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

Forums - Microsoft - MS Lifts 360 Minimum 720p, Anti-Aliasing Mandate For Devs

tedsteriscool on 02 September 2009
sinha said:
tedsteriscool said:
I wonder if this will turn off some devs? Or maybe kill framerates with the lazy devs...

LOL

Can you elaborate on how this news could possibly turn off any devs?

 

Lazy dev: "Meh...we don't want to TRY to meet these requirements! Forget this!"



Around the Network
Aion on 02 September 2009

I hope some devs don't get lazy.



 

   PROUD MEMBER OF THE PLAYSTATION 3 : RPG FAN CLUB

 

cloofoofoo on 02 September 2009
greenmedic88 said:
cloofoofoo said:
ph4nt said:
This is actually the first time i've heard of that restriction. With so many games like Halo and Call of Duty running at sub HD levels.

I often worder how many games run below 720p.My favorite game Sonic Unleashed(come on its one of the best looking game this gen) tends to look a bit pixelated,makes me wonder does it run under 720p?

Actually, the telling sign of a game running below a native render 1280x720 is not necessarily a stepped "pixelated" look (jaggies), but excessive soft focus (blurriness) due to a low render resolution being automatically upscaled (via Xbox settings/HANA chip) to whatever your display's native resolution happens to be.

 

Thats kinda to what i was referring to,just didnt know how to word it.I run x360 at 720p through vga cable.Sonic Unleashed especially always has that blurish look to it, and to make matter worse its a bit jaggy.Some other games look crisp and sharp.I hate the huge blur filter on Tales of Vesperia but I think its a intentional.



Natal and Sony's flashing Ice cream cone

inverted3reality on 02 September 2009

I would assume this is because the 360 is having more and more difficulties meeting the technical requirements of new game design. Lowering the resolution will allow them to keep the graphics on par with newer games and keep the size down to fit on the disk. (Same as multi-plat devs do to the ps3 to compensate for bad porting)



JaggedSac on 02 September 2009
tedsteriscool said:
sinha said:
tedsteriscool said:
I wonder if this will turn off some devs? Or maybe kill framerates with the lazy devs...

LOL

Can you elaborate on how this news could possibly turn off any devs?

 

Lazy dev: "Meh...we don't want to TRY to meet these requirements! Forget this!"

This is removing requirements.



Around the Network
Bitmap Frogs on 02 September 2009
inverted3reality said:
I would assume this is because the 360 is having more and more difficulties meeting the technical requirements of new game design. Lowering the resolution will allow them to keep the graphics on par with newer games and keep the size down to fit on the disk. (Same as multi-plat devs do to the ps3 to compensate for bad porting)

 

You couldn't be more ignorant even if you tried. 

But whatever in order to score a point in the fanboy warz, right?

Here's a hint, render resolution and asset size isn't directly related. Quake can run at 1920x1080 yet it fits on a CD. 

The reason they have removed this "requirement" is that they've made so many exceptions it doesn't make sense anymore since everytime a dev mailed them saying "hey, our game is sub-720 is that ok?" they answered "yes".





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

tedsteriscool on 02 September 2009
JaggedSac said:
tedsteriscool said:
sinha said:
tedsteriscool said:
I wonder if this will turn off some devs? Or maybe kill framerates with the lazy devs...

LOL

Can you elaborate on how this news could possibly turn off any devs?

 

Lazy dev: "Meh...we don't want to TRY to meet these requirements! Forget this!"

This is removing requirements.

Ohh k. Wait...if it was a requirement, how did so many devs get off the chain even though they didnt meet them?



scat398 on 02 September 2009

Another garbage article by joystiq...the fox news of computer gaming



JaggedSac on 02 September 2009
tedsteriscool said:
JaggedSac said:
tedsteriscool said:

Lazy dev: "Meh...we don't want to TRY to meet these requirements! Forget this!"

This is removing requirements.

Ohh k. Wait...if it was a requirement, how did so many devs get off the chain even though they didnt meet them?

That is a good question.



blizzid on 03 September 2009
JaggedSac said:
tedsteriscool said:
JaggedSac said:
tedsteriscool said:

Lazy dev: "Meh...we don't want to TRY to meet these requirements! Forget this!"

This is removing requirements.

Ohh k. Wait...if it was a requirement, how did so many devs get off the chain even though they didnt meet them?

That is a good question.


Each developer was able to convince Microsoft's certification team that for their specific game, the end result would be better if the requirement was waived - thus allowing them to sacrifice resolution for other benefits. It quickly became clear to Microsoft's certification team that the requirement should just be abandoned, but the marketing team wanted to keep the requirement.

Of course, all of that is just conjecture with nothing to back it up.