X360 & 720p, oh wait... I'm an idiot...
 

Well this article speaks for itself, I definitely feel cheated. So much so that despite CoD3 being a visual marvel, I will send this back to my local FYE retailer. This is certainly unacceptable, hopefully I'll be able to exchange it for GoW.

Activision's CoD3 and THP8 not hitting 720p

Okay, first off, this thread title ("X360 and 720p, oh wait..." implies that the 360 is the cause of the problem) is incredibly misleading. And the post is missing the point, sort of.

This has NOTHING to do with Microsoft and EVERYTHING to do with Activision being a bunch of incompetent boobs who are content with releasing Tony Hawk games every year without putting any effort into the programming. The fact that they cut down on resolution doesn't mean the 360 can't handle it. Look at Gears of War, that game runs in 720p just fine. The issue here is that they apparently had to cut down to improve framerates, and considering the game apparently STILL has shitty framerates, there's really something wrong with the engine here.

Why are you returning Call of Duty 3 if it's not running in 720p? If it is a visual marvel even without hitting 720p, I'd say that's an accomplishment. Is it really that important that a set of 3 numbers and a letter that have no direct impact on gameplay be applicable to the game? Do you REALLY have to return the game? Since Mortal Kombat doesn't scale the game to 720p should you be demanding a refund for that? If you were talking about returning Tony Hawk, that's understandable, since again, I heard the framerates in that game were abysmal. But it's a really goddamn retarded idea to return a game that you yourself describe as a visual marvel just because the resolution isn't what you thought it was.

And in one last sidenote, most stores don't take back opened games. I've never shopped at FYE, so I wouldn't know, but you're probably stuck with the game. I highly doubt "It doesn't run in 720p" would be a valid reason for a service desk rep to give you the return.

The real question is: Who didn't know this happens with a lot of titles, and do you really think you'd notice if you didn't read the article? The scaler in the 360 works EXTREMELY WELL.

Which other games have you played that you're now going to return now? Did you know the beautiful PGR3 runs in 600p natively, and the 360 scales it up? You going to condemn that game too?

Here's a question. Does the scaling impact performance at all? Lets say the developers are making the resolution smaller for better framerates. Wouldn't the scaling have a performance hit and negate the hopefull performance increase from using a smaller resolution?

Why don't they just use the 360's native resolution so the 360 doesn't have to work more. ;|

The performance hit taken when rescaling content would be minimal at worst and almost non-existant at best. The 360 doesn't have to "work more". It's not harder to resize an image than it is to render it at a higher resolution.

Wow, this is geekery at it's proper worst.

If the game looks nice when you're playing it, surely that's all that matters? Who cares what resolution it's running at on paper?

This has to be about the most tragic thing I've read here in months.

Now I for one don't actually believe in arguing over the internet as it proves to be rather pointless. I'd rather it be done face to face but hey that's just me. :eyebrow: As for the matter concerning Activision/Treyarch cutting corners for a decent framerate, it's a matter of principle. Game developers sell us the idea of gaming in true HD and actually paying $60 for a game that isn't so and not to mention it's false advertising... isn't something that I support. Also if many recall back in May of 05, ATI revealed that every single Xbox 360 game will be required to run at a minimum of 720p resolution with 4x anti-aliasing. Now before Microsoft brands their products it has to be approved so clearly something is definitely wrong. Plus I remember stumbling over a thread long ago concerning at the AVS forums concerning the TCR for the X360 back when word got out on PGR3 not running in HD. Integrity doesn't exactly rank high on the list in this business but the line has to be drawn somewhere fellas.

You could have stopped here, then.

Come on, you can find a better cop out than that. Just because you realized your position on this argument is completely retarded and you can't really defend it worth a shit, it doesn't mean you have to pick the single worst defense EVER.

Cept that it's not "cutting corners". Do you understand how difficult it is to obtain high framerates on extremely detailed scenes? It's not child's play. If you have to get a decent framerate so the game is playable, having the image rendered at 80% of the regular resolution and then stretched to fit is a real good solution, and people wouldn't even notice. Especially people like you, who are obviously just reactionary. 20 bucks says you wouldn't have noticed if you didn't read the damn article.

It's not false advertising. An image at 600p stretched to 720p is still 720p. Nowhere in that press release does it say that the games have to run natively in that resolution.

I really wish people would understand how technology works before pretending to be experts on it. Just because you know what some numbers mean doesn't automatically mean you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Cept that, again, the approval process says nothing about NATIVE resolutions. You scale shit up and it'll save CPU cycles. The 360 may be powerful but it sure as shit ain't a super computer. I don't doubt the PS3 will also do this.

So the line is drawn when one idiot who doesn't understand how the technology works discovers that the only thing he knows is which number is bigger than another, and then goes apeshit.

If you're going to draw the line for SOMETHING, draw it for failure prone hardware or something.

It still outputs at 720p, I don't see what the fuck your argument is.

Hmmmm, this was fun.
Good talk fellas. :rolleyes:

Don't you go closing threads where the discussion hasn't ended, that's very bad manners.

I'm also still not seeing exactly what your problem is here. You're watching a game run at a decent framrate in the resolution you wanted. Why does it make a difference to you that the resolution is achieved through some subtle stretching rather than being rendered that way? Did you honestly only buy a 360 and some games because it was in HD? Are you incabable of enjoying games unless they are churned out by the console in native HD resolutions because you're gonna be an unhappy kid for a long time with that opinion. Is it that your tv is 7 feet across and you have superhuman eyesight that can detect the jagged edges on a stretched 600p image to the extent that it lessens your enjoyment of the game?

I and the posters of MW demand answers. Until you provide answers, this thread remains open.

If 720p is such a big deal to everybody, then how did these kids survive with a ps2 or a snes back in the day? I'd figure if high-res was so important, then PC games would dominate the graphics whores.

Does anybody here acutally have a tv that will do 720p or higher?

Back when I lived with my parents we had a 50 inch HDTV, yeah. Right now, on my own, I lack one, but that'll probably be rectified sometime shortly. And I'm willing to bet half or over half of the 360 owners here have one. Mo0 does, for example.

HD is EXTREMELY important in the coming generation, that's not the issue though.

Perception is reality. As long as a product is good and satisfies the perception that the customer got a good value, what else matters?

I understand you feel "slighted" T1249, but would you of even noticed had some article not tell you that the resolution was 600p as opposed to 720p?

Reading into the link, I can see some people are upset because Microsoft said it was a requirement that games be in at least 720p? Whether that be native or upscaled, I have no idea.

Any case, the point is lost is that the rules have to be bent sometime to ensure a better experience for the consumer. If they can't handle the # of polygons, particle effects, 8x AA, vertex shading, + other misc terms that I doubt any of us really know to make a smooth gaming experience - you do what you must.

If the end product looks good and is enjoyable, mission accomplished. Microsoft remember back in the day had "requirements" for XBLA games being a certain size so they could fit on little memory cards. I think SFII would have been too big for that. Definently the upcoming Symphony of the Night.

HD gaming is important because it's the next evolution in video display. The hardware console specifications has exceeded what the output display was capable of. No comparasion between the look of 420i versus 720p. Kid's survived back in the day with PS2/Snes because RCA inputs have been standard for an extremely long time. I believe they actually have a RCA -> Coaxial convertor for the PS2. (The same connector as the NES) I'd be afraid of how nasty FFX would look filtered through that input. :P

I bought a TV that does 720P/1080i. 1080p wasnt solid 2 years ago and was priced in the 5000+. I wonder now if it would be worthwhile to switch out TVs. Since potentially every game/movie I watch would look better.

If the lack of 720p pisses you off so much, don't play it. But that's just being anal retentive over quality, when you can perfectly enjoy the game without being a graphics whore.

I don't see the need to hop online and announce (and imply Microsoft's at fault) Activison are doing a poor job, giving them bad reputation just because you're anal retentive over it not running in a certain fucking resolution type and thus failing to meet your high-end demands to the point of returning the product.

They shut up and played their games instead of complaining about them online.

And video display is vitally important to gaming? No wonder all table top games, and card games, and the like suck balls... they don't even include video display!

Gimme a break. Pretty graphics are cool and all, but they certainly aren't central to gaming.

What's the title of this thread? What's the forum is it under?
Oh it's videogames. Sorry, Milton Bradley products are usually not discussed here.

Graphics are not the only thing that creates an immersive gaming experience but it's one of the most important and definently most noticable.

You tell me how well FFVII would have done if it had no CG and looked slightly better than Final Fantasy VI (ala Suikoden II).

And you are welcome to take your component video Xbox switch to Coaxial and tell me how "little" your gameplay experience is deminished.

Gimme a break.

My TV can, and outside of the obvious, I honestly cant tell a difference. Maybe its just my untrained eye.

I would've loved it. In fact, I enjoyed FF6 more than 7 because I thought the overall design was better. In fact, most old school games have stood the test of time as far as addictive gameplay due to good design.

Games are good based on good design not merely pretty graphics. Graphics are there to illustrate a concept. Look at games like tetris and dr. mario. They're both great games that do not rely on insane hi-res graphics... they rely on gameplay. I'd rather sit around and play Dr. Mario for hours than touch Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball (pretty graphics though) with a 10ft pole.

Graphics in games are a reflection of current technology, but the recent over emphasis on HD (when most everybody is still chilling at 640x480 on their old school crt) seems to be more important than good game design. Read a game doc or two, there are few places where it says, "insert pretty graphics here."

I just play my games on a 5 inch black and white tv with monoural sound.

There is no experience greater.

:lolsign: :cow: :doggy: :juggler: :aargh: :doh: :boxing: :ninja: :)


Graphics whores are really part of the problem in why games today are going downhill. I can't understand why someone would play a horrible game if it LOOKS PRETTY. I guess i'm the one of the few who still just wants to HAVE fun playing his games these days.

Uh, wtf dude. You're trying to bring the quality of cables into a matter of graphics. Composite, coaxial and the like only alter the graphics in certain ways, they aren't going to make the graphics of the game change drastically.

CG video wasn't possible on the SNES, where FF6 was made, and as it were on FF7, it was done. Technology, etc, is why VI looked different. Comparing one game to another like that when they're on different consoles and they've had limitations is pretty pointless.

Developers can only work with the console's and their limits to a certain point. You can't expect FF6 to have been revolutionary and superior to FF7 considering the amount of time they had between the two. Plus, they're on DIFFERENT CONSOLES which makes it an entirely new ball game.

And the xbox was issued with composite, so uh, I really don't know why you would want to go backwards to coaxial, or why you would want to compare actual game graphics to quality of game graphics. That's just stupid.

I don't dispute that at all. I'm the person who's first tactical RPG was Vandal Hearts on PS1. I liked it so much I hit the emulators and played the older ones..

I still stand that awesome HD graphics makes games more enjoyable and more immersive. If not, why do game reviews even include graphics and presentation as a review point then? It matters. Why does HD matter now and not matter 6 years ago? Because as long as there is more than 1 video game - comparasions are made. One game will look better than the other. Just because Gears of Wars is the most incredible looking game I've played doesn't mean the rest of it sucks ass either.

DOA Beach Volleyball is retarded. Can only come from the minds of peeps who can invent kasumi pillows. <rolls eyes>

Elixer:

lern2understandmypoint

Xbox360 = Designed for HD gaming 720P/1080i, consequently component video input.
PS2 = Designed for standard definition 480i, consequently RCA video input.

From Wikipedia regarding RF Modulators

Not hooking up the Xbox360 to a HD TV is the equilivent of hooking up a PS2 to Coaxial. It's uglier than intended.

I brought up the FF6 versus FF7 comparasion because a claim was made that graphics don't matter. My claim was that it does.

No one can deny that the CG in FF7 brought the product and other RPG's into the mainstream. Does it make FF7 a better game necessairly? No. Did it get more people to try it then if it looked like FF6? HELL YES

You have no idea the differences between RF -> RCA -> Component do you?

lern2spell

You said "xbox" not "xbox 360". Microsoft has official component cables available worldwide for the 360, so that isn't a problem. Xbox games look fine on composite, and that's why they're issued with them. The consoles can always look better visually with component, but it isn't essential.

No it's not. HDTV quality isn't required for the use of an xbox 360, nor should anyone feel obligated to own one in order to feel gratification out of getting a better experience from their console.

PS2 on coaxial looks like garbage, because it isn't supposed to be viewed on coaxial and adaptors only exist because people have outdated tv's. Just because someone doesn't have a HDTV does not mean they have an outdated tv, and it doesn't mean they should upgrade just to play with their 360.

The whole "QUALITY IS SUPERIOR, YOU MUST DO THIS, GAMING WILL NOT BE THE SAME OTHERWISE" thing you're bringing up is pretty lame. You can pretty much enjoy games on a standard tv, with component, without having some fancy shit to play 360 games with. It appears as if the op isn't the only person anal retentive over graphics and minorities which aren't by the developer's hand.

I fail to see how this relates to the op and him returning a game because it doesn't run at a certain high def resolution.

First of all, component comes in RCA format as well. The difference is visible but it doesn't necessarily mean a better quality all-round. 2D games look sharper on component and it's actually harder on the eyes to get used to it. Yes, it's clearer, but it's composite which blurs the jaggies and sprites.

Sometimes, quality isn't everything. And that's exactly the case here. Quality isn't everything, and you don't need to exceed yourself in having the best just to get the maximum out of your games. Buy a game, enjoy it, or don't buy it at all.

Did any of you even READ that block of my post? I know none of it was quoted.

Where is "visuals are everything" in there?

I'll stop extoling the virtues of HD versus SD since obviously that is making me a villian.

Have fun in however you want to enjoy your games. I'm happy with my HD gaming experience and soon to be 5.1 surround setup as well.

How good a game is for the most part comes down to personal preference. Considering one my favorite games to this day is Final Fantasy IV which isn't even a native SNES game but a NES port - clearly graphics are not the only thing.

However saying that graphics don't matter is a mistake. All other things being equal, I'd rather have better visuals than not have better visuals. Seem's like a ridiculous statement to make but it's just as outlandish as a statement such
as

of course SDTV's are outdated in comparasion to HDTV. It's like saying if someone bought a newly manufactored VHS player - the format is still outdated compared to DVD.

If you say WELL NOW, HDTV DOESN'T HAVE THE PENETRATION that DVD players do - I'll conceed that for right now but you are still going to be retarded when you revisit this thread a year from now.

Again:

1.) If graphics didn't matter, game reviews would not include Graphics (or presentation for that matter) as scoring criteria.

2.) If you do not have HD, you are not enjoying XBOX360/PS3 games the way the creator's intended. I don't think the artists created high resolution visuals and wanting for people to see their work not seen in the best possible light.

3.) Taking the exact same title, I have a better experience than you. This isn't I am having more fun playing Final Fantasy VII than you are playing Final Fantasy VI because my graphics are better. It's we are both playing Final Fantasy VII, my experience is better than yours.

4.) You are all confusing my posts with the OP's. Someone made a comment that 720P/HD gaming is not a big deal. I contest that it is. Am I pissed that Call of Duty 3 is 600P compared to 720P? Not at all. I can still tell you though that 600P is a whole hell of a lot better looking than 480P.

5.) We are not even comparing X game is better than Y game because of better graphics. I am saying X game is better than X game in high def vs standard def. Why people are arguing that fact makes no sense to me.

6.) Analogies like Component > Composite > Coaxial is meant to illustrate the gains and downgrades one would experience by not using the best possible output option offered by your respective gaming console.

They still sell SDTV's worldwide, brand new, and are still being made.

I'd hardly call them outdated, even in comparison to HDTV. The quality is better, but they've been the standard since the 80's, and I doubt they'll be going anywhere anytime soon.

HEY GUYS GEARS OF WAR ONLY SEEMS TO RUN AT 1024x576 BASED ON THE GAMESPOTS SCREENSHOTS IT MUST BE A CRAP GAME BECAUSE OF THIS AMIRITE?
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen004.jpg

Graphics Whores GTFO.

I was playing TMNT3 for NES the other day and marvelling how much MORE fun I found it than playing crappy latest generation games like Perfect Dark Zero. I was amused how my Xbox owning friend could only comment on how crappy the NES graphics were when I was busy marvelling how much more fun it was.

Also, I REALLY enjoy Chorno Trigger and FFIII (VI) much moreso than a number of games from later generations. e.g. FF VIII and Chrono Cross. I was very annoyed at people who whined about the graphics in CT when it was rereleased on PS1 because they obviously have no comprehension of gameplay.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike new games. I really enjoyed Metriod Prime and F-Zero GX but the hopped up graphics and 3D gameplay didn't make them surperior to their predecessors. Furthemore, it took Nintendo four tries at MarioKart to come up with a game which stands on par with the original.

I really think someone needs to draft a worldwide edict that relegates gaming technology back to it's 16bit side scrolling days for a decade so we can effectively purge the world of graphics whores and force game developers to focus on gameplay rather than pretty visuals.

Capcom for better or worse, have made two of their XB360 games nearly unplayable on a SDTV setup. Dead Rising and Lost Planet have unreadable text under SDTV resolution.

This is rumor but its possible that Red Steel for PAL countries will require progressive scan -> HDTV inputs to play as well for the Nintendo Wii.

This is a stacked argument as everyone knows that FFVIII and CC is completely owned by FFVI and CT.

Suikoden V, Xenosaga I, Final Fantasy X, Knights of the Old Republic, etc make better examples that story, gameplay, graphics can co-exist just fine.

I think the reason why those old games were so good was because they had nothing to offer but gameplay. Gameplay was the primary factor that made those old school games so compelling. If they could just get a little more of that gameplay in these new games with all the stunning visuals, I'd be a much happier gamer.

An example of a new game with pretty simple graphics that is awesomly fun... Wii Sports. I spent the weekend playing Wii Sports with my cousins. I haven't had as much fun with a multiplayer game since getting in fights over Mario Kart and Street Fighter II Turbo. The graphics on Wii sports are more simple than the Monkey Ball games. Some of the character models don't even have arms or legs.

I'm glad that at least Nintendo seems to know what's up. I'm sure that the Wii will have some fun games on it that are focused on awesome gameplay rather than window dressing.

(Not trying to be a fanboy here at all.)

You popele do realize that graphics were touted a lot back then too, right?

Remember Star Fox? SUPER FX CHIP WOWEE AWESOME KAPOW BANG WHIZZ. CHECK THIS OUT HOLY COW. Or Donkey Kong Country, or Yoshi's Island, or any of that jazz? Graphics have been pushed since FOREVER. It has nothing to do with what era you're in.

There were beautiful games back then too that had ZERO fucking gameplay content, just as there are now. The game's weren't BETTER, pound for pound. There was quality and there was shit, just like today. Graphcs always have been and always will be important.

All this "OLD SCHOOL IS BETTER HUR HUR BECAUSE BACK THEN THEY FOCUSED ON GAMEPLAY" talk is depressing when it's just flat out NOT TRUE. Yeesh.

That said I'm totally siding with Tony here. Graphics are important. They aren't the whole point but they aren't toss away bullshit like some of you are implying.

Would you have played Wii Sports so much if the characters had all been stick figures and the pins were all flat pieces of cardboard?

Would anyone be playing Zelda on the Wii if it was still the 2D overhead perspective with maybe 10 colors on screen, like in NES Zelda? (Color amount is probably wrong)

Skills has a point in that graphics aren't the devil, but at the same time it's bad when people overemphasize the graphics. Gears of War is an amazing-looking game, and they clearly spent a lot of time making sure it looked great. But at the same time, they also made sure the game PLAYED well. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a game looking great as long as the game plays great also. If you immediately dismiss a game because it looks great, something's wired backwards in your head.

Dude, have you seen the character models in Wii Sports? They look like unfinished Lego people. The emphasis of the game is not on graphics at all.

Nowhere did I state that quality graphics are the devil. I'm only saying that neglecting good gameplay and trying to make up for it with pretty graphics doesn't work.

And, many old school games have stood the test of time in that they're still incredibly fun to play, but their graphics obviously don't compare with stuff that's currently being released. There were a lot of solid games that had terrible graphics (ie Earthbound) but the design was so good that they were awesome anyways. Nowdays, good graphics should be a given. Every current gen console is capable of displaying beautiful visuals. And the quality of the titles shouldn't be based on whether or not they can be displayed in 720p or not. If high res graphics where a deciding factor in the quality of games, PC games would have had the market cornered years ago and home consoles wouldn't be able to compete.

But, Starfox and Donkey Kong Country did not play like a piece of shit. That's a basic difference there. I mean, why is Retro such a huge mania right now that Nintendo based a console around it, if not for the fact that something is lacking in current games?
And don't bring up Yoshis Island into a gfx vs gameplay debate. Ever.

I'm not saying any of those games were bad. In fact, I love all three. I'm using them as examples of graphical powerhouses. You may remember that, back then, those games were some of the most beautiful around. And you can be SURE that when they came out, the graphics were hyped to HELL AND BACK. Hell, I remember the ads. I remember the hype. Back then graphics were put into the spotlight like they are now.

If you want examples of games that suck but look great, look at the SNES version of Street Fighter Alpha 2. Or Dirt Trax FX. Those games ain't so good, but they sure as fuck looked nice. I'll even use the infamous 32X Doom port example. Looked pretty good considering what the thing could do, but fuck if the game wasn't shit. My point is that games that focused on graphics above gameplay aren't exclusive to this or the next generation. Neither are games that are both beautiful and play well, and games that are ugly as sin and play like shit.

Good job totally missing my point, by the way. You win. :thumbsup:

And lastly, this retro fad isn't just a gaming thing, pop culture is going through it like crazy right now. Walk into Best Buy and buy 80s cartoons on DVD. There are transformers G1 reissues figures that fly off the shelves. Grown men buy Nerf guns, people over the age of 20 buy Thundercats shirts from Hot Topic. It's not just a gaming thing, God damn. I'm willing to bet the people who are 8 to 10 now will be looking back fondly on the PS2 and Gamecube in 2017 when the PS5 is coming out. Nostalgia sells.

Double Post:
I agree with this, but it never has. Everyone here is making it out to sound like this is a recent phenominon when it's not. It's been happening since forever, basically.

And I'm willing to bet in 10 years, when PS2 stuff is old school, there will be some that hold up to the test of time. That are still fun, and still entertaining. You guys are totally making it out to sound like there won't be any, and that this entire gen is a throwaway now. And that's simply wrong.

Back then, Earthbound wasn't terribly hideous either. Sure, it wasn't, say, Chrono Trigger, but it wasn't as bad as some of the other games available either (Secret of the Stars, anyone?). It sure looks dated now, but back then it's no different than the rather plain visuals in, say, GTA 3 or something. It'll hold up because of the gameplay, and it'll have a bunch of people who remember it fondly. No different here.

I never meant to imply that they were, and the OP is a fucking moron, but that's beside the point. All I'm saying is that graphics have been important since the beginning, and they will continue to be for as long as games are played in their current form. To think it's any different now than it used to be is foolish.

Skills is correct. I hate these elitist people that keep saying videogames were better back in the days. People just so happen to love what they grow up with. It's called nostalgia. You'll eventually get over it and notice how modern games have actually improved in a lot of aspects. Even though I'm older than your typical "gamer", I seem to often enjoy playing games more than I did ten years ago.