I mean, calm down for a moment. I literally just said that MGS4 is subhd, so any fanboy claiming Resolution & resolution alone gimps a game, would be contradicting themselves. How did you miss this, oh right. High on "ZOMG RDR IS SUBHD ON THE PS3! That means resolution doesn't matters!!" -- Right? Take a moment and read before shooting yourself in the foot.

Go read any subHD AW thread.. Again, I said you won't find anyone saying AW is lame because of its resolution & resolution alone, not sure how many times I can repeat this with you ignoring it. I said its because AW is the single title that was hyped and compared to the top Ps3 titles. Its nice to see you pull out Ratchet & Clank, while thats great and all, It still supports the idea that Resolution & Resolution alone doesn't mean anything. Since those titles were enjoyable, and weren't heralded as the "second coming". Great point! Compare Ratchet to banjo. Which it runs all over.

Its true, no one gives a damn about RDR as some technical showpeice. Its Rockstar, they are expected to deliver a certain level, but the age old "open world" adage applies to it, that since its on such a large scale, its clearly not going to be a graphical marvel. Looks great, of course. Just as GTA4 did. Exclusive titles exclusively use the hardware for a software to run on, which is why they are used as the bar for console achievement. Not a game that is meant to be equal on both consoles, how are you not grasping this? They are literally meant to run identical.

You claim the record is false, yet can't even bother to find anyone of any reputation on N4G outside of some 1 bubble douchebag like nasim or something saying 'flop'. You wont find it because its not true. Its just you crying at this point about how some fanboy said something. I already went over each facet of Alan Wake, its textures/models/animation, Everything isn't stacking up to the big hitters out there. You can ignore it all you wan't, and I'll continue to repeat it. You can't find anyone, because no one said resolution alone flops a game. If they did, See: MGS4/Ratchet.

You cry about Sony fansites, yet ignore the fact that if you factored that in for the 360, there are more 360 only sites reviewing 360 titles, that are counted on Metacritic. If you're talking about PS3fanboys.net, then what the hell do you expect? Yet those sites aren't factored in Metacritic. I'd ask you to point at 1 source of a PS3 "fansite" being on Metacritic, and well, just like the fanboys you cant find. You wont be able to find any.

Halo Reach doesn't render 2 full diffuse/specular/normal map/depth frames, You're talking about buffers. Which you clearly have no idea about. What you're talking about would apply more to 3D than a simple HDR lighting pass. Naughty Dog wins awards for their technology, Bungie doesn't. And it wins GDC awards, not fanboy awards. Which You wont dare refute. We will all have to wait to see reach, just like we waited for Alan Wake, since no 360 title comes close to UC1/UC2/GOW3/Killzone2 etc. Uncharted2's multiplayer alone runs over all things 360, unlike Gears1 & 2 (UNREAL ENGINE lol) gimped multiplayer modes with reduced models/textures.

If you want to focus on the word "owned" on a videogame website community,thats fine with me. Because you're not addressing any of the facts saying that:

1. RDR's hottest news is news its not HD. It was lukewarm on the site before any of this. Great game, people are buying it.

2. RDR was never compared to any graphical showcase.

3. RDR's visuals were never hyped on n4g by anyone, since its a sandbox game. Which is always the case with sandbox console games due to console limitations.

Gears uses the Unreal engine, which also runs on the PS3, and isn't exactly at the level of Uncharted or Killzone, which you know full well is true. You can pretend it is, but again. See UC2's GDC awards. Lower polygon models, inferior animation & texturing. Shaders, everything. And oh yeah, the Unreal engine isn't an exclusive engine for the 360.

Forza3 runs 8 cars, that are lower polygon than the cars when you start the race. When the cameras shoot all around the car. They are then swapped out for higher resolution cars at replay. They reduced the particle effects as well. And oh yeah, the engine tints the windows of the vehicles when driving to hold the framerate. Great examples there. Old tired Unreal engine games. Won an award back before anything else was out in 2007.

Wake me up when you have a coherent argument that doesn't just make up horseass when talking about disregarding things that I already mentioned.

You want to pretend Gears2 performs as well as Uncharted2, thats fine. You guys have to pretend a lot these days.

Gt5 does 16, in a higher resolution & detailed cars @ 60fps. Again, you shot yourself in the foot & fell down the stairs. Even prologue does this.

2010 the 360s graphical beasts:

Gears of war, and forza.

lol, really?

Halo3 was touted as a graphical beast with its HDR lighting, subhd.

Alan wake touted as a graphical beast.
Subhd.

Gears 1 looked amazing for the time. Gears 1.5 didnt.

The unreal engine & forza's engine aren't complex engines. Sorry to burst your bubble. They are all great games, but not exactly the God of War's or Gran Turismos of the industry.

People give MS props for rushing out a console, and advertising well, as well as XBL.

No one gives props to sony for investing into first party studios that release amazing titles for their hardware that raise the bar upon each release. That prove you can have the bells and whistles, and in 720p+, since its an HD console.

Thats the truth.

woOow! i just realized that IHateYouFanboys it's actually one of the worst xbox fanboys on n4g..shame on you. u are just attacking others comment with non-sense anti-ps3 crap. shame shame on youu.

IHateYouFanboys

I read your reason for bringing up UC2, but it's not a valid one. Metacritic and any one or two individual sites (no matter what they are) being used to determine the quality of a game is stupid in the first place, but then spinning the information to suit your opinion is even more out of place. There are several sites that have given UC2 a higher score than RDR that are definitely not "sony fanboy" sites (which is silly, because, one, Sony has far fewer PS3/Sony specific sites than the 360 does, and two, many of those PS3 sites are harsher on PS3 games than most other sites). Come back when RDR has received more than 1/3 the amount of reviews that UC2 received.

Your post made me want to respond, which annoys me because I don't like comparing games in the first place, and I also am really enjoying RDR at the moment. Anyway, enjoy your games, because that's the whole point to them.

@IHateYouFanboys

I've been playing RDR for about 4 hours now, and I can tell you that it is NOT better than Uncharted 2...not even close. The reason it is reviewing better is because it's on 360, and that's a fact. I've also been playing Mass Effect 2 on PC for about 6 hours now, and it's not better, either.

I'm beginning to think that games are reviewed based on how they compare to the rest of a system's library. If you compare RDR to Any PS3 exclusives, it's only worth about a 8.6 so far, imo. If you compare it to 360 exclusives, it's probably worth more like a 9.2.

Wii4hire just owned the shiot out him!

Greywulf you're the biggest hypocrite on this site.

OK lets be honest here RDR looks worse on the PS3 and if one were to play both it'd be obvious what they'd stick with however you seem to use this as some sort of "proof" that the PS3 never was more powerful than the 360 ignoring games such as God of War 3, Killzone 2 and especially Uncharted 2 which have done each indivdual graphical task better and combined with solid framerates.

Could this show that the PS3 has difficulty being programmed for certain engines, yes! does this mean it is now suddenly proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the 360 is more powerful? no. You are a fanboy and in true fashion you distort things into a shape and form you like as to suit you needs the difference is you try to cover that by stealth trolling...because lets face it you have some sort of grudge with the PS3 and unless it slept with your mother I think you should let it go or if you hate the PS3 because of the idiocy displayed by PS3 fanboys well I think it's time to grow up? Don't you?

funny when i see a name like that then see a fanboyish comment

not sure what you mean when you say "blurs entire screen" because it looks really sharp

its not KZ2 sharp of course and im sure the 360 version is also not as sharp as KZ2 or the long list of graphical "award winning" monsters that PS3 has popped out over the last couple years but a game of this size i would never expect that... fact is it still looks amazing 2me and is one of the best looking games this year so far

"not sure what you mean when you say "blurs entire screen" because it looks really sharp

its not KZ2 sharp of course and im sure the 360 version is also not as sharp as KZ2"

firstly, you obviously have poor eyesight if you cant see that the entire image is blurred on the PS3. id get that checked out if i was you :).

secondly, both RDR and Killzone 2 use the AWFUL Quincunx Anti-Aliasing method. do you know what that is or what it does? let me tell you. anti-aliasing is a method used to get rid of 'jaggies' - where a straight line gets the 'stair stepped' appearance. Quincunx is the single least processor intensive Anti-Aliasing method around, and as such is generally the one that most PS3 games use (360 on the other hand generally uses 2xMSAA as its given "for free" by the 10mb of EDRam on the GPU. to my knowledge, not a single 360 game uses Quincunx)

the problem lies with the Quincunx method. to reduce 'jaggies', Quincunx AA literally blurs the entire frame. by blurring the entire frame, it reduces the sharpness of the jagged edges, making them less noticable. the downside though, is that the entire image is now blurred. for a good article on this with examples, read this: http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... )

and i just want to point out that this is NOT debatable. this is how the method is done, and Red Dead on the PS3 and Killzone 2 both use this method. they both have QAA, and as such they both blur the entire image. the 360 version of Red Dead does NOT use this method, hence why it looks so much 'cleaner' and has more defined texture detail and edges. Killzone 2 is not 'sharp' in any meaning of the word. the developers even said they specifically went for the 'analogue' look (ie. like its filmed on an old video camera, not HD digital). it uses QAA, which is half the reason all the textures lack detail.

now some people do prefer the blurry look as its not as 'sharp'. personally i prefer seeing more detail and having a little bit more aliasing than losing a lot of detail just to reduce aliasing.

I've seen what the PS3 can do. So have you. Red Dead Redepmtion does not maximize the PS3. The engine that Rockstar is using may have reached its limit on the PS3 though.

@FaZtKillar

That doesn't really prove anything.....having a few exclusives that look amazing doesn't prove it is more powerful.

For your information the ps3 could be 5% weaker than the 360 and with enough money, talent and expertise thrown at it you could manage to make a few games really excel.....even above the 360's games (provided MS doesn't put the same effort in). The problem is that those games have nothing to compare them too since they are only on one console and it is mostly a matter of opinion since you cant directly compare them to the same game on another console.

Multiplatform games can be directly compared point by point. If after all this time most multiplatform games still tend to be better on the 360 you can't just blame that on the developers.....you would have to be crazy not to realize that it has something to do with qualities inherent to the ps3.

commodore!!! reality is ps3 did its best but came up short. not once but twice as far as rockstar is concerned

tell em pistelero!!! name one ps3 exclusive like RDR thats better lol

hahahaha ur comment made my day...
its funny how blind/stupid u are to actually think like that.
go out of your rock and see/play other games from the ps3 , u'll notice a big difference between ps3 exclusives and xbox exclusives, resulting the ps3 as the winner, after that the question rise... how can you actually think that more can be "pushed" with the xbox hardware than with the ps3? simple fanboyism? the evidence is right there...

I actually think that the guys @ rockstar took the easy/quicker path to finish the game on the ps3 (quincunx AA..etc), because if they actually wanted to maximise the game on the ps3 as much as the ps3 could, man... this will be a totally different history, but well... this is multiplat games for you!

One engine on the 360 might not work as well on the PS3 EVEN AFTER OPTIMISING IT! One could ask Rockstar to create a whole new engine more suited for the PS3 Hardware but that would be ridiculous considering the costs, extra time and minimal difference for maximal effort so you're not wrong in saying Rockstar have a talented team who probably tried their hardest however you are drawing conclusion out of your own wishful thinking ;)

they have frame rate drops using qaa how you think they were gonna use a better technique?!