IGN - Resistance 3 review

[Reasonable]

Badassbab said:

CGI-Quality said:

Badassbab said:

Chevinator123 said:
Am i the only person who thinks the graphics look good? They have a awesomely unique look to them

Proof that resolution isn't the be all end all of games graphics. FYI R3 is very low res. 960x704 according to Digital Foundry. Not as low as Alan Wake, that was 960x540 but still looked great. Having such low res allows developers to create unique looking games by chucking loads of post processing effects and rendering targets that would otherwise have to sacrificed if the game was in HD res (min 1280 x 720).

I've not heard any reviews saying as much. Digitall Foundry said that before the beta, so i wonder if the full release is that way.

 

From DF-

Perhaps inevitably, there is a trade-off in the implementation of all these new effects. In the Battle: Los Angeles playable demo, we see that native resolution has dropped significantly, down from the 1280x704 of Resistance 2 to a mere 960x704 - a 25 per cent drop - and nothing from the much more recent preview code suggests that this has changed, suggesting it's a lock.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-resistance-3

I highly doubt the res would increase. In fact I can't think of a game where the res increased from preview build to final release. Normally the other way around. The beta was obviously low res with QAA employed.

I agree it would seem unlikely resolution would change, although the SP might be higher as I believe all analysis has been of MP.  It would be unsual to have different SP/MP but not unheard of so far as I'm aware.

TBH most of the best selling FPS titles this gen have all been well below 720p anyway so it hardly matters if the frame rate and artistic design balance the resolution to produce a pleasing effect in motion.