dbot said:
Darc Requiem said:
dbot said:
That proves the point right? These minor resolution differences do not mean anything. GTA ran at a lower resolution on the PS3, but most reviewers and even the developer preferred the PS3 version of the game. I will take a stable framerate over a few extra native pixels everytime.
The native resolution is not an indication of anything. A lower native resolution can allow a developer to add effects, improve the framerate, etc. Developers may be more comfortable with the PS3's scaling than the 360's. These threads are pointless fanboy traps.
|
Erm, you said that the PS3 version of Far Cry 2 had a higher native resolution than the 360 version. In actuality the 360 version at 960x1080 has a higher native resolution than the PS3 version at 1280x720. How does your initial point being false prove your point?
|
PS3 version of Far Cry 2 is running at 960*1080p(1,036,800 native pixels) as opposed to 1280*720p (921,600 native pixels).
|
960*1080 is an inferior resolution to 1280*720
It might have more pixels, but our output devices aren't square and this resolution was used just so that the game can properly support 1080i because the PS3 doesn't have a hardware scaler like the 360 does.
So you've got 960 pixels on the horizontal and 1080 on the vertical......Uhhhhhhhhh ok! YUCK.
Also, Far Cry 2 is cropped in widescreen mode so those 1080 vertical pixels are being wasted even more.