Sections

RDR invisibility bugs being fixed by Rockstar

Thursday, 20th May 2010 09:02 GMT By Johnny Cullen

Red Dead Redemption Art

Rockstar’s said that it is currently fixing any invisibility bugs being found in Red Dead Redemption.

Users with the game are reporting that stuff such as player characters, horses, hands and guns are just some of the stuff to disappear. But Rockstar’s already on the case.

“If you’re having issues please email RDRSupportteam@rockstargames.com,” a firm rep told Kotaku. “We are also actively on the forums helping people with any questions they may have about the game. Thank you all for your support and we look forward to getting a fix out as quickly as soon as we can.”

Good stuff.

Red Dead’s out now in the US, and is out tomorrow in the UK for PS3 and 360. Hopefully, all of the rumored $100 million-costing content will be there and not invisible.

It gets its first DLC in the form of co-op and more next month.

Breaking news

37 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. AHA-Lambda

    OMG my copy of RDR arrived in the post today 2 days early!!!!! I CAN’T PLAY IT!!!!! WHYYY???!!!

    #1 4 years ago
  2. Blerk

    Ooh, you bugger! Still, at least you can’t play it. Mwah-ha-ha! :-D

    /not jealous

    #2 4 years ago
  3. KAP

    Why cant you play it?!

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Erthazus

    God, they are fixing what they don’t need to fix right now >___>

    Rockstar you are SHIT. Please fix SUB-HD THING.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. pleasant_cabbage

    Fix the PS3? Asking a bit much from R* ;)

    #5 4 years ago
  6. AHA-Lambda

    I have a plethora of final exams to study for right now and i just plain cant take the time off to play a game like RDR.

    So i wont get to play it until next friday after my final final exam D;

    I am inconsolable

    #6 4 years ago
  7. Blerk

    You’re not going to get a resolution fix, Erthazus. They never fixed the resolution on GTA IV, they didn’t fix it for RDR’s release, why would they suddenly be able to magically fix it in an overnight patch now?

    #7 4 years ago
  8. Erthazus

    @7 well i hope this time they can fix it. I have a big TV and i don’t want to play the game with the SUB-HD thing. For that, everybody can sue them.

    They are screwing their customer. Basically just compress resolution, take aways few shaders, textures and go play it on Xbox 1.

    Interesting, how they are going to make AGENT (PS3 exclusive) with the shitty RAGE engine? Sub-HD again? Teh Power of PeeS Tree?

    #8 4 years ago
  9. AHA-Lambda

    Wait was gta 4 sub hd on ps3 too? O_o

    Was it sub hd on 360?

    #9 4 years ago
  10. Whizzo

    Sue them for not making a 720P game, you’re completely insane aren’t you?

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Erthazus

    @9 it was not Sub HD, 360 have better frame rate and Ps3 version had lightning better.

    But thank god i played it on my PC and believe even with MAX graphics seetings it is worse then playing on console if you have shitty PC. Thats how i call: Bad programmers

    RAGE engine is a trash.

    @10 No, of course i won’t sue. I’m not an idiot. But the thing is, this is complete retarded move to make SUB-HD and be done with it.
    They had huge time to upgrade it’s engine, but no… We don’t know how to make it work right on Cell processor with overlocked GPU, so what are we going to do then? We are not going to touch anything, just a 360 port.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. JonFE

    @Whizzo: No, just a sue-happy American (I presume)… ;)

    #12 4 years ago
  13. pleasant_cabbage

    @9 Yep. GTA IV was 640p on the PS3 but 720p on the 360.
    The same as RDR, I think.

    People rely on the pixel counts a bit too much imo, there’s not much in it either way and it’ll be fine on either system.

    There’s a few comparison shots knocking around if they interest you

    http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21355476&postcount=704

    And a nit-picky type article here:
    http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/05/20/read-red-redemption-ps3-vs-360/

    #13 4 years ago
  14. Blerk

    GTA 4 on PS3 was the same resolution as RDR is on PS3.

    #14 4 years ago
  15. JPickford

    I love armchair dev experts.

    There’s no way RDR is a badly made game. It looks beautiful and runs well on both consoles. It’s a bit better on 360 like nearly every multi-format game.

    It must be soul destroying to work your arse off for years on a (clearly) brilliant product only for some gobshites on the internet to accuse you of incompetence or laziness over perfectly reasonable dev decisions (prioritising framerate over resolution).

    #15 4 years ago
  16. Erthazus

    @14 It used processing atleast and made lightning better and other pretty stuff.
    It was ok. they looked both: One version is worse then other in something.

    Sub-HD you can fix by adding illusional effects and it’s working. But RDR have nothing. It’s just an Xbox 360 port and lets be done with that.
    They didn’t even tested it properly.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Erthazus

    @15 Blind much? http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21355476&postcount=704

    LOD issues, shadows missing, SUB-HD, shimmering artifacts, frame rate. Less grass. Perfect. 360 port without even properly test.

    and not nearly as every 360 multiplatform. We are not in 2007. Even Borderlands that was created on Xbox 360 from the start looked on PS3 better because people cared about CPU processor speed.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. Boris Fett

    ITT: People who know nothing about hardware bitching about graphics.

    Well said JPickford. I couldn’t agree with you more.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. Blerk

    Ultimately the game’s still going to be brilliant regardless. It might be a bit disappointing that it doesn’t match up to the 360 version, but once you get into it you’re not even going to notice. Stuff like invisible horses, on the other hand…. that’s going to grate pretty quickly – good to see they’re on the case with the patches already.

    #19 4 years ago
  20. Erthazus

    @19 Ultimately i paid for the Bloory 360 port 39.99 GBP. For that i don’t want to pay nothing. Atleast they could remind that it is running on SUB-HD, but we don’t want to do it because we need to sell games.

    I paid full price for that. I won’t pay full price for shitty games and shitty ports. Well i did that because of mistake. But even if i bought, i’m a customer and thats disrespect from a big company that have all resources to fix a port.

    #20 4 years ago
  21. Boris Fett

    You do realise the phrase “HD” itself is nothing more than hyperbole, right? There is no such thing as “sub-HD”. It is simply a different resolution.

    If the game can’t run reliably on the PS3, blame Sony. They are the ones who choose to make their console harder to develop for. It has nothing to do with laziness. You just expect someone to press a magic button and magically make it work better, when the simply fact is that the machine’s hardware limitation and needless complexity required this to be done IN ORDER FOR THE GAME TO EVEN RUN!

    Calling it a shitty game because of a slightly lower resolution makes you an idiot. It’s the same goddamn game. It’s just as retarded as people referring to the 360 version of FFXIII as an “inferior game.”

    Christ, I can remember when each the game on each console actually *were* significant difference to each other. Ugh. Fanboys. The internet is utterly clustered with self-entitled fuckwits.

    #21 4 years ago
  22. AHA-Lambda

    Actually i just realised something my copy of rdr ps3 didn’t have the sticker on it for exclusive content.

    Is it a US only thing? Is anyone at vg247 able to ask rockstar bout it?

    #22 4 years ago
  23. Erthazus

    HD – 720P
    SB-HD – 640P

    Got it? Ok.

    “If the game can’t run reliably on the PS3, blame Sony”

    It’s not harder, it’s different and they are not responsible for RDR, it’s Rockstar who made the game (I’m sorry, it was just a port). Sony have nothing to do with it.

    You can’t make game on PS3? Don’t make it. Simple.

    “You just expect someone to press a magic button”

    I expect a fix.

    “when the simply fact is that the machine’s hardware limitation and needless complexity required”

    With Rage engine? Don’t make me laugh please. It’s an old engine that is not made right. It’s even have problems on the PC version.
    So PC with shitty port have a limited hardware? You know how much patches they made for GTA4 trying to fix the engine? And it’s still is not fixed. Engine is a total mess.
    you don’t fucking know, because you know SHIT.

    “Calling it a shitty game”

    Where i call Red Dead Redemption a shitty game? Can you show me? Show me.

    #23 4 years ago
  24. Redh3lix

    EVERYTHING regarding the Playstation 3 version of this game points to either lazy and/or incompetent development. Fact. Kthnxbye.

    Presuming because the game is technically far inferior to the XBox version…. that it’s cheaper?? :D

    #24 4 years ago
  25. mington

    invisible horse lol
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHIAtjCNgVI&feature=player_embedded

    my rental company is sending me the ps3 version :/

    #25 4 years ago
  26. Gadzooks!

    Jeez, somebody didnt get a hug before school today.

    Personally I couldnt care less about resolution as long the end result looks good and plays well.

    Personally I think Alan Wake is easily the best looking game I’ve ever played and that is supposedly sub-HD. Any lack of resolution is made up for with antialiasing and post-processing.

    I’d prefer it if resolution was impossible to quantify, then the pixelwhores would have no ammo for their silly bickering.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. Erthazus

    @25 priceless. :D Amazing horse.

    “my rental company is sending me the ps3 version :/”

    Good luck pal… yeah… this is so screwed, i don’t even want to purchase that copy anymore…

    @26 On fire :D

    “Personally I couldnt care less about resolution as long the end result looks good and plays well.”

    So why you played FFXIII on PS3 if you don’t care at all? No one really wants to be screwed with bad port. Especially gamers. It’s really not good to purchase for the full money great game with not good port. Imho.

    #27 4 years ago
  28. Kerplunk

    @26 Good point. A couple of weeks ago it seemed that sub-HD gaming was a non-issue because “The game still looks great at any resolution”. Now it’s the end of the world – to some.

    #28 4 years ago
  29. mington

    Before i saw the comparisons i wanted to play it on my ps3

    maybe a heavy drinking session tonight will erase all this from my memory and i can play it blissfully unaware that there is less foliage

    #29 4 years ago
  30. The Hindle

    Are the comparisons really that bad then? it looks identical from what ive seen.

    #30 4 years ago
  31. Gadzooks!

    @27

    “So why you played FFXIII on PS3 if you don’t care at all?”

    My girlfriend asked me what I wanted for my birthday, I said ‘FF13, buy whichever version is cheapest or most convenient for you, thanks dear.’

    Truth be told I’d have preferred the 360 version because of the controller and, sad as it is I prefer achievements to trophies, but I wouldnt have cared about an imperceptable resolution difference.

    I dont freezeframe each game I play and seek out imperfections. Life is too short for crap like that.

    #31 4 years ago
  32. JonFE

    @Erthazus:

    Seriously, if you feel that strongly against RDR’s PS3 performance then cancel your preorder, return it for a full refund as soon as it arrives or sell it on to cut your losses (if you have already opened it).

    Why all the bad blood over a videogame? Life’s too short to waste it like that…

    #32 4 years ago
  33. Erthazus

    @32 I could do it, but can’t do it anymore.
    Bad blood over 39.99 gbp. Thats it. Thats a good chunk of money for the bad port…

    Oh well, what is done is done. Soon my copy will arrive anyway.

    #33 4 years ago
  34. frostquake

    Sadly, according to the wives and partners of those Working on RDR, the work situation was BRUTAL. That 100 Million…Well it didn’t go into the programmers and developers hands to help the game be as awesome as it can be, it went into flying on the big wigs in and out, throwing the big wigs parties, giving the big wigs a rich life style outside of the Rock Star development. The programmers and developers were basically getting doughnuts and they even had that taken away, while the big wigs would come in every 6 months, and each one would walk around like God and tell the programmers to do things that they wanted even when what they were telling them conflicted with what other big wigs said.

    All the Wives and Partners came together and wrote this:
    http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RockstarSpouse/20100107/4032/Wives_of_Rockstar_San_Diego_employees_have_collected_themselves.php

    So basically The game kept being cut up and re-hashed constantly. There is a HUGE difference in how the Big Wigs Live and the actual programmers, and I know this is common in the gaming industry, but Rock Star is one of the WORST companies to work for, if you are just a programmer.

    To be honest I am surprised it even got out the door, or that it was playable. That is why Most Rock Star Games are full of HUGE bugs and often, graphically will look great in one area, and Shit in other area’s.

    #34 4 years ago
  35. kdogg

    I have to agree with Erthazus on this. I do believe the game is going to be awesome on whichever platform you play it on but I do agree that it’s lazy that RockStar didn’t do a better job with the port. As little as the difference really is, it does suck to know you have an inferior copy and in all honesty Rockstar owe it to PS3 only owners to make a proper port, I mean GTIV sold over 6 million copies on the PS3!! The least they could do was spend a bit more time getting the port up to scratch.

    #35 4 years ago
  36. daytripper

    i think when you get down to playing it you wont really give a shit if its a inferior port, its not a shocking port by any means anyway.

    #36 4 years ago
  37. Soong

    Come back to the muk JPickford!

    #37 4 years ago