I think I'll post these in every thread on Halo 3 graphics...

http://i24.tinypic.com/ru02n5.gif
http://i23.tinypic.com/5xjrme.jpg
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z145/fluxcapacitor84/118776-Full.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c281/Serio17/229066-Full.jpg
http://i22.tinypic.com/jrfgox.jpg
http://i22.tinypic.com/w2lrt0.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/defiancecs/356208-Full-1.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a308/Havok117/400721-Full.jpg
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/trev04/438028-Full.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/depecheboy/photo/61104-Full.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/sasurai/430958-Full.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1264/1447985438_50e0baf3da_b.jpg
http://home.online.no/~bkmyskja/div/saving_the_universe.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1151/1449481649_3d3d5feed6_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1001/1449787173_566d804dfa.jpg
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l127/webmonkeybaker/halo3.jpg
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q40/Intertron/Halo%203/691875-Full.jpg
http://www.catanzareti.com/images/Kevin/arbiter.jpg
http://www.silver-ware.net/games/1019982-small.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1360/1456814066_0828232366_b.jpg

If you do that, sinha, then I think I'll post this http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12821 every time someone wants to bash the Wii for not being HD.
Now that we have confirmation from Bungie themselves that their games is not even in HD, how desperate they are to spin it, I'll just throw this at anyone that says anything about HD being the most important thing for a game.
1152 * 640 is slightly above 640p, but sure enough not 720p, which is the lower HD resolution.
BTW, I think that closes this silly thread, shutting off the XBots. I hope not to hear any more "HD is beyond all for games" comment, when the biggest game of the XBox 360 isn't even HD.
The spin of Bungie is even worse:
- "1280 vertical resolution" is BS, two framebuffers never got you higher resolution
- "if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference", yeah right, some people did, and the defense forces were the only one blinded. They talk like they have an godly scaler, which obviously they haven't.

I also hope some people start to understand that it's not because it's written 1080p or even 720p somewhere on the box, that the game is in 1080p or 720p. But I won't hold my breath over that, some people are so dense, that you can prove them that endless times and they won't ever understand.

What's interesting, is that now it seems there's not a single true 1080p game on XB360, and that lots of 720p games aren't even 720p either. Which is far more logical to me, as I didn't understand how consoles that are much less powerful than some PC, could display higher resolutions with the same games. Now I understand: the consoles just don't run even at 720p for these games.

@ sieanr

You're allowed to take a break.



I don't know, I just know COD3 is about identical on both platforms. It's not strange XBox 360 ports to the PS3 run at the same resolution as the original. That has more to do with the original target platform than with the PS3, unless they really wanted to put some effort into making the PS3 version better than the XBox 360 version.

Halo 3 is a XBox 360 exclusive, there are no excuses to not push the XBox 360 as hard as Bungie could. I think the XBox 360 is powerful enough to render everything seen in the game in terms of effects and art in native 720p, as I have read Bungie's rather strange reply and I really don't think the XBox 360 is too weak, I guess there are reasons they aren't telling us.

MikeB said: Using lower res textures also saves space on the DVD. I guess probably the most important reason to cut down the resolution, Halo 3 isn't the only XBox 360 game which isn't really rendering its graphics in 720p. Another reason may be to put less pressure on the GPU, as the GPU tends to overheat (RRoD) a lot of Microsof's consoles.

 

That's still my personal take on the situation. To determine if it's valid one has to know how much space Halo 3 is taking on the dual layer DVD and how much of this data regards textures and then calculate how much more space enhanced textures would then take up.

@Sinha,

None of those are particularly impressive. Especially when you consider the lack of HUD which means some of them could be pre-renders. But some of them look like art direction pictures and not even shots you would ever see playing the game.

I think there is a very good case in the idea that the game looks good so who cares about missing pixels so I don't see why you need to justify it to other people. If you like it just play and ignore these guys.

@FishyJoe,

I agree there is a lot of screen real estate being lost here but I don't know that it really matters all that much. When you really think about it how close have most games really been to HD quality so far? I certainly haven't seen anything that is on par with Blue Planet. Games may be outputting in these HD resolutions but the textures and everything else they are using have yet to truly come together in something I would look at and not be easily able to identify it as a game. I am hoping that Crysis is the beginning of games that look truly HD, but even Crysis has some issues with the NPC models that I have seen. Ironically I think they have pretty good models but next to their environments and lighting it looks fake and out of place.

To summarize, this is nothing new really. And if people are happy with the way it looks I don't see why there should be a stink over this game any more than there is for every other "HD game" that doesn't look nearly as good as most HD programs. 

ookaze said: The spin of Bungie is even worse: - "1280 vertical resolution" is BS, two framebuffers never got you higher resolution - "if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference", yeah right, some people did, and the defense forces were the only one blinded. They talk like they have an godly scaler, which obviously they haven't. What's interesting, is that now it seems there's not a single true 1080p game on XB360, and that lots of 720p games aren't even 720p either. Which is far more logical to me, as I didn't understand how consoles that are much less powerful than some PC, could display higher resolutions with the same games. Now I understand: the consoles just don't run even at 720p for these games

For those who want to understand what graphics are all about.

Read this:

Why graphics don't mean as much anymore (the original)

http://www.n-philes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22174 

 

The PopZart version

http://www.popzart.com/?page=view&topic=73

 

Prettiness is actually the LAST thing graphics are intended for. The final glaze rather than the baked ham itself, if ya smell what I'm cookin'. (Hey that's a pun isn't it? Baked ham...smell what I'm cookin )

It doesn't matter at this point. Halo 3 is just fine. 

John Lucas 

MikeB said: I don't know, I just know COD3 is about identical on both platforms. It's not strange XBox 360 ports to the PS3 run at the same resolution as the original. That has more to do with the original target platform than with the PS3, unless they really wanted to put some effort into making the PS3 version better than the XBox 360 version. Halo 3 is a XBox 360 exclusive, there are no excuses to not push the XBox 360 as hard as Bungie could. I think the XBox 360 is powerful enough to render everything seen in the game in terms of effects and art in native 720p, as I have read Bungie's rather strange reply and I really don't think the XBox 360 is too weak, I guess there are reasons they aren't telling us.

My understanding is COD3 runs at a higher framerate on 360 than PS3.

Regardless, the argument that only games ported aren't "true" resolutions doesn't hold water.

The Darkness is only 540, doulbing the resolution to get 1080 on the PS3. Supposedly the game mainly targeted the PS3, or atleast it did originally - things such as tv shows playing thanks to Bluray, ect.

GTHD is 1080x1440 - where as "true HD" is 1080x1920. Rub'a'dub is also 1600x1080 and Stardust HD 1280x1080

So, the PS3 has its share of games that "cheat" with resolution, aka you dont get what resolution is claimed. Even sadder is that some of these games are relativly unintensive PSN titles.

[quote]That's still my personal take on the situation. To determine if it's valid one has to know how much space Halo 3 is taking on the dual layer DVD and how much of this data regards textures and then calculate how much more space enhanced textures would then take up.[quote]

Its using 7.3gb.

If you actually play the game, you'd notice that it has plenty of high resolution textures, arguably better looking than any PS3 title in that regard. There is really no need for "enhanced" textures unless you like looking at a wall from 2 inches away.

A better response from you would be to criticise Halo 3 for having so much backtracking. This argument would go something like "they backtrack on levels to same space for texture, geometry, ect by having you play the same area over and over". Then people would respond with "This is just the style of Halo gameplay, its the exact same as Halo 1 and 2". This is a far more reasonalble, and logical argument than "they run lower resolution because of disc space" which is the dumbest fucking argument you could put forth, especially after Bungie provides a reasonable technical explanation. 

Then again, just keep beleiving that textures are limited by the size of disc space available - common sense would tell you that what really limits texture resolution is RAM space available.

Oh, and the resolution issues haven't prevented this game from selling at a ridiculous pace; and thats what really matters. Or has this forum become a place to bitch about arcane technical issues?

I guess this lends itself to the "the ps3 is the more powerful console" argument.

Ultimately the difference between 720 and 640p is unnoticeable because of the 360's scaler, but it makes one wonder WHY the game only managed 640. I'm sure the ps3 would've faired better with a similar caliber game. Heavenly Sword surpasses H3 in many ways, from the number of enemies on screen to the detail of the character models, yet it managed 720p natively.

sieanr said: MikeB said: I don't know, I just know COD3 is about identical on both platforms. It's not strange XBox 360 ports to the PS3 run at the same resolution as the original. That has more to do with the original target platform than with the PS3, unless they really wanted to put some effort into making the PS3 version better than the XBox 360 version. Halo 3 is a XBox 360 exclusive, there are no excuses to not push the XBox 360 as hard as Bungie could. I think the XBox 360 is powerful enough to render everything seen in the game in terms of effects and art in native 720p, as I have read Bungie's rather strange reply and I really don't think the XBox 360 is too weak, I guess there are reasons they aren't telling us. My understanding is COD3 runs at a higher framerate on 360 than PS3. Regardless, the argument that only games ported aren't "true" resolutions doesn't hold water. The Darkness is only 540, doulbing the resolution to get 1080 on the PS3. Supposedly the game mainly targeted the PS3, or atleast it did originally - things such as tv shows playing thanks to Bluray, ect. GTHD is 1080x1440 - where as "true HD" is 1080x1920. Rub'a'dub is also 1600x1080 and Stardust HD 1280x1080 So, the PS3 has its share of games that "cheat" with resolution, aka you dont get what resolution is claimed. Even sadder is that some of these games are relativly unintensive PSN titles. [quote]That's still my personal take on the situation. To determine if it's valid one has to know how much space Halo 3 is taking on the dual layer DVD and how much of this data regards textures and then calculate how much more space enhanced textures would then take up.[quote] Its using 7.3gb. If you actually play the game, you'd notice that it has plenty of high resolution textures, arguably better looking than any PS3 title in that regard. There is really no need for "enhanced" textures unless you like looking at a wall from 2 inches away. A better response from you would be to criticise Halo 3 for having so much backtracking. This argument would go something like "they backtrack on levels to same space for texture, geometry, ect by having you play the same area over and over". Then people would respond with "This is just the style of Halo gameplay, its the exact same as Halo 1 and 2". This is a far more reasonalble, and logical argument than "they run lower resolution because of disc space" which is the dumbest fucking argument you could put forth, especially after Bungie provides a reasonable technical explanation. Then again, just keep beleiving that textures are limited by the size of disc space available - common sense would tell you that what really limits texture resolution is RAM space available. Oh, and the resolution issues haven't prevented this game from selling at a ridiculous pace; and thats what really matters. Or has this forum become a place to bitch about arcane technical issues?

CoD4 will be identical on both systems, according to IW.  60FPS at 720P. 

Do you ahve any proof that GTHD is 1080x1440?  It was released bfore the horizontal scaler in the ps3 was unlocked, so it would have to have been native 1080p or else it wouldn't have been displayed properly.  It could not have been scaled from 1080x1440 to 1080x1920 at the time it was released.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma, however, is rendered at 1080x1440 and scaled to 1080x1920.