| TheBigFatJ said: The evidence is convincing, and as someone in the beyond forums pointed out, Halo 3 is running at a lower resolution that 1024x768, which people have been running with PC gaming for a decade now. Typically, I wouldn't consider this a big deal, but the Halo franchise is supposed to display the power of the Xbox product line. I love how you all notice the difference of a missing 142x80 pixels in Halo 3 1280 x 720 = 921600 1138 x 640 = 728320 728320 / 921600 = 0.79 So with the lower resolution you have 79% as much sharpness/data to look at on the screen. It's not as trivial as you make it sound. What's worse, however, is that if you have a native 720p display 720p games (95% of the 360's games) will be unscaled and look awesome whereas Halo 3 will be scaled and look significantly less awesome. |
Significantly less? Do you think screen resolution is the whole picture? What about textures, framerates, draw distance, number of objects on screen, shading and mapping, polygon count? Those things are not tied to the native resolution, and may actually increase due to having the resolution be lowered.*
*Even though the framebuffer is seperate from the texture memory on the 360, some things in the texture memory can affect the framebuffer.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs








