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

Forums - Gaming - Not so High Definition

hsrob on 05 October 2009
Mr_Power said:
Reasonable said:
Folks need to realize that the HD consoles do not have the power to deliver resolutions like 1080p (or even 720p in many cases) for graphically intense titles.

But so what? So long as the game looks good and it's animations, art direction, etc. is fine then just enjoy it. The graphics are still a huge leap from PS2, etc. if that's what you want.

Now, if the animation is crap, the graphics clearly look poor, etc. then there's a problem.

uncharted 2 says hello.
720p and by a long long shot the best graphics and textures in a console game.

No install, virtually no loading times, and perfect frame rate with no screen tearing and no framerate drops.

It's a god damn masterpiece technically. I don't think it'll be bested till uncharted 3.

He said in many cases not in all.



Around the Network
Killergran on 05 October 2009
scottie said:
Have a damn whinge!

The only options are/were

1) Make the PS360 more powerful and expensive. Which if done would have killed both consoles off as quick as the dreamcast.

2) Make games more efficient - this is not really an option for most devs, they simply aren't good enough. Even if they are, it then takes more time and money to develop a game, so games would be $70, or more devs would have gone bust.

3) Reduce graphical effects - yeah, this makes sense, make a game look much worse in order to allow you to make it look slightly better. Graphical effects and framerate are much more important than resolution anyway

I agree with all of this. But that doesn't make this article any less invalid.



This is invisible text!

nofingershaha on 05 October 2009

please don't add fuel to the fire guys, this was suppose to be an informative read, not another outlook for damn console war.



Reasonable on 05 October 2009
Mr_Power said:
Reasonable said:
Folks need to realize that the HD consoles do not have the power to deliver resolutions like 1080p (or even 720p in many cases) for graphically intense titles.

But so what? So long as the game looks good and it's animations, art direction, etc. is fine then just enjoy it. The graphics are still a huge leap from PS2, etc. if that's what you want.

Now, if the animation is crap, the graphics clearly look poor, etc. then there's a problem.

uncharted 2 says hello.
720p and by a long long shot the best graphics and textures in a console game.

No install, virtually no loading times, and perfect frame rate with no screen tearing and no framerate drops.

It's a god damn masterpiece technically. I don't think it'll be bested till uncharted 3.

I have Uncharted with Uncharted 2 on order.  I said in many cases, not all.  The fact is only the best developers are producing 720p or 1080p titles.  Most others are sacrificing resolution for fps and performance - which is quite right too.  Cost is clearly an issue in many cases too, with developers simply not able to afford the effort to get their game to HD resolutions.



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

Staude on 05 October 2009

In other words they haven't tried the ps3 yet and they dunno if it'll be better or worse. i do find the blur vs resolution thing interesting. I read this on n4g the other day :p



Check out my game about moles ^

Around the Network
scottie on 05 October 2009
Killergran said:
scottie said:
Have a damn whinge!

The only options are/were

1) Make the PS360 more powerful and expensive. Which if done would have killed both consoles off as quick as the dreamcast.

2) Make games more efficient - this is not really an option for most devs, they simply aren't good enough. Even if they are, it then takes more time and money to develop a game, so games would be $70, or more devs would have gone bust.

3) Reduce graphical effects - yeah, this makes sense, make a game look much worse in order to allow you to make it look slightly better. Graphical effects and framerate are much more important than resolution anyway

I agree with all of this. But that doesn't make this article any less invalid.

Accidental double negative?

 

Anyway, I don't think this article is all that valid really. If you were expecting that either console could (easily, ie it can be done, if a really good dev team spends many years) produce games in 60hz, 1080p with hella good graphical effects, then you were expecting too much. Perhaps because you took Sony and MS execs at face value - this is obviously a rookie error, it is their job to deceive you.



Killergran on 05 October 2009
scottie said:
Killergran said:

I agree with all of this. But that doesn't make this article any less invalid.

Accidental double negative?

 

Anyway, I don't think this article is all that valid really. If you were expecting that either console could (easily, ie it can be done, if a really good dev team spends many years) produce games in 60hz, 1080p with hella good graphical effects, then you were expecting too much. Perhaps because you took Sony and MS execs at face value - this is obviously a rookie error, it is their job to deceive you.

I said what I wanted to say. If that's what you were asking.

I don't like being lied to. I think it's a despicable business practice, even if it's understandable. But I dislike it even more when they try to turn it into us being better off for being lied to. Which is where that article is heading with that reasoning.



This is invisible text!

theprof00 on 05 October 2009

wait, what does this all mean? That MS has been faking screenshots this whole gen?



darklich13 on 05 October 2009
Mr_Power said:
darklich13 said:
Mr_Power said:
Thats the thing, its not an issue. The superior version of the game is the PS3 version at 576p. It actually looks better due to that effect and post processing. That is the point of the article.

But its so jagged around the edges. The 1365x768 is cleaner.

huh? no. The 576p ps3 version has significantly less jaggys and looks much smoother. do not look at the blown up image, that is not a representation of the way it looks because you cannot see the blur in effect that Namco has worked so hard on. The texturing, smoothness and fluidness of the game is significantly BETTER at 576p. It just happens to look better on the ps3 so they added the option to turn it off and put up the res on the 360.

Really? Look at the 500% zooms. How can you say the 576 shot is less jaggy? 



EMULATION is the past.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

 

 


heruamon on 05 October 2009

In looking at both screens, they both look nice, and imho, if you're anal about 500% zoom, you have other issues you need to deal with.



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder