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.