Remember all that hullabaloo when Halo 3 was revealed to only be running at 640p? It appears another high profile title is running at even LESS of a resolution (600p) on both the PS3 and Xbox 360.
According to Playstatic, who pulled the info from the Beyond3D Forums, Call of Duty 4 runs at 1024x600 resolution with 2x AA.
It's a slow news day so I figured I'd post this. It's just interesting to see that there is hardly any mention of this after the Halo 3 incident. And how does this effect how CoD4 looks? Doesn't seem to in the least bit as the game is drop dead gorgeous.
But, just like Halo, that IS a Hi Definition resolution. It is not the sharpest resolution, but that is Hi Def. If you really care what resolution your games are at, build a PC.
I think the significance of Halo 3 not being true HD is that it was Microsoft's baby. The same Microsoft (Sony is guilty too) of promoting the hell out of High Definition. Difference here is, this is Infinity Ward's baby and I don't believe they threw around any promises of true HD. Halo 3 still looks great as does COD4, though could look a tiny bit better if running true HD. It's just, when you start selling your system on buzz words like 720 and all that jazz than release the most anticipated game of the year in less, you kinda look funny.
edit - When I say "True HD" I mean the HD requirement that is accepted by the industry and is considered a standard for all things HD in that it must be atleast 720p to be considered true HD.
__________________
PSN: Durka-Dan
Reggie Bush: "I know how you Microsoft guys do, try to cheat."
It's like complaining if your car has less than 300 hp when you're at 280 hp. Seriously, if the car is a dream to drive, and looks great, who gives a SHIT that it's a few hp short of a particular number to brag about?
The next generation of gaming: bringing out the stupid in us all.
I will disagree, with the if no one noticed, it is OK. In this case you will not be able to tell the difference that those extra couple of hundred pixels make. But in the case of Bioshock, the difference is readily apparent with proper widescreen and without.
But, just like Halo, that IS a Hi Definition resolution. It is not the sharpest resolution, but that is Hi Def. If you really care what resolution your games are at, build a PC.
Mmmmm COD4 runs beautifully at 1900x1080p res on my PC
It matters because the whole crux of MS and Sony's argument was that hi-def was an indispensable must-have. And now the top premiere games for their systems can't even pull it off. It shows that they were talking a lot of bullshit like everyone with a brain knew. It makes the Wii's 480p look a lot more palatable when some of the best looking games are only 600p. And it also makes you wonder why these systems are so much if they are only outputting a barely better resolution than such an "inferior" system like the Wii.
It matters because the whole crux of MS and Sony's argument was that hi-def was an indispensable must-have. And now the top premiere games for their systems can't even pull it off. It shows that they were talking a lot of bullshit like everyone with a brain knew. It makes the Wii's 480p look a lot more palatable when some of the best looking games are only 600p. And it also makes you wonder why these systems are so much if they are only outputting a barely better resolution than such an "inferior" system like the Wii.
Well if you look at the textures, particles, animations and all that other jazz, its not really the same comparison.
__________________ Currently Listening To:
Protest the Hero
Arsis
Misery Signals
Darkest Hour
All Shall Perish
Nine Inch Nails
It's a slow news day so I figured I'd post this. It's just interesting to see that there is hardly any mention of this after the Halo 3 incident. And how does this effect how CoD4 looks? Doesn't seem to in the least bit as the game is drop dead gorgeous.
I honestly doubt anyone would know if you didn't tell them.
Personally, it depends on the game. Some I don't mind a lower framerate. For my money, it's just how the game looks. And I don't mean screen resolution.
Exactly.. although I'm more interested in "smooth and consistent" than "exactly 60FPS".
And I really wish people would stop harping on about how MS and/or Sony claimed HD was going to save us all from nuclear apocalypse. Surely now that it's the year 2000, people can separate the marketing hype from the real point.
Maybe it's not 'true HD', but it is running at higher-than-standard-def, which means that you do need a display capable of running at higher-than-standard-def resolutions in order to get the full effect. For most consumers, the simplest option is to buy a High-Definition Television in order to achieve that.
