Just fired this game up for the first time in 7 years and it still looks impressive

Just fired this game up for the first time in 7 years and it still looks impressive.

How did they accomplish this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/LHloJDgkUho
youtube.com/watch?v=_tAkTiLn_uk
youtu.be/sZWg4P9O9ig?t=2351
youtube.com/watch?v=mmjHg_uTABY
wccftech.com/34bigthings-denies-digital-foundry-redout/
gamersyde.com/hqstream_red_dead_redemption_xbox_one_x_gameplay-41281_en.html
youtube.com/watch?v=Mp2p9kFFKME
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You're playing on an xbox, I guess?

I played the PS3 version, it was such an abomination. Shouldn't have even bothered porting it.

Still a mystery to me especially when you read up on the coding issues that this game had and why they never bothered to remaster or port it to PC.

>You're playing on an xbox,
Yes, I have a One S and it looks great.

And I've heard all the rumors about the PlayStation 3 version, making multiplat games for the PS3 back in the day was apparently a nightmare.

there's nothing wrong with the PS3 port delusional xbot
go on, show me some evidence

define impressive

How about the game running at about 3 frames per second? Go and try playing it.

The frame rate on PS3 is worse. Aside from that, only thing I ever really noticed was that when you go to hitch your horse, sometimes it takes a little while for the prompt to appear when it was always instantaneous on Xbox.

Because they couldn't because the coding was such a mess

exaggeration isn't going to help your argument
of course it isn't silky smooth 60 fps, it's a 7th gen console
should've went with the loading screens, which are hell if you want to go online
then again, the online IS free, even today

>640p

>How did they accomplish this?
R* is literally the best AAA dev there is.

It isn't silky smooth 60 FPS, but it ain't 30 either. Drops to 20 are all over the place.

Is PS3's online as fucked as the Xbox version?

Basically it's aged well for a game that was made 8 years ago.

youtu.be/LHloJDgkUho

by not pandering to low end MUH PC MUSTARDRACE plebs and developing strictly for superior consoles
quality over quantity my lads

there's the bugged zombies that let you rank in XP
but whenever someone does it in a public lobby it goes to hell

other than that everyone still online is just there to boost trophies really

Call of duty was 60fps on the 360 and ps3, that's not an argument

Shame, I thought the zombie apocalypse was confined to Xbox servers.

do you seriously believe activsion's marketing?

Lol fucking what? A game being 60fps is marketing now?

it wasn't 60fps you fucking turbofaggot, ps3 and 360 can't do 60fps for shit, I think RAGE or whatever the fuck it was called had it and it was atrocious, with horrible popups literally every single time you moved the camera a nanometer.

>now
we're talking last gen here

Cod 4 was 60fps. I don't know why you're being retarded on purpose

>8 years ago
>aged

I think this is retarded.

This

...

don't listen to the retards regurgitating shit from years ago
back then, retards fell for the steam meme and they automatically presumed a console couldn't run 60 fps by nature, just to justify their pricey pc

Was

maybe with an abysmal resolution, and I could see cod MAYBE raching 60fps on consoles since there's jack shit to render in the first place

what is this fake bullshit
I played this game only recently and I clearly remember the crispy shadows on the left

Alright well nice talking to you goal post mover

youtube.com/watch?v=_tAkTiLn_uk
might as well stop being retarded
look at this garbage. I sincerely doubt it's reaching 60fps, that doesn't look like 60fps to me, more like 40 at best and with 240p rez aka potato quality.
stop it. I know you're a child and don't remember how big of a thing actually getting a console to run 60fps was, but just check fuckign youtube and see for yourself.
RAGE was the only game that actually reached 60fps but at the expense of terrible pop-in. and I know this because I played all of them WHEN THEY FUCKIGN CAME OUT.

>maybe
>MAYBE
do you know when you use these? when you make assumptions
your counterargument is literally baseless assumptions and you don't even try to hide it

Cause theres nothing much in the actual game

youtu.be/sZWg4P9O9ig?t=2351
actual 60fps on a console
compare it to the other video I posted above of cod, and you can blatantly see a difference in movement (unless you're autistic and can't discern between 30fps and 60fps)

Sonyfag assblasted
Video: youtube.com/watch?v=mmjHg_uTABY

>360/ps3 game
>impressive looking

still not worth an xbox for

literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to justify a useless console

You're right, I booted up my PS3 copy and started a new game to check. The shadows are there on PS3. That image is fake news.

>looks
Catering to nugamers with heaps of style over substance bullshit in a shallow as fuck pile of garbage game.

That's how.

why are they slowing the release of new technology for us Sup Forums? i wanted to live in a techn utopia ;_;

Here
Yeah I know it's hard to believe I guess Rockstar was one of the few devs that can pull it off

Whatever floats your boat, I'll keep my xbox with superior looking games.

>xbox doesn't drop a single frame through the whole video
yeah I call bullshit

>Current gen is so pathetically close to the last that people now exaggerate the latter's shortcomings for no reason other than possibly justifying their new purchases and brand loyalty

And it's always about the R* games for some reason. People are calling last gen GTAV "unplayable"

>Linking Digital Foundry after what happened today
wow lad

GTAV on PS3/360? yep, that's pretty much a waste of money

>5 year old game still looks better than anything released today

THE FUCK?

consolefriends have no perspective on what looks great. that's how.

The denial is real, try this timestamp
0:31

what happened?

Richard is going to jail.

NEVER EVER friends
by the way, what has even released on pc that required a pc in the last few years
have you even looked at steam? it's basically google playstore now

Yeah, maybe now, no shit. But it launched there and for the longest time the 7th gen version sales were in the lead. It wasn't an unplayable game, at all, at least on 360

i tried playing it on xbox one and it looked like utter fucking shit.

damn, sonybros really can't handle the truth

why the fuck would you EVER buy a game from last gen when the new gen is right around the corner?

Source?
>no AA
>640p
>more frame drops

but I have RDR and a PS4. I'm sorry you don't like the truth.

I dunno, tell to the millions that did. And because I'm not a mindless consumerist, I'm still not planning to buy a PS4 or Xbox One, imagine how less i cared then

K

Im playing it on the x1x and it looks good .

>BUT I WIN U SEE WITH THIS PROGRAM!
>DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT LOOKS LIKE COMPLETE GARBAGE
the absolute state of call of duty fags

what are you even playing then? bing bing wahoo? assfaggots? epic meme simulator? ironic weeb VN?

Pedo? I fucking knew it

I own the game on my 360 but I'd love a PC port to play it again at 60 fps. Probably won't happen since the physics are most likely locked to the framerate, like LA Noire's physics.

Spill the beans user

kill yourself

Bit of everything. 3DS, PC (only games old or simple enough not to make my laptop explode), PS2, Wii U (which means also Wii and GC, never had those before)... I have an Xbox and the aforementioned 360 too but i had to leave them in my family's house for a while now that i moved

Why, is it so weird to imagine someone playing games that aren't Memewatch and Horizon or something?

Why so mad bro?

I believe owning a 360, and having CoD4 be my first multiplayer title. And then playing the rest of the series. All of them at a fairly consistent 60fps.

Educate yourself moron.

Throwing all your eggs in the graphical basket to make up for an otherwise mediocre gaming experience.

Its not impressive, user. The zombie dlc is pretty cool, but nothing impressive at all.

> it can't do 60fps
> it can tho
> my goalposts are here now

Battlefield 1 literally looks better

I've played both the PS3 and 360 version. The PS3 version is inferior, but it isn't THAT bad.

I've yet to play it on Xbox One though. Everyone says that's the best way to play it.

>Battlefield 1
you can't be serious
well, I guess you can say muddy textures fit WW1

By not caring that it runs like absolute dogshit.

He is just memeing because wccftech.com/34bigthings-denies-digital-foundry-redout/
retard

should've bought a 360

>almost eight years later we're still having RDR console war shitflinging threads

Kill me.

I've played the game on both, most recently a few months ago on the 360.
Both run like pure trash and look so jagged and blurry it make your eyes hurt.

Graphics haven't improved that much since 2006. Consider that modded crysis1 is still better looking than MOST console games and that tells you everything you need to hear.

Xbox one X is the definitive version gamersyde.com/hqstream_red_dead_redemption_xbox_one_x_gameplay-41281_en.html

>How about the game running at about 3 frames per second?

Both versions have horrible FPS drops. The 360 version is actually worse than the PS3 at some parts. The 360 has a crisper image and better performance overall though.

Honestly RDR is a game that shouldn't have been released in the quality it was. It wasn't nearly polished enough for launch when they pushed it out the door.

Can't disagree with that.

Looks exactly the same. Only difference is that it has an (almost) stable framerate.

That's kinda the point to be made here. Definitive, best way to play.

Better performance (better loading times) and benefit from (forced) 16x anisotropic filtering. For it to look a bit better, it need to be enhanced like youtube.com/watch?v=Mp2p9kFFKME

no I want to hear more actually

Crysis has fantastic detailed environments, but it's shaders are primitive and polycount is lower than it is today. So it's more detailed, but worse looking. Halo 3 looks nicer in my opinion, its lighting and shaders just seem more solid.

I think it was just overly ambitious for the hardware of its time, much like most of the GTA games were, and there really was little choice between either spending overly long dev cycles on sacrificing assets and optimizing or just getting the game to run what they perceived satisfactory for the hardware and then selling it.

You have to remember that as bad as the PS4 and XB1 are at being behind modern PC builds, the PS3 and 360 were way worse by the time RDR came out. So devs had the hardware and ability to do all sorts of shit that the the consoles everyone had to play the game with couldn't reasonably handle. Thus half the library of the 360 and PS3 have unstable broken framerates, bizarre resolutions, and shoddy texture implementation.

great contribution

>still looks impressive

I think you meant it still looks decent and not like complete shit

yeah, rdr. I have issues sleeping so I turn this game on every time I just can't fall asleep.

Its just really good art direction. It looks ever so slightly cartoonish that prevents it from looking outdated really fast

Makes me question the art for RDR2... that dude's mouth looks hilariously big.

PS3 has more clouds

it's fake retard