"It is a sacrifice, whether you want to admit it or not. If given the ability, Polyphony would absolutely run 4xAA @ 1080p"
??? A sacrifice compared to what? Why shouldn't they use 16xAA or resolutions like 2048p? You always have to compare to something else, and compared to 720p 4AA, 1080p 2AA is a clear improvement not a "sacrifice".
'"If 1080p is so overblown and isn't worth marketing to such a small demographic, why did Sony spend millions of dollars to convince potential PS3 owners that their new machine would run 1080p/60fps"
Because marketing is bullshit? Besides the more people have 1080p TVs the more games will support it (and Sony sells them so its in their interest to promote them)
"Sorry, your argument doesn't make sense. If 1080p is such a small market, why bother making 1080p games in the first place?"
I thought you were trying to convince me that there are almost no 1080p games available? So I do not understand the question. But for example if a game is vertex bound and not pixel bound (has more polygons less shaders) they can make the resolution higher easily without sacrificing anything in 720p. And if they can make 1080p without having problem (for example in less detailled environments like the garage) why shouldn't they do it? I do not get your problems.
"why are some games not even running at 720p, but instead are upscaled from 600p/620p?"
Because devs apparently decided that this looks better than 720p with less shader operations? What some people do not get is that resolution alone doesn't mean shit.
In the end its easy, if you look at God of War2 and see the improvements to First-year PS2 titles you see that there is plenty of room for graphical improvement. In one or two years when developers are really comfortable with the PS3(and 360) and people will have more 1080p TVs we will also see more games supporting 1080p. I think thats a safe prognosis.
