Print

[BumSki]

MS may or may not be aware of developers shortchanging resolution. Wasn’t it MS suppose to require all developers to release games at a minimum of 720p?

This may be an issue that MS is aware of and is currently taking measures to prevent it. MS does require all games to go through a bug and defect free testing before the game is allowed to go “Gold”. My guess is that future releases will all get a line by line test to insure 1280x720 minimum res.

[cmw9ers]

QUOTE(Doffo @ Nov 14 2006, 03:14 AM)

One more thing..

Wonder if Sony paid them to bring down the resolution/quality of the game and they will fully support the 720p on the PS3 so they think the ps3 is more superior!  

Sorry, just an idea.  

    If that was the case then sony's idea backfired .. Have you seen the reviews for THP8 on PS3? They say it has a terrible framerate and runs considerabley worse than 360's version lol (both Gamespot & IGN).

[Ozy]

QUOTE(m_hael @ Nov 14 2006, 04:33 PM)

no comment.

period.

I can respect that.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(XLNC @ Nov 14 2006, 01:08 PM)

I agree with what you're saying, Gears of Wars is the first game to actually use some of 360's potential power and it's taken over a year to develop.

Alan Wake should push all 3 cores of the 360 by having some advanced physics and vast environments and landscapes with a great storyline, coming out in March for the 360 only, gotta get this one.

I can agree with your sentiments but every game made for the 360 uses all three cores, the whole media blitz about how some games were only running on one core was just garbage... Furthermore, almost every game made pushes the console to the max... it's not like they're leaving power to spare just sitting on the table. I've used the analogy before... imagine a box and the space in the box represents the processing power of the console, the paper you put in the box are the elements of the game. The more paper you can fit in the box the better the graphics, physics, and AI are. Early games are like crumpled up pieces of paper, developers are learning how to handle the paper and crumple it up a lot when putting it in a box. you might be able to only fit about 10 pieces in there all crumpled up before all three cores are maxed out... down the road you learn how to handle the paper better and you can place it in the box without crumpling them very much, instead of fitting only a few pieces of paper you can fit 100s and the game looks and plays more realistically.

In both scenarios all three cores were used to the max... but in the first scenario they were not used optimally.

QUOTE(XLNC @ Nov 14 2006, 01:08 PM)

I think with the PS3 you can't really judge it until we see a first party exclusive with time and money spent on the game i.e. MGS4.

First of all MGS4 is not a first party title, it's made by Konami and Sony does not own Konami.
Second of all there are at least 4 first party titles coming out for the PS3 at launch

QUOTE(XLNC @ Nov 14 2006, 01:08 PM)

Looking at the trailer of the new Getaway on the PS3 really does make me want to get a PS3, just check out how realistic everything looks and how cars flow so smoothly like in the real world.

The PS3 has another 256MB of RAM for the GPU alone, so is there an advantage of doing this, some people say it's a problem.

The PS3 does not have "another" 256MB of RAM

The PS3 has 256MB of ram that the CPU can use and 256MB of ram that the GPU can use... the Xbox 360 has 512MB that the CPU OR the GPU can use depending on how developers want to use it.

Both consoles have the same amount of ram... the differences is the PS3 limits developers as to how they want to use that RAM. On the 360 they could use 450MB just for graphics and the rest for AI, physics OS etc. or they could only use 25MB for graphics and the rest for Physics AI OS etc...
on the PS3 the most they could ever use for graphics is 256 and the most they could ever use for Physics AI etc is about 160MB (after you take out the required 96MB ram for the OS)

[nickman]

I don't get the whole Nextgen not being able to display 1280*720. ??
Wassup with that? It's not BIG if you compare with a PC.

I play games like Half Life 2 in 1280*1024 on my AMD 3200+ and an old ATI 9800 Pro.

Why can't a machine with 3 CPU's and a GPU xxx times more powerful then mine not even produce 1280*720 ?!?

[grim_d]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 14 2006, 12:56 PM)

This isn't about resolution... it's about standards and compliance and a commitment to consumers.

MS made a commitment to consumers that they were REQUIRING a minimum of native 720p support in all games as a base standard. The made it clear that this was part of their rigorous certification process and that if a game didn't meet the requirements it was going to be denied release until it did.

---

It's not about resolution it's about MS breaking their commitment. I, and many others purchased the Xbox 360 because MS was committed to ensuring that every game they made would play in High Def. How many other commitments are they willing to break? how many other commitments have they already broken but we just don't know about it? how many more will they break?

Whilst i agree with what your saying, and yes they may be breaking their commitments, if they hadnt performed these tests, would you have noticed, would anyone?

I didnt buy my 360 for HD, i feel lucky enough nearly a year down the line to now be experiencing it, although i dont have "true" HD due to my sets native res of 1366x768. I bought my 360 because i love playing games, just like ill get a wii..and just like ill get a ps3, when i can afford one.

At the end of the day MS is a big business like sony, and like sony, they lie through their teeth, but im willing to accept a few lines less on my tv, and as far as im concerned im getting high definition from these games, im not that picky.

Also im not AV guru like youself so i could be talking complete garbage, but i think THP8 still looks fantastic, as with PGR3, i havnt yet played COD3.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 14 2006, 04:05 PM)

Both consoles have the same amount of ram... the differences is the PS3 limits developers as to how they want to use that RAM. On the 360 they could use 450MB just for graphics and the rest for AI, physics OS etc. or they could only use 25MB for graphics and the rest for Physics AI OS etc...
on the PS3 the most they could ever use for graphics is 256 and the most they could ever use for Physics AI etc is about 160MB (after you take out the required 96MB ram for the OS)

actually devs have 192MB of main memory and 224MB of video memory  

[Lunar Aura]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 14 2006, 05:56 AM)

what other rules is MS willing to break in their certification process? How rigorous is it really? How can we feel assured that the $60 product we're purchasing is truly well tested and holds the level of quality gamers would expect from a $60 game?

hahahahhahaha, shit... MS certification is a joke.

Remember their "no game patches" rule for xbox? Hi2u oblivion/gears of war/etc.
By breaking above rule, they also broke the rule of "You can play 360 games with even the Core system out of the box" since you either need a hard drive or memory unit to get aforementioned patches.

Personally, I think that having to patch broke games is a bigger offense than skimping on a few thousand pixels. Overall, "next-gen" is proving to be a bigger bumblef**k every other month!

[unclepauly]

Does anyone remember Peter Moore saying "The gfx are there, we don't need to worry about the gfx". lol

They'll say whatever they need to to get what they want.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(grim_d @ Nov 14 2006, 07:05 PM)

Whilst i agree with what your saying, and yes they may be breaking their commitments, if they hadnt performed these tests, would you have noticed, would anyone?

I didnt buy my 360 for HD, i feel lucky enough nearly a year down the line to now be experiencing it, although i dont have "true" HD due to my sets native res of 1366x768. I bought my 360 because i love playing games, just like ill get a wii..and just like ill get a ps3, when i can afford one.

At the end of the day MS is a big business like sony, and like sony, they lie through their teeth, but im willing to accept a few lines less on my tv, and as far as im concerned im getting high definition from these games, im not that picky.

Also im not AV guru like yourself so i could be talking complete garbage, but i think THP8 still looks fantastic, as with PGR3, i haven't yet played COD3.

I'm not disputing that these games look great, they do look great. In-fact out of the factors most professionals agree make for a "beautiful" picture resolution ranks 4th, behind contrast ratio, color saturation, and color accuracy. Putting this in Video game graphics terms it meas that things like shadows and lighting effects are more important to the picture then resolution is.

The problem is Both MS and Sony played the numbers game instead and promoted that resolution was the most important factor.

<shameless plug>I have more on this in my latest blog entry </shameless plug>

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 14 2006, 07:52 PM)

actually devs have 192MB of main memory and 224MB of video memory  

Thanks for correcting me

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(unclepauly @ Nov 15 2006, 03:56 AM)

I've read that the 360's os uses 32mb and ps3's os uses 100mb. Anyone can dispute that?

the ps3 uses 96+MB for the OS while the 360 uses 16MB for the OS.  

QUOTE

They claim that Sony constantly lies about specs (despite the fact that the PS3 came in right where they promised in in actual specs, save for the fact that they cut the extra gigabit ports that no one would have used regardless).

MS said this was the HD era, and that EVERY Game period would play at 60 FPS at 720p, and that the HD era also meant wireless.

sony did not reach their specs, the RSX is actually 500MHz not 550MHz and the V-Ram runs at 650MHz not 700MHz.

also while microsoft did promise every game to be 720p, they did not mention any requirement of games running at 60fps.  i dont remember any stupid comment about the HD era meant wireless, but it should be obvious to why they offer the Core package as a choice.  the Core package is not part of the HD era since its not HD ready out of the box, its only HD capable.  

i agree with all that twisted has said but i still believe that microsoft is the lesser of the two evils

[incognegro]

you beat me to it, kage

[thax]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 15 2006, 07:10 PM)

the ps3 uses 96+MB for the OS while the 360 uses 16MB for the OS.

The x360 definately uses slightly more than 32 MB not including the frame buffers. The effective delta of available memory between the consoles about 64 MB.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(thax @ Nov 15 2006, 02:04 PM)

The x360 definately uses slightly more than 32 MB not including the frame buffers. The effective delta of available memory between the consoles about 64 MB.

Where did you get your 32MB figure? because I've had the 16MB figure personally quoted to me from 2 different developers and one MS employee.

EDIT: Nevermind... I've now been told that it has since changed to 32.. you're correct. Kage and I were using old numbers.

[waltlove]

Well... I'll add my two cents and then run... I'll start on topic then move to other stuff. I would have had no clue that COD3 wasn't running at a full 720... really who would have, and if you say me... you should have said so last week when the game came out. I agree that MS did let us down since they made a promise of 720 on all games. (there is no butt, they wrong). I've been let down by MS for several years now and you all should feel the same... MS has forgotten who got them where they are today... Consumers. I am an admitted xbox fanboy (you all talk about it like a bad thing but the xbox was far better than PS2 and cube... specially modified) but I have no love for MS as they have none for me. I'm tired of there we run the world crap... after 2 years of Japan not supporting the xbox they gave then special editions... the US bought in from day one... and we got a green box like 3 years later... thanks... did you really think a blue case would push units... lol. (and before you argue the numbers say it didn't and 360 still selling less than PS2 wow). Every special edition sold out like hot cakes here in the US... so thanks MS for supporting home. Sorry for my rant... won't happen again. Far as PS3 goes... everyone talking like they have them in there homes now... we will have to wait and see and decide for ourselves. All the reviews in the world have some kind of Bias. Companies pay for advertising and if you support me I will support you. Even if a site has a banner on there page that = DOLLARS.... now whether there MS Dollars or Sony bucks who knows. Make your own decision. I'm getting a PS3 for the same reason someone here mentioned earlier... I love games... and PS3 will have some really good ones... but if it comes down to a multiplatform game I'll probably do 360 and that's because I hate PS controller... and love the 360's.

now for a question.... so since my TV only does 1360x768... native... I assumed that was in the range of 720... so in other words my games could look better if my TV only did 1280x720? WOW... Gears would look to good to play in that case... LOL I would be looking around more than I do now and dying... LOL I've actually been shopping around for a TV that does 1920x1080 now I just need to decide if I spend the extra grand for 1080p or not.  Any hoo... both companies are here to make money at the lose of the other... there in this business to win and MS even said before they entered they wanted the majority share... and in business any means neccessary... and I don't think I'll be hurt long now that I know COD3 isn't 720... according to you all my TV isn't either... LOL but I'm cool with upscaling