LaP Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 It's BS like when Bethesda said Morrowind was not possible on the cube because of the lack of an HDD then was able to port Oblivion to the hd less 360 arcade model. It's also BS like everything that comes out of Mark Rein mouth. Never listen to developers of exclusive titles. Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaP Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 This, ask any RDR player. Most of the 360 games are running at 720p even when you chose 1080p. The console upscale the picture post processing like a 1080p DVD reader do. Some games are even lower resolution at 540p. Few are running at 1080p native resolution. If you have a good TV most 360 games will look exactly the same at 720p and 1080p simply because your TV will upscale the image as well as the 360 does. True 1080p looks better than 720p when connecting a PC to a TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted October 8, 2010 Author Share Posted October 8, 2010 I don't think anyone was questioning that LaP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 sub 720p is usually 680 or something though, I haven't seen many, not even sure any, that's gonna ll the way down to 540, maybe you meant 640 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 sub 720p is usually 680 or something though, I haven't seen many, not even sure any, that's gonna ll the way down to 540, maybe you meant 640 ? If I remember correctly the lowest in terms of exclusive titles was Halo 3 and it ran at 640p (Although it was lessened specifically to improve performance with the lighting engine). The lowest resolution game on the system was Project Gotham Racing 3 at 600p. Nothing has been lower. Regardless, Halo Reach is barely below 720p (and that is just a few vertical pixels) and yet it has tons of things happening on screen, amazing particle effects and great lighting. Resolution takes a back seat to performance, especially on consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbandonedTrolley Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 If I remember correctly the lowest in terms of exclusive titles was Halo 3 and it ran at 640p (Although it was lessened specifically to improve performance with the lighting engine). The lowest resolution game on the system was Project Gotham Racing 3 at 600p. Nothing has been lower. Regardless, Halo Reach is barely below 720p (and that is just a few vertical pixels) and yet it has tons of things happening on screen, amazing particle effects and great lighting. Resolution takes a back seat to performance, especially on consoles. This, people would prefer a great game just below HD rather than a stinker at 1080/60fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 One of the few games I know of running 540p natively is Haze ... What a great game that was xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red. Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 One of the few games I know of running 540p natively is Haze ... What a great game that was xD Wonder when it goes platinum :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stezo2k Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Very doubtful, if the PS3 was massively more powerful than the 360 surely the games would look a lot better on the PS3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Very doubtful, if the PS3 was massively more powerful than the 360 surely the games would look a lot better on the PS3? When coded right they basically do. It is though that it is so hard to code for, that most developers code for xbox/pc, then port over, not taking the time to learn the system, and just then doing what they must to get it out on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralDogma Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Five?ing this topic because I enjoy watching fanboys argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Five?ing this topic because I enjoy watching fanboys argue. There is a difference between arguing and debating/conversation. No go away troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted October 8, 2010 Author Share Posted October 8, 2010 Very doubtful, if the PS3 was massively more powerful than the 360 surely the games would look a lot better on the PS3? True. I am still waiting for that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreKe Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Oooh, the PS3 is claimed to be more powerful! Oooh! But will it help it sell more systems? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clotz2000 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 The comment I made on making the consoles "Futureproof" was taken the wrong way. This is just my opinion of course but, if you're going to try and milk a console's hardware and design for 5+ years, I would like to see more features added that doesn't cost the consumer 100's of extra dollars, 5 console revisions, and 20 peripheral add-ons to buy every 2 months. Now granted they have done a decent job with some of the features and such but to keep the customer happy you should think ahead and include several features and hardware upgrades at one time, like instead of making a 360 in Black color, how about add more memory or add things that the gaming community wants to see in the new products, this is why they have forums and suggestions because we are the ones actually using the hardware daily. So instead of building work-arounds and trying to make new technology run on old hardware, when you have the chance to make a new console add things to make it last for more than a year into the future. And $ony, quit taking features away from the PS3 every 6 months... On another note though, what I suggest doesn't help the corporations make money and at the end of the day that's what they care about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 The comment I made on making the consoles "Futureproof" was taken the wrong way. This is just my opinion of course but, if you're going to try and milk a console's hardware and design for 5+ years, I would like to see more features added that doesn't cost the consumer 100's of extra dollars, 5 console revisions, and 20 peripheral add-ons to buy every 2 months. Now granted they have done a decent job with some of the features and such but to keep the customer happy you should think ahead and include several features and hardware upgrades at one time, like instead of making a 360 in Black color, how about add more memory or add things that the gaming community wants to see in the new products, this is why they have forums and suggestions because we are the ones actually using the hardware daily. So instead of building work-arounds and trying to make new technology run on old hardware, when you have the chance to make a new console add things to make it last for more than a year into the future. And $ony, quit taking features away from the PS3 every 6 months... On another note though, what I suggest doesn't help the corporations make money and at the end of the day that's what they care about... Well if you suggest more memory (RAM or HDD?) then that would be pointless. Consoles are meant to be standardized and releasing new editions with more base hardware than the original gimps developers anyways. A dev now has to consider the possibility of 4GB of RAM vs. the original 512mb for example and plan accordingly. The main reason why consoles run newer games so well on old and limited hardware is because of that. Rather than only utlizing 60%-75% of your hardware, consoles can use damn near 100% of everything in the system and push it further. Not to mention they already get more with less due to the lack of a full operating system. Taking that away from them would be counterproductive. At the time, the consoles had high-end tech and output. Some of their games looked as good or better than PC games (reasonable ones, not Crysis). And still they continue to look better, run better and have more in them despite using 3-4 year old hardware (not compared to PC games, PC's aren't limited by hardware and therefore a dev can make a game for whatever spec they want). That is all due to the optimization, something no PC dev can adequately do. What the 360 does would take a PC of two to three times the price to do at the same level without some form of hiccup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazure Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 I'm waiting for a game on the 360 that looks better than Uncharted 2. =p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 I'm waiting for a game on the 360 that looks better than Uncharted 2. =p And you'll be waiting forever, since you'll never admit it even if it's photoreal with holographic 3D, much like the two others, you're like horses with those side view blinders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted October 10, 2010 Author Share Posted October 10, 2010 I think they missed the boat if they are still waiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted October 10, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted October 10, 2010 Well, what title on the 360 looks better than Uncharted 2 then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 Well, what title on the 360 looks better than Uncharted 2 then? Red Dead Redemption Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerowen Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 The PS3 takes the cake when it comes to raw horsepower, but if Sony doesn't step up their game they're going to lose miserably in terms of unit sales just because of all of the features M$ is packing into the 360. It seems like every other day there's an announcement of new content/software for the 360 (Netflix, Facebook, Last.fm). I mean heck the only "feature" the PS3 has a leg up on is an actual web browser, and I don't think they've bothered updating it since the console was released. Personally, I prefer my PS3, (however I own both) but the 360 is cleaning house as far as market share goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted October 10, 2010 Veteran Share Posted October 10, 2010 bluray=50+ GB with potential for 400GB dual-layer dvd= ~8gb oh, yeah. blueray definitely loses. /sarcasm doesn't matter anyway, the 360 couldn't process the uncompressed textures that can be stored on a bluray disc. Yeah because it's been a run away success, it never hurt Sony's wallet and it propelled their console to the top quicker than you can say....oh wait :o And that's ignoring the downsides of the tech and the ever increasing digital services that this generation has spawned. Your average consumer doesn't even know what a GB is, never mind DTS or 7.1. Well, what title on the 360 looks better than Uncharted 2 then? Kameo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 Kameo below the belt DM :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted October 10, 2010 Veteran Share Posted October 10, 2010 I like to push the boundaries :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts