The best and most interesting part of this thread is that ckmlb is back

@ Hawk

Are you really surprised? According to a NPD survey only about 30% of XBox 360 users in the United States are aware of the console's high defintion graphics.

Personally I haven't played the game yet, considering the short single player campaign and doubting the game beats actually Warhawk in multiplayer I don't intend to buy the game other than maybe at a budget price a couple of years down the road, if the game didn't aged too much in comparison to games like Killzone 2.

MikeB said: @ LordTheNightKnight HD gaming is not dependent on screen reolution as HD movies are, since the details are not kept in the screen resolution, as they are in HD movies. Of course the rendering resolution counts significantly as well. 600p is of course still better than 480i/p or 576i/p (PAL) and of course I agree a game like God of War 2 still looks good upscaled on a HDTV, but for God of War 3 I expect a native 1080p resolution. Developers are making significant sacrifes on the XBox 360 and this affects the PS3 games library as well, I think it's interesting to discuss. Of course graphics artists, musicians and game directors all play an important part in making a game as good as possible, but I'm also interested in the art of programming having followed the demoscene quite extensively, a more advanced game engine provides these artists with more extensive options. I am sure XBox 360 fans would have made a big deal if the game only ran 600p on the PS3, like we have seen in early porting cases of the past. I think it's quite funny actually when they downplay such issues otherwise.

That's why your arguments fall flat. You don't know some of the fundamentals of 3D gaming. Rendering resolution is part of the texture buffer, not the frame buffer. If you don't know that basic difference, you really shouldn't claim what resolutions the systems are capable of.

And no matter how much you deny it, the PS3 has to make sacrifices for its frame buffer as well. If you knew what a fram buffer was, you would know that other components on the PS3 are not capable of enhancing the resolution.

@ TheBigFatJ

I think you got it wrong with regard to FullHD, Sony stated the PS3 will do games up to 1080p (meaning 1080 horizontal progressively scanned lines) and a Microsoft Exec reponded they thought it would be impossible. Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5 and Final Fantasy XIII will all be impressively performing high profile 1080p games.

Sony beginning of 2006:

"The PlayStation 3 will include BluRay , the high definition DVD technology, and support games in resolutions of up to 1080p, (the highest supported standard on the market.)"

Microsoft in repsonse (March 2006):

"I think 1080p, just to address that directly, will be basically impossible. I think if you talk to any developer they will tell you that they will not have a performing game at 1080p."

In hindsight it's easy to see who's right and who's wrong. Your comments with regard to Microsoft are correct, but I think those with regard to Sony is just a myth judging from the text above.

@ LordTheNightKnight

What's up with the cheapshots? It's a trademark of blind fanboys, I think I myself and most of those people posting at Beyond3D understand things better than you do.

If you are going to continue on this road don't expect me to respond to you anymore.

MikeB said: @ TheBigFatJ For one company seperating itself from the Wii because it is HD and another company seperating itself from its competition by saying that the 360 isn't even full HD, it looks a little hypocritical to see them running their games with 66% as much resolution as the lowest HD spec. I think you got it wrong with regard to FullHD, Sony stated the PS3 will do games up to 1080p (meaning 1080 horizontal progressively scanned lines) and a Microsoft Exec reponded they thought it would be impossible. Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5 and Final Fantasy XIII will all be impressively performing high profile 1080p games. Sony beginning of 2006: "The PlayStation 3 will include BluRay , the high definition DVD technology, and support games in resolutions of up to 1080p, (the highest supported standard on the market.)" Microsoft in repsonse (March 2006): "I think 1080p, just to address that directly, will be basically impossible. I think if you talk to any developer they will tell you that they will not have a performing game at 1080p." In hindsight it's easy to see who's right and who's wrong. Your comments with regard to Microsoft are correct, but I think those with regard to Sony is a myth reading judging by reading the text above.

But that just proves one man's belief of the capabilities is wrong. It does not prove the 360 cannot handle the same resolution as the PS3, assuming that was one of your inferences here. 

MikeB said: I think you got it wrong with regard to FullHD, Sony stated the PS3 will do games up to 1080p (meaning 1080 horizontal progressively scanned lines) and a Microsoft Exec reponded they thought it would be impossible. Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5 and Final Fantasy XIII will all be impressively performing high profile 1080p games. Sony beginning of 2006: "The PlayStation 3 will include BluRay , the high definition DVD technology, and support games in resolutions of up to 1080p, (the highest supported standard on the market.)" Microsoft in repsonse (March 2006): "I think 1080p, just to address that directly, will be basically impossible. I think if you talk to any developer they will tell you that they will not have a performing game at 1080p." In hindsight it's easy to see who's right and who's wrong. Your comments with regard to Microsoft are correct, but I think those with regard to Sony is just a myth judging from the text above.

Gran Turismo will not be 1080p natively. It is upscaled from an odd resolution. It will be interesting to see if they can pull off true 1080p in MGS4 but at this point, I think it's unlikely. Honestly, I don't think either system has the hardware to pull off native 1080p in a large environment, which is why we're seeing "lesser" games at 1080p and nothing else. There hasn't been a major release - PS3 or 360 - that runs at 1920x1080 natively.

So, in short, it appears that MS was right about that and Sony has been the one blowing smoke up your ass. Hate to break it to you.

MikeB said: @ LordTheNightKnight What's up with the cheapshots? It's a trademark of blind fanboys, I think I myself and most of those people posting at Beyond3D understand things better than you do. If you are going to continue on this road don't expect me to respond to you anymore.

And you don't even understand cheapshots. Calling you stupid would be a cheapshot. I just pointed out that if you don't know a fundamental fact of something, your claims about that thing are suspect. That isn't a cheapshot; it's a logical deduction. The same applies to everyone. I don't really understand the three laws of thermodynamics, so if I argued about heat dispersal, I wouldn't have solid ground to be making my arguments.

The thing is that you don't seem to understand how a frame buffer works, and why the screen resolutions of both versions of CoD 4 are this low.

The basics are that a frame buffer doesn't store the actual graphics; it just controls what part of the graphics we see on the screen. That is a very important distinction. The reason being that 3D graphics cannot "see" the screen. For example, they can't "see" if they cause jaggies, so anti-aliasing has to be stored in the frame buffer.

Yet a jaggie is not limited to a set number of pixels on a screen. Jaggies can happen on every singel pixel. That means higher resolutions means more work for the frame buffer. And it's not just anti-aliasing that had more work with more pixels. Almost every part of the frame buffer has more work with more pixels.

In othe words, lower resolutions mean more memory is available for other things, such at texture resolution, which is the real measurement of how detailed HD graphics are.* 

This also applies to both the PS3 and 360. The thing with the PS3, is that the fram buffer is a conventional fram buffer. It still has to follow the rules of such. That's why it also has to sacrifice native resolution for some games. If the frame buffer was larger, it could do 1080p on every game, but it isn't. Same applies to the 360.

Both can output some games in 1080p, but the bandwidth is eaten up. They run much better as 600p-720p systems. 

 

*The best way to tell is to take a late 1990s PC game and put it on a PC with and HD graphics card and monitor. You can easily put those at HD resolutions, but those games will still look like N64 era games, since only the screen resolution is up, not the texture resolution.

MikeB said: And I look at the PS3 with many times more processing power, bandwidth and memory, it's easy to understand DVD is not enough for the long run, IMO for the long run sacrifices are likely to be made even with regard to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.

You look at the systems, see ~9mb/s data transfer speeds, 512 megs of RAM (including GPU RAM), and yet you think that the main limitation of these consoles is disc size?

*shakes head in disbelief*

@ rocketpig

I think you are confusing FullHD as the only native 1080p resolution, Gran Turismo 5 will render in a native 1080p resolution, if the final game will render all its graphics in FullHD is AFAIK unknown.



They stated games up to 1080p, there are even quite a few FullHD games for the PS3. Sony technically and objectively Sony was correct with the statement even this early on of the console's lifecycle.