[obonicus]

You're talking about movement. But movement in an FPS is not just the analog vs. keyboard.

Yes, and I factored out the 'turning' by giving both theoretical interface methods a mouse.

[Asmodai]

This was a terrible thread to begin with - let us be clear: An objectively handsome game being assaulted for using a simple resolution solution to enhance its already good looks (frame rate/shader perf, etc) and now the entire thread has fallen firmly into Clown School. We know PCs have higher resolution. We know consoles are simple and convenient to use. We know mouselook is more accurate. We know analog sticks are comfy. We know that many gaf-ers prefer one over the other for a multitude of reasons. We know that lots of people play and enjoy both. Just let this thread DIE. It is worthless and we are all stupider for participating in it.

[img]http://i42.************/xelmj8.gif[/img]

[Gwanatu T]

This thread doesn't need to die, it needs to be hammered in to the ground.

Pixel whores get out. MF1 looked damn good for the time and the footage from E3 made MF2 look even better.

Seriously? Seriously? Seriously. Good Lord, what's the point of the "HD generation" if the highest of high profile games aren't even in the lowest HD resolution?

[roman2003h]

YES! More games should do this! The resolution isn't everything! Modern Warfare will only look better!

[Asmodai]

Seriously? Seriously? Seriously. Good Lord, what's the point of the "HD generation" if the highest of high profile games aren't even in the lowest HD resolution?

The point is so that the games look and play better, not so that people argue endlessly over how many damn pixels are on the screen.

Would you rather Modern Warfare 2 on consoles played at 720p, but with 30 FPS, no anti aliasing and a shitty draw distance? There are PLENTY of games that do just that. Go play one of them instead if you care about resolution so much.

[Stinkles]

Seriously? Seriously? Seriously. Good Lord, what's the point of the "HD generation" if the highest of high profile games aren't even in the lowest HD resolution?

Ignoring your avatar for a second:

1. The RAM, CP and GPUs contained in the HD consoles give them the flexibility to approach image quality from many angles, including compromising on actual pixels for other features - such as frame rate, shader detail, particle effects, AA and so on.
2. The end results often look so good that they require shitty threads to explain using text why the great looking graphics suck after all.
3. Because they output to HD TVs properly in the first place - the handshake between TV and console makes everything look better, as opposed to say, my non HD console which looks especially bad as a result of not doing that.

[Chinner]

This was a terrible thread to begin with - let us be clear: An objectively handsome game being assaulted for using a simple resolution solution to enhance its already good looks (frame rate/shader perf, etc) and now the entire thread has fallen firmly into Clown School. We know PCs have higher resolution. We know consoles are simple and convenient to use. We know mouselook is more accurate. We know analog sticks are comfy. We know that many gaf-ers prefer one over the other for a multitude of reasons. We know that lots of people play and enjoy both. Just let this thread DIE. It is worthless and we are all stupider for participating in it.

oh look console defence force.

[Dax01]

Ignoring your avatar for a second: 1. The RAM, CP and GPUs contained in the HD consoles give them the flexibility to approach image quality from many angles, including compromising on actual pixels for other features - such as frame rate, shader detail, particle effects, AA and so on. 2. The end results often look so good that they require shitty threads to explain using text why the great looking graphics suck after all. 3. Because they output to HD TVs properly in the first place - the handshake between TV and console makes everything look better, as opposed to say, my non HD console which looks especially bad as a result of not doing that.

It's like you're making sense but you're not. The graphics suck, yet they don't?

[Topher]

It is absolutely pathetic that this warrants 14 pages. You guys are psychotic. Who cares? Come on.

[dojokun]

oh look console defence force.

How is it a console defense force when he is not saying that consoles are better?

[Mooreberg]

It is absolutely pathetic that this warrants 14 pages. You guys are psychotic. Who cares? Come on.

A little p can create a big mess.

[Stinkles]

How is it a console defense force when he is not saying that consoles are better?

Chinner is makadajokes.

[Huttie0]

This thread says more about GAF than any other.

Congrats.

[duk]

u guys really have this much free time?

*envious

[FireFly]

I really don't get the fuss over this given that nothing has changed since the first MW. Was the first game blighted by its lack of resolution on the 360/PS3, were we all up in arms about how poor the graphics were?

Because at the end of the day, that's what matters: the graphics and the framerate, and for a console title, the original excelled in both areas.

[Dabanton]

u guys really have this much free time? *envious

These guys seem to have loads of time.

stuburns 38 Asmodai 32 TheExodu5 30 brain_stew 27 deepbrown 22 TheHeretic 22

[Dax01]

These guys seem to have loads of time.

You can't base it off one thread.

Look at their posts-per-day.

[dojokun]

Chinner is makadajokes.

my bad

[duk]

These guys seem to have loads of time.

i have always wondered how you can keep track of posts in a thread?

[dojokun]

It's like you're making sense but you're not. The graphics suck, yet they don't?

I think the point is that good graphics is not a 1 dimensional thing. Resolution is not the only way to have impressive graphics.

[Topher]

i have always wondered how you can keep track of posts in a thread?

Click on the post count next to the thread.

[duk]

Click on the post count next to the thread.

i am yet amazed once again

[ghst]

Because at the end of the day, that's what matters: the graphics and the framerate, and for a console title, the original excelled in both areas.

well, there's no arguing that.

[Chrange]

I don't remember anyone saying how shit the CoD graphics were before the pixel-step counters weighed in lol

I mean...

[IMG]http://i30.************/ebe89i.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i26.************/2comm1x.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i26.************/2vv1b3s.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i29.************/99h2wz.jpg[/IMG]

Does that - at 60 fps - really look BAD? :lol

[Davidion]

Who the fuck keeps necro-ing this thread?

[permutated]

Game looks incredibly awesome, haters need to stfu.

[Stinkles]

Who the fuck keeps necro-ing this thread?

Well, you now.

[Asmodai]

It's like you're making sense but you're not. The graphics suck, yet they don't?

Dax, you like Halo, right? Would you rather Halo 3 ran at 30 FPS with 640p like it does now, or have it run at 20 FPS with 720p and other compromises? Seems like a no brainer.

Edit: 22 posts a day?? You've got to be kidding me. :lol

[vocab]

Does that - at 60 fps - really look BAD? :lol

FPS doesn't matter when we are talking about image quality.

[Dax01]

Dax, you like Halo, right? Would you rather Halo 3 ran at 30 FPS with 640p like it does now, or have it run at 20 FPS with 720p and other compromises? Seems like a no brainer.

I was just joking around. I thought it was obvious. :/

Edit: 22 posts a day?? You've got to be kidding me.

Hey.

[Asmodai]

FPS doesn't matter when the were talking about image quality.

Except that you need to lower image quality to get higher framerate!

What is wrong with some of you people? Would you rather have perfect IQ and the game running at 5 frames a second? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I was just joking around. I thought it was obvious. :/

I thought you might have been...but in this thread, it's nigh impossible to tell who's kidding and who's not.

Hey.

I was just kidding about that anyway. But really, where do you post? I would have thought I would see a lot more of your posts around if you posted that much.

[Full Recovery]

Edit: 23 posts a day?? You've got to be kidding me. :lol

Fixed

Dax spends more time on gaf then he does on halo

must be the anti aliasing =P

[Dax01]

I was just kidding about that anyway. But really, where do you post? I would have thought I would see a lot more of your posts around if you posted that much.

I know. But if you're wondering, just look at my post history. PoliGAF, Halo 3 thread... other threads. I don't know!

must be the anti aliasing =P

Anti-aliasing? What is that? Jaggies are all I know.

[vocab]

Except that you need to lower image quality to get higher framerate! What is wrong with some of you people? Would you rather have perfect IQ and the game running at 5 frames a second? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not complaining, and I never said it looked bad at all. I played COD4 at 800x600 with everything on low. Hell I modified my config so I don't have trash flying around/graffiti on walls/foliage. My game looks like trash with low poly textures, and I get 125 fps. I prefer performance over image quality.

[Dash Kappei]

lol. nope what? that you don't know what 600p stretched to a 1080p TV looks like?

Nope to all the bullshit you wrote in your post, since it seems you don't even know that it's the X360 doing the scaling... so much for being an expert (lol).
And a direct feed on a TV will always looks better than a taken screenshot at the same resolution and displayed on monitor set at "x" resolution.
I take it it must have always seem magical to you why the usual PS2/GCN/XBX game looked so much better on your SD tv than the screenshots of the same games you browsed on your gaming webportal of choice.

Again, lol.