-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
360, ps3, and sub-HD resolutions
- Thread starter rod
- Start date
Raist said:
That's the thing...if we didn't have HDTV technology at this point, these consoles would spit out such amazing 640 by 480 visuals...it would have been insane.
So people can't claim that there hasn't been a big jump in graphics capabilities...I did remember seeing that on GAF initially.
BigBlackGamer
Member
Zedsdeadbaby said:
I think it's more of people not giving a fuck.
Zedsdeadbaby
Banned
I personally think we should have waited one more generation for the jump to HD. On the other hand, it could be said that having the current consoles as high definition has really spurred sales and encouraged growth in the HD sector, so the next round of consoles have a much better springboard to hop onto, as well as experience.
Sir Fragula said:
I'm not sure Sony ever publically mandated a certain resolution as a minimum. They went on and on about PS3 being able to 'do' true HD, but they never said it (or indeed, any resolution) would be a standard minimum.
On the other hand, I do remember the first GDC or E3 MS presented 360, they or ATi were talking about 720p and 4xAA as a minimum standard requirement for all games.
That was a time of 'visioneering' and optimism, though. Obviously several things in a number of different regards turned out differently than pretty much all the platform holders were saying.
Ynos Yrros
Banned
No they wouldn't. Resolution has a big impact on graphics.FightyF said:
Dead Man Typing
Member
What about Virtua Tennis 3 and NBA Street: Homecourt?
Did they truly run at full 1080p and 60 frames per second?
I know that they're on a much smaller scale than CoD4, Halo 3 or Ninja Gaiden 2, but I'm interested to know whether there was a bit of hot air coming from Sega and EA or if they were telling the truth.
Did they truly run at full 1080p and 60 frames per second?
I know that they're on a much smaller scale than CoD4, Halo 3 or Ninja Gaiden 2, but I'm interested to know whether there was a bit of hot air coming from Sega and EA or if they were telling the truth.
No matter how powerful consoles get, there'll always be lots and lots of games who have lower framerates / resolutions or whatever.
It's simple really. Manufacturer makes hardware. Manufacturer tech demos - tech demos run at 1080p and 120fps or whatever, manufacturer hails power of console.
Developer gets console, says "lets add this. And this. And this. And this." Lighting effects, more complex geometry, more detailed textures, all kinds of graphical effects just get added layer after layer. Each addition reduces performance.
Games sell based on screenshots, so developers keep on adding until they have the minimum acceptable performance, which depending on the time available for optimisation and various other factors, will be a much lower framerate and possibly lower resolution.
If both consoles were twice as powerful than they currently are, there'd still be sub-HD games with low frame rates. The games would just be a lot prettier at the same time.
The only time games will start being consistently at ideal framerate and resolution, is when machines are so powerful that developers simply can't afford to produce enough assetts and effects to max them out. And even then I'm sure they'll find procedural techniques and other ways to push the hardware beyond its limits.
So nothing to do with hardware at all IMO. Better hardware would always be nicer, but this problem would exist regardless.
It's simple really. Manufacturer makes hardware. Manufacturer tech demos - tech demos run at 1080p and 120fps or whatever, manufacturer hails power of console.
Developer gets console, says "lets add this. And this. And this. And this." Lighting effects, more complex geometry, more detailed textures, all kinds of graphical effects just get added layer after layer. Each addition reduces performance.
Games sell based on screenshots, so developers keep on adding until they have the minimum acceptable performance, which depending on the time available for optimisation and various other factors, will be a much lower framerate and possibly lower resolution.
If both consoles were twice as powerful than they currently are, there'd still be sub-HD games with low frame rates. The games would just be a lot prettier at the same time.
The only time games will start being consistently at ideal framerate and resolution, is when machines are so powerful that developers simply can't afford to produce enough assetts and effects to max them out. And even then I'm sure they'll find procedural techniques and other ways to push the hardware beyond its limits.
So nothing to do with hardware at all IMO. Better hardware would always be nicer, but this problem would exist regardless.
proposition
Banned
Unless you bought a 360 specifically because you were expecting every game at 720p with 4xAA, then I don't think it's that big a deal that they promised that and didn't deliver.
This whole shebang only really becomes a problem if the lower resolution is really noticeable, and in my mind, the only game which it is so far is Halo 3. For what reason that is, I don't know, but 'teh awesum lighteng' (which I was not all that impressed with anyway to be honest) aside Halo 3 was visually lacking in a number of fields, so I don't think that was attributable to hardware problems as much as software problems.
This whole shebang only really becomes a problem if the lower resolution is really noticeable, and in my mind, the only game which it is so far is Halo 3. For what reason that is, I don't know, but 'teh awesum lighteng' (which I was not all that impressed with anyway to be honest) aside Halo 3 was visually lacking in a number of fields, so I don't think that was attributable to hardware problems as much as software problems.
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
I have to agree with other who say that AA is the thing I'd most like to see in games this gen. I really don't understand devs tossing up tons of effects to make something look dirty, gritty, and realistic, and then not doing any AA. Aliasing is the first thing I see when I turn on a game without it, and it's the also the first thing to pull me out of the experience. I wish devs put AA before a lot of things.
If you want more detail and effects,more stuff happening on screen a lower resolution shouldn't be a problem.
But I say force 720p native resolution on both PS3 and 360. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Anyway a question. Should reviewers bash games for being sub-HD resolution?
(see Haze reviews)
But I say force 720p native resolution on both PS3 and 360. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Anyway a question. Should reviewers bash games for being sub-HD resolution?
(see Haze reviews)
antiloop said:
They should critique the visuals.
If a developer made a tradeoff that the reviewer thinks has been visually detrimental (i.e. lowered resolution without much upside in terms of relative per-pixel quality or performance), then I think it's fine to call the developer out on that.
lets face it, no one REALLY cares if a game is "sub HD" (ok, so it matters a bit on ps3 since its scaling is a bit crap) but it sure is fun to point and laugh at the devs/games.
we are over 3 years into this generation (development time) and engines really should be working nicely by now (EGO engine is a fine example, solid 30fps, 720p, 4xAA, and a crap load of effects)
we are over 3 years into this generation (development time) and engines really should be working nicely by now (EGO engine is a fine example, solid 30fps, 720p, 4xAA, and a crap load of effects)
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
jarrod said:
There is a list on B3D
Unregistered007
Banned
I think scaling the below 720p resolution to 720p or 1080i/p but yet putting the effort to make your game look polished and good is the smartest thing developers have done. I think that EVERY DEVELOPER should focus on making their games stable constant 30 fps WITHOUT a single DIP than care about some freakin pixel counter.
I would have a 580p scaled game if it looks as good as a next gen game with steady 30 or 60 fps.
I would have a 580p scaled game if it looks as good as a next gen game with steady 30 or 60 fps.
Ynos Yrros
Banned
You're saying that at 480p the graphics would have been amazing, and they obviously wouldn't. You lose tons of details when playing in SD.FightyF said:
I don't know why you're trying to hit on SONY here. They never said that their games will be running on 1080p, they just said that the system supports it. Microsoft's the only one who claimed to have standards in place (720p/4xAA), and when launch games didn't meet them, they claimed that it's due to lack of code optimisation.
The Innocent X
Banned
Ynos Yrros said:
You are so fucking one eyed. Both Hardware manufacturers made claims that weren't met, but you Sony revisionists just want to ignore that.
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
Urgh. That list is really hard to swallow.rod said:
There are some fantastic looking games on there running 1280x720 with 2xAA, and then some that don't even reach that look a lot worse.
I don't want to blame developers, but... damn.
Ynos Yrros
Banned
No one ignores anything. We all know that PS3 was supposed to have dual HDMI output, 6 USB slots and what not. However, what fff said is a lie, and makes no sense given the context of our discussion.The Innocent X said:
rollingstart
Banned
I don't care about resolution as long as the game is running smooth and looks great. I mean, sure if it is a jaggied mess I will be pissed off, but I would rather a game run at a rock solid 30 fps or even higher than have crisp game visually with slowdown and crappy framerate through and through. Even on my PC where I run most games at high resolution and all that, I sometimes need to lower it in order to get better performance (like with Crysis).
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
A quick glance at those lists show that UBI games are always 720p. As I stated in the past, it is embarrassing for Microsoft that 3rd party games look better than first party games.
Beer Monkey
Member
FightyF said:
The fact that 360 has the power to emulate Xbox in software is proof enough of a true generational jump. That is a typical increase in performance for a new generation.
The Innocent X
Banned
Ynos Yrros said:
I`m talking about the pre release TGS crowing about how 1080P was the only true HD and that only PS3 could produce that.
They upped MS 720P ante and BOTH companies have been found wanting.
Vast Inspiration
Banned
I think that when a developer CAN CHOOSE to make tradeoffs of resolution for things that they think matter more, is a sign of maturity. How do you know what is going on in the background of that game? How much a game is taxing a system?
Those of you that rag on a developer, and call them lazy, or incompetent, just want specific numbers for argument/flaming/trolling's sake.
All of the sudden, it's a Xbox 360 bottleneck only, MS's first party are liars and incompetent, only 360's big name games are sub-HD etc...
Was Rockstar incompetent when only GTA4 on the PS3 was sub-HD?
Is Kojima incompetent and lazy because MGS4 is sub-HD?
Will you guys be making the same claims when the PS3 shows signs of vulnerability?
How about you come to terms with the fact that ALL developers make tradeoffs. Some make tradeoffs that you know about, some you don't. Resolution is a numerical value that you guys can use in your system wars so you guys run along with it. Who knows what a developer sacrificed to get that 720p? But if a developer does sacrifice 720p, I don't doubt that its because there is something else in the game that they deem more important. I don't doubt that they are focusing on their games first, and backseat critics on gaming forums last.
It's crap like this that truly shows the naivety and the ignorance of resident fanboys.
Those of you that rag on a developer, and call them lazy, or incompetent, just want specific numbers for argument/flaming/trolling's sake.
All of the sudden, it's a Xbox 360 bottleneck only, MS's first party are liars and incompetent, only 360's big name games are sub-HD etc...
Was Rockstar incompetent when only GTA4 on the PS3 was sub-HD?
Is Kojima incompetent and lazy because MGS4 is sub-HD?
Will you guys be making the same claims when the PS3 shows signs of vulnerability?
How about you come to terms with the fact that ALL developers make tradeoffs. Some make tradeoffs that you know about, some you don't. Resolution is a numerical value that you guys can use in your system wars so you guys run along with it. Who knows what a developer sacrificed to get that 720p? But if a developer does sacrifice 720p, I don't doubt that its because there is something else in the game that they deem more important. I don't doubt that they are focusing on their games first, and backseat critics on gaming forums last.
It's crap like this that truly shows the naivety and the ignorance of resident fanboys.
Vast Inspiration said:
Your post would make sense in an ideal world where games are made the best they can. On the ps3, not talking about X360 since I do not have one, some games are lazy ports, some games reuse some monothreaded code from last gen, some games hardly (if none) the SPUs, some games are just ps2 games in HD, some games are low on budget, some games are programmed by incompetent or under pressure teams, and some games are all those at the same time.
We're a generation early for true HD really - the fillrate just wasn't there for it and this was always going to be the result.
We added far more complex pixel shaders, lighting and full screen effects AND tried to jump to HD at the same time - something was always gonna have to give. Simple as that really.
We added far more complex pixel shaders, lighting and full screen effects AND tried to jump to HD at the same time - something was always gonna have to give. Simple as that really.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
"Here's a better question. With both consoles outputting everything at 720p anyway, how many people on GAF can actually tell if a game is "sub-HD" without a pixel counter TELLING everyone that it is?"
This should be telling enough. If you need a list to tell you what is "sub-hd" then obviously it's not a big deal. I play games because I enjoy them not because it has 20 more pixels than the next guy.
This should be telling enough. If you need a list to tell you what is "sub-hd" then obviously it's not a big deal. I play games because I enjoy them not because it has 20 more pixels than the next guy.
cjelly said:
I don't think it should be so taboo to say that some developers are simply technically better than others, or have been given more time, or given more money, or given better tools, or have been managed better, or..
There are so many variables. A lot of them can fall under the "developer" umbrella.
I think we have to take it that the people behind these games do their best within their context*, so it is hard to blame them per se. But I don't think it should be offensive to say that they are less capable - either because of their talent, or their situation in terms of budget, schedule etc.
Of course, I think everyone with a vested interest should be doing all they can to cultivate contexts that allow people to do the very best they can.
* Of course, some may not really be trying to do their best. Some people in some teams may indeed be lazy. But it's hard to accuse people of that without direct experience or knowledge of a team.
Ynos Yrros
Banned
They did say that 1080 is the TrueHD (it is) and that PS3 is the only one to support it, obviously PR heads are supposed to pimp the bullet points like that.The Innocent X said:
What they didn't say, is that all games will be using it. There are launch titles that do, and those were pimped as well.
Microsoft came out and said that 720p/4AA is the standard that every 360 game has to meet.
Still, I don't see how that has anything to do with what was being discussed, he said that games would look insane if they were 480p, I said it's BS, because only in high resolution can games show all the fine details.
He even said that GT5P looks as good on SDTV as it does on HDTV, when I couldn't think of a game that loses more of it's graphical fidelity in lower resolution.
Vast Inspiration
Banned
wazoo said:
But NO ONE talks about those games. No one talks about the no-name racing game that didn't achieve 720p, or a port of a licensed game that didn't have any AA. So the developers that you can actually call lazy or incompetent, don't really get much hate....because those developers aren't really vital to either side of the system wars.
It's only when big name games like Halo, GTA4, NG2, MGS4 comes out do people start complaining and actually have the audacity to claim that the developers are lazy....are you fucking kidding me?
Bungie is lazy? After every feature they shoved into that disc, they are lazy?
Rockstar is lazy after they made that entire world? Kojima is incompetent?
I wonder why no one really complained about COD4...it was big name game and it was sub-HD.....so why no real backlash? Again, no need to complain because it won't help either side, the game was sub-HD on BOTH consoles...so why bring it up right?
Complaints, accusations and insults towards system-specific developers are immediately transparent to anyone with half a brain. The nit-picking, hypocritical trolls don't fool anyone other than themselves.
Vast Inspiration
Banned
duk said:
/thread
Ynos Yrros said:
After Microsoft made their claims, Ken himself said that the PS3 would be outputting at higher resolutions than the 360. He even said it would produce 32:9 panoramic 1080p gaming if a player was rich enough to afford having two HDTV's setup side by side.
While Sony's was far more aggrandizing with their claims, it's pretty clear that neither hardware manufacturer realized the difficulties software developers were going to run into when getting their titles up to what players were now expecting while maintaining acceptable performance levels. And when you go back now and read their public claims, you realize how clueless Microsoft and Sony really were concerning the capabilities of their own product. Neither deserve and defense.
Personally, I agree with Duckroll. I don't know that I've played a game on 360 or PS3 where I was affected by a less than HD standard resolution. As long as the game looks good enough to immerse me in it's world and isn't plagued with performance issues, then I'm happy.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
If a game looks good on an HD TV, then there is not a problem.
The problem starts when a game says it's 720P or 1080P in the box (like Halo 3) and it isn't.
That's clearly a lie to the consumer that should be clarified or explained better (like: "this game looks better on a TV with 720P/1080i/1080P resolutions").
The problem starts when a game says it's 720P or 1080P in the box (like Halo 3) and it isn't.
That's clearly a lie to the consumer that should be clarified or explained better (like: "this game looks better on a TV with 720P/1080i/1080P resolutions").
Don't care. Good art direction, framerate and making good use of what resources you have is more important than more shaders and pixels for me. One of the best-looking games this generation is running in 480p on my Wii with a great frame rate, great image quality and little loading. It's going to look great 5 years from now, GeoW/KZ2 won't.
It also has colors.
MrPing1000
Member
*runs deus ex at 1680x1050*
Ynos Yrros
Banned
Saying what the system is capable of, and putting a standard in place and promising something are two different things. Of course SONY didn't keep their promises, and should be blamed for that, but no promises were made about the resolution of games themselves.urk said:
There was no game announced that would support 32/9, just that PS3 might support that.
This discussion makes no sense what so ever, no one but Microsoft promised a standard in resolution and anti aliasing level in games, that's what the topic is about.
It's like going to Ikea and bragging that McDonald's has the best beef around.