Gta4

[Asher]

What is your XBL ID Imran?

[asleepathewheel]

If you're on a bike, you can go between the toll booths and avoid paying.

[Asher]

Eurogamer put up an excellent comparison of the two versions. The guy who did it posts at Beyond3D and basically worked on this continuously over the past week. He has tons of specialized tools to compare framerates and graphics across platforms.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=137829&page=1

Their comparison videos are ultra high quality h264 videos. Up until the encode they were stored losslessly, so there's no quality degradation.

First things first. Xbox 360 runs at full 720p (1280x720), whereas the PlayStation 3 code takes a 20 per cent hit, being natively rendered at 1152x640 before being software-upscaled. Regular readers of the face-off features know that this approach can work well (check out the comparison gallery for Dark Sector in the last face-off) but in most cases, the PS3 port just tends to look like a blurrier version of the original Xbox code: not impressive considering that typically, PS3 hardware - and sometimes software - is more expensive.

GTA IV is a kind of weird combination of the two. Both versions feature heavily post-processed visuals, in particular when it comes to depth-of-field effects. Objects in the distance on both versions are blurred in an effort to match the natural focus of the human eye. Where post-processed blur meets the upscaling effect of PlayStation 3, the result usually looks very good indeed - a little softer, of course, but rarely distracting. A slight change of hue (particularly noticeable on indoor cut-scenes) also makes the PS3 version look slightly warmer.

Technically speaking, Xbox 360 really should be winning this contest hands-down, but bizarrely, it doesn't. There's support for proper hardware-assisted anti-aliasing, eliminating a great deal of the jagginess of the PlayStation 3 version, plus it's running at full-fat 720p. However, Rockstar has introduced a 360-specific post-processing effect that dithers just about every texture on-screen. It's an effect not present at all on the PS3 version and serves to introduce an oil-painting-like effect to the overall look of the game, particularly on background objects. Unfortunately, it also seems to actively distort the edges of detail in the textures and occasionally looks really ugly.

As it is then, both versions of the game have their strengths and weakness. Ask anyone which look they prefer when presented with comparison shots and you'll find that opinion is divided pretty much straight down the middle. Even Rockstar VP and GTA IV co-writer Sam Houser stepped into the debate, telling 1UP that the 360 version had a "more clinical element" while the PS3 game has "a certain kind of softness without being blurry... [with] some warmth to it". I can see why PS3 would be more appealing to some. The upscale and resultant blur helps to make the game look a touch more movie-like; less rendered and less 'gamey' if you will - a good combination for a mainstream audience.

What is curious to me is that I can see no technical reason why the 360 game shouldn't just be a more detailed, smoother version of the PS3 version. Indeed, if the texture-dither filter could be turned off with a selectable option in a forthcoming patch, I'm almost certain that it would be the superior-looking game simply by virtue of the extra resolution and edge-filtering. But as it is, right now, there's not much in it.

As it is then, it comes down to personal preference, and in my view, Xbox 360 just 'edges' it. It seems that Rockstar didn't appear to issue a single PS3 screenshot pre-launch, which indicates that in-house the 360 game was the lead platform, and obviously the one chosen to best serve the PR effort. Anyone who's ever worked in the games business will know how carefully Rockstar controls its assets, so choosing 360 was a conscious decision. As an aside, it does seem quite ironic that in most cases, the PlayStation press would've been running previews and even reviews with Xbox 360 screenshots.

This section of the feature mainly came about to prove or disprove a lot of the claims floating about online concerning apparent technical differences between the two games. As the vast majority of them were derived mostly from looking at screenshots other people had posted, or guesswork based on the advantages of the PS3's hard disk installation, I thought they were worth putting to the test.

Part of the reason this face-off has taken so long to put together is because actually matching the two games up is a really tough task. To get truly comparable shots, you really need to be capturing the action at the same time during the game's day-night cycle and more than that, you doubly need to make sure that the weather is identical too - not so easy when it appears to change in an arbitrary manner. Thankfully, the recently-released cheat codes allowed me to match up the weather identically before each capture was initiated, the only variable being the time taken to accomplish the same mission on both versions.

Time for a spot of myth-busting then. Aside from a slight tweak to the colour palette (going back once again to Houser's 'warmer' PS3 comments), the two games feature virtually identical lighting. Day and night cycles are basically the same, weather likewise. A case has also been made online with judiciously chosen screenshots that the PS3 version has better-realised explosion effects, but again, in controlled conditions this is proven not to be the case. In fact, the only lighting issue between the two versions that stands out is a shimmering on shadows on the 360 version. Noticeably improved on PS3, but hardly earth-shaking stuff.

Onto the next bone of contention then: draw distance. The theory is that the PS3's mandatory hard disk installation gives the Sony version an advantage here, but once again, the evidence clearly shows that the Xbox 360 game matches it. It's not difficult to see why. If the hard disk is good for anything, it's the swift streaming of texture detail, not the actual geometry.

Despite the hard disk advantage of PS3, I found it very hard indeed to show a tangible advantage in terms of texture streaming, aside from whatever wear and tear on the 360's DVD-ROM unit the game might inflict long-term. Maniacal flying of the helicopter showed obvious pop-in on 360 that the PS3 version coped better with, but in more common game conditions both versions acted in a very similar manner. In fact, both games infrequently exhibited pop-in textures, something you wouldn't expect from the PS3 code.

Both versions of the game have support for 1080i and 1080p monitors, even though the actual output is being scaled up from the base resolution (640p for PS3, 720p for Xbox 360). In the case of PlayStation 3, the effect only kicks in at all if 720p is not activated on the XMB, the implication being that Rockstar is happier with your screen handling the resizing work. Certainly, the lower resolution and (dare I say it) 'jagginess' are exaggerated in the scaling process, which isn't particularly good.

On the plus side, while software upscaling more often than not results in a drop in frame-rate, the refresh rate of the PlayStation 3 version of GTA IV is barely affected, regardless of whether 1080i or 1080p is selected.

We're on far more familiar ground with the Xbox 360 version of the game in that it's following the usual form of handing off the scaling duties to the ATI GPU. That being the case, it actually looks pretty good. While the texture dithering problem is still clearly apparent, the scaling does help to smooth off the effect a touch, meaning that the apparently 'clinical' look has had the edge taken off. More than that, the ATI chip works particularly well with an anti-aliased image to process, and as GTA IV supports that, the overall effect is fairly pleasing.

Also worth noting is that both versions have proper, non-letterboxed 4:3 support for standard definition screens, and 360 even has 5:4 compatibility for those running their consoles connected to non-widescreen LCD monitors.

Frame Rate Tests

So far, aside from the different visual approaches, there's not much to tell the two games apart. But the one difference I couldn't help but notice was the sense that as well as possessing a higher resolution, the Xbox 360 version of GTA IV runs noticeably smoother than the PlayStation 3 code.

What is clear is that both versions adhere to no specific frame-rate. They'll pump out as many frames as they can, roughly averaging out to around 30fps (though it can go higher). However, the amount of time any given frame will stay on-screen is variable, leading to a very inconsistent look. Compare and contrast with, say, Project Gotham Racing 4, or Criterion's Black - both examples of games with a rock solid 30fps refresh rate. In terms of GTA IV, its basic inconsistency means it's really difficult to say whether one version drops more frames than the other just by trusting your own eyes. A more scientific approach is needed.

In previous face-off features, where I've felt that it's relevant, I've always mentioned the difference in refresh rate, but now I can show you how I do it. Essentially, the basic method is simple - capture every single frame that is output over the HDMI port in a lossless format, then examine the capture to check for the amount of unique frames. Digital Foundry's coder programmed a very useful little tool that does that count for me; useful considering the first test is based on a video with over 16,000 frames.

For GTA IV, I performed six tests on a varied amount of material. All of the game's cut-scenes are based on the same engine as the gameplay, so a variety of them were chosen, both indoors and outdoors, and of varying lengths. As the cut-scenes are rendering identical scenes on the fly, it's the best test I could come up with. In all cases, the respective 3D engines will be dealing with 100 percent identical source material.

Links to compressed versions of the test material are provided, but please bear in mind that there's some pretty hardcore swearing. Oh, and possibly some spoilers.

Test One: Game Intro
360: 31.990fps
PS3: 26.460fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Two: Clean Getaway
360: 28.624fps
PS3: 23.452fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Three: Final Destination
360: 35.262fps
PS3: 29.041fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Four: Station Face-Off
360: 26.076fps
PS3: 26.081fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Five: Rigged to Blow
360: 26.712fps
PS3: 23.781fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Six: Ivan the Not So Terrible
360: 33.798fps
PS3: 28.313fps
See it on EGTV.

So the results clearly show that over the course of the entire clip, 360 out-performs PlayStation 3 in all but one of the six scenarios presented here. Indeed, on the longer vids we're seeing a good 17 to 18 percent variance. Tests on gameplay (playing through the same mission, but not rendering identical scenes, obviously) saw a similar range of variance too. For example, the 'Ivan the Not So Terrible' stage has a nice range of in-car, on-foot, rooftop and cut-scene action. 30.704fps average on a 360 runthrough, compared with 26.522fps and 26.274fps on two separate PS3 captures of the same mission.

The bottom line is that no matter what material I put through the detector, 360 came ahead in all tests, sometimes dramatically so.
'Grand Theft Auto IV: PS3 vs. Xbox 360 Special' Screenshot 3

However, it is worth bearing in mind that the frame-rate detector can only produce an average rate. By looking at the other comparison videos in this piece, you'll see that by and large the games generally run at the same speed. However, when the engine struggles to cope, the frame-rate falls and it drops harder on PS3, hence bringing down the overall average.

One curiosity I found was that the PS3 version has v-lock enabled, whereas 360 can produce the odd torn frame. This might be seen to skew results in 360's favour were it not for the fact that, typically, a torn frame is only on-screen for 1/60th of a second before v-sync is re-established. Therefore, it's not likely to affect the overall result, and is certainly not an issue during gameplay. The hosted clips are from the 360 version by the way, in case you want to check.

Truth be told, it's not really the visual differences as such that gravitates me slightly towards the 360 version; it's just that the game runs more solidly on the Microsoft platform, and when the frame-rate does drop, it's not quite so jarring as it is on PS3.

And Finally...

After almost two thousands words of technical discussion, the bottom line is that it's clear that Rockstar had some issues matching the basic performance of the Xbox 360 game on the PS3 hardware. Lower resolution, zero anti-aliasing support and a more variable frame-rate are the bottom line.

On the one hand, it's a touch disappointing that Rockstar's USD 100 million budget couldn't extend to optimising the experience to match Xbox 360, especially when you look at a game like Burnout Paradise that doesn't require a mandatory installation, has a basically rock solid frame-rate, and is technically identical cross-platform.

That said, it's patently clear that Rockstar hasn't handed in a lazy conversion here. Creative decisions have been made to compensate for the technical limitations, and by and large they really work, to the point where you sometimes wonder why they couldn't have been applied to the Xbox 360 version too. PS3 GTA IV looks absolutely fantastic, and even factoring in zero anti-aliasing support and a lower resolution, in many scenarios it looks as good as the 360 version, if not better.

I've not addressed the freezing issue being reported on the game, of course. I'll have to leave that to the people affected as - try as I might to coax the code to fall over and die horribly - GTA IV behaved impeccably for me on both systems. But the chances are that by the time you read, a PS3 patch will be out and about that should sort out those who've been affected. A 360 update after that, please, complete with a tweakable option to use the PS3 post-processing modes. Now that would be interesting.

[snoopy369]

Why does the PS3 version upscale from x640 to x720 (ie, why doesn't it start out at x720?)

[Asher]

http://theexplodingbarrel.com/?p=181

How My Wife Ruined GTA IV
By Jeremy ⋅ May 6, 2008 ⋅ Post a comment

We usually don’t write many personal pieces here on TEB, but I just have to share the story of my wife playing GTA IV for the first time. I want to make a couple things clear before I start this absurd story. 1. I love girl gamers. I think its awesome when girls get really into video games and break stereotypes by whooping ass in COD4 or GTA IV multiplayer. I’m not trying to hate on girl gamers. 2. I love my wife and she is very understanding of my video game obsession.

Ok, now that the disclaimer is over, I can proceed with the story.

As of late, much of my time has been spent in the friendly confines of Liberty City, and my wife has been extremely tolerant of my gaming time. Last weekend we were about to go out to eat, so I began shutting the game down when the thought popped in my head, “After watching me play for hours, I wonder if my wife wants a turn?” She was sitting on the couch next to me, so I extended the controller to her and asked, “You wanna drive around for a bit?” She replied, “Sure, why not.” During her time in Liberty City, my wife somehow manage to suck all of the fun out of GTA IV.

I was in some ****ty coupe when she took over the wheel, and she began tooling around the city in a leisurely fashion. I mentioned that she might want a slicker ride, and helped her exit the car and attempt to jack another one. She ran up to a car with two homeboys in it and yanked the door open, but that’s when things went horribly wrong. She walked away from the car, and one of the gentlemen came chasing with a baseball bat. In all the excitement, she clicked the left stick sending Niko into a crouch then yelled “Why does my guy keep ducking??” I yelled “Click the left-stick” repeatedly without realizing she would have no idea what that actually meant. Attempting to flee the scene, she crouch-walked down the street only to get whipped some more with by the guy with the bat. Miraculously, somehow she ended up punching the guy several times, knocking him out, and getting his bat. After walking around in circles a few times, it was finally time to leave the scene. As she was leaving, we saw the guy she just beat up limping away. I suggested she finish him off and she said “Awww, that’s not nice, he learned his lesson.” He learned his lesson indeed.

After making it through our first big fight, my wife ran up to a trash dumpster and began repeatedly hitting it with her new baseball bat (because she wanted to swing the bat but hitting people is mean she said). This went on for around 2 minutes before I suggested that she moved on to a different, perhaps more entertaining, activity. She ran over to a huge semi truck and jacked it. I thought to myself “This should be fun, there is no way she is going to be able to drive that around and not get in trouble.” I couldn’t have been more wrong. As the semi began to lumber out of its parking spot my wife exclaimed, “Oooh, you know what will be fun, driving around and obeying all of the traffic rules.” Yeah, because THAT’S what makes GTA IV a great game, obeying all the rules! What the holy hell is wrong here!?!?

My wife played this mind-numbingly boring game of obeying traffic lights for around 5 minutes before accidentally hitting an elderly pedestrian while traveling about 2 miles an hour. My wife gasped and lept from her truck to “check and see if she is ok.” I’m not making this **** up. I asked my wife, “What are you going to do if she is injured…throw her in your semi and take her to the hospital?” to which she replied, “Can you do that in this game?” Sadly…no. (unfortunately, the poor old woman did not make it through the accident.)

After the tragedy of mowing down the old woman, my wife decided driving a semi was a little to much vehicle for her to handle in a safe manner. She jacked a parked car and immediately was pursued by Liberty City’s finest. Amazingly, she was able to escape the grasp of the long arm of the law (I believe she ran some stoplights during the chase.) That may have been a little too much excitement because after fleeing to safety she decided her time in Liberty City was over. She handed the controller back to me, and I immediately began plugging pedestrians with my shotgun because I was full of pent up GTA rage from watching that lame-ass traffic law game. Seeing my murderous rampage, my wife yelled “Stop! Stop! You’re being like that kid from Virginia Tech!” Seriously, I’m not making this **** up. Chalk one up for Jack-****ing-Thompson.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Why does the PS3 version upscale from x640 to x720 (ie, why doesn't it start out at x720?)

Probably to keep the framerate up. It's still lower.

The general consensus is the game is memory bandwidth limited.

The game was developed on the 360 as the lead platform, and ported to the PS3 after the fact (almost simultaneously, the PS3 version was ~2 weeks behind the 360 typically).

On the 360, it's 720p with 2x anti-aliasing with a higher framerate.
On the PS3, it's 640p with 0x anti-aliasing with a slightly lower framerate.

If the PS3 version had 720p, the framerate would be even lower.
Add 2x anti-aliasing, it'd be even lower still. It looks like they ditched AA and some resolution to keep the framerate up to acceptable levels.

The reason why the framerate was lower is likely the memory bandwidth. On the PS3, the graphics chip renders the frame in the 22GB/s memory pool -- the same pool used for texture loading, geometry, etc -- all graphics assets. Anti-aliasing is a huge bandwidth hog, and the higher the resolution is the more bandwidth you're taking up as well.

This is less of an issue on the 360 because of its 10MB of eDRAM. This 10MB is where the 360 draws the frame, with 256GB/s of memory bandwidth available (vs 22GB/s on the framebuffer bandwidth on the PS3). This means anti-aliasing takes far less bandwidth in relative terms, and so does the resolution. Because most of the 360's graphics bandwidth is offloaded on this eDRAM, it frees up the 22GB/s connection to system RAM as well.

[asleepathewheel]

heh.
My wife cackles like a madwoman when she runs down the elderly. Its rather disturbing.

[Ninot]

I like getting into massive car accidents with large sized vehicles, like the firetruck. I specially like ramming a car untill the driver inside is dead.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Asher


Trial and error. I found an algorithm that works most of the time:

Move two steps to the left, so you see 5 arrows to the right of your guy.

Pull straight back on the right stick, then nonchalantly push it forward and slightly to the right (so the stick is pointing between the start and X buttons). The trick is the starting position of Niko, position of the right analog stick, and not to push too hard -- fast bowls do NOT get strikes. You want a slower ball.

The other thing I noticed is the right analog stick controls the bowling ball (more or less) until it reaches the second set of arrows.

Well, that made things much easier, and I hit three strikes immediately.

[Asher]

It's easy once you know the tricks of the trade.

[snoopy369]

Hmm, bowling in GTA4... wonder if they're planning a Wii release

[Asher]

GTA4 bowling is deeper than most Wii games...

The pool game as well.

[snoopy369]

Perhaps (I've not played it of course), but bowling with a wiimote has to be more fun that doing it with a controller... The Wii bowling game is fun, except as you say it's not terribly deep (but it does have a good implementation of spin, it's hard to bowl much over 100 without using spin).

[DrSpike]

I think it is. My experience was limited to a few quick games over Christmas but once you get it down pat you can quite easily get a strike. The trick is to make as boring a movement as possible.

I'm pretty sure I could bowl a perfect game within an evening.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I think it is. My experience was limited to a few quick games over Christmas but once you get it down pat you can quite easily get a strike. The trick is to make as boring a movement as possible.

I'm pretty sure I could bowl a perfect game within an evening.

Yeah, once you have it down, you really have to work at making it fun again-ie working weird angles and spins.

oddly, one of the more effective ways to bowl is to just hold the ball as long as possible, throw it slightly into the air, and it will go straight. do that at a bowling alley, and you'll probably get thrown out after a couple of tries.

my wii bowling high is 254 I think.