Activision's 360 games not running in full 720p?

[LunchBox]

If they renedered it below the standard, that's cheating...

but since the trade-off turned out for the better...

I won't be complaining...

But I do wonder if this is going to be the new trend for developers...

Squeezing more performance by rendering the game at a lower resolution instead of optimizing it at the standardized resolution requirement given by the console manufacturers...

I guess true HD-gaming won't be here till the next round of systems come....

 

[rounin]

Any update on this ? Just wondering if theres any confirmation of more sub-HD rendered titles for the Xbox360.

 

[hey69]

If they renedered it below the standard, that's cheating...

but since the trade-off turned out for the better...

I won't be complaining...

But I do wonder if this is going to be the new trend for developers...

Squeezing more performance by rendering the game at a lower resolution instead of optimizing it at the standardized resolution requirement given by the console manufacturers...

I guess true HD-gaming won't be here till the next round of systems come....

yes but how much more can you optimize? maybe the devs dont think its worth to spend another 6months to get it running at stable 30fps at full 720p? (just trowing numbers here)
I think its actually a good tradeoff. more eyecandy at a bit less reslution.
Is the ps3 version running at 720p btw? does anybody know?

 

[assen]

But I do wonder if this is going to be the new trend for developers...

Squeezing more performance by rendering the game at a lower resolution instead of optimizing it at the standardized resolution requirement given by the console manufacturers...

It would be far from the *new* trend, it was very common on the PS2 AFAIK... Mercenaries for the Xbox rendered at a different resolution than Mercenaries for the PS2, and none of them were 640x480...

 

[nAo]

JakII and III on PS2 render at 512x512 + upscale 640x512

 

[Dave Glue]

I don't know, but I've seen TR:Legend on 3 Xbox 360 kiosks, and I've checked to make sure it's running in 720p - it is, but the game sure as hell doesn't look like it. Looked incredibly blurry and jaggies were noticeable. Possible the switch on the cables wasn't set, but then again other games on the kiosks looked very high res in comparison. So perhaps this isn't restricted to Activision games. Why is this info so "secret" - is it part of the NDA that a developer can't reveal the true resolution of their game? Seems rather dishonest to me.

Played COD3 yesterday at the local Future Shop btw. I honestly fail to see what's so impressive about it. The level I was on (granted, it was raining) was at 30fps and a few times, below - only shot up to 60 when all the enemies were killed. Jaggies everywhere, they could have been some aliasing but it obviously wasn't used for the whole scene. No aniso as well, the ground was a blurry mess a few feet in front of you. Sorry, but I just don't get the orgasmic reactions some have had over the graphics of this title, especially the "60fps buttery smooth" nonsense (but they said that about COD2 as well, when many levels ran at 30fps). Perhaps it was just the murky level I was on, but I have no problem believing it's running at 1000*600.

 

[pakotlar]

I don't know, but I've seen TR:Legend on 3 Xbox 360 kiosks, and I've checked to make sure it's running in 720p - it is, but the game sure as hell doesn't look like it. Looked incredibly blurry and jaggies were noticeable. Possible the switch on the cables wasn't set, but then again other games on the kiosks looked very high res in comparison. So perhaps this isn't restricted to Activision games. Why is this info so "secret" - is it part of the NDA that a developer can't reveal the true resolution of their game? Seems rather dishonest to me.

Played COD3 yesterday at the local Future Shop btw. I honestly fail to see what's so impressive about it. The level I was on (granted, it was raining) was at 30fps and a few times, below - only shot up to 60 when all the enemies were killed. Jaggies everywhere, they could have been some aliasing but it obviously wasn't used for the whole scene. No aniso as well, the ground was a blurry mess a few feet in front of you. Sorry, but I just don't get the orgasmic reactions some have had over the graphics of this title, especially the "60fps buttery smooth" nonsense (but they said that about COD2 as well, when many levels ran at 30fps). Perhaps it was just the murky level I was on, but I have no problem believing it's running at 1000*600.

Umm Mr.Glue, I seriously doubt that you would notice the diff between the resolutions unless the scaler on the x360 really sucked. I think this is a case of seeing what you want to see (or bad cables/setup as you said). And jaggies will be very pronounced in 720p as well (btw, I think that TR:Legend is full 720p, at least IGN shots are). Upscaling 30% with a good scaler should not be a problem at all.

Also, I believe there was an explanation, posed by a PGR3 dev, regarding the 1024 resolution, and they did say that the game still outputted 720p internally (aka not scaled by the analog scaler), but that only framebuffer was 720p or something like that. Ill see if i can dig it up.

 

[Dave Glue]

Umm Mr.Glue, I seriously doubt that you would notice the diff between the resolutions unless the scaler on the x360 really sucked.

You may continue to "seriously doubt", but all I can report is how it apepars to me. I certainly can notice the difference between 1024*768 and 1152*864 on a small PC monitor, with a larger display the difference will be even more pronounced.

And jaggies will be very pronounced in 720p as well

Yes, they will - and far more at 1000x600. That's quite a difference in pixels actually. Resolution aside, the jaggies in COD3 were quite pronounced compared to other titles. If there was 2X AA in the title, they're hiding it awfully well.

Also, I believe there was an explanation, posed by a PGR3 dev, regarding the 1024 resolution, and they did say that the game still outputted 720p internally (aka not scaled by the analog scaler), but that only framebuffer was 720p or something like that. Ill see if i can dig it up.

Please do...as what you said really doesn't make any sense.

 

[Rangers]

The funny thing is reviews have said the 360 version of COD3 runs and looks better than the PS3 rev.

Of course, I suppose the PS3 rev might be running <720P as well. However, I think it's less likely, as it's really just fitting in the EDRAM that hits the 360, not "system power" per se.

How do you determine such a thing? Framebuffer grabs I assume You would think large sites such as IGN would have the means and desire to check this stuff for certain.
________
Live sex

 

[pipo]

Why is this info so "secret" - is it part of the NDA that a developer can't reveal the true resolution of their game? Seems rather dishonest to me.

Welcome to the world of consoles.

But really, why are you worried about that kind of stuff? Wii's specs are a big secret, Sony is playing hide and seek too, but the only thing that matters is the end result.

The funny thing is reviews have said the 360 version of COD3 runs and looks better than the PS3 rev.

So there.

 

[DJ12]

Is the ps3 version running at 720p btw? does anybody know?

Seeing as the PS3 doesn't currently "scale" anything, I'd say it is.

 

[Dave Glue]

Welcome to the world of consoles.

But really, why are you worried about that kind of stuff? Wii's specs are a big secret, Sony is playing hide and seek too, but the only thing that matters is the end result.

Who's "worried"? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that when MS makes the statement that 360 games _must_ run in 720 X2AA, we keep them at their word. This is a 3d tech site as well, naturally I'm going to be curious about these sorts of things.

 

[pipo]

Who's "worried"?

Excuse me. But my point stands.

By the way, good luck at keeping MS, or any other player for that matter, at their word.

 

[Dave Glue]

Excuse me. But my point stands.

Your "point" was your opinion that we shouldn't "worry" about the technical details of a game, in a subset of the console forum that deals with console technology, hosted by a 3D-enthusaist site.

Um....gotcha.

By the way, good luck at keeping MS, or any other player for that matter, at their word.

And the best way to do that of course, is not ask questions and never point out when they're being deceptive.

I for one, welcome our new EGM overlords.

I'll propose an outlandish idea: If you consider the discussion of technical details of console games frivolous, wouldn't it make sense to avoid the technical section of the console forum altogether?

 

[pipo]

Your "point" was your opinion that we shouldn't "worry" about the technical details of a game, in a subset of the console forum that deals with console technology, hosted by a 3D-enthusaist site.

Um....gotcha.

It's the end result that counts. That was my point. 3D graphics are all smoke and mirrors to begin with.

And I don't think you will ever hear official confirmation, no matter how long you'll make this thread.

Same goes for the 'updated' PS3 specs or the Wii.

But you can go on. Good luck with it.

 

[Dave Glue]

It's the end result that counts.

If the thread was entitled "Do you think the 360's graphics look good", then yes - it would make sense to critique a poster who was wondering if the games are truly running at 720p.

Since that is the very topic of a thread, and it's segregated into a sub-forum to discuss issues like this, saying it "doesn't matter" is nonsensical in the context of the discussion and forum. It obviously doesn't matter to you, so why even state as such and just ignore the thread? No one is speaking for the mass public, I'm sure they don't care and can't notice. This is a niche argument, positioned in a niche forum for a reason.

That was my point. 3D graphics are all smoke and mirrors to begin with.

Of course aproximations are needed in 3d graphics, but specific features do have a correlation with specific image quality critiques. Resolution is one of them. If it wasn't, the "HD Era" would have absoultely no meaning - obviously it does, as people greatly prefer the image quality of a 360 in 720p vs 480p. Pixel count is not everything and no one has said it is, so please quit with the strawmen slaying.

And I don't think you will ever hear official confirmation, no matter how long you'll make this thread.

Then ignore it. It was obviously not your concern to begin with, so I'm at a loss to figure out why you bothered to contribute your er..."wisdom" in a thread devoted to a subject you care nothing about.

 

[ERP]

JakII and III on PS2 render at 512x512 + upscale 640x512

It was pretty common for PS2 titles to use 512 wide framebuffers.

 

[ERP]

Who's "worried"? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that when MS makes the statement that 360 games _must_ run in 720 X2AA, we keep them at their word. This is a 3d tech site as well, naturally I'm going to be curious about these sorts of things.

I have no idea what res the activision games are running in but I don't think MS has ever stated minimum 720p X2AA to the public.
The have TRC's that imply this is likely to be true, even the AA requirement isn't that specific in the TRC's. And TRC's are almost always negotiable for the right title, and they should be. I personally think it's bad enough that we have marketting driven TRC's in the first place. Let the game developers decide and let the public vote with their wallets IMO.

 

[DeanoC]

Seeing as the PS3 doesn't currently "scale" anything, I'd say it is.

Of course the PS3 scales... just not the OS from 720p to 1080i... A game could choose to if it wanted (and can afford the costs).

Dropping the res a little bit and scaling (or sometimes just using black bars) is the oldest trick in the book and lots do it (and nobody seems to notice...)

 

[nAo]

Dean is right and no..HS does not use any scaling/low res trick