Post by: Xbox-Scene on September 28, 2007, 08:55:00 PM
Bungie Confirms: Halo 3 Doesn't Run Natively in HD Posted by XanTium | September 28 22:55 EST | News Category: Xbox360 |
| From teamxbox.com: Quote
Full Story: teamxbox.com | bungie.net |
Post by: pablizzo on September 28, 2007, 08:48:00 PM
Post by: Seina on September 28, 2007, 08:56:00 PM
Post by: luther349 on September 28, 2007, 09:13:00 PM
kinda like hdtv vs old sd tvs people think hd is better no static but have you seen a bad hd stream its far far worse then some static. distorted artfating and braking up video and relly jaggy. ill take some static over all that lol. i seen this first hand couse i live in bfe and bought a 50db hd antina to pick up the local hd stations. the 4th channel aka fox come threw like shit. hell i nly get 4 hd channels and only 3 come in at all.
This post has been edited by luther349: Sep 29 2007, 04:17 AM
Post by: ludacrisvp on September 28, 2007, 09:17:00 PM
Mainly directed towards the people that say the PS3 isnt sending out a true 720p or 1080i/p signal both the native games and scaled games.
Post by: lightsp33d on September 28, 2007, 09:27:00 PM
Post by: SueMiBlitch on September 28, 2007, 09:56:00 PM
this is halo 3... i'm pretty sure the company took out all the stops to make this game look solid. and guess what it does look solid... i watched a bit of it on my friends HDTV running through optical cable and it looks clean, crisp and spectacular
not like you can tell the difference between 640 and 720 with a naked eye anyway
Post by: mlapaglia on September 28, 2007, 10:05:00 PM
it looked awesome.
the multiplayer is great.
everything isn't about resolution, especially when some people can't tell.
Post by: Heet on September 28, 2007, 10:19:00 PM
So glad to finally get halo back.
Post by: DoTsTeR on September 28, 2007, 10:30:00 PM
But...
I'd rather see great gameplay and awesome mulitplayer features than graphics anyway...
Post by: Bubbalynch on September 28, 2007, 10:58:00 PM
I suppose the graphics were good enough after all, eh? Just my opinion.
Post by: elmo_sni on September 29, 2007, 12:05:00 AM
Post by: Hack_kid on September 29, 2007, 12:44:00 AM
Post by: sidezero on September 29, 2007, 01:12:00 AM
QUOTE(SueMiBlitch @ Sep 28 2007, 11:32 PM) 
did bungie ever clame anything about the resolution?
this is halo 3... i'm pretty sure the company took out all the stops to make this game look solid. and guess what it does look solid... i watched a bit of it on my friends HDTV running through optical cable and it looks clean, crisp and spectacular
not like you can tell the difference between 640 and 720 with a naked eye anyway
Last time I checked, an optical cable is used for audio...
Post by: ludacrisvp on September 29, 2007, 01:21:00 AM
QUOTE(Hack_kid @ Sep 29 2007, 02:20 AM) 
I know it! Thought it wasn't exactly 720p either. Noticed a little noise basically.
I noticed a bit of noise as well but i just figured it was due to up convert to 1080p over vga. The textures had a grainy look to them.
This would be on a Samsung 19" 906BW LCD display 2ms response time.
QUOTE(SueMiBlitch @ Sep 28 2007, 11:32 PM)
did bungie ever clame anything about the resolution?
this is halo 3... i'm pretty sure the company took out all the stops to make this game look solid. and guess what it does look solid... i watched a bit of it on my friends HDTV running through optical cable and it looks clean, crisp and spectacular
not like you can tell the difference between 640 and 720 with a naked eye anyway
QUOTE(sidezero @ Sep 29 2007, 02:48 AM)
Last time I checked, an optical cable is used for audio...
Lol nice point about the cable.
Well you may not be able to tell the difference, but I can.
My projector is running native 720p and you can tell when the rez is not native. When any raz is scaled it will get a slight blur to it. This is very noticeable on an LCD type display.
This would be on a InFocus ScreenPlay 5000 LCD front projector
Post by: stezo2k on September 29, 2007, 01:44:00 AM
Post by: Hopeful on September 29, 2007, 01:54:00 AM
QUOTE(Hack_kid @ Sep 29 2007, 08:20 AM)
But what i am kind of mad about is two player split screen. Anyone with a HDTV try it? its in 4:3 Ratio! there are the black crop bars on the left and right
I think that may actually work better if you think about it.
If they split a 16:9 image in half horizontally it would be freakishly long and squished, and split vertically it would be hard to focus on enemies at your sides. I'm not a huge fan of halo games but in all fairness this seems like a good idea. 4:3 split horizontally gives you way better proportions if you're just going 2 player. A bigger screen area doesn't always equal better in every case.
16:9 split four ways on the other hand, works out well because dividing by four doesn't distort the ratio at all, and you can use the whole screen to full effect.
You'll probably notice the camera has great proportions with any amount of players this way. So there's definitely a positive aspect to how they handled this.
QUOTE(Hack_kid @ Sep 29 2007, 08:20 AM)
I know they can make 2 player split screen in 19:9 cuz gears is. Just kinda bugs me cuz it makes the screens pretty small on a 32 inch LCD
I have a small HD screen too. Personally the co-op made it harder for me to aim in gears because of the proportions, even though the game was still just as fun. True though, the extra size on a smaller screen was helpful in its own way. I guess it's a trade-off either way, but I see the benefits of how Halo 3 did it.
Post by: ludacrisvp on September 29, 2007, 01:56:00 AM
QUOTE(SueMiBlitch @ Sep 28 2007, 11:32 PM)
did bungie ever clame anything about the resolution?
not like you can tell the difference between 640 and 720 with a naked eye anyway
Oh and yes by the way they do claim that the game is in HD right on the back of the box "HDTV 720p/1080i/1080p" if you dont believe me you can look at your own case.
Halo 3 has a native resolution of 1138x640 pixels.
Minimum to be HD, like they claim on their packaging, is 1280x720 up to 1920x1080.
"Running at only 1138×640, that means there are 728,320 pixels. Thats a full 193,280 pixels LESS than 720p. In fact, it is even less pixels than your very average 1024×768! Hardly what anyone would consider high-def." - quoted from Gamerawr!
HD 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels on screen
HD 1280x720 = 921,600
XGA 1024x768 = 786,432
below XGA 1138x640 = 728,320
800x600 = 480,000
Post by: steveju on September 29, 2007, 02:12:00 AM
QUOTE(ludacrisvp @ Sep 29 2007, 03:53 AM)
I like how this is ok but had it been a PS3 game that had done this the entire thread would be filled with flames towards Sony. But since it is the all powerful and amazing Halo it is ok. This is rather pathetic.
The real source for this actually states that PS3 games are equally running on lower resolutions than advertised.
Post by: iwannadie on September 29, 2007, 03:13:00 AM
QUOTE(ludacrisvp @ Sep 28 2007, 08:53 PM)
I like how this is ok but had it been a PS3 game that had done this the entire thread would be filled with flames towards Sony. But since it is the all powerful and amazing Halo it is ok. This is rather pathetic.
Mainly directed towards the people that say the PS3 isnt sending out a true 720p or 1080i/p signal both the native games and scaled games.
Exactly, sadly its so true. Had this been a ps3 game it would be an all out flamefest. The other side of the fanboy coin shows its face.
Post by: bucko on September 29, 2007, 03:20:00 AM
Honestly as long as it don't look pants on the screen then it's ok...
Post by: turk3y on September 29, 2007, 04:51:00 AM
QUOTE(ludacrisvp @ Sep 29 2007, 09:32 AM)
Oh and yes by the way they do claim that the game is in HD right on the back of the box "HDTV 720p/1080i/1080p" if you dont believe me you can look at your own case.
Halo 3 has a native resolution of 1138x640 pixels.
Minimum to be HD, like they claim on their packaging, is 1280x720 up to 1920x1080.
"Running at only 1138×640, that means there are 728,320 pixels. Thats a full 193,280 pixels LESS than 720p. In fact, it is even less pixels than your very average 1024×768! Hardly what anyone would consider high-def." - quoted from Gamerawr!
HD 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels on screen
HD 1280x720 = 921,600
XGA 1024x768 = 786,432
below XGA 1138x640 = 728,320
800x600 = 480,000
I think you need to understand that the native resolution of 1138x640 pixels is only inside the frame buffers, once it goes throught the 360 output hardware its scaled to whatever you have chosen in the dash ie 720p or 1080i/p or even 640i... this is what the box means, as all you as a user need to know is that the xbox360 will display this game in thoes hd resolution.
Comparing halo3 to gears is a bit harsh, the enviroments in gears for the most part are up close and gritty whilst halo has wide open expanses which are totally different and much more taxing on the hardware. This is why the fighters in a 1 on 1 beat em up are always better than the characters dynasty warroirs say. They spend more pollys and more affects in a smaller area. I think Halo3 has a nice blend of up close detail and impressive draw distace going on, I think technically its much more advanced that its getting credit for.
This is all down to a smart move by M$ the scaler they touted allows for game designers to tweak things for over all performance, if bungie where forced to 720 you might find it would cost you 30fps... so slightly less crisp images for thoes with hd sets is much better than halving the fps for all users.....
Post by: Gmc on September 29, 2007, 05:15:00 AM
Post by: throwingks on September 29, 2007, 06:29:00 AM
QUOTE(Gmc @ Sep 29 2007, 07:51 AM)
Guys...you are aware 99% of the people who play this game wont actually give a crap about what res they use in the framebuffer and whatnot. Hell, if this info never come out, I guarantee you probably wouldnt be whining about it. Stfu and go code your own halo 3 and show me you can do a better job
Why do you think the info came out? Some people noticed it and hand counted the pixels. Nothing was said until they were called out by people that noticed it.
Post by: BasicAir on September 29, 2007, 07:52:00 AM
HD nuts like myself and others can tell the difference without trouble.
It isn't so much that we're missing a few pixels, but imo it's more about the fact that A) every 360 game is supposed to run in 720p natively, no exceptions, and
they advertise 720p on the case. Also, considering it's the biggest video game launch of all time, you'd expect it to be 100% flawless and run 100% like people expect and like it's supposed to.Resolution is even more important to me, considering I play 360 games at 1080p on my 56" HDTV over HDMI. Just minutes into the H3 campaign, I noticed it wasn't true 720p right away as the resolution looks IDENTICAL to that of CoD3 which is also not true 720p.
If someone was a big enough prick to file a lawsuit claiming false advertising for the "720p" label on the back of the case, I wonder if they'd actually win!? I bet they would...
Post by: Kabbalah on September 29, 2007, 08:25:00 AM
QUOTE(SueMiBlitch @ Sep 29 2007, 05:32 AM)
this is halo 3... i'm pretty sure the company took out all the stops to make this game look solid. and guess what it does look solid... i watched a bit of it on my friends HDTV running through optical cable and it looks clean, crisp and spectacular
An optical video cable.. doesn't really sound like a bad idea although nobody can buy one of these, right?
Post by: FreqNasty on September 29, 2007, 10:20:00 AM
Wonder if Bungie ever thought about using the Unreal engine.
What becomes of this company now. Another FPS game or something else?
Post by: KaRiL on September 29, 2007, 11:56:00 AM
QUOTE(anonim1979 @ Sep 29 2007, 06:17 AM)
"On X360 scaled games
Two 640p Perfect Dark and Halo3 (1138x640) (no AA) (correction Halo 3 uses 1152x640)
Is that true? no AA? isn't that also a requirement from MS? along with at least 720p.
wow, and you guys don't care? not that I do, but I've read posts here where people are upset that BC games have no AA, I've seen posts where people rip the PS3 for not requiring 720p and AA....Everything on this site about the 360 was all specs this, resolution that, and now the biggest game in the universe comes out and its 640p with no AA.... and now its all about the gameplay??
you guys are hilarious
Post by: GuntherMP5 on September 29, 2007, 12:53:00 PM
I have a 50" 1080p Sammy going though VGA for my Legit (Non Banned) 360, my TV upscales as well. I have also noticed the 360 drive does seam to work over time loading HALO3 as well.
W3ell I am sure those with SD TV's still think it looks great. It's like when you try to watch Standard Def on an HD TV it looks like crap, worst than it would on an old SD TV.
Well I got it yesterday, have played some of the story, and only about 6 or 7 Online games.
It's OK, and I am sure the HALO fans from the previous games like it, but to me it doesn't look that great and the game play well very standard.
To me the GREATEST GAME ever made for any Platform is still " GEARS OF WAR" , It's sad that I compare all games to it now, and no one has IMHO been able to step up. I only hope ARMY of TWO for 360 or PS3 and KILLZONE 2 for the PS3 can equal it, because it may be some time before GOW2.
Well I am going to go and play HALO3 some more now, but this is my assessment of the game, I like the fact that it makes matches based on players rating and skills ( so they say), its a decent game but it's no GOW!
Just my thought on the matter
Post by: Boba_Fett on September 29, 2007, 02:49:00 PM
Post by: Mr Invader on September 29, 2007, 05:19:00 PM
QUOTE(lightsp33d @ Sep 28 2007, 11:03 PM)
It looks like shit anyway, I bought this crap on 25th and now I can't sell it
Then you're blind, biased, or both.
QUOTE(BlackOmega @ Sep 29 2007, 03:45 AM)
I knew that there was something wrong with the GFx...
You know.. I feel like I've been cheated... When gears of war came out I thought "ZOMG XBOX360 KICKSS ASSES!"
Now looking at halo halo 3 you get to think about 3 things:
Either the console is not so powerful as it seemed before, or EPIC did a miracle OR Bungie sucks at programing.. Honestly I would LOVE to see this game running on the unreal engine JUST TO COMPARE the engines....
Too bad the xbox360 is a closed enviroment, there is no way for us test this.
AFAIC Gears of war is still the king when it comes to graphics.
The xbox is showing it's weakness to early imo.
I'm not complaining about the game as a whole or the gameplay, I know it's great... I'm only criticizing it's technical aspect.
You realized Gears of War's enviroments were very closed-in and small. Halo 3's enviroments are HUGE. It makes sense that Gears does have a little more detail than Halo 3.
Oh and IMO, Halo 3 has better lighting, motion blur, AI, effects, and color & contrast. Textures aren't the only thing that makes a game's graphics.
Post by: ssj4android on September 29, 2007, 06:59:00 PM
Anyway, the whole splitscreen going back to 4:3 thing is worse than running at a lower resolution IMO.
Post by: Tripme on September 29, 2007, 09:00:00 PM
Its not actually a problem at all. In fact, Bungie put the black bars on the side in two player split screen for a reason. It preserves the correct aspect ratio. Had they not put the black bars, you would have a mashed up screen and then it would truley look jacked up.
If you don't believe me, flip through the Bungie weekly updates, somewhere around the beta release.
Post by: peter0328 on September 29, 2007, 09:30:00 PM
QUOTE(SueMiBlitch @ Sep 29 2007, 12:32 AM)
did bungie ever clame anything about the resolution?
this is halo 3... i'm pretty sure the company took out all the stops to make this game look solid. and guess what it does look solid... i watched a bit of it on my friends HDTV running through optical cable and it looks clean, crisp and spectacular
not like you can tell the difference between 640 and 720 with a naked eye anyway
QUOTE(Kabbalah @ Sep 29 2007, 11:01 AM)
An optical video cable.. doesn't really sound like a bad idea although nobody can buy one of these, right?
Actually there is a thing for optical video. Its called HDCP-DLI or Optical HDMI and its a new standard that is fully HDCP compliant. However, the only device that I know of that uses it is the new DirecTV HD DVR (http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/31/directv-hr21-pro-gets-leaked/). I also am pretty sure that the Xbox 360 doesn't use it either. Unless he has a *new* leaked SKU.
Post by: lcprove on September 30, 2007, 01:44:00 AM
Post by: Gobelet on September 30, 2007, 04:59:00 AM
So you want a 1080p resolution, calculated twice with different parameters, then computed in one high dynamic range image, and this at least 30 times a second?
That's what it means. Halo 3 is already quite demanding hardware-wise. Would you give up HDR for AA and higher resolution, which would result in duller but larger images?
IMHO, the game's awesome like that.
Post by: mlmadmax on September 30, 2007, 09:53:00 AM
QUOTE(kronium @ Sep 30 2007, 12:56 AM)
This is retarded. Have you ever seen a decent HDDVD at 1080i native, and then the same movie on DVD upscaled to 1080i? HUGE difference. HUGE. Same holds true for games. Some people just have better eyes and judgment than others. I guess you're not so lucky.
Film is a very different thing so the above really doesn't apply in this situation.
I have notices some jaggies here and there but all and all it looks fine to me. As long as the final product looks good who cares.
It's not like this is the first time this as happened, tony hawk and pgr were both rendered at some wierd rez and than the 360's hardware scaler put it to whatever resolution u wanted.
It does suck that a standard was implemented and than broken but all in all if the final product looks good and has a solid framerate who cares.
Post by: Awes0me Dude on September 30, 2007, 01:32:00 PM
QUOTE(lightsp33d @ Sep 28 2007, 11:03 PM)
It looks like shit anyway, I bought this crap on 25th and now I can't sell it
Please xplain how it looks like shit! I don't understand how anyone can say the graphics suck. Go play campaign in the flood ship and then tell me what you think. Have you even played Halo 3?
Also, on a side note, most people buy the game because it's a good game, not because it looks pretty. You can go buy Viva Pinata if you want pretty colors.
Post by: UltimateNinja9 on September 30, 2007, 06:25:00 PM
Post by: SphtKr76 on September 30, 2007, 07:00:00 PM
QUOTE(BasicAir @ Sep 29 2007, 08:28 AM)
If someone was a big enough prick to file a lawsuit claiming false advertising for the "720p" label on the back of the case, I wonder if they'd actually win!? I bet they would...
Every 360 game also shows 1080i on the back, yet not a single one runs native 1080i. Should we sue them for that also?
Post by: Paperstack.1 on September 30, 2007, 10:09:00 PM
Now, almost the same thing is with Halo 3 now. But this time it's the BS like "the graphics are still good."
Again, hyprocites.
Post by: 1080p or bust on October 01, 2007, 08:55:00 AM
Post by: PirateElf on October 01, 2007, 11:16:00 AM
After having rented Halo 3 (Yes rented because I truly despise the Halo franchise and was only ever impressed with Halo 1 but still hated it due to my friends.) I have this to say about the 640p. If you can tell the difference between it and the 720p then you have much more awesome eyes than I do. Personally Halo 3 to me looks EXACTLY like Halo 1 just with better polished graphics. Now while this is outstanding for fanboys that just drool when anything halo comes their way for those of us casual gamers we really expected MORE especially with all the hype. To say that the graphics are bad at 640p would be a complete rip on Halo and Perfect dark which visually are pretty games. However, I think what annoys most people is when I think of showing off what the 360 can do as far as visually I usually show my friends Bioshock. True the levels are ridiculously small and you can beat the game in less than a few hours but it's a BEAUTIFUL game. Halo has large levels but the gameplay is still halo, still rehash of of 2 which was rehash of 1. Same story line and can be beaten even faster than Bioshock. Just a game. The 640p actually is fitting since Halo was supposed to be the second coming of christ and afterwards most people (not fanboys) are just accepting that it's the second coming of another generic game.
So at the end of the day what have we learned?
Halo is fun if you are into that type of game. Visually it's about as impressive as a monkey shaving it's ass.
Are there games that show off what the 360 is really capable of? Yes! Go rent Bioshock. Flawless game except that their is no multiplayer which after you beat the game means time to take it back to gamestop. (so rent it first!!!!)
*steps down* Ahem... Thank you for your time.
Post by: Awes0me Dude on October 02, 2007, 09:50:00 AM
QUOTE(PirateElf @ Oct 1 2007, 12:52 PM)
This is the type of post where I will most certainly be flamed but just wanted to point out some things.
After having rented Halo 3 (Yes rented because I truly despise the Halo franchise and was only ever impressed with Halo 1 but still hated it due to my friends.) I have this to say about the 640p. If you can tell the difference between it and the 720p then you have much more awesome eyes than I do. Personally Halo 3 to me looks EXACTLY like Halo 1 just with better polished graphics. Now while this is outstanding for fanboys that just drool when anything halo comes their way for those of us casual gamers we really expected MORE especially with all the hype. To say that the graphics are bad at 640p would be a complete rip on Halo and Perfect dark which visually are pretty games. However, I think what annoys most people is when I think of showing off what the 360 can do as far as visually I usually show my friends Bioshock. True the levels are ridiculously small and you can beat the game in less than a few hours but it's a BEAUTIFUL game. Halo has large levels but the gameplay is still halo, still rehash of of 2 which was rehash of 1. Same story line and can be beaten even faster than Bioshock. Just a game. The 640p actually is fitting since Halo was supposed to be the second coming of christ and afterwards most people (not fanboys) are just accepting that it's the second coming of another generic game.
So at the end of the day what have we learned?
Halo is fun if you are into that type of game. Visually it's about as impressive as a monkey shaving it's ass.
Are there games that show off what the 360 is really capable of? Yes! Go rent Bioshock. Flawless game except that their is no multiplayer which after you beat the game means time to take it back to gamestop. (so rent it first!!!!)
*steps down* Ahem... Thank you for your time.
I think people don't understand that graphics are not the only thing that pushes a system's capabilities. There are a lot of things going on in Halo that you don't see. Every game you play in matchmaking, every campaign mission you play is reviewable in the theater where you can detach the camera and explore anywhere in the map. Halo may have sacrificed some of the graphics for more entertaining maps and features, which IMO makes a better game. I thought GOW was outstanding when it came to graphics. However, I felt myself getting bored very quickly with the closed in maps and features. Not very replayable.
I appreciate the fact that Halo is not your type of game, but there's no need to bash it when it has revolutionized online console multiplayer with Halo 2 and now with the advent of theater based review and forge editing options. The Bungie developers push the boundary for other games. Plus the ganmes are fun as hell. I strongly suggest you re-rent it or buy it, as it will give you hours of enjoyment beyond just "beating the game".
On another note, why did you hate Halo1 because of your friends? Did they beat your ass all the time or something? If that's the case then I can see why you don't like Halo 2 or Halo 3. I'm not being sarcastic. I've got friends that don't play multiplayer because they're not good enough. I wouldn't want to go be someone's bitch either, so maybe you should stay away from multiplayer.
Post by: Maverick0984 on October 02, 2007, 10:02:00 AM
QUOTE(PirateElf @ Oct 1 2007, 12:52 PM)
This is the type of post where I will most certainly be flamed but just wanted to point out some things.
After having rented Halo 3 (Yes rented because I truly despise the Halo franchise and was only ever impressed with Halo 1 but still hated it due to my friends.) I have this to say about the 640p. If you can tell the difference between it and the 720p then you have much more awesome eyes than I do. Personally Halo 3 to me looks EXACTLY like Halo 1 just with better polished graphics. Now while this is outstanding for fanboys that just drool when anything halo comes their way for those of us casual gamers we really expected MORE especially with all the hype. To say that the graphics are bad at 640p would be a complete rip on Halo and Perfect dark which visually are pretty games. However, I think what annoys most people is when I think of showing off what the 360 can do as far as visually I usually show my friends Bioshock. True the levels are ridiculously small and you can beat the game in less than a few hours but it's a BEAUTIFUL game. Halo has large levels but the gameplay is still halo, still rehash of of 2 which was rehash of 1. Same story line and can be beaten even faster than Bioshock. Just a game. The 640p actually is fitting since Halo was supposed to be the second coming of christ and afterwards most people (not fanboys) are just accepting that it's the second coming of another generic game.
So at the end of the day what have we learned?
Halo is fun if you are into that type of game. Visually it's about as impressive as a monkey shaving it's ass.
Are there games that show off what the 360 is really capable of? Yes! Go rent Bioshock. Flawless game except that their is no multiplayer which after you beat the game means time to take it back to gamestop. (so rent it first!!!!)
*steps down* Ahem... Thank you for your time.
Not sure why you are lumping Perfect Dark in with Halo 3. Not even the same ballpark.
What skill level were you playing Bioshock on to beat it in a few hours? It is one the longest FPS games to date on the 360...I played it on Hard and it took me at least 15+ hours. Reviewers were saying it took them 18-20 hours to complete. I can only assume you played it on easy and ripped through it as fast as possible without actually exploring the world that is Rapture.
Post by: Awes0me Dude on October 02, 2007, 10:16:00 PM
QUOTE(Molten Universe @ Oct 2 2007, 02:14 PM)
I got more to say but fuck it, the guys who i mentioned here probs won't read this anyways
Well, peace out... Lets play some Halo 3 and chill.
I like your style...
Post by: Killa Kastro on October 04, 2007, 12:18:00 PM
QUOTE(UltimateNinja9 @ Sep 30 2007, 09:01 PM)
Halo 3 is the best game on the 360 and it can't even play in HD? I thought the 360 was supposed to be powerful, what happened? If Halo3 can't go HD because of its large environments then GTA4 definitely won't be able to do HD with its even larger environment. I think this proves that the 360 is a weak piece of crap and is definitely the cause of the GTA4 delay. I'm gonna get the PS3 version of GTA4 so that I can play it in HD. At least the 360 is still more powerful than the wii for now.
Why do people keep talking about the 360 no being powerful enough this was all the developers doing the made the choice to make the game like that the 360 didnt make the game Bungie did.