Microsoft Executive - '1080p Gaming: Sony Full of It'

[MasterEvilAce]

Microsoft Xbox executive speaks on a few recent console topics (http://games.kikizo.com/news/200603/101.asp) regarding 1080p, BluRay, etc.

You may remember our recent PS3 feature in which the reality of 'Full HD' 1080p games for the console was thrown into some doubt. Scott openly offered his opinion, stating: "I think 1080p, just to address that directly, will be basically impossible. I think if you talk to any developer they will tell you that they will not have a performing game at 1080p."
Editor's Note - Added 'Microsoft Executive' to the news title so as to avoid fanning the flames....

[Overbyte77]

Well, high geometry/detail games won't do 1080p well...at least not for awhile. But Sony would be stupid if they didnt have SOMETHING to show in 1080p other than movies. I figure that Untold Legends will (and has been said I think) support 1080p and is one of the reasons it looks like poop.

[rjcc]

that comment is not even news IMO, cuz it doesn't take a genius to figure out that game makers aren't gonna optimize to run at 1920x1080 when AT BEST most people are getting 1280x720, and most are gonna see the game at less than that.

These machines are built to run good looking games at 720p, everything else will be scaled.

[MasterEvilAce]

I'm pretty sure Sony has been touting 1080p @ 60fps, thus why I posted.

[rjcc]

I'm pretty sure Sony has been touting 1080p @ 60fps, thus why I posted.

Yeah they have, but Microsoft has said "1080p isn't at all realistic" a few times now, I'm waiting for developers to put their name next to a comment saying "1080p is f***ing impossible, anyone who says otherwise is lying", unlike the unnamed developers in kikizo's previous ps3 hands on

[Kamalot]

I'm pretty sure Sony has been touting 1080p @ 60fps, thus why I posted.

I thought Sony was claiming that games would run at 120 fps!

Sure, you can run games at 1080p, but they won't look much better than PS2 games.

In essence, Sony is full of shit, making claims they can't live up to but are enough to dupe people who don't know any better (the masses).

[bone_matrix]

I'm pretty sure Sony has been touting 1080p @ 60fps, thus why I posted.

Whish is true, but like much their numbers they give for their systems, it isn't real world truth. A real game cannot give the numbers that Sony gives. One ball bouncing on gray to a black background (or something else that isn't intensive) could do that 1080p jazz, and give 1.21 gigawatts.

[Schnoogs]

Many PC games run just fine at 1920x1200...1080p is more than doable...there may trade offs but its doable.

[Zanzibar]

Whish is true, but like much their numbers they give for their systems, it isn't real world truth. A real game cannot give the numbers that Sony gives. One ball bouncing on gray to a black background (or something else that isn't intensive) could do that 1080p jazz, and give 1.21 gigawatts.

Heh. I love Back to the Future.

I remember being at UC Berkeley way back when. I needed to use the can, so there I am in a nearby bathroom stall. In the Engineering building. I look at the wall, and somebody had scrawled "1.21 gigawatts!!!!" Just gave me a good laugh.

[rjcc]

Many PC games run just fine at 1920x1200...1080p is more than doable...there may trade offs but its doable.

Not games that look the way they (consumers, developers, Sony) want PS3 games to look. Anyone who wants resolution over AA, HDR etc. is an idiot.

(edit: that statement is qualified for screen size, distance, refresh rate, blah blah blah blah blah, for the TV sizes most people can fit in their homes, gaming at 720p is where its at.)

[Zeal]

1080p gaming is not possible at this point. Period.

Now if you want to have a puzzle game or something with static images running at 1080p, then sure. I've said this from the very start.

[Venkman]

I know 720p can be 30 or 60 fps according to the HD standard, and 1080i is 30fps, but I don't think 1080p even runs at 60 fps.

[Zeal]

It does, just not without an assload of processing power and especially memory.

[Schnoogs]

1080p gaming is not possible at this point. Period.

Now if you want to have a puzzle game or something with static images running at 1080p, then sure. I've said this from the very start.

Funny...I play Day of Defeat Source, Half-Life 2, Far Cry, Doom 3, Quake 4, FEAR all at 1920x1200.

With HDR, AA, and the works.

I guess I just dreamt all that! ;)

[MasterEvilAce]

Funny...I play Day of Defeat Source, Half-Life 2, Far Cry, Doom 3, Quake 4, FEAR all at 1920x1200.

With HDR, AA, and the works.

I guess I just dreamt all that! ;)
And how much did your rig cost? huh?? HUH?? 600$?

[Magnanimous Gnome]

And how much did your rig cost? huh?? HUH?? 600$?


I'll bet he doesn't have to pay $50 for a damn controller that can't even recharge. :p

[bone_matrix]

Funny...I play Day of Defeat Source, Half-Life 2, Far Cry, Doom 3, Quake 4, FEAR all at 1920x1200.

With HDR, AA, and the works.

I guess I just dreamt all that! ;)


Question: How much did you pay for your rig? If the PS3 can do what your rig (which I'm assuming cost a buttload) and only be about $500, I'll never doubt Sony again.

(I hope I don't make an ass out of myself.)

[Zeal]

Funny...I play Day of Defeat Source, Half-Life 2, Far Cry, Doom 3, Quake 4, FEAR all at 1920x1200.

With HDR, AA, and the works.

I guess I just dreamt all that! ;)

Of course we were talking about console gaming on HDTV screens, so that was an extremely idiotic comment.

[DigiWiz]

Everyone with a bit of brain knows that this won't work.

Try taking a 2001 created game that supports any screen resolution and then scale it up? Still looks 2001? Get a high res texture pack and add it. Looks a bit better, but still looks 2002? Reason?

It takes a lot more than just more pixels to make games look "next gen". Features like AA, HDR, shaders and any kind of post processing effects that make games look "next gen" require frame buffer memory and increase the time needed to render each frame to the screen. More frametime equals lower frame rate.

Take a game using next gen graphics features, lets say Fear, run it at 1900x1200, enable reasonable AA (4x) and the games post processing effects/shaders and mentally add HDR to it you have even a 7900GTX SLI rig down to 16-24 frames in any area that's bigger than the intial dungeon cell in Oblivion or an unlit corridor in Doom3. In areas with a few more opponents on the screen or god forbid, physics, you'll safely chug along 10fps.

Currently less than 2% of the market has 1080p capable TVs. Do you really think any developer will try to create an engine has all the latest next gen graphics features and is optimized to the point where it can run at the constant 60fps needed for an FPS or equally reaction based game? Of course not. You would add the feature and use it to make PR screenshots, because for those, the game could run at 1fps. Makes for great sales visuals, but won't give you any nice gameplay.

Do the simple math:
1900x1200x32 = 72960000px ~ 9MB per frame!. Multiply this by (AA level + post processing effects + HDR frames) and then compare it to the amount of fast graphics memory available on the consoles. Duh - won't work, unless you drop some visual bells and whistles. Won't work well on most PCs either, some high end rigs with endless GPU memory excluded.

And finally - the cost of creating "next gen" games is so high, that we will see less platform exclusives and more multi platform titles. Even if the PS3 could push 1080p with all these effects (which is a marketing pipe dream of the same quality as their "real time prerendered E3 footage"), most games will be cross platform and therefore 360 resource bounds. While the gpu and memory pipeline of the 360 is very very impressive, it is not geared toward 1080p - which means that games that actually will support 1080p will do it by sacrificing other features in order to have enough framebuffer memory & gpu power to actually render at that resolution.

[Megalith]

Uh, PCs have a ton more RAM.

What are you, retarded.

[DigiWiz]

Uh, PCs have a ton more RAM.

What are you, retarded.

While his statement was uninformed (the current line of top PC GPUs beats the consoles performance wise), your statement is equally uninformed

RAM is not the limiting factor for 1080p. GPU memory and memory pipeline (your system needs to be able to supply data to the GPU without the GPU stalling, waiting for data) is the limiting factor. The 360 memory pipeline is better than what the PC has to offer, but it's overall graphics memory limits it to resolution below 1080p. The PS3 has a weaker pipeline than the 360 but seems to be better equipped than the 360 in terms of overall memory.

End result - consoles give you a better bang for the buck (excluding the cost of the HDTV) at the moment. Oblivion 360 can do HDR and AA at high resolution (not 1080p!) than most PCs out there can, because of it's superior graphics pipeline.

However, we also know that this no longer be true as early as in about 6 month with the next generation of GPUs hitting the market - at a cost higher than a 360.

The choice is simple - unless you have a very decent PC rig right now (7800GT+), the 360 is a better choice if you have HDTV and want graphics performance more than anything else. If you don't have HDTV, don't bother, games will look crappier than the lowest PC resolution you can possibly run at.

[Schnoogs]

While his statement was uninformed (the current line of top PC GPUs beats the consoles performance wise), your statement is equally uninformed

My 6800 is more powerful than the 360's GPU??? ;) ;)

Can I get your photo so I can place it next to the definition of uninformed? ;)

[DigiWiz]

My 6800 is more powerful than the 360's GPU??? ;) ;)

Can I get your photo so I can place it next to the definition of uninformed? ;)


Top of the line is 7900GTX, potentially SLI. If you got a 6800 GS as top of the line, someone made a cruel joke or failed to tell you that it was top of the budget line. It's a good "bang for the buck" card, but it yields to the 7800GT(X), the latest ATI and the new 7900GT(x) line performance wise.

[Schnoogs]

Top of the line is 7900GTX, preferably SLI.

I dont own one of those so you look kind of silly calling me uninformed yet my post was about a 6800 Ultra and its ability to play PC games at 1920x1200 which it does just fine (I pointed out the games that I played at that res)

[DigiWiz]

Please read my post on the previous page. It cleary explains why resolution is absolutely not the issue here. Every card with more than 10MB graphics memory can potentially run at 1900x1200. But I guess the current "top of the line" hasn't reached Hillbilly Ville yet anyway.

Also, when you get back to school, let a teacher explain you how to quote correctly. Your signature kind of gives away that you have yet to visit your literature classes in 8th grade, so you might want to revise that. (Hint: You don't make stuff up when you quote someone).

[Schnoogs]

Back to reality...can an Unreal 3 game run at 1080p on these consoles? Probably not.

But that doesn't rule out 1080p as a whole...Zeal, although it pains me to say this, was correct when he said that puzzle games could run just fine at 1080p.

I would also say that older game engines if ported could run just fine at 1080p. Its all about tradeoffs...hardwarewise both consoles could output it if told to do so.

I don't see why this is even up for discussion...its not a matter of whether its possible but a matter of whether its necessary. Why output that high when you might have to make sacrifices elsewhere (for that small percent who actually can display 1080p)

[Magnanimous Gnome]

The choice is simple - unless you have a very decent PC rig right now (7800GT+), the 360 is a better choice if you have HDTV and want graphics performance more than anything else. If you don't have HDTV, don't bother, games will look crappier than the lowest PC resolution you can possibly run at.


Is that really true? If I plug the 360 into a standard TV will it really look terrible? I sure hope not. I'll be getting a 360 sometime this year, but I can't afford (and don't really want to buy at this time anyway) an HDTV.

[Schnoogs]

Is that really true? If I plug the 360 into a standard TV will it really look terrible? I sure hope not. I'll be getting a 360 sometime this year, but I can't afford (and don't really want to buy at this time anyway) an HDTV.

It will look fine...DigiWiz is high tonight.

I've plugged my 360 into a 27" CRT, 19" Monitor, DLP Projector, Sony 32" HDTV, and a Dell 24" LCD and it looked great on all of them. Obviously the 27" CRT looked the worse but it looked a hell of a lot better than the XBox and PS2 did when hooked up to it.

Resolution is just one factor...there are other attributes that contribute towards the overall image quality. Polygon count, shaders, lighting, HDR, blah, blah, blah.

[DigiWiz]

Is that really true? If I plug the 360 into a standard TV will it really look terrible? I sure hope not. I'll be getting a 360 sometime this year, but I can't afford (and don't really want to buy at this time anyway) an HDTV.

I got a 360 and a 27" Sony non HDTV in my basement. Games generally look a bit better than on the Xbox1, but not much. Compared to the HDTV in the living room, it's a huge difference in quality.

But - in general the games that are out for the 360 right now run a lot smoother than the Xbox 1 games. Not a lot more beautiful (think the difference between 0AA and 2xAA on the PC), but better fps. Some of the newer games use fancy effects like HDR that make them look quite a bit better (see my post on the previous page on what makes a game look next gen), but the limiting factor is always the NTSC picture with it's limited resolution. Think about it this way: You can only do so many things to an 800x600 PC games before you feel the urge to switch to a higher resolution. The answer to that is personal preference - I stuck a long time with 1024x768 on the PC and just increased graphics options before feeling compelled to move to a higher resolution.

Is it still worth it? Yes, just for XBL Arcade and the better framerates. Also, as developers get better and better with the new hardware, games will still improve in looks and hopefully feel (many games, like PD0, are essentially still previous generation games that were switched to 360 some time during development, and it shows). At some point you might just want to get that HDTV because you're sick of knowing just how much better the game could look...

[Zeal]

It comes down to processing power and memory, dumbasses. Stop trying to overly complicate something so simple.

[Schnoogs]

It comes down to processing power and memory, dumbasses. Stop trying overly complicate something so simple.

Tell us more Mr. Scientist!! Processing power and memory?? What are these stange terms you speak of? ;)

[Mr_Snuffle]

It comes down to processing power and memory, dumbasses. Stop trying to overly complicate something so simple.

*Gives Zeal a Red Ball*

Perhaps you would like to go play with it?

[ElectricMonk]

games in the next few years will probably have so much pixel shader stuff going on that 720p will be the upper end.

[Orz]

Don't make me turn this thread around. I'll do it. Then no ice cream for anyone.

Now play nice with your sister.

[phantomhitman]

I thought the av nerds here and over at avs said that 1080p blu ray movies will not be possible. Something about not enough storage on the disk itself. I am still waiting cautiously for the ps3. If its good I will ge it, if not then screw it.

[Morratut]

Assasin we are on about the PS3 and 360 doing 1080p and how it's not realistic. Not about PCs.

Anyway most people knew already Sony was bullshitting when they mentioned 1080p. Especially if you have a 2nd 1080p display you can have it X2 :rolleyes:

720p will be the standard for the PS3 and 360. :cool:

[bapenguin]

OH....this again....huh....

[Royal Fool]

Uh, PCs have a ton more RAM.

What are you, retarded.

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/nou-37799.jpg

[Yeti2005]

Won't the PS3 be able to scale to 1080p from 720p (similar to the Xbox 360 scaling from 720p to 1080i)? If that's the case then Sony doesn't even have to create games natively for 1080p because they can claim the output will be 1080p. Most consumers won't know the difference and won't realize some of the newer TVs do scaling to 1080p as well. So theoritically the Xbox 360 games could be displayed in 1080p too, omg! ;)

[Serapth]

I got a 360 and a 27" Sony non HDTV in my basement. Games generally look a bit better than on the Xbox1, but not much. Compared to the HDTV in the living room, it's a huge difference in quality.

But - in general the games that are out for the 360 right now run a lot smoother than the Xbox 1 games. Not a lot more beautiful (think the difference between 0AA and 2xAA on the PC), but better fps. Some of the newer games use fancy effects like HDR that make them look quite a bit better (see my post on the previous page on what makes a game look next gen), but the limiting factor is always the NTSC picture with it's limited resolution. Think about it this way: You can only do so many things to an 800x600 PC games before you feel the urge to switch to a higher resolution. The answer to that is personal preference - I stuck a long time with 1024x768 on the PC and just increased graphics options before feeling compelled to move to a higher resolution.

Is it still worth it? Yes, just for XBL Arcade and the better framerates. Also, as developers get better and better with the new hardware, games will still improve in looks and hopefully feel (many games, like PD0, are essentially still previous generation games that were switched to 360 some time during development, and it shows). At some point you might just want to get that HDTV because you're sick of knowing just how much better the game could look...

http://kimsal.com/rabbit_pancake.jpg

[DaedalusFolly]

You moron, that bunny clearly has TWO pancakes on it's head. ;)

[IagoTheHunted]

Just to throw my 2c in real quick. I seriously doubt anyone will be loseing sleep over whether or not their games are running at 720 vs 1080. Unlike movies, where higher resolution will allow you to see more detail (BECAUSE IT'S REAL, AND THERE IS INFINATE DETAIL TO DRAW FROM) games are already showing more detail than the developers can cram in graphically anyway. So unless you really really have your hopes up for seeing tiny little things in the distance that would otherwise be blurry, there will be almost no change from a visual-psychological standpoint.

[Citizen Philip]

So let me get this straight: The 360 has hit the floor with it's really amazing graphics, Sony is claiming even bett0r graphics, and it's already accepted that hign-end PCs already run better than them both. I remeber fond threads, not months ago about how the nextgen was just tearing PCs a new arsehole. No, I am not talking to Joe Console who has a console and a regular TV and pirates all of his game, I'm talking to King Console with his HDTV, 7.1 Surround Speakers and his console of choice: I'm talking to fellow nutballs who have no problem spending money on their entertainment.

Next up: Moore's Law. The current highend PCs are about to be replaced in 5 months, and then another 10 months or so after that we may actually see some DX10 Video cards, ad nauseum.

I was playing Winter Assault at 1080 on my 24" yesterday. The bodies, the explosions, the bodies flung high into the air and leaving a bloody trail as they splatted into the ground. My Commisar inspires the troops by blowing the brains out of a squad member.... oh the artillery firing barrages blasting into the streaming Ork hordes as they charge at my fort.

I'm sorry, what?

[IagoTheHunted]

So let me get this straight: The 360 has hit the floor with it's really amazing graphics, Sony is claiming even bett0r graphics, and it's already accepted that hign-end PCs already run better than them both. I remeber fond threads, not months ago about how the nextgen was just tearing PCs a new arsehole.

er... not quite. While current gen PC's are comparably powerful to... well at least the 360, they typically do lag behind when you consider that the 360 is running games in HD and most PC's don't need to (and can't). Pluss the fact that consoles don't need a ton of extra horsepower to keep their OS/antivirus software/any other background software running at the same time as the game, and to compensate for the very relavent fact that games CANNOT BE OPTIMISED ON PC (since everyone has different hardware configurations).

So really it's like compareing apples to oranges. When PC's are, say, twice as powerful as current gen consoles, then they'll be about equal in terms of potential game quality.

[Schnoogs]

Assasin we are on about the PS3 and 360 doing 1080p and how it's not realistic. Not about PCs.

Anyway most people knew already Sony was bullshitting when they mentioned 1080p. Especially if you have a 2nd 1080p display you can have it X2 :rolleyes:

720p will be the standard for the PS3 and 360. :cool:

I know...but people in this thread were erroneously stating that 1080p was IMPOSSIBLE...theres a difference between impossible and improbable.

[Schnoogs]

er... not quite. While current gen PC's are comparably powerful to... well at least the 360, they typically do lag behind when you consider that the 360 is running games in HD and most PC's don't need to (and can't). Pluss the fact that consoles don't need a ton of extra horsepower to keep their OS/antivirus software/any other background software running at the same time as the game, and to compensate for the very relavent fact that games CANNOT BE OPTIMISED ON PC (since everyone has different hardware configurations).

So really it's like compareing apples to oranges. When PC's are, say, twice as powerful as current gen consoles, then they'll be about equal in terms of potential game quality.


720p is an HD resolution...that is comparable to 1280x800 on the PC (16:10). 99% of PC gamers play games at probably 1280x1024 or higher which is more pixels than 720p. So your statement that PCs cat play at HD resolutions is WRONG!

I've never seen such a collection of misinformed opinions in one thread.

[Citizen Philip]

er... not quite. While current gen PC's are comparably powerful to... well at least the 360, they typically do lag behind when you consider that the 360 is running games in HD and most PC's don't need to (and can't). Pluss the fact that consoles don't need a ton of extra horsepower to keep their OS/antivirus software/any other background software running at the same time as the game, and to compensate for the very relavent fact that games CANNOT BE OPTIMISED ON PC (since everyone has different hardware configurations).

So really it's like compareing apples to oranges. When PC's are, say, twice as powerful as current gen consoles, then they'll be about equal in terms of potential game quality.

Indeed, there are many differences between the two without accounting for functionalty, I was refering in generalities to previous treads about the superior hardware in the nextgen that made current PCs outdated: which no one ever mentions again or strays close to the topic regarding it. I would add, that no serious gamer is going to have extra stuff running in the background when they play: but they could, and on some systems they could get away with it.

[IagoTheHunted]

720p is an HD resolution...that is comparable to 1280x800 on the PC (16:10). 99% of PC gamers play games at probably 1280x1024 or higher which is more pixels than 720p. So your statement that PCs cat play at HD resolutions is WRONG!

I've never seen such a collection of misinformed opinions in one thread.

I don't know anyone who plays games with complex shaders above 1280x768, and I usually stick to 800x600 (pluss I'm a professional game artist, and not at all misinformed). What're you playing, quake3? Even though the newest cards can sometimes play new-tech games at higher resolution without killing the framerate, my point stands that the difference is minimal at best in terms of visual quality. Haveing slightly more hidden jaggies on straight edges isn't going to make a wiff of difference on a game with realtime motion blur. People are now familier enough with screen resolutions to argue about it and ask for higher numbers... but the fucking number isn't important anymore. We need better phyisics, better shader support, and a million other things, before we need slightly better HD.

[Citizen Philip]

720p is an HD resolution...that is comparable to 1280x800 on the PC (16:10). 99% of PC gamers play games at probably 1280x1024 or higher which is more pixels than 720p. So your statement that PCs cat play at HD resolutions is WRONG!

I've never seen such a collection of misinformed opinions in one thread.

Err.. yes. That too. I totally forgot about screen resolution. I don't have a link, but your average TV has a screen resolution of about 400x300 before you goto the HD (un)standard.

[Serapth]

720p is an HD resolution...that is comparable to 1280x800 on the PC (16:10). 99% of PC gamers play games at probably 1280x1024 or higher which is more pixels than 720p. So your statement that PCs cat play at HD resolutions is WRONG!

I've never seen such a collection of misinformed opinions in one thread.

Wow dude, you spend way too much time around techies, geeks and on internet forums, as there is no fucking way 99% of gamers are running at 1280x1024. I bet if you broke numbers down, it would look more something like this:

@640x480 = 10%
@800x600 = 40%
@1024x768 = 30%
@1280x1024 = 10%
other = 10%

And, even then I think im way off on the low end numbers. I would bet the average computer age out there right now is around 2 years old. Very few people actually upgrade with each new video card generation.

[IagoTheHunted]

Indeed, there are many differences between the two without accounting for functionalty, I was refering in generalities to previous treads about the superior hardware in the nextgen that made current PCs outdated: which no one ever mentions again or strays close to the topic regarding it. I would add, that no serious gamer is going to have extra stuff running in the background when they play: but they could, and on some systems they could get away with it.

Yes well if we're going to just hack out the physical difference than a 360 is pretty much a high end PC in a small box. So yes, your right.

My point is just that it doesn't matter. It's like insisting that elephants are just as smart as humans because their brains are about the same weight (I dunno if this is true or not). It doesn't MATTER how much their brains weigh because they aren't being used the same way and the final result isn't dependant on brain weight. It's a meaningless comparasin in terms of actual functionality.

[Citizen Philip]

I don't know anyone who plays games with complex shaders above 1280x768, and I usually stick to 800x600 (pluss I'm a professional game artist, and not at all misinformed). What're you playing, quake3? Even though the newest cards can sometimes play new-tech games at higher resolution without killing the framerate, my point stands that the difference is minimal at best in terms of visual quality. Haveing slightly more hidden jaggies on straight edges isn't going to make a wiff of difference on a game with realtime motion blur. People are now familier enough with screen resolutions to argue about it and ask for higher numbers... but the fucking number isn't important anymore. We need better phyisics, better shader support, and a million other things, before we need slightly better HD.

No one can do real-time motion blur. You can use special FX to emulate the effect of motion blur, for now, motion blur is for cutscenes, highend movies and cameras with film. Conisseur (sp) level of graphics for a PC are at 1600x1200, with notable exceptions (nVidia on FEAR or any Radeon below x1900). Having recently upgraded my system from 1024x768 (sometimes 800x600) to a new system that can run everything except for maybe 2 games at 1900x1200.. there is a BIG difference, higher resolution is the difference between a staircase of jaggies instead of a smooth curve: like for example a face.

Again, I am talking about conisseur level, like an audiophile or a home entertainment guru.

[Citizen Philip]

Yes well if we're going to just hack out the physical difference than a 360 is pretty much a high end PC in a small box. So yes, your right.


A highend PC with a stripped down OS to run games, to remove overhead (as you mentioned) being sold at a loss to increase a player base on a new console.

Which I'm totally cool with.

[IagoTheHunted]

No one can do real-time motion blur. You can use special FX to emulate the effect of motion blur, for now, motion blur is for cutscenes, highend movies and cameras with film. Conisseur (sp) level of graphics for a PC are at 1600x1200, with notable exceptions (nVidia on FEAR or any Radeon below x1900). Having recently upgraded my system from 1024x768 (sometimes 800x600) to a new system that can run everything except for maybe 2 games at 1900x1200.. there is a BIG difference, higher resolution is the difference between a staircase of jaggies instead of a smooth curve: like for example a face.

Again, I am talking about conisseur level, like an audiophile or a home entertainment guru.

OK now I feel like a prat for having to keep saying this but I AM a professional developer, you aren't going to win an argument about game graphics because I'm the one making them :mad:
Motion blur IS just an effect. It's not like there's REAL motiong blur and FAKE motion blur. Motion blur is fake. Period. It's a cheat to compensate for the effect of "persistance of vision" in the human eye/mind. And YES there are games that use it and there will be many more on the way, currently at least
-Shadow of the Collosus (ps2!!!)
-Pefect Dark (360)
-Fight Night Round 3 (360)
-Burnout 3 (lots)
all use motion blur effects.

And, again, higher resolution when it comes down to the difference between 720 and 1080 is just minimal. "smooth curves" aren't nearly as important graphically as you seem to think. People are trained to think that way when we're children because of line drawings like cartoons, or from coloring in coloring books, but the fact is that our actual visual apperatus is more concerned with shapes and areas of light and shadow. It's not a big leap to admit that QuakeIII running at 1080 looks like crap next to Unreal3 running at 720 (and yes I've played both).

[IagoTheHunted]

A highend PC with a stripped down OS to run games, to remove overhead (as you mentioned) being sold at a loss to increase a player base on a new console.

Which I'm totally cool with.

yup it's a great deal until you start to get reamed on game prices *shrug*

[Nite_Moogle]

Just for reference, from Valve's hardware survey of Steam users:

Primary Display Resolution (531123 Users)
800 x 600 17,810 3.35 %
1024 x 768 254,094 47.84 %
1152 x 864 42,376 7.98 %
1280 x 1024 191,208 36.00 %
1440 x 900 4,093 0.77 %
1600 x 1200 10,608 2.00 %
1680 x 1050 3,780 0.71 %
Other 7,154 1.35 %

Personally I think that developers are going to have a hard time making 1080p look a lot better than 720p because of the demands that AA and HDR and the like put on the system, and how they give a greater improvement in visual quality than improved resolution does.

[mpsmith]

I don't know anyone who plays games with complex shaders above 1280x768, and I usually stick to 800x600 (pluss I'm a professional game artist, and not at all misinformed). What're you playing, quake3? Even though the newest cards can sometimes play new-tech games at higher resolution without killing the framerate, my point stands that the difference is minimal at best in terms of visual quality. Haveing slightly more hidden jaggies on straight edges isn't going to make a wiff of difference on a game with realtime motion blur. People are now familier enough with screen resolutions to argue about it and ask for higher numbers... but the fucking number isn't important anymore. We need better phyisics, better shader support, and a million other things, before we need slightly better HD.

If you normally stick to 800x600 you are clearly not a gamer and should probably leave this site. Anyone who claims resolution is not important is simply wrong... I don't use less than 1600x1200 on anything but FEAR. And I play games like Quake 4 or BF2 with high video settings.

I dont give a shit what you do for a living because youre just wrong. Im a gamer and have been for years. Ive played PC games for thousands and thousands of hours. The difference between say 1024x768 and 1600x1200 is HUGE. Maybe you dont notice a difference because you forgot to apply the settings after selecting them, which is possible based on your claim that 800x600 is sufficient for gaming. Go away.

On-topic, current-gen games could run just fine in 1080p, but whether next-gen games will be able to or not is somewhat dubious. Given that we don't know the full capabilities of the PS3, it seems difficult to say. If shader technology doesnt change by the time the PS3 is out, then it actually seems feasible as long as the theres enough bandwidth to support the crazy geometry everyone is expecting.

[IagoTheHunted]

If you normally stick to 800x600 you are clearly not a gamer and should probably leave this site. Anyone who claims resolution is not important is simply wrong... I don't use less than 1600x1200 on anything but FEAR. And I play games like Quake 4 or BF2 with high video settings.

I dont give a shit what you do for a living because youre just wrong. Im a gamer and have been for years. Ive played PC games for thousands and thousands of hours. The difference between say 1024x768 and 1600x1200 is HUGE. Maybe you dont notice a difference because you forgot to apply the settings after selecting them, which is possible based on your claim that 800x600 is sufficient for gaming. Go away.

Hahahaha. Ok this is just too imature for me. I appologize for even temporarily sinking to this guys level.
So don't worry, I won't threten you or your computer anymore, clearly you two have a serious relationship together.

[Serapth]

If you normally stick to 800x600 you are clearly not a gamer and should probably leave this site. Anyone who claims resolution is not important is simply wrong... I don't use less than 1600x1200 on anything but FEAR. And I play games like Quake 4 or BF2 with high video settings.

I dont give a shit what you do for a living because youre just wrong. Im a gamer and have been for years. Ive played PC games for thousands and thousands of hours. The difference between say 1024x768 and 1600x1200 is HUGE. Maybe you dont notice a difference because you forgot to apply the settings after selecting them, which is possible based on your claim that 800x600 is sufficient for gaming. Go away.

Jesus, what elitist bullshit. So basically everyone here that enjoys say... Halo, Final Fantasy, or various other console games at *gasp* 640x480 on their consoles arent real gamers and should leave the site!

Ditto for the people who, I dunno, maybe have a fucking life outside of their computer and thus dont spend thousands of dollars a year buying the newest and greatest arent gamers either? Yes, resolution makes a difference, but in this day and age with advanced pixel shaders etc, it makes less and less of a difference. Today the visible quality of 800x600 with 4xAA is comprable to the visible quality of 1024x768 without.

[mpsmith]

Hahahaha. Ok this is just too imature for me. I appologize for even temporarily sinking to this guys level.
So don't worry, I won't threten you or your computer anymore, clearly you two have a serious relationship together.
It's not personal. Its just funny that you seem to claim (based on supposed experience and your line of work) that resolution is unimportant. However, anyone who has spent any time playing games knows this is not the case. I really think most people who visit this page would laugh in your face if you told them 800x600 was enough for anything.

Seraph I was only referring to PC games. Consoles obviously aren't included, as there's no choice regarding resolution and the games were made with that resolution in mind, whereas PC games are made with crazy-high settings in mind. And yes, I am a bit of an elitist, but I do actually have a life and I didnt spend TOO much money on my computer (~$1800 total). Oh, and before people start claiming other people dont have lives, lets all see who's posting on evilavatar at 1100 in the morning...

[IagoTheHunted]

It's not personal. Its just funny that you seem to claim (based on supposed experience and your line of work) that resolution is unimportant. However, anyone who has spent any time playing games knows this is not the case. I really think most people who visit this page would laugh in your face if you told them 800x600 was enough for anything.

Seraph I was only referring to PC games. Consoles obviously aren't included, as there's no choice regarding resolution and the games were made with that resolution in mind, whereas PC games are made with crazy-high settings in mind. And yes, I am a bit of an elitist, but I do actually have a life and I didnt spend TOO much money on my computer (~$1800 total).

Well we know at least two people think your full of shit. How about it guys? Is 800x600 too crappy to play games? Keep in mind this is higher res than any PS1 game.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I don't want to get into this argument, but I'm surprised that some of you honestly believe that a high percentage of gamers play at 800x600. I have a really cruddy laptop with a Radeon 7500, and even I run games at 1024x768. The difference is just huge, and I really don't take much of a performance hit.

The only game I ever run at 800x600 is Diablo 2, for obvious reasons.


Assassin - thanks for the reply to my 360 question.

[IagoTheHunted]

Meh actually scratch that last comment this is getting boreing. High res is nice, we can all agree on that. But it's a tiny little part of what makes a game GOOD. Maybe it's harder to see that when higher resolution is the only thing you have control over.

[mpsmith]

I will definitely agree with that bit about it making a good game. My personal philosophy regarding resolution vs AA (since those are the two options I actually will change) is that the higher the resolution you can run, the less AA you need. So, yes, a lower resolution like 1024x768 can look ok with a lot of AA, but you may only want 2x AA (or none) in a higher resolution such as 1080p. Plus, in higher resolutions, objects in the distance are actually discernable, whereas in the lower resolutions theyre just indistinct blobs- this is actually an important thing to consider for most games today.

[Citizen Philip]

OK now I feel like a prat for having to keep saying this but I AM a professional developer, you aren't going to win an argument about game graphics because I'm the one making them :mad:
Motion blur IS just an effect. It's not like there's REAL motiong blur and FAKE motion blur. Motion blur is fake. Period. It's a cheat to compensate for the effect of "persistance of vision" in the human eye/mind. And YES there are games that use it and there will be many more on the way, currently at least
-Shadow of the Collosus (ps2!!!)
-Pefect Dark (360)
-Fight Night Round 3 (360)
-Burnout 3 (lots)
all use motion blur effects.

And, again, higher resolution when it comes down to the difference between 720 and 1080 is just minimal. "smooth curves" aren't nearly as important graphically as you seem to think. People are trained to think that way when we're children because of line drawings like cartoons, or from coloring in coloring books, but the fact is that our actual visual apperatus is more concerned with shapes and areas of light and shadow. It's not a big leap to admit that QuakeIII running at 1080 looks like crap next to Unreal3 running at 720 (and yes I've played both).

Umm. No. You are wrong. As I said, they are using FX to emulate a 3d motion blur effect, the key word is emulated. Here is an article explaining the difference

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=OTE3

Fun Quote: The current implementation of Valve’s Motion Blur and Depth of Field cannot be rendered in real-time on current hardware. In fact, we learned that the Day of Defeat demo video they used to present these new technologies took almost 2 seconds to render each frame with all the effects in use. The video was put together as a demonstration and was not being rendered in real-time, but it was a very good example of what a game could look like when all the effects are being used.
You aren't the only developer on these boards, so pulling that card doesn't always have the weight you would like it to.

I'm not saying that an emulated FX motion blur is bad, because quite frankly whatever works, works. And please, don't try to look down on people: early movie audiences (and movies) had very little cinematic knowledge, but as the entertainment evolved so did it's audience and it's creators. Trying to say that the level of graphic sophistication has little impact is at best, uninformed.

I believe a good story, characters and plot development beat the hell out of flashy effects and explosions, but Hollywood is doing it's best to claim otherwise.

[Nite_Moogle]

Playing FEAR at 800x600 with full lighting and physics > FEAR at 1600x1200 without any lighting effects and physics.

[IagoTheHunted]

Umm. No. You are wrong. As I said, they are using FX to emulate a 3d motion blur effect, the key word is emulated. Here is an article explaining the difference

Umm. No. YOU are wrong. Still. Your first quote was:
"No one can do real-time motion blur."
Perhaps you MEANT to say "No one can do full 3D Motion Blur the way they're doing it in this article". But you did not, you made a blanket statement that was false because the term "motion blur" does NOT refer solely to that article or that effect but rather to any tech solution which creates the illusion of persistance of vision. Like you said yourself, whatever works works. Yes it does, and when it works, at all, it's called "motion blur" even when it's "emulated", which is ALWAYS.


You aren't the only developer on these boards, so pulling that card doesn't always have the weight you would like it to.


Doesn't have to have any weight. I'm just pointing out that I have a degree in this subject specifically, so there's some applicable experience for me to draw from in my arguments (more than, say, reading that article you linked to). Never claimed it makes me better than anyone else.

[Serapth]

Oh, and before people start claiming other people dont have lives, lets all see who's posting on evilavatar at 1100 in the morning...

Well, for 99% of us, its called killing time at an office job. I

[Citizen Philip]

Can I get a picture of batman and robin?

[Scull]

So, I have a question...will the PS3 play games if I hook it up to a TV I bought about 8 years ago? It will? Good enough.

[Nite_Moogle]

So, I have a question...will the PS3 play games if I hook it up to a TV I bought about 8 years ago? It will? Good enough.
This is really the crux of the argument, believe it or not. In order to make games look good on non-HD systems they are going to have to have a lot of stuff like HDR, anti-aliasing, etc etc. Then they have to get that running in 1080p which is what, four times the resolution?

[IagoTheHunted]

This is really the crux of the argument, believe it or not. In order to make games look good on non-HD systems they are going to have to have a lot of stuff like HDR, anti-aliasing, etc etc. Then they have to get that running in 1080p which is what, four times the resolution?

'eh... that's a good point but I don't think it's fair to say HDR and AA are "to makes games look good on non-HD systems". Those FX make games look good on ANY system, reguardless of resolution, they are unrelated achievements in graphics quality.
But your still right about getting those FX up to the max resolution is a hardware problem. And more important is the fact that developers are likely going to go with a lower res for the added power it will free up to make... y'know... more characters onscreen, more texture res, more FX, more everything else which is more important than 1080 HD res.

[Balthasar]

And finally - the cost of creating "next gen" games is so high, that we will see less platform exclusives and more multi platform titles. Even if the PS3 could push 1080p with all these effects (which is a marketing pipe dream of the same quality as their "real time prerendered E3 footage"), most games will be cross platform and therefore 360 resource bounds.
Why would the 360 determine the upper limit of cross platform games? Are cross platform XBox games only as good as their PS2 counterpart?

[IagoTheHunted]

Why would the 360 determine the upper limit of cross platform games? Are cross platform XBox games only as good as their PS2 counterpart?

Absolutely yes, sadely they are, because developers don't have time to make changes for a symultanious cross-platform release, and there's almost nothing in the hardware which makes the games inherently different (xbox gets better framerates usually, but that's not saying much).

Generally for cross-platform games, the weakest system determines the specs the game is built for. Nowadays you can see this best by how good games look that DON'T do this... Resident Evil 4 comes to mind, a game put out for the weakest of all platforms available, yet it kicked total ass graphically because it was released on only one platform and could be optimised.

[Balthasar]

Absolutely yes, sadely they are, because developers don't have time to make changes for a symultanious cross-platform release, and there's almost nothing in the hardware which makes the games inherently different (xbox gets better framerates usually, but that's not saying much).
Considering the fact that the PS3 isn't even out yet, I'm not clear on how you could be talking about this in the present tense. Not to mention the fact that their hardware is completely different, meaning one would not be able to just create a game for the 360 and push a button that will magically make it work on the PS3.

Generally for cross-platform games, the weakest system determines the specs the game is built for. Nowadays you can see this best by how good games look that DON'T do this... Resident Evil 4 comes to mind, a game put out for the weakest of all platforms available, yet it kicked total ass graphically because it was released on only one platform and could be optimised.

RE4 was released on two systems, actually. Further, if you look at a game like Splinter Cell, and compare the Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube versions, you will see just how wrong your assessment is.

[Wolfgang]

Just for reference, from Valve's hardware survey of Steam users:

Primary Display Resolution (531123 Users)
800 x 600 17,810 3.35 %
1024 x 768 254,094 47.84 %
1152 x 864 42,376 7.98 %
1280 x 1024 191,208 36.00 %
1440 x 900 4,093 0.77 %
1600 x 1200 10,608 2.00 %
1680 x 1050 3,780 0.71 %
Other 7,154 1.35 %

Personally I think that developers are going to have a hard time making 1080p look a lot better than 720p because of the demands that AA and HDR and the like put on the system, and how they give a greater improvement in visual quality than improved resolution does.
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

These numbers include older CS, Half Life 2, etc...

Also, they have most people with Nvidia video cards and AMD CPUs. We all know that does not represent the vast majority of PC owners that "game", but probably does represnet the hardcore market well.

[Serapth]

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

These numbers include older CS, Half Life 2, etc...

Also, they have most people with Nvidia video cards and AMD CPUs. We all know that does not represent the vast majority of PC owners that "game", but probably does represnet the hardcore market well.

Even odder, is it says 33% of people are using 16" displays in 4:3 mode. Outside of a few ( maybe one or two ) laptops, I have never heard of a 16 inch display. In other wrods, survey stats suck

[IagoTheHunted]

Considering the fact that the PS3 isn't even out yet, I'm not clear on how you could be talking about this in the present tense. Not to mention the fact that their hardware is completely different, meaning one would not be able to just create a game for the 360 and push a button that will magically make it work on the PS3.


Actually we have a PS3 Dev kit here so I can indeed make that comparasin, and they aren't so different that we havn't been able to develop cross-platform with the 360. It takes extra work on the tech side of things but the only real drawback is the lack of optimization, which was my point earlier.

Also I never intended to contrast the 360 and PS3, I just said "xbox" and meant it, since the person I was responding to was talking about Ps2 vs Xbox.


RE4 was released on two systems, actually.

Eventually yes, but it was first developed solely for gamecube, taking into account all it's small technical loopholes to squeeze out as much graphic juice as possible. Later it was ported to Ps2 with some extras added, however it still failed to live up to the gamecube version in terms of graphics, further proving my point.


Further, if you look at a game like Splinter Cell, and compare the Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube versions, you will see just how wrong your assessment is.

Havn't played that one since it got so-so reviews. All I can say is that, while xbox usually gets a shot in the arm graphically, games including splinter cell suffer by comparasin to what COULD HAVE been done if the engine was optimised for a single platform. On a single platform tricks can be effected to take advantage of things like disk-read speed, exact memory limits, specific hardware GPU features, and other systems which don't translate between consoles.

[Serapth]

Actually we have a PS3 Dev kit here so I can indeed make that comparasin, and they aren't so different that we havn't been able to develop cross-platform with the 360.


So then, with someone with hands on both dev kits... how much more powerful is the PS3 then the 360? ;)

[IagoTheHunted]

So then, with someone with hands on both dev kits... how much more powerful is the PS3 then the 360? ;)

Well actually the answer will blow your mind... in fact its...


oops looks like my nondisclosure agreement requires me to shut up. truely sorry ;)

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Resident Evil 4 comes to mind, a game put out for the weakest of all platforms available, yet it kicked total ass graphically because it was released on only one platform and could be optimised.


What? Since when is the Cube the "weakest of all platforms available??" The Cube is only slightly less capable than the Xbox.

[mpsmith]

Splinter Cell got so-so reviews? Was it just me or was this one of the most acclaimed games in recent times? I very well could be wrong, of course.

[IagoTheHunted]

What? Since when is the Cube the "weakest of all platforms available??" The Cube is only slightly less capable than the Xbox.

No it's significantly less capable because it has half the memory space and no shader support, pluss there are some oddities in the hardware layout (I believe a large chunck of memory is dedicated for sound and not helpful to any other memory-relivent functions, which is unique and somewhat frustrating). It excels in number of polygons that can be drawn onscreen and also has a streaming memory buffer that can be used to compensate for low memory IF you use it right, which is impossible for cross-platform games.

Overall though, it is the weakest of the three. No developer will claim otherwise, though they might point out the above strengths.

I have all systems and I've developed for all systems. I'm not playing favorites, gamecube has some of the best games out there, which is what matters. But it's the weakest.

[IagoTheHunted]

Splinter Cell got so-so reviews? Was it just me or was this one of the most acclaimed games in recent times? I very well could be wrong, of course.

oh crap my bad. I was actually thinking of... um... geez that one in a distopian future where you shoot from behind everything. Anyway my mistake.

Splinter Cell on the other hand I have played and I know what your talking about. I suppose your right, it's an exception to the rule, KIND OF. What happened with Splinter Cell was that it was developed specifically for Xbox first and included much high powered shader support etc. that could only be pulled off on Xbox. Then it was toned way down to shove it onto the other platforms, which got second rate treatment at best.

In reality this is an example of a one-platform game made for Xbox and how good you can get with that development plan. . . but also some crappy ports were made. If the game had been developed from the ground up for Ps2 or Gamecube respectively, then that would have been the platform the game looked best on. But in this case it was Xbox, not surprisingly since it's the most powerful and other ports could be made by just gimping that version.

[mpsmith]

I thought that was how it was generally done (I'm not in on the dev process).

[IagoTheHunted]

It's different at different studios. But no usually all platforms are developed for symultaniously at the specs of the lowest common elements of all platforms. This saves a ton of time, and prevents the artists/animators/designers from having to do their work more than once to fit the different content potential on each system. For Splinter Cell they just did Xbox, then went back and remade much of the game to fit it on the other consoles (I believe, I wasn't actually on that team or anything, but that's what I've heard).

[Kelegacy]

Well actually the answer will blow your mind... in fact its...


oops looks like my nondisclosure agreement requires me to shut up. truely sorry ;)
Hopefully your job is completely math involved, not requiring one iota of grammar or spelling. Wait, are YOU the reason my RPG translations suck sometimes? :)

[Citizen Philip]

Let's do some review:

Regular TV: approx res 400x300 = 120 000 points of colour
Pc Regular: 800x600 = 480 000 points of colour
PC Gold: 1600x1200 = 1 920 000 points of colour
PC Platinum: 1900x1200 = 2 280 000 points of colour

That is what higher resolution does for you. That is why AA and such are important.

[IagoTheHunted]

Hopefully your job is completely math involved, not requiring one iota of grammar or spelling. Wait, are YOU the reason my RPG translations suck sometimes? :)

bwaaahaha, I will suxor your rpg.

No actually I'm a game artist, so mostly art, some math, no spelling or grammer. Don't worry I know I can't spell, when I was little my teachers let me draw cartoons of the spelling words instead of spelling them.

[Balthasar]

Actually we have a PS3 Dev kit here so I can indeed make that comparasin, and they aren't so different that we havn't been able to develop cross-platform with the 360. It takes extra work on the tech side of things but the only real drawback is the lack of optimization, which was my point earlier.
Never said cross-platform isn't possible. Cross-platform has been the standard for many years now. What I'm saying is cross platform games rarely look the same across all systems, in part because of the differences in hardware architecture. And I'm also not saying there aren't "lazy" ports out there of games coming from inferior hardware to more capable hardware. But unless you can state for a fact there there is no difference in capabilities between the two pieces of hardware (not so much that neither is "more powerful" than the other, but that neither excel in different areas over the other), then I am not ready to accept this idea that games between platforms will suddenly always be identical.

Also, since you are claiming to have a PS3 dev kit, and claim the only real drawback to cross platform is optimization (which has always been the case), would it be safe to assume the talks of the PS3 being onerously difficult to program for were greatly exaggerated?

Eventually yes, but it was first developed solely for gamecube, taking into account all it's small technical loopholes to squeeze out as much graphic juice as possible. Later it was ported to Ps2 with some extras added, however it still failed to live up to the gamecube version in terms of graphics, further proving my point.
How does that prove your point? Since when was the PS2 ever capable of those graphics in the first place?

Havn't played that one since it got so-so reviews. All I can say is that, while xbox usually gets a shot in the arm graphically, games including splinter cell suffer by comparasin to what COULD HAVE been done if the engine was optimised for a single platform. On a single platform tricks can be effected to take advantage of things like disk-read speed, exact memory limits, specific hardware GPU features, and other systems which don't translate between consoles.
Your entire argument is founded on the idea that all companies port games lazily, which simply isn't true. For the record, Splinter Cell on the XBox prominently features lighting and shadow effects that can't be faked on either the PS2 or the Gamecube. It's a big difference as far as gameplay is concerned.

[Wolfgang]

Your entire argument is founded on the idea that all companies port games lazily, which simply isn't true. For the record, Splinter Cell on the XBox prominently features lighting and shadow effects that can't be faked on either the PS2 or the Gamecube. It's a big difference as far as gameplay is concerned.

Splinter Cell was not released on the PS2 and Xbox at the same time, so they had time to redo it. It is different than releasing say Madden on all 3 at the same time, that would be a more fair comparsion as far as developing for the LCD.

I do remember reading a Capcom interview when the Dreamcast and PS2 were battling it out -- they mentioned that they were going to do LCD development to save time.

[Balthasar]

Splinter Cell was not released on the PS2 and Xbox at the same time, so they had time to redo it. It is different than releasing say Madden on all 3 at the same time, that would be a more fair comparsion as far as developing for the LCD.
Um, does Madden look the same on all three systems?

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I have all systems and I've developed for all systems. I'm not playing favorites, gamecube has some of the best games out there, which is what matters. But it's the weakest.


I still call BS on this. I'd say it's pretty common knowledge that the PS2 is the weakest of the three. The proof is in the pudding - the Gamecube's titles as a whole look quite a bit better than the PS2's titles.

[51|RandoM]

Wow dude, you spend way too much time around techies, geeks and on internet forums, as there is no fucking way 99% of gamers are running at 1280x1024. I bet if you broke numbers down, it would look more something like this:

@640x480 = 10%
@800x600 = 40%
@1024x768 = 30%
@1280x1024 = 10%
other = 10%


Your numbers are off. Here are the numbers from the latest Steam hardware survey.

800 x 600 18,389 3.36 %
1024 x 768 261,877 47.79 %
1152 x 864 43,630 7.96 %
1280 x 1024 197,354 36.02 %
1440 x 900 4,275 0.78 %
1600 x 1200 11,012 2.01 %
1680 x 1050 3,972 0.72 %
Other 7,440 1.36 %

In other words, almost nobody uses 640x480 for anything, or even 800x600. The two largest groups are 1024x768 and 1280x1024.

[51|RandoM]

Even odder, is it says 33% of people are using 16" displays in 4:3 mode. Outside of a few ( maybe one or two ) laptops, I have never heard of a 16 inch display. In other wrods, survey stats suck


...actually, when you consider that more laptops are sold then desktops, it makes perfect sense. Think about it.

[IagoTheHunted]

Your entire argument is founded on the idea that all companies port games lazily, which simply isn't true. For the record, Splinter Cell on the XBox prominently features lighting and shadow effects that can't be faked on either the PS2 or the Gamecube. It's a big difference as far as gameplay is concerned.

Hmmm. I think what's not comeing across in my arguments is the reality of game development and the concequences on the final product. The thing is that it's not being LAZY to do a less-than-it-could-be port onto another platform, it's just the reality of trying to develop that way. Some things don't translate and can't be redone without going back to the drawing board. Like in Resident Evil 4 they had about 4 different textures they were useing on the eyeballs of the main characters (among other things), and they would swap them out of memory in different lighting situations (according to game developer magazine). The gamecube is really good at this, the PS2 is not. So a solution that was hard-programmed into the game to make it look better simply isn't possible on PS2. PS2 does OTHER things really well, it has twice as much memory for textures, so if they'd been making the game for PS2 from the ground up, the artists would have planned for the extra space and might have chosen more detailed texture ideas (FFX had great use of the PS2 texture space, same for Metal Gear Solid games which used alot of that space for lighting and extra FX passes), but if your doing a port, it's too late to go back and redesign the game for the PS2, you just have to do the best you can, and even that is difficult.

So what I'm saying is that it's not about being lazy. It's not like the developers are out here trying to rip you off. What happens is the publishers want to make as much money as possible on the game, so they give the developer a couple months to make a port and they just scramble to do the best job they can. But it's never going to be as good as what you get from two years optimization on a single hardware setup. The tech is too deeply intertwined with the game design for that to be true.

So what we find is a TENDENCY for poorer quality on cross-platform games, and sometimes a single system was really the intended target (Gamecube for RE4, PS2 for MGS, Xbox for Splinter Cell) and it looks much better on that platform because of it.

Make sense?

[IagoTheHunted]

I still call BS on this. I'd say it's pretty common knowledge that the PS2 is the weakest of the three. The proof is in the pudding - the Gamecube's titles as a whole look quite a bit better than the PS2's titles.

No the PS2's exclusive games look just as good as the Gamecubes exclusive games (FFX and Metal Gear Solid II among others). Gamecube is well designed and Nintendo is great and squeezing the best possible product out of their system because of how they manage game development (which is a good thing). But Gamecube is the weakest just in terms of stats, just look 'em up, do some research and you'll see. Or alternatively you could just look at the games which are released on all platforms symultaniously and notice that gamecube tends to lag behind, especially in textures.

[Balthasar]

So what we find is a TENDENCY for poorer quality on cross-platform games, and sometimes a single system was really the intended target (Gamecube for RE4, PS2 for MGS, Xbox for Splinter Cell) and it looks much better on that platform because of it.

Make sense?
Not really, because you can't site an example where a game originally released on the PS2 hasn't been made to look better on the XBox of Gamecube (which was the point of my entering this debate). You could say that it could have looked even better had it been originally developed on another system, but that certainly was never my point either.

[IagoTheHunted]

Not really, because you can't site an example where a game originally released on the PS2 hasn't been made to look better on the XBox of Gamecube (which was the point of my entering this debate). You could say that it could have looked even better had it been originally developed on another system, but that certainly was never my point either.

I defy you to find ANY game developed exlusively for PS2 that was later made to look better on GameCube. Xbox gets better versions of PS2 games because it has better hardware and can boost performance a little bit for games like GTA or MGS (Microsoft LOVES to do this and spends lots of money to outdo Sony), but MGS is a good example of a game that didn't look much better on Xbox when it really should have if you consider the difference in hardware. Ports just aren't optimal.

Also I thought we were talking about simultanious releases here?? Your saying a game can't LATER be made to look better but that should be besides the point. Of course if the developers have an extra year they can make it look better.

[atariv8]

Just thought I'd throw this out there...

1080p by definition:

1920 x 1080 16:9 Progressive fps 23.976, 24, 29.97, 30

By definition the PS3 1080p games won't have to run at 60 fps. 720p is the only HD format that officially supports up to 60 fps progressively.

I have my 360 hooked up to a sony widesreen crt computer monitor and shit looks good (HD Component cable to a vga converter box). I have yet to see a jaggy. The kiosks at the stores look horrible compaired to a proper set up. I don't see what 1920x1080 would add to the look I'm getting right now. I'll take more fps any day...

[Schnoogs]

Just thought I'd throw this out there...

1080p by definition:

1920 x 1080 16:9 Progressive fps 23.976, 24, 29.97, 30

By definition the PS3 1080p games won't have to run at 60 fps. 720p is the only HD format that officially supports up to 60 fps progressively.

I have my 360 hooked up to a sony widesreen crt computer monitor and shit looks good (HD Component cable to a vga converter box). I have yet to see a jaggy. The kiosks at the stores look horrible compaired to a proper set up. I don't see what 1920x1080 would add to the look I'm getting right now. I'll take more fps any day...

1080/60p is a format.

If we're gonna get techinical! ;)

http://www.blu-ray.com/images/ces2006/ps3_04.jpg

[Megalith]

Software-decoded.

AKA it sucks, right.

[Schnoogs]

Software-decoded.

AKA it sucks, right.

Thats a good question...and hopefully it wasnt written by the Rootkit guy! ;)

[IagoTheHunted]

Just thought I'd throw this out there...

1080p by definition:

1920 x 1080 16:9 Progressive fps 23.976, 24, 29.97, 30

By definition the PS3 1080p games won't have to run at 60 fps. 720p is the only HD format that officially supports up to 60 fps progressively.

I have my 360 hooked up to a sony widesreen crt computer monitor and shit looks good (HD Component cable to a vga converter box). I have yet to see a jaggy. The kiosks at the stores look horrible compaired to a proper set up. I don't see what 1920x1080 would add to the look I'm getting right now. I'll take more fps any day...

Yeah that's another good point... though I'm not sure if the standard for the screen refresh rate is directly tied to the capability of a game to run at 60FPS... Though you wouldn't see 60 distinct images it could well be blurring together 2 images to make each of the 30FPS or whatever when it refreshes the screen, in which case you'd get a subtle motion blur like your eyes get actually looking at 60FPS... in other words functionally the same as 60FPS...

In general though I agree, FPS is more important, especially at these high resolutions.

[Schnoogs]

Theres a difference between the games frame rate and the displays refresh rate.

[atariv8]

1080/60p? Sony is making that shit up. All the Avid DS Nitris HD suites at my company (including mine) max out at 1080psf 30.00. I'll be going to NAB this year and I'll see if any format has been added to the HD standards list. Otherwise 1080/60p is just a digital output that will be only available with Sony TVs making it super rare.

[IagoTheHunted]

Theres a difference between the games frame rate and the displays refresh rate.

right I thought that was my point... wasn't it being said that the higher resolution standard (in TV hardware) had a FPS cap at 30? If not than nevermind.

[Schnoogs]

right I thought that was my point... wasn't it being said that the higher resolution standard (in TV hardware) had a FPS cap at 30? If not than nevermind.

I thought it was 60...thats a good question though...worth investigating.

[Balthasar]

I defy you to find ANY game developed exlusively for PS2 that was later made to look better on GameCube.
That's a trick question, because I don't think there exists any PS2 titles that were exclusive to that platform to then be ported to the GC.

Xbox gets better versions of PS2 games because it has better hardware and can boost performance a little bit for games like GTA or MGS
That would be my point. So we agree, then?

but MGS is a good example of a game that didn't look much better on Xbox when it really should have if you consider the difference in hardware. Ports just aren't optimal.
Never said ports were "optimal." I am simply arguing this postition you take that with the next gen there is going to be this huge sea change where 90% of games released will look identical to whatever comes out on the 360.

Also I thought we were talking about simultanious releases here??
I thought we were talking about cross-platform games, which implies simultaneous release or ports.

Your saying a game can't LATER be made to look better but that should be besides the point. Of course if the developers have an extra year they can make it look better.
Um, what? I didn't say that. Read my comment again.

[IagoTheHunted]

That's a trick question, because I don't think there exists any PS2 titles that were exclusive to that platform to then be ported to the GC.


That would be my point. So we agree, then?


Never said ports were "optimal." I am simply arguing this postition you take that with the next gen there is going to be this huge sea change where 90% of games released will look identical to whatever comes out on the 360.


I thought we were talking about cross-platform games, which implies simultaneous release or ports.


Um, what? I didn't say that. Read my comment again.

Hmm, ok your original comment is about cross-platform games in general, so I'll conceed that when there is NOT a simultanious release then there's as much room to re-work the game as the time given the developers between releases.

My point is just that this is far below optimal for any but the original system the game is developed for. The best games for any platform are developed and optimised on that platform, and anything less is a compromise that's going to influence the quality of the game. For the majority of cross-platoform games in the past this means only very superficial improvements from one platform to another, or more likely, downgrades, like with Splinter Cell.

[Balthasar]

For the majority of cross-platoform games in the past this means only very superficial improvements from one platform to another, or more likely, downgrades, like with Splinter Cell.
So we are in agreement, then? I didn't say that one game will look drastically different from another. I would contend the graphical differences between most of the games on the PS2 and XBox are "superficial," in that they don't have a significant effect on gameplay. I am simply contending that superior or otherwise "different" hardware will likely yield a game that will look different and (if graphics were ever a decider in consumer purchases) would still give a person pause before deciding which console to buy on (instead of defaulting to whatever console is cheaper).

[IagoTheHunted]

So we are in agreement, then? I didn't say that one game will look drastically different from another. I would contend the graphical differences between most of the games on the PS2 and XBox are "superficial," in that they don't have a significant effect on gameplay. I am simply contending that superior or otherwise "different" hardware will likely yield a game that will look different and (if graphics were ever a decider in consumer purchases) would still give a person pause before deciding which console to buy on (instead of defaulting to whatever console is cheaper).

OK fair enough then. I'll agree that there are differences between platforms significant enough to influence buying decisisions (I usually buy on Xbox even though I have all because it tends to be superior in framerate if nothing else) if you'll agree that those differences are small/superficial when compared to the difference between cross-platform games vs exclusive-hardware-dependant games in terms of quality on any single platform. IE the Xbox version of an all-systems game might be somewhat better, but that doesn't mean the PS2 doesn't have the potential for much greater things than either version if the game were designed for it from the ground up.

I guess in my mind that difference tends to dwarf differences between platform that are reletively small.

[Balthasar]

OK fair enough then. I'll agree that there are differences between platforms significant enough to influence buying decisisions (I usually buy on Xbox even though I have all because it tends to be superior in framerate if nothing else) if you'll agree that those differences are small/superficial when compared to the difference between cross-platform games vs exclusive-hardware-dependant games in terms of quality on any single platform. IE the Xbox version of an all-systems game might be somewhat better, but that doesn't mean the PS2 doesn't have the potential for much greater things than either version if the game were designed for it from the ground up.
Oh, of course. I agree with that. I'm pretty sure Shadow of the Colossus would not look as good on the PS2 as it does if it started out on the XBox first.

[bobbler]

Nobody see the irony in stating that 720p and 1080i are the sweet spots yet 1080p is impossible?

Maybe the few console devs hiding will catch it!