Modern Warfare 2 Will Render at 600p

Meier said:
Speaking of XXXp's, I was kind of shocked that inFAMOUS only runs at 720p. Regarding the OP, I think everyone can feel pretty confident that it will look great either way.
You were shocked it only ran at 720p? Are you shitting me? It looks like an utter jag fest in places. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was running below 720p. Even for 720p it looks jagged.

Call of Duty however has never been a jaggy looking game but always 600p @ 60fps. I'm surprised anyone would assume it would change with MW2.
 

Fersis

It is illegal to Tag Fish in Tag Fishing Sanctuaries by law 38.36 of the GAF Wildlife Act
You know what would be awesome ?:

UNCHARTED 2 Renders at 599p confirmed.
That my friends would be e-drama all around.
 
Wollan said:
So they did nothing besides add some pre-defined item destrucion (which were already plenty in COD4).
Seeing the E3 footage it looked *exactly* like COD4. I would like for them to release yesterdays MP footage in 720p (or 600p) though I guess there is no need.


It looks like COD4 which is okay today. I think it plays superb (COD4) but it's dissappointing that they didn't use the income from 14 million(!) sold games to enhance the graphics.
Great Graphics <> Great Games!

It will be the definitive FPS on the 360 and the PS3. Get over it.

Its like.. you can't get behind a game unless its a Sony exclusive -.-
 
hamzik said:
Notice that this gif is courtesy of ESPN HD.
bs, that .gif isn't 720p at all.


dammitmattt said:
Using make believe words and poor grammar is not cool. And it's never been cool.
Well, I do know that innit is slang for isn't it, but the grammar in his posts is usually pretty terrible. I always chalked it up to him not being a native English speaker and it being his second or third language or something.
 
10,500,000 of the 11,000,000 people who bought COD4 didn't know any better or give a shit.

(and that's being generous saying 500k did)

Same applies to every resolution thread, as long as the game itself still looks decent/good on the TV.
 
Mohonky said:
You were shocked it only ran at 720p? Are you shitting me? It looks like an utter jag fest in places. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was running below 720p. Even for 720p it looks jagged.
Well, I just meant when I booted it up and my TV switched resolutions from 1080p, I was surprised that it did not run in it (just started last week). I don't think the jaggies are too bad...haven't really noticed them to be honest -- pop-in happens at times, but fairly minimally.
 

Fersis

It is illegal to Tag Fish in Tag Fishing Sanctuaries by law 38.36 of the GAF Wildlife Act
Rez said:
everyone should just buy a nice PC and bitch less

this forum would be so much brighter
Im poor LOL

dammitmattt said:
There's bad grammar and then there's such a blatant disregard for grammar that it's impossible to tell what someone is saying. This second label applies for every single iceatsc post.
Grammar nazis are like the pixel counters of life. THEY SUCK! :lol
Leave iceatsc alone.
 
swerve said:
Higher resolution != more fun.
OK. I'm with DeaconKnowledge.

This thread will be printed out, rolled up, and introduced rectally to the next guy that waddles into a Wii thread and complains about the SD resolution. I will make sure to include some broken glass and ground pepper, and maybe a live gerbil if I can find one.
 
Graphics in COD4 were fine. Sounds like there's not gonna be much of a change. So who cares? The gameplay is what matters. I'm not sure I like the sound of being able to use the A321 in multiplayer, though. That just sounds kinda dumb.

Dedalus said:
Bahahaha, I love my PC, 1920x1200 at 60fps for me :D


*cough*
Oh, and this.

Who plays an FPS on a console, anyway?
Who uses a console, anyway?
 
Graphics only matter to the point whatever the posters console of choice is capable of. Wii owners claim graphics don't equal more fun, Xbox and PS fans claim better graphics make more fun up until sub HD resolutions, at which no-one can tell the difference anyway. Of course PC gamers accept no compromises, thats why we always win.
 
iceatcs said:
Not really there are 4 sides in there.

dammitmattt, I don't give a fuck. I know you know me that I'm Deaf. Stop follow me.
What does that have to do with your writing? I don't mind poor grammar if it doesn't get in the way of your message, but I literally don't know what you are saying in the vast majority of your posts. Maybe you have some kind of learning disability, and if so, I apologize, but barring that, there's no reason to not re-read your 10-word posts to ensure that the rest of the forum can understand what you're trying to say.
 
Roxas said:
Only 0.01% of the people who will buy this game give a shit about the resolution.
To be honest the same can really be said about framerate as long as its function.

Hell, even when it's not functional. *looks at the last Need For Speed's 5 million sales*
 
TheHeretic said:
Graphics only matter to the point whatever the posters console of choice is capable of. Wii owners claim graphics don't equal more fun, Xbox and PS fans claim better graphics make more fun up until sub HD resolutions, at which no-one can tell anyway. Of course PC gamers accept no compromises, thats why we always win.
I don't know, I'm a pretty flexible guy. If you'll recall earlier, I wrote a little diddy about not giving a shit.
 
Nirolak said:
To be honest the same can really be said about framerate as long as its function.

Hell, even when it's not functional. *looks at the last Need For Speed's 5 million sales*
I think image quality is harder to appreciate than motion fluidity. A lot of people still don't have a HDTV.
 
SundaySounds said:
Graphics in COD4 were fine. Sounds like there's not gonna be much of a change. So who cares? The gameplay is what matters. I'm not sure I like the sound of being able to use the A321 in multiplayer, though. That just sounds kinda dumb.
You get to fly an Airbus in MW2?!?

 
Nirolak said:
To be honest the same can really be said about framerate as long as its function.

Hell, even when it's not functional. *looks at the last Need For Speed's 5 million sales*
Not really a shit framerate would damage the game alot. Many fans wouldn't even realise why, but they'd think the game feels worse.
 
Hd is so overated it makes me sick.

Hd is just resolution. It is such a small part of graphic fidelity. Yet its hailed as the most important feautere.

Resident evil 4, which was one of the best looking games last gen ran at a lower resolution than the average game. Yet it was still one of the best looking games.

same with cod4.

If the choice is lower framerate, lesser geometry, lower quality shader whatever or lower resolution.

Resolution should always be the one to go.
 
Only 600p??!

Oh no, how will I enjoy the game? Oh wait, nobody notices it. If it was never announced, nobody would know. And if you have to count pixels or however that works to be sure, well, that just proves my point. If you have to count pixels to tell what resolution something is at, it obviously doesn't matter since you can't tell by looking at it. :lol

If it was something like framerate, then you have something to complain about it. I'll be fine playing this on my 1080p set at whatever resolution it gives me.
 
People shouldn't be surprised, it's been a few years since the start of this console gen. Sacrifices have to be made somewhere.

60 FPS. 720p. Overall visual fidelity. Pick two. Not enough? Play on the PC.
 
Itsintheairtonight said:
Hd is so overated it makes me sick.

Hd is just resolution. It is such a small part of graphic fidelity. Yet its hailed as the most important feautere.

Resident evil 4, which was one of the best looking games last gen ran at a lower resolution than the average game. Yet it was still one of the best looking games.

same with cod4.

If the choice is lower framerate, lesser geometry, lower quality shader whatever or lower resolution.

Resolution should always be the one to go.
Was that a poem?