Some of the games may not be 720P but they still look noticeable better than previous generation games and they're above SD.

Soriku, stop peeing in Legend's Cheerios. You didn't? Alright, then start. Then he has some justification.

Legend most fanboys off the PS3 and 360 go on and on and on about 720P and will sit there all day long and say they can tell the difference between 480P and 720P and 1080P. The truth is they can when placed side by side in the same frame but in reality aka everyday use they can not tell the difference because the resolution of a screen is the least important factor of how a game or movie looks. I love my XH A1 camera it shoots better pictures than most 1080P handy cams but it only shoots in 1080i and even at that it actually skimps a few lines with the green CCD. What Soriku is pointing out here is that all the people who swear by 720P and say it is necessary don't even realize that they are not playing HD or 720P half the time. the difference comes from the higher rez textures and color more than anything else.

480p is considered HD,

I dont get this HD crud, if a ps3 game was 480i it would still look better than any other game. The resolution doesnt have much to do with it, ofcourse the better the resolution the better the graphics.

Odd question:

If this be true, how can marketers be getting away with the advertising in these formats, or is there no technical specs or limitations on the P/I formatting? I.E. what's up with this?

I proudly admit my ignorance in this area, yet desire to know, because if this is true, then most people proudly boasting their knowledge on games in HDalso knew about as much as me. Which is hilarious, and bad.

480p is not HD, it's ED:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced-definition_television

PS: Those are some serious trolling moves you have there Legend11. Take the thread for what it is, information from a news article.

Unless you sit really close to your tv, or have a massive tv (40" +) the detail in HD is hardly noticeable.

It's a bit different for PCs because typically the user is sitting a lot closer to the screen and can discern the finer detail (not that it's important for games, as it's not, but only that it's noticeable)

the only real advantage might be aliasing artefacts are less evident than at the standard definitions, and you might notice that several games in that list use lower resolutions in combination with Anti-Aliasing... presumably it's easier to AA a low res output than render that output at the higher res (w/o AA).

Twice the graphics power =/= twice the graphics ratings.

Before the X360 and PS3 launched, they talked about how HD gaming would change EVERYTHING. But when push came to shove, the resolution wasn't bumped up fully because their systems couldn't handle it/stable framerates. But many Console Warriurz and fanboys can't tell the difference and keep belching whatever the marketing department said.

Sure, the graphics boost is nice, but it isn't as good as was claimed.

960x1080 is perfect for DLP sets, as all of them have a MAX res of exactly that. They all WOBBLE up from that res to 1920x1080 anyway. That aside, the PS3 has a very good amount at 1080P. So This thread is pointless. People where saying we will never see true 1080P games, and we have. We will get more and more as time passes as well......at least for the PS3.

The fact is that neither the PS3, nor the 360 has a particularly large frame buffer. The 360 has 10MB of very fast memory for the frame buffer (with bandwidth 10 times that of the rest of the RAM). The PS3 can reasonably just use 128MB of memory before it leaves too little for the frame buffer.

That's not a lot of memory, when you consider all the graphics the frame buffer has to convert into visual data. If the systems had at least twice as much memory for the frame buffer, 1080p would be a reasonable resolution. As it is, around 720p is best for large scale games, saving 1080p for games with not that much going on.