By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Tech Analysis | Splinter Cell: Conviction (576p, 2xMSAA)

kiefer23 on 21 March 2010
SubSenix said:

2 years ago the 360 crowd said "OLOLOL PS3 Framerate issues and OMG this looks nowwhere near as our games - Our "Exclusives" > all"


And today?
Yeah it doesn't matter our games are only in low Res and such stuff....Gameplay > all

Weird how some people can change :D


Yes, I'm sure all those people you saw saying LOLLOLLOL PS3 FRAMERATE SUX, LULZ LOOKS TERRIBLE two years ago was really all of us in this thread. You do that on this website and you get banned and look like a imbecile. This is not Youtube or Gamefaqs.



Around the Network
Skeeuk on 21 March 2010

i now they have took out nightvision and emplaced emp vision.......... does it do the same effect though?



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Cueil on 21 March 2010
slowmo said:
Reasonable said:
FaRmLaNd said:
This generations obession with resolution is bordering on the moronic.

Newsflash, high resoltion has nothing to do with how good a game looks. Thats more based on colour pallete, lighting, art direction then having more tiny squares. Not to mention gameplay is king anyway.

While I agree the focus on resolution is getting out of hand you can't say it has nothing to do with how good a game looks - it is a major factor in how good a game will look depending upon the relationship to the resolution and the display.

Game assets, art direction, lighting, etc. will make a huge difference in whether the game looks attractive or not - no doubt about it - but they can be both enhanced or scuppered by resolution.

I think its more of a case of people jumping on the hate bandwagon just regarding resolution they are annoyed with.  So many people were quick to criticize FFXIII on the 360 regarding its issues, even with everything mentioned, when I saw the game in action its still a beautiful looking game.  The worst points regarding the quality of that game in comparison to the PS3 version were not because of the resolution fully but rather steps they implemented while porting.  The CG video could have looked a shed load better with some better use of the compression codecs rather than the hasty job that appeared.  The mad alisasing that occurs in places could have been fixed if they'd patched the engine prior to porting rather than doing the rush job. 

The point is that like you say resolution can enhance the image but it should never be a buying point, mind you some would argue graphics in general should never be a main buying point!

They used BINK... mother fucking BINK... god that brings back memories... from 2001 god dammit
... anway... I'm ready for the retail... V-Sych has to be locked for retail release



 
Get your Portable ID!

noodson on 21 March 2010

BINK is still widely used nowadays.

Tearing is a framerate issue. You just choose between tearing with 2 VBL v-synch or slowdown without.



ProdigyBam on 21 March 2010

After FF13 360 thats just sad...



Fedor Emelianenko - Greatest Fighter and most humble man to ever walk the earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVrNOQtlzY

Around the Network
TheTruthHurts! on 21 March 2010
SpartanFX said:
JaggedSac said:
Gameplay was pretty darn good. I didn't realize it was sub-hd when I played it, so it obviously doesn't matter to me.

exactly,,,,if you don't notice it while playing(like myself) then who cares??

            This and this, thank you both!.....



Reasonable on 21 March 2010
slowmo said:
Reasonable said:
FaRmLaNd said:
This generations obession with resolution is bordering on the moronic.

Newsflash, high resoltion has nothing to do with how good a game looks. Thats more based on colour pallete, lighting, art direction then having more tiny squares. Not to mention gameplay is king anyway.

While I agree the focus on resolution is getting out of hand you can't say it has nothing to do with how good a game looks - it is a major factor in how good a game will look depending upon the relationship to the resolution and the display.

Game assets, art direction, lighting, etc. will make a huge difference in whether the game looks attractive or not - no doubt about it - but they can be both enhanced or scuppered by resolution.

I think its more of a case of people jumping on the hate bandwagon just regarding resolution they are annoyed with.  So many people were quick to criticize FFXIII on the 360 regarding its issues, even with everything mentioned, when I saw the game in action its still a beautiful looking game.  The worst points regarding the quality of that game in comparison to the PS3 version were not because of the resolution fully but rather steps they implemented while porting.  The CG video could have looked a shed load better with some better use of the compression codecs rather than the hasty job that appeared.  The mad alisasing that occurs in places could have been fixed if they'd patched the engine prior to porting rather than doing the rush job. 

The point is that like you say resolution can enhance the image but it should never be a buying point, mind you some would argue graphics in general should never be a main buying point!

Yeah, I never think graphics should be a selling point either.  Guess I was just being pedantic regarding the idea resolution has nothing at all to do with the final results, which is clearly not the case.

I find myself wondering how my 360s and PS3s are actually even hooked up to HD displays.  I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people are playing on an SD display anyway, making the whole thing kind of moot.

For me it's gameplay first and then artistic direction over technical graphics, if you see what I mean.  I first and foremost want the game assets to look well designed and in line with its feel, then a sensible balance between resolution, etc. and performance.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

HeroeDeLeyenda on 21 March 2010

judging by the demo i thought it looked really good, i'm buying this game week one



"I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all- you live in the heart of the beast." 

Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

Xoj on 21 March 2010
kiefer23 said:
SubSenix said:

2 years ago the 360 crowd said "OLOLOL PS3 Framerate issues and OMG this looks nowwhere near as our games - Our "Exclusives" > all"


And today?
Yeah it doesn't matter our games are only in low Res and such stuff....Gameplay > all

Weird how some people can change :D


Yes, I'm sure all those people you saw saying LOLLOLLOL PS3 FRAMERATE SUX, LULZ LOOKS TERRIBLE two years ago was really all of us in this thread. You do that on this website and you get banned and look like a imbecile. This is not Youtube or Gamefaqs.

he have point though, people can be such hypocrites.

wherever the stone falls it's up to the people who did it.



Squilliam on 21 March 2010
Lezard_Valeth said:
Squilliam said:
huaxiong90 said:
Squilliam said:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

1024x768 (2xAA, temporal)

 

That's sub HD?

Yep.

Halo 3 = 737k pixels

MGS4 =  786k pixels

Which are both below

HD 720P = 922k pixels.

MGS4 is closer to Halo 3 which is undisputedly sub HD than it is to HD.

MGS4 : 786k pixels

SCC : 589k pixels

As I said, not even comparable...

1 coldsore, 3 coldsores, 10 coldsores.

Still a coldsore outbreak.

I don't care the resolution is different, all I was stating was that they are both Sub HD.



Tease.