Actually the textures are better it's just that they're saved at 512x512 with dx compression. I have yet to see a console version of a game use more than 512x512 textures all around. Game devs would rather use 512x512 textures on consoles to save on performance, and then they can boost quantity not quality of foliage, objects, debrees, etc. The point used to be that on a standard tv you would not notice the difference in texture resolution between x512 to x1024 as much as you would having twice the number of trees and grass, but this is no longer the case with high definition tv's and x2048+ textures. On pc's you get low, medium, high, and sometimes ultra high resolution textures. Just remember that graphics aren't defined soly by textures or polygons.
Just a bit of useful info..
vram estimates for Oblivion's textures:
512 x 512 = 2 Mb (x2) ~ 4 Mb
1024 x 1024 = 8.6 Mb (x2) ~ 17 Mb
2048 x 2048 = 34.6 Mb (x2) ~ 69 Mb
4096 x 4096 = 138 Mb (x2) ~ 276 Mb
All games would look much better with x512 color maps (textures) and x2048 normal maps (bump mapping, this is where the blocky gunk comes from), this would take approx 37 Mb of vram for Oblivion. You would hardly notice much of a difference between 512 and 1024 because the compression is still very bad. Since halo 3 loads each map on a map by map basis you'd think the vram might be less, but then you still have to account for humans, cov, brute, and flood textures so I would still say it'd be comparable to the above for each map.
I really do hope that we can start seeing some higher resolution textures on the consoles, but for now I use my pc for high-end gaming and 360 for the great selection of games. I think the main thing is that console gamers haven't really voiced their opinions for really wanting higher res textures over higher quantities of objects.
This post has been edited by -PK-: Sep 23 2007, 04:28 PM
Author
Topic: I Have Halo 3 (Read 334 times)