If resolution isn't important to gamers then all we need is PS2 or DS (PSP). As far as gameplay I haven't seen anything this generation that couldn't have done last generation minus graphics, resolution, frame rate ,etc.
It's very simple; higher resolution equals more information (details) that can be displayed. Also the closer the image match a LCD resolution the cleaner and sharper the image looks.

Smidlee said: I think PS3 and 360 fans should stop worrying about the native resolution. Many games this generation will be sub-hd and look great. I would rather have the developers focus on utilizing the power of the 360/PS3 to bring great/inovative gameplay to the games and not worry about the final native resolution. These native resolution threads are pointless. 99% of you would never be able to tell a sub-hd game from a full hd game. If resolution isn't important to gamers then all we need is PS2 or DS (PSP). As far as gameplay I haven't seen anything this generation that couldn't have done last generation minus graphics, resolution, frame rate ,etc. It's very simple; higher resolution equals more information (details) that can be displayed. Also the closer the image match a LCD resolution the cleaner and sharper the image looks.

Did you see the interview I posted before? Itagaki says he managed to put in more complicated AI thanks to the faster CPU on the 360. Besides, many graphical improvements don't even need higher resolution to be noticed, which is why the Wii (or PS360 on a SD/EDTV) look better than the PS2.

 

NJ5 said: Smidlee said: You made a good point that not everyone who buys a 42" HDTV is planning to sit 20 feet away. (unlike the old standard big screens) I also bought a 42" with PC in mind as I'm usually 7-8 feet away. Is a game playable at 24 fps? Is a game playable at 480p? Of course yet that doesn't mean I wouldn't like games to run 30 fps if not 60 and atleast 720p resolution if not 1080p. While I don't own a 360 I'm really surprise of it's low resolution for such a good game. Why put a lot of work in all those detailed graphics when they will be muddy over with low resolution? It seems Wii isn't the only system where developers are taking short cut when it come to graphics. Surely the 360 is powerful enough to pull off at least 720p. I wonder with only 512mb of total ram it limits how much effort a developer willing to push the consoles GPU?     It's not that simple. We all know that the 360 is powerful enough for 720p graphics, but not necessarily so when pushing a lot of detail and complicated AI routines at 60 fps. According to this interview, the AI is also consuming a lot of processing power, and that's one of the things they improved for NG2. I'd much rather have developers focusing on gameplay, high framerate, AI and graphical detail (in decreasing order of importance) than on resolution by itself. In terms of resolution, even Ninja Gaiden Black looks fine to me on the 360, and that's upscaled 480p (or 480i?) since it's an emulated Xbox title.

360 is multi-core so I really doubt the AI is using that much CPU. Even PC strategy games doesn't use that much. So I find that very hard to believe. Hopefully in the future we see strategy games using a full cpu core just for the AI.

 

I love how Sony fanboys totally accepted that while they were doubting the same person and saying we shouldn't believe random dudes on the internet trying to start rumours when he said that GTA IV for PS3 was running at a lower resolution.

Hypocricy at its finest.

On Topic: So what? The game still looks amazing!!

Lol i've got to report this to SDF head quaters.

.:Dark Prince:. said: I love how Sony fanboys totally accepted that while they were doubting the same person and saying we shouldn't believe random dudes on the internet trying to start rumours when he said that GTA IV for PS3 was running at a lower resolution. Hypocricy at its finest. On Topic: So what? The game still looks amazing!!

If you are referring to me I'm more of a PC Gamers than any console. Also noted that the AI is handle by the CPU the graphics is handle by the GPU. Thus is one reason why a few years ago PC strategy games went from 2D to 3D so the GPU handling the graphic free up the CPU to handle the AI. Thus higher resolution as well as AA works the GPU harder.

Would the game look any different at 24 fps? No but it nice to have a descent frame rate anyway, right? Even FPS are very playable at 24 fps

*********

I happen to remember what one developer said when PC gamers were complaining about today PC games have to have  so many patches sometimes even before the game is released. He stated that actually if it wasn't for patches then most developers would play it more safe to make sure they kept the deadline and mostly bug free. Because of patches a developer may take a few more risk knowing if all the bugs are not worked out before released they can fit them later with patches. With consoles they often don't have this option. ( I read there is a charge to release patches on consoles)

This maybe why we see some console games running on low resolution.

 

Just not true. Of course its a gradual slide but Haze definitely looked blurred. Its of course true that the resolution is just one of many factors defining picture quality. But honestly I'd rather have a one or two effects less and 720p in exchange. Luckily most game designers go this way. I have the suspicion that its more a case of: The game has to ship in 2 months. Should we delay that to optimize the framerate or should we render in lower resolution. Thats of course a valid last resort but I think its good that people are complaining so devs don't use this way without trying.

Smidlee said: I think PS3 and 360 fans should stop worrying about the native resolution. Many games this generation will be sub-hd and look great. I would rather have the developers focus on utilizing the power of the 360/PS3 to bring great/inovative gameplay to the games and not worry about the final native resolution. These native resolution threads are pointless. 99% of you would never be able to tell a sub-hd game from a full hd game. If resolution isn't important to gamers then all we need is PS2 or DS (PSP). As far as gameplay I haven't seen anything this generation that couldn't have done last generation minus graphics, resolution, frame rate ,etc. It's very simple; higher resolution equals more information (details) that can be displayed. Also the closer the image match a LCD resolution the cleaner and sharper the image looks.

I would say that you could not do COD4 or NG2 on a ps2/ds/psp.  Both sub-hd games. 

Smidlee said: NJ5 said: Smidlee said: You made a good point that not everyone who buys a 42" HDTV is planning to sit 20 feet away. (unlike the old standard big screens) I also bought a 42" with PC in mind as I'm usually 7-8 feet away. Is a game playable at 24 fps? Is a game playable at 480p? Of course yet that doesn't mean I wouldn't like games to run 30 fps if not 60 and atleast 720p resolution if not 1080p. While I don't own a 360 I'm really surprise of it's low resolution for such a good game. Why put a lot of work in all those detailed graphics when they will be muddy over with low resolution? It seems Wii isn't the only system where developers are taking short cut when it come to graphics. Surely the 360 is powerful enough to pull off at least 720p. I wonder with only 512mb of total ram it limits how much effort a developer willing to push the consoles GPU?     It's not that simple. We all know that the 360 is powerful enough for 720p graphics, but not necessarily so when pushing a lot of detail and complicated AI routines at 60 fps. According to this interview, the AI is also consuming a lot of processing power, and that's one of the things they improved for NG2. I'd much rather have developers focusing on gameplay, high framerate, AI and graphical detail (in decreasing order of importance) than on resolution by itself. In terms of resolution, even Ninja Gaiden Black looks fine to me on the 360, and that's upscaled 480p (or 480i?) since it's an emulated Xbox title.   360 is multi-core so I really doubt the AI is using that much CPU. Even PC strategy games doesn't use that much. So I find that very hard to believe. Hopefully in the future we see strategy games using a full cpu core just for the AI.

There are strategy games that make a Core2 Quad crawl. So I think you got it wrong there.

Smidlee said: I think PS3 and 360 fans should stop worrying about the native resolution. Many games this generation will be sub-hd and look great. I would rather have the developers focus on utilizing the power of the 360/PS3 to bring great/inovative gameplay to the games and not worry about the final native resolution. These native resolution threads are pointless. 99% of you would never be able to tell a sub-hd game from a full hd game. If resolution isn't important to gamers then all we need is PS2 or DS (PSP). As far as gameplay I haven't seen anything this generation that couldn't have done last generation minus graphics, resolution, frame rate ,etc. It's very simple; higher resolution equals more information (details) that can be displayed. Also the closer the image match a LCD resolution the cleaner and sharper the image looks.

I don't give a rat's ass if some graphically complex games are not natively rendered in full HD as long as they have steady high framerate and minor glitches. And Smidlee, If being able to run more stuff on screen, with better AI and better effects in a good steady framerate doesn't matter for gameplay to you, then you don't understand the word "gameplay" to begin with. Strip a game like GRID off its realistic physics, car damage, turn down the quality on the smoke and lightning effects and then give it a slower framerate, then go and play it I'm sure you'd be able to have fun with it, but it wouldn't be anything special that you hadn't seen before huh? As far as gameplay goes we could use that argument going back several gaming generations If we'd like to.  Sega Rally has incredible gameplay and it's a 1995 game, so does Zelda OoT or Virtua Fighter 2. Great games have great gameplay no matter the technology, and we could argue most games' gameplay could be reproduced to some extent in the previous generation(s). A game like Shenmue started development in the Sega Saturn, give the Saturn 1GB of disc space and I believe Yu Suzuki could pull it off, but it would've fallen a lot shorter than his vision, of course. On topic: resolution is very important, but it's still a technicality (as in not directly involved with gameplay) some games "need" the higher resolution more than others. However, not rendering natively HD resolutions doesn't mean a game can't look almost as good as the "real thing", games are made of 3D graphics which benefit greatly from today's HD displays, it's not the same as upscaling a low res 480p movie to a 720 output where the difference between the "real HD" is quite noticeable (but again, it'll also depend on the images from the movie in question). The upscaling will be noticeable depending on the size of the screen too, it would have to be a BIG screen for it to be a big deal for most games.