Halo 3 runs at 640p native XD

[sieanr]

MikeB said: I don't know, I just know COD3 is about identical on both platforms. It's not strange XBox 360 ports to the PS3 run at the same resolution as the original. That has more to do with the original target platform than with the PS3, unless they really wanted to put some effort into making the PS3 version better than the XBox 360 version.

Halo 3 is a XBox 360 exclusive, there are no excuses to not push the XBox 360 as hard as Bungie could. I think the XBox 360 is powerful enough to render everything seen in the game in terms of effects and art in native 720p, as I have read Bungie's rather strange reply and I really don't think the XBox 360 is too weak, I guess there are reasons they aren't telling us.

My understanding is COD3 runs at a higher framerate on 360 than PS3.

Regardless, the argument that only games ported aren't "true" resolutions doesn't hold water.

The Darkness is only 540, doulbing the resolution to get 1080 on the PS3. Supposedly the game mainly targeted the PS3, or atleast it did originally - things such as tv shows playing thanks to Bluray, ect.

GTHD is 1080x1440 - where as "true HD" is 1080x1920. Rub'a'dub is also 1600x1080 and Stardust HD 1280x1080

So, the PS3 has its share of games that "cheat" with resolution, aka you dont get what resolution is claimed. Even sadder is that some of these games are relativly unintensive PSN titles.

[quote]That's still my personal take on the situation. To determine if it's valid one has to know how much space Halo 3 is taking on the dual layer DVD and how much of this data regards textures and then calculate how much more space enhanced textures would then take up.[quote]

Its using 7.3gb.

If you actually play the game, you'd notice that it has plenty of high resolution textures, arguably better looking than any PS3 title in that regard. There is really no need for "enhanced" textures unless you like looking at a wall from 2 inches away.

A better response from you would be to criticise Halo 3 for having so much backtracking. This argument would go something like "they backtrack on levels to same space for texture, geometry, ect by having you play the same area over and over". Then people would respond with "This is just the style of Halo gameplay, its the exact same as Halo 1 and 2". This is a far more reasonalble, and logical argument than "they run lower resolution because of disc space" which is the dumbest fucking argument you could put forth, especially after Bungie provides a reasonable technical explanation. 

Then again, just keep beleiving that textures are limited by the size of disc space available - common sense would tell you that what really limits texture resolution is RAM space available.

Oh, and the resolution issues haven't prevented this game from selling at a ridiculous pace; and thats what really matters. Or has this forum become a place to bitch about arcane technical issues?