"BTW, GT5p and SSHD are both 60 FPS despite their much higher resolution, so the PS3 is powerful enough. Further gains will be made, there's still a lot of headroom left for developers to tap into by optimising their game engines."

You are such a liar. Those are not comparable to games like GTA, or Halo, or Call of Duty 4, or all games you think magically are the same type of resource use as those lone two games.

You obviously have no idea how processing and resources work. I'm not claiming I know it all, but I do know that your game comparisons are bunk. Until we see the same game run in higher native resolution on the PS3, you have no evidence. The proof is in the pudding, but stop lying that the pudding is made. It isn't.

BTW, some 360 games run in 108p native, but you'd likely point out those games have limited resource use, while refusing to acknowledge the same with those PS3 games.

Kyros, I tried explaining the facts of frame buffer use to him on another thread. He refused to even acknowledge that was the case, and kept using FMVs as proof the PS3 could do 1080p, and not actual 3D graphics.

@ Kyros

It does, would the PS3 have been infinitively powerful the higher the resolution up to a level a human eye can distinguish would be optimal.

It will depend upon the game's design goals and state of the game engine. Super Stardust HD has so much stuff going on simultaneously going down to 720p wouldn't really matter anything to this game in terms of added effects and activity nor framerate (going higher than 60 FPS is IMO useless, considering we can't detect more fluent movement, 120 Hz refresh we can detect, but that's a TV feature and has nothing to do with rendering).

Gran Turismo 5: Prologue at its current state already looks like video recordings in realtime replays, better than anything else out there pushing for racing realism. And IMO really just the beginning, people still haven't what the PS3 is really capable of for the long run.

LordTheNightKnight said: He refused to even acknowledge that was the case, and kept using FMVs as proof the PS3 could do 1080p, and not actual 3D graphics.

 Care to explain what you're talking about? Please quote me instead of making things up.

"And IMO really just the beginning, people still haven't what's the PS3 is really capable of for the long run."

First you have to prove those things are only possible on the PS3. You haven't done that, just claimed it's so. Therefore, you have no real proof that only the PS3 has greater potential.

@ LordTheNightKnight

I'll refer to the developer comments explaining development on the PS3 results into better designed and thus better performing 360/PC gaming engines as well. Combine this with the comments from the Ghostbusters guys who are leading their project on the PS3, claiming they would have been able to twice as much onscreen if the game would have been PS3 exclusive.

They think the PS3 is far more powerful as do many other developers, read the NeoGAF thread linked below for a collection of many different comment and collection of information. 

MikeB said: LordTheNightKnight said: He refused to even acknowledge that was the case, and kept using FMVs as proof the PS3 could do 1080p, and not actual 3D graphics. Care to explain what you're talking about? Please quote me instead of making things up.

Ah, the old deny an argument you made before. 

Try looking at the thread about Call fo Duty 4 in 600p. I'm not quoting because then I'd have to quote around a half dozen posts or more. I kept stating that texture resolution is where actual detail is in 3D graphics, which is whe the memory use went to instead of screen resolution, and you kept stating that FMVs were proof screen resolution was important.

If you knew anything about 3D graphics, you would know that FMVs are a series of bitmaps, and texture are bitmaps, therefore, they are to be compared in resolution, not screen resolution. The same with GTA IV. You got, well, assloads of high quality textures running at once. You cannot compare Gran Truismo, since that just loads a track, not the whole fucking world. You also cannot compare Super Stardust, since most of its graphics are effects.

In other words, you have to use SIMILAR games to prove the PS3 can do what you claim, not just ANY game.  

MikeB said: @ LordTheNightKnight I'll refer to the developer comments explaining development on the PS3 results in better designed 360/PC gaming engines as well. Combine this with the comment from the Ghostbuster guys which are leading their project on the PS3, claiming they would have been able to twice as much onscreen if the game would have been PS3 exclusive. (IMO twice as much is even being conservative, but made sense with regard to the interview)

The discussion on this thread is SCREEN RESOLUTION, as in the FRAME BUFFER. What those developers are discussing is in the TEXTURE MEMORY.   

"twice as much onscreen"  Is not , " as much onscreen, but at twice the resolution". 

Hi, how's it going with the battle of PS3 vs 360 regarding GTA IV?

Whenever I think of this I imagine the fight at the start of Gangs of New York, except one gangs for 360 and the others for PS3...

I've never actually been into GTA but this time it does looking interesting enough to invest it... but I think I'll wait a while until the mayhem dies down and this 'locking up' problem is patched or clarified...

As for the topic - if I had to chose between 720 native with poorer results from a viewing perspective vs something lower I'd happily take the lower resolution and have a better actual viewing experience on-screen and while gaming.

Given how far ahead PCs are on resolution over consoles I suggest both sides relax and retire to the virtual bar instead of arguing about resolution on a console anyway.

Wow, the tech nerds at Beyond3d...interesting. Some people have too much free time :)

Anyway, check out their list at
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241