've not read the entire source thread so I don't know what they've been saying, but generally review sites will have special software for capturing screenshots directly from the console's framebuffer, so what you end up with is an image at the resolution it's rendering at internally, rather than the image after upscaling. Whether that's the case here or the chimps at IGN have just fed the images through a re-sizer for fun is up for debate, but it seems more likely to me that 630p is what it's rendering at.

photoboy

@OGHowie:
Oh no, more fanboy fodder.

Sounds like Halo 3 all over again.

--------

The issue here has NOTHING to do with Halo. There not a debate going on here as to what the resolution was with halo is, was, will be etc.(who cares).

On the other hand if Halo was running on BOTH platforms, and one platform had less resolution due to less graphics and processing power then yes, we most certainly would be having a debate here.

The issue here is that we were told that the ps3 had all of this huge processing power and were told to wait until it comes out. Then 1 year after the ps3..the people were still saying just wait until we see this mythical processing power.

Here we are 2+ years and still waiting for this mythical processing power. The bottom line is for whatever reasons the ps3 fails short of the graphics ability of the 360, and once again ps3 people don't get a equivalent on-line experience, and now we see they also get the game in less resolution then the 360.

So, no, this is not a big deal, and it is really not much about if the game is good or bad…it is about which console runs the game at a higher resolution, and which console does so with greater ease.

SuperTurtle

[www.timeout.com]

The latest from the thread:

"This is a serious thread for serious people."

Oh, and the dithering is worse on the 360.

superbabyproject

"From only about 10 feet away, most people cannot tell a 720p image from a 1080p image on a 42" television."

That's the best news I've heard all day! That'll save me hundreds when I finally get around to buying an HDTV.

supercrap

@Candlejack:It might be hard to tell. I remember that you play PC games, so you have probably noticed there are quite a few games out there that have a lot of 'jaggies' at 2 samples of AA. It does seem the 360 version looks like it has more aliasing in the pics above, but it is also sharper and brighter, which shows aliasing more.

I am going to wait for the PC version, though before today I was seriously thinking of picking up a copy for the PS3.

homernoy

Doesn't the back of the GTA4 PS3 box state 720p, 1080i, and 1080p as supported resolutions?

630p may not be much less than 720p, but it's a hell of a lot less than 1080p.

PissedPS3Fan

@Feendawg: no that would be because either GTA is grainy itself or your tv is horsedung.

A hardware upscaler will not stretch the image, it reprocesses it with color compensation/shading/scaling/etc.

The best example is playing a regular DVD on a 360. Even if the DVDs native resolution is 480p it still plays great and looks real good when upscaled to high def. (as compared to a regular dvd player)

interstate78

So game looks pretty much the same... runs pretty much the same, and everything else is pretty much the same.

And yet... People are still arguing.

No offense people ... but I've got GTA4 to play ...

FiXXXerX

"But in an era when we're past merely counting polygons on the screen to measure graphical quality, we shouldn't blow small numbers out of proportion."

Right on! Art direction is far more important than polygon count with today's hardware, and I'm glad to see someone else thinks this way.

That said, I am quite a stickler for resolution. I'd rather have a 1680x1050 image with no anti-aliasing than a 1280x1024 image with 4x anti-aliasing (looking at you, Wii).

psychobaka

It's not really about the game to me. It's about being honest with your audience who is purchasing your wares.

I would have much rather they put 630P on the box and let me make the choice vs. having to find out from a third party like Kotaku.

Truth in advertising please.

axiomatic

@Rectangle: Say what you want about the PS3 using blur filters, but the 360 picture is NOT anti aliased. Look at the writing above the shops in the background. The public opinion so far was that both use 2xAA but that picture makes me wonder if any version uses any AA.

Candlejack

I'm still running 480p so doens't even matter one way or the other to me.

FoxHoundADAM

I hate the people who say resolution doesn't matter. You people are wrong. 90 missing lines is really pushing it too far. Hell, I can even tell the difference between 480p and 480i sitting 10 feet away from a 32'. The 360 version looks way better to me. Still, I would have appreciated less pop up.

jambe

@badasscat: You are right, the vertical rez equivalent is just a dumbed down way to quantify what we're seeing.

Mark Wilson

no network to play on cause it's down = 360 wins day 1 regardless of resolution

Abdar

@kftgr: Ha ha, thanks for the info! I too would be interested to know what Rockstar's reasoning was for using a lower internal res for the PS3 version. At a guess they couldn't get it running at a decent frame rate with anti-aliasing so they dropped the res and wrote a custom filter on one of the SPUs to soften and up-res the image.

photoboy

Off topic, but about video:

PS3 owners ... Enigma finally bent and went and got a new PS3... I cant hold out on the mysterious "white one" since there is no SKU and Sony seemed to have shot it down for now.

I had to play Uncharted, GT5 Prologue, and mostly got it for the PHENOMENAL MLB 08: The Show ... plus I only paid $359 brand new with a 10% off coupon Best Buy elected to honor for me.

I need your help PS3 owners.

I have a Dell 2405 which has VGA (which the 360 is hooked up through and look stunning) DVI (the PC) and Component, etc.

Now, will the PS3 games that support 1080p work with component hook-ups, (I know BR movies wont), or will it just be 720p upscaled?

Also, is there a way, since I don't use a receiver, that I can use a HDMI to DVI cable for picture, and have the other AV cable plugged into the PS3 for sound?

If no to either one, I am just going to upgrade the Dell 2405, to the 2408 that just came out with the dual DVI and HDMI and Audio out jack built in.

Thanks in advance! Hope to see some of you online.

EnigmaNemesis

@SG79:

Really? Which is funny, since COD4 runs at 1440x900 up top with the graphics settings at a very solid 50-60 fps, on a PC that costs 780 US dollars.

This is by Swedish standards, and in comparison a PS3 costs 750 US dollars (the 40gb version).

Shows how much a good port does, really, and why PC gamers should say no to more bad ports.

Then again, here a 360 costs less than a Wii...

But one big thing about graphics is that today's graphics isn't in need of a higher resolution - it's in need of a better overall presentation of the image, which filters really helps with. Myself, I'd pick the improved colours over the resolution.

Melonfodder

@Candlejack: i lulz at that, at first the only diffrence i could tell is that one was green and one was brown, so then i read what you said and tried to look at this stuff you were saying, even if im squinting at it i really dont notice anything execpt that the ps3 is more softer, wich, i really dont care if i had a ps3 to go with my xbox 360 i would be perfectly fine playing it on it, theres basicly no diffrence, have fun squinting at your images to see diffrence's :)

D Mitsuki

With any half-decent display 90 missing lines should be very noticeable filtering or not. That said how are these people determining the resolution of the frame buffer used in the game? You'd need access to a debug console to know that. Looking at the scaled output images tells you nothing. No one could tell looking at screen grabs. I find this hard to believe unless Rockstar confirms it as Bungie did with Halo 3.

Even if true it's not a big deal unless it detracts from the game experience in some way.

MattB

@Ahpepheee:

WTF? Ignorant numbers whoring to the fullest. The size of the hard drive has no relation to the internal rendering resolution.

@photoboy:
From the linked thread, they have confirmed the following:
360: 1280x720 internal res with 2x Anti Aliasing. For 1080p, it upscales with the hardware scaler.

PS3: 1120x630 internal res with no Anti Aliasing, but an additional filter. It then upscales to either 720p or 1080p via software.

What I'd really like to know is why Rockstar decided to go for different internal renders. Was it done by different internal teams? Was it because of different development timelines (which was done first?).

Wonder if the 360 could do 1120x630 with same filtering. Or if PS3 could do 1280x720 with 2xAA.

@photoboy: The chimps at IGN also stated that the PS3 version had better anti-aliasing (hard to get alias on blurry lines, eh?) Saw on someone's sig: can't spell ignorant without IGN.

kftgr

@Jad35: You also really don't need to to be honest. Just enjoy the game.

superbabyproject

"In short, it's not just the size of your P, but how you use it that matters."

Sorry, but that's a BS excuse. Anybody who says that is either trying to make someone feel better or delude themselves.
...
In any context.
...So was that intentionally ironic, or is this really an apologist post?

nomadder

Thank you for setting the record straight. now if you'll excuse me.... im gonna go and open my recently purchased GTA4 PS3 schawg infested version. woooooo hoooooo!

zanzibarlegend

It's funny. Just before I got my Wii, I tried Saint's Row on my 360 set to 480p, just to see how nasty SD stuff would look on my set. It looked surprisingly good... unfortunately, the Wii does not. I don't know why there's a difference, but the PS3 and 360 are much better than the Wii at rendering nice looking SD content. Nevermind at 630p...

Uhyve

um i have the ps3 version and its running in 720p no problem i dont know what your talking about

Jad35

As a guy who owns a xbox and not a ps3 allow me to say this, who cares? I know i don't im the guy who was playing games on a sdtv this gen and was perfectly happy but thought the games needed more, then people said that i wasnt getting the full experince of the game because i wasnt see'ing hd, so i upgraded and would like to say, that was one expensive cable for 5 minutes of a enhanced experince, gamer's nowadays are so anal about a game runing in native hd and crap that they dont realize A) half of them dont even know what that means B) even if you do if you are actualy a GAMER and just not a person who likes pretty things, you dont notice the graphics after a hour, i really want to know a game that racks up tons of resolution that you were just noticing the graphics hours upon hours upon hours never getting bored or noticed that your actualy playing it, now if you say mabey because of art or somthing coughokamicough then i understand that but when it really comes down to it i would rather play some fun new inovative game in 480i then cod4 in 1080p :)

D Mitsuki

@Orionsaint: No, just that your Xbox360 stretches the image from 720p to 1080p instead of your TV, you can always check which has better upscaler and use that.

ara

@fulgore66: Do the PS3 and 360 have different color palettes?

No, but on many accounts, the ATI graphics chips of the last DX9 generation (X1000, GF7) provided the superior colours in the final images. So far this has translated to 360 (ATI graphics) and PS3 (NVIDIA graphics).

Candlejack

Had I known before.....Mmmmmm....

This is upsetting.

Still...Having a blast with the game. :)

Woodwater

@jambe: Yea, this is what I meant about technical ignorance.

480i is 240 lines interlaced to look like 480 lines. If there are any lines "missing", they're 240 in number, and it's a poor comparison anyway since most 480i content are of poor quality to begin with.

Taken to the extreme you can say that 1080i is "missing" 540 lines from 1080p, but I bet you could *not* notice a difference in the two formats; most people don't even realize that a lot of television, including sports broadcasts (where progressive is truly an advantage over interlaced) is run at 1080i.

So those 90 lines of progressive upscaled imagery? That's an average of 1 line out of every 8 lines which an upscaling algorithm would have to "fill in" to make it 720 lines....and again, I highly doubt you'd even notice.

Datheron

@jigglypoofs: Why are many developers (including kojima...Sony's bitch) having to make so many concessions for the PS3?

Oh, you mean those that reduce a godlike game to a perfect game, which wouldn't even in the slightest have been possible on 360 hardware (quoting Konami/Kojima here)? Which are those anyway? That the battlefield isn't 100% destructible? Gee, since that is the requirement nowadays. Games with destructible environments are far and few in between and those that try take long time in development (e.g. Bad Company, and, MGS4). Dude, it's not like Octocamo isn't working like it should. Or any of the other gameplay. Or graphics. Or sounds. Blah blah blah.

Please, in all honesty, don't involve MGS in any of this shit. At that, don't involve ANY other game in this. You're starting a pissfight.

Candlejack

My aunt can't tell the difference between SD and the 1080i channels on my 55" TV. People's eyes definitely work differently.

As for the color differences...

Do the PS3 and 360 have different color palettes? I know back in the 8 and 16 bit eras, the color palettes did make quite a huge difference. I had assumed that with HD specs the color differences would have gone away.

fulgore66

@homernoy: Yup, that's my point. Because the res is higher, the picture is sharper and "problems" more visible. By decreasing the res a little and applying more filters to it, the PS3 looks "smoother", which, according to most reviewers, looks better.

If you ask me, Rockstar finished the 360 version way before and the final product still contained jaggies that they just couldn't get rid of (because of GPU limitations on all consoles). instead of making the same "mistake" twice, they changed things around a little for the PS3 game, which was finalized later.

This is just my big mouth speculation though.

All I can say is that the game rules whatever you play it on. I gotta get back to it now.

Candlejack

@henri1kk: a 8800 (insert some g's s's and sli's here) is proof that the ps3 is not the powerhouse sony wanted us to beleive

D Mitsuki

The 360 may have 720p, but in th