Top
1120°

Bungie: ODST Won't Run At 720p

Bungie has confirmed that ODST will run at the same 1152x640 resolution as Halo 3, the game it's based on.
Speaking to 360 Gamer Magazine at a press event for the game on Monday, Bungie senior designer Lars Bakken said that while ODST does look prettier than Halo 3 did, the game engine itself has hardly changed since Halo 3.

Read Full Story >>
360-gamer.com
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Blaze9293836d ago

dammit. I hate that screen crop crap that happens with Halo 3 while playing split-screen on a HDTV. Was hoping they'd fix this with ODST.

Greywulf3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

If you could get away with releasing dlc with minimal effort and get top price for it, why not? Its not like the community cares about HD to begin with. Mark Rein from epic said that what? 40% of Xbox360 owners don't even have HDTV's to begin with?

Good job on their part though, remember Bungie lied about the res last time and got busted.

HD Gaming console Right LaChance?

DevastationEve3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

Nobody lied, Wolf. A lot of people just got confused with what happens in the system versus what gets put on screen.

Besides, remember how Sony promised all games 1080p 60fps?

Anyway, I'm pretty disappointed. If Lost Planet can be 1280x720 with 4x MSAA then I don't see why Halo 3/ODST can't either. I guess it's just how Bungie has developed their engine, I did read somewhere that it has to do with their HDR lighting engine and how many actual render passes it goes through (2x 1152x640 frames).

edit @ morganfell:

Again, you go with the "visual appearance" thing. Look dude, I can "say" that a 640x480 game "visually appears" better than a 1920x1080 game...but will I make any sense in saying it??? Nope! What you're "seeing" is pixels. Hence fewer pixels mean less image quality. So your conclusion is incorrect.

3836d ago
morganfell3836d ago

I agree with comments below that if this were Sony then they would be getting lambasted by quite a few publications not to mention persons I this site.

That said, resolution is not king. GTA4 on the PS3 ran at a lower resolution yet it is the better looking of the two console versions. Visual appearance > numbers.

Once Upon a Fable3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

"GTA4 on the PS3 ran at a lower resolution yet it is the better looking of the two console versions"

lol

Eurogamer Xbox 360/PS3 GTA4 comparison

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

Here's even more Irony, Xbox 360 version of GTA 4 runs at 720p, PS3 version runs at 640p, as you can read in the article. Eurogamer also confirms Xbox 360 as the lead platform for GTA 4 in the comparison article.

ape0073836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

"GTA4 on the PS3 ran at a lower resolution yet it is the better looking of the two console versions"

my god, I got BOTH VERSIONS,im not a fanboy to 360 or ps3,gta 4 ps3 is nearly crippled,blur,AA,framrate,fuzz iness,if u get at high speed at the brooker bridge,you may just throw up,360 version looks\plays much better,gta 4 360 is simply without a shadow of a doubt the version to get,Im not gonna even start talking about the dlc

one of the worst ports I've ever seen

morganfell3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

Here is a chance for you to save face and edit your uninformed comment. Otherwise, once I get home and off this iPhone I will have to list all of the quotes from places such as Team Xbox and IGN.

BTW, IGN > Eurogamer.

Trollimite3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

halo is the flagship title on the 360. halo made the xbox what it is today!

yakuza is a good franchise, and SF4 is a multiplat.

name one major ps3 exclusive that wasnt 720p or higher

Once Upon a Fable3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

Morganfell I've owned both versions and just proved it in a raw comparison.

PS3 version was blurrier, more jaggies and more washed out looking, less in resolution and Xbox 360 was the lead platform.

What do you mean Sam Houser saying he thought PS3 looked "softer" or whatever so the PS3 version would sell?

I have owned both, and 360 is easily the better version, I also just proved it with an in depth comparison.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

ape0073836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

bubbles up for saying the truth,I've been saying that for a long time,I got disagreed,one bubble brust and even some replayed and said that the ps3 version is better,I couldn't believe that

resi5 on 360 had better sharper graphics and runs much smoother,ps3 resi5 had framrate issues,some muddier textures here and there and yet some guys here says"I didn't see any drop in framrate"

really sad,fanboys couldn't accept the truth,even some 360 die hard fans say that resi5 looks better than kz2,resi5 looks amazing but kz2 is too good to be true graphically

@morganfell

"BTW, IGN > Eurogamer."

lol how fanboys kid themselves,IGN were lying about gta 4,I got the ps3 version first cause of ign,tha was one big fat lie

Hoolock3836d ago

Halo 3:ODST has been a Bungie side project whilst they have devoted most of thier time to the production of Reach and its new engine. ODST has had a very small team of 20ish people working on it over the past year and a half. Im not overly suprised that the game isnt running in 720p as all thier tech head engine devs will be hard at work on Reach whilst ODST was produced for the fans to play whilst they wait for the new game.

ThanatosDMC3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

I agree. GTA4 on the PS3 was blurry. I also bought the PC version on Steam. It's a ton better... only thing i have is sometimes it freezes into a black screen then my PC shuts down. Probably over heats... meh. I need a new cooling system.

The Wood3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

yea AclayPS3, when did 'Sony' say that. Ive got my link but im dying to see yours

Aclay3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

I guess the thing about Halo 3 and Halo 3: ODST is that they both sacrifice the HD Resolution for Gameplay. ODST could have probably been at 720p if Bungie wanted, but if so, the game might not support the same amount of multiplayer options.

Either way, I'm not really surprised by this because it's probably using the same Halo 3 engine, but at the same time considering other shooters that have came out and have set the bar visually after Halo 3, I think a lot of people were expecting ODST to at least run at 720p native and look a lot better than Halo 3 since ODST is coming out 2 years later.

DevastationEve3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

http://megagames.com/news/h...

They also promised having dual hdmi ports, lol.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2...

trolling...in an Xbox 360 article? when i have an Xbox 360? and Halo 3?

NotSoSilentBob3836d ago

"Besides, remember how Sony promised all games 1080p 60fps? "

Sony Never said that. They said the Ps3 would SUPPORT 1080p with 60fps, I suggest you stop trolling and use facts.

Trollimite3836d ago

bullshit... mgs4 was 1080p

Greywulf3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

I remember sony having games that run in native 1080p lines of resolution, at 60fps. While the 360's flagship titles have yet to see 1080p in any form. -- But my comment wasn't about that.

Point is that "HD-GAMING" is a joke as a concept and a buzzword. Because it doesn't matter, and its not accurate.

Sony doesn't justify microsofts mistakes and technical shortcomings, and Sony has nothing to do with this DLC being billed as a full game when the developers said otherwise. Microsoft's biggest franchise isn't HD. What does that say for "HD" consoles? That yep, it doesn't matter at all.

As Omega said, the resolution doesn't matter. I expect to see this same sentiment in all future comparison threads as well. That resolution doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with graphical power/gameplay either. Stop trying to look at others to explain your failures, and you'll solve your own problems.

Killzone2 is the most advanced gaming engine out on consoles, only runs at 720p, and even if it ran in HaloSubHD it would still look phenomenal.

Resolutions don't matter.

Its like you get an F on a test, and its supposed to make you feel better because someone else got an F? Please. Especially when someone else is home of the most advanced games known to the console world.

Bnet3433836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

trollimite, MGS4 was not 1080p, it wasn't even 720p. It was upscaled. Even the guy above me agrees with me, you don't know what your talking about troll you troll.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

MGS4 is 1024x768. HD is 1280x720. Nice try kiddo, MGS4 was sub HD. Google it.

http://www.gamezine.co.uk/n...

4th paragraph stating MGS4 run a sub HD res.

PS3 review of MGS4 stating the sub hd res of MGS4:

http://www.psxextreme.com/p...

Full list of sub HD games and others including MGS4 stating it's has a sub HD:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/s...

I can keep going, but I'm not. I'm outta here. The only people who care about this are fanboys.

morganfell3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

http://xbox360.ign.com/arti...

"For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud."

Whoops.

If you noticed my first comment started off in defense of Bungie but certain pro 360 elements were determined to turn me against them. Okay, you get your way.

As has been stated, HALO is the flagship and should outshine everything else or at minimum, be on par with it.

I guess they are avoiding what they did with HALO 3. Remember?

Marcus Lehto says that is their game "That's real stuff out there"

http://www.gametrailers.com...

...but the version we got looked nothing like that. There are dev teams that can hit targets and then there are dev teams that cannot.

And for the record Kigmal, you have been deeper in this thread than anyone. So that nametag you throw at others suits you bets of all.

CobraKai3836d ago

I actually agree with you. Granted GTA4 ended up being sub-hd on ps3 I preferred it on that system. On 360 the backgrounds had like a painted effect that was not on the PS3. TBH I didn't even know that it was sub-hd until people started making a fuss.

As for Halo, it was the same thing, I couldn't tell that it was sub-hd until someone actually took precious minutes out of his life to count the lines of resolution. With ODST I think it should still look good regardless of 640p. My main disappointment with Halo3 was that the game did not come close to matching the target render of the teaser.

The only time I can tell it is not HD is when it's 540p. Games like Ninja Gaiden 2, Haze, and Star Ocean look really low res.

DevastationEve3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

Greywulf, where did I blame this all on Sony? You just keeping trying to counter my comments and sound foolish in the end...

It also has nothing to do with Microsoft how a developer chooses to build their game or game engine.

Sales and popularity is all that matters...when KillZone2 gets to where Halo 3 is wake me up. Then you'll be able to tell me that Guerrilla's much overhyped answer to Halo 3 has gotten anywhere. Especially since PS3 gamers touted it as having devine graphics, yet even that didn't make much of an impact in the end.

Not like the pop icon and celebrity status of Master Chief.

edit @ linux guru:

You mean Sony didn't even have to promise you 1080p 60fps gaming and you STILL bought it @ $600??? Man you ps3 fanboys are even more hopeless than I thought! Hell, to get ME to spend that much you'd have to promise me at LEAST 2 HDMI ports, as well as 4D gaming!

...wait. Lol.

edit @ greywolf:

You don't get it and it's becoming really tedious now. That statement does not BLAME Sony for anything. It calls them out on what they claimed back then. It's tit for tat: you said Bungie got caught lying about Halo 3's resolution, well so has Sony with its claims to 4D gaming and whatnot. It doesn't infer any blame to anyone for anything, now do you get it?

Please tell me you get it :\

edit again:

And yes, Microsoft is heavily interested in Bungie and their success with Halo. But Halo 3 is a Bungie title, published under Microsoft Game Studios, but still it's Bungie's work. Whether or not it's collaborative, it's still Bungie's ip.

You tell me how Guerrilla got its act together for KillZone 2 WITHOUT Sony's backing...both games were HEAVILY backed by the platforms they were exclusive to.

LinuxGuru3836d ago

1080p60fps was absolutely NEVER promised on PS3 games. It was presented as a GOAL and a future DESIRE for PS3 development.

NEVER was it a promise. I'm sick and tired of idiots pulling non-factual "stuff" out of thin air and calling it fact because a bunch of other misinformed idiots have said it too.

Arthur_3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

---but will this stop it from selling a BAZILLION copies day one? Nope.

People are still playing Halo 3 in HUGE numbers, daily.
Its not THE prettiest game, no, but I dont think people are checking out the scenery either. And if they are, they prolly arent very good at the game---too busy getting shot up. lol.

GUNS N SWORDS3836d ago

"Trollimite

@ kingmal again
bullshit... mgs4 was 1080p "

the game runs at 1024x768 with 2xaa, (if you wip out your desktop calculator and type "1024 times 768 and push " = " it'll say "786432" that's the pixel count. ( 1280 x 720p is 921600 pixels )

few people can tell the differences cause most don't have the equipment to see or the knowledge of understanding how many jagged edges or pixels does it take to be classified 720p. (even 720p has jagged edges, so it's hard to tell what looks 720p and what doesn't)

if you have a nice tv you wont see the differences of any resolution, if your good at calibrating your tv you can make any game look astounding.

Greywulf3836d ago

ApocalyPS3 asks:
"Greywulf, where did I blame this all on Sony? You just keeping trying to counter my comments and sound foolish in the end... "

ApocalyPS3,
"Besides, remember how Sony promised all games 1080p 60fps? " <-- This was your first comment??!?! o_O?

Remember when you brought sony up in this first comment? Its hard to tell but yeah, you wrote "remember how SONY promised all games 1080p 60fps." Thats why I said Sony has absolutely nothing to do with anything, after you brought it up. No one said blame at all.

Yes, Microsoft has something to do with Halo. They invested 30 million dollars into its advertising. Which is why I said its a technical shortcoming by Microsoft. Since its their game, for their system. They have a ton to do with Halo, which is why they threw THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS at its advertising budget.

What else do we have, oh i see we ran out of poignant arguments so now we are onto sales & popularity? Yes, you get sales for titles when you spend 30 million dollars on advertising for a single console game, with a audience that has had the console for a previous year earlier than other consoles. Master Chief is the only Icon for the 360, and it has been since the Xbox1. Because Microsoft would rather spend 30 million on advertising, dlc, "stealing" exclusives as Kotaku/Edge put it, and horse armor rather than new IP's. Sony doesn't rely on 1 gaming franchise, which is why MGS4 moved more consoles than GTA4 did, and which is why Sony has released more exclusive higher rated games than the 360 in the past 2 years. Killzone2 is a better game than halo for me, its fresh and new. Better graphics and 32 players online. As a gamer, I care about gameplay more than sales & popularity. I have more fun with modern games over Halo & its SubHD resolution. I mean give me at least 700 lines.

JBaby3433836d ago

Sony never promised all games would run at 1080p 60fps like you say. They said it would be capable of it and it has proven through many games that it is capable.

pixelsword3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

- on the back of MGS4's box it states 720p; so unless I get some concrete evidence from Konami myself, I'll have to believe them over you and the "internet professionals".

***************************** ****************************** * *********
***************************** ****************************** * *********

- Multiple reviews for GTA IV said the PS3 version looked better, so there's no reason for further talk there; but I will quote from more than one top-quality professional source:

IGN: GTA IV Looks Better on PS3 than Xbox 360
"For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud. "
http://news.teamxbox.com/xb...

1up.com: "the PS3 version has the slightest visual edge, plus motion-control support"
http://www.1up.com/do/revie...

Gamepro.com: "EDITORS' NOTE: The PlayStation 3 version of Grand Theft Auto IV is largely the same as its Xbox 360 cousin, but there are a few key differences. The game runs at a slightly lesser resolution, resulting in a slightly "softer" look, but the game still looks crisp and vibrant. We also noticed deeper, more robust use of color throughout the PS3 game, though these findings could likely be replicated on the Xbox 360 version by fiddling with your television's video options. The PS3 version also has noticeably less "draw in" than the Xbox 360 version, which means it's rarer to see trees or buildings pop into view on the PS3."
http://www.gamepro.com/arti...

Gamespy: "For those who have to decide between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions, we should mention that these flaws are slightly less noticeable in the PS3 game."
http://ps3.gamespy.com/play...

These are by some of the most professional game sites out there and eurogamer, once again, is telling the opposite story; just like they did when MGS4 came out. View

shadow27973836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

@ApocalyPS3,
Doesn't Wipeout HD run at 1080p 60 fps? Yeah. Case Closed.

I'm actually surprised that this is the same engine. Obviously it was meant to be DLC, but by my eyes, ODST looks much better than Halo 3.

Resolution is probably the most over-hyped gaming statistic ever, though. As long as it's significantly above 480p, it looks good to me. Now playing Next Gen games in Standard Definition on a High Definition capable TV set absolutely sucks, in my experience. But MGS4 and GTA4 both look pretty good on my TV, so I can't really complain about sub-HD resolutions.

The Wood3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

http://www.gamesindustry.bi...

http://uk.gamespot.com/news...

Big difference if you look for the truth and not run with headlines then regurgitate nonsense on top of more nonsense. I could say that MS promised RROD was something experienced by the 'vocal minority' or greenberg promised at the start of the year that the 360 has 'Many unannouced games for 09 because they like to 'underpromise and overachieve'...... and theres been jack **** but halo wars but thats not my point. My point is that we should not listen to everything one side says yet somehow ignore what the other side says. Dont be so onesided or naive. Every company makes false claims but at least quote actually quotes and speeches before you try and pass of dodgy reporting as truth.

Bnet3433836d ago

pixelsword don't be dumb. Look at the back of Halo 3's box. It says 720p 1080p 1080i and we know it's sub HD. They aren't going to put it's sub HD on the back. Look at the back of all sub HD games, they don't have 680p, they just have 720p. MGS4 is sub HD. The proof is there. It's native res is not HD just like halo 3's and hazes and yakuza 3 and sfiv ps3 and gtaiv ps3 and tales of vesperia ps3 and ng2 360.

LinuxGuru3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

"Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi has claimed that the PlayStation 3 will be capable of running games at an unprecedented 120 frames per second - and suggested that future television technologies will support these refresh rates. "

The key phrase there is "WILL BE CAPABLE". He didn't promise that all games would be 120fps...he said the PS3 would support the tech down the road...that's a far cry from a promise.

Saying it's CAPABLE is not the same as saying the tech will be implemented or USED, even.

pixelsword3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

I found definite proof on MGS4 being sub-HD or not, so I'm done asking. MGS4 being sub-HD is correct, but Kigmal is just one of those people who barfs out internet facts without actually knowing where to look; which is pathetic. The reason why MGS4 can put down 720p is because it is 720p on a non-16:9 ratio; meaning it can qualify as 720p *if* the television you're using was HD *and* not 16:9: meaning if you used something like Wide XGA, it could technically qualify, which I don't fully understand why that is because even that doesn't match it's resolution.

Back to the original comment.

How is asking for proof being dumb? Halo can put that on there because it upscales, get it? Otherwise you can visually tell some of the time that Halo 3 is sub-HD, which requires no further proof. You can't tell if MGS4 is sub-HD visually, so I need proof from a credible source, not some geek with an agenda.

If Konami is using a technique like the PS3 version of GTA IV looks better than the 360 version of GTA IV, and states so, then that would be acceptable proof that it is actually sub-HD.

topdawg1223836d ago

@ ApocalyPS3
You're fanboyism is annoying, just stop. Sales and poplularity aren't the only thing that matter for a game to be good.(LBp, Ico, Shadow of Colossus?)
"Not the pop icon and celebrity status of Master Chief"
Ha ha lol, man that was hilarious, master chief a pop icon like Michael Jackson! Oh dude thats pretty funny

FamilyGuy3836d ago

It was supposed to be DLC so this is not surprising in the least. Built on the same engine to look like the same game, it just happened to "get big enough for a retail launch".

BattleAxe3836d ago

Isn't 640p what HAZE runs at?

lsujester3836d ago

This thread reminds me of the directv commercial, with its million-eighty P.

"Oops, looks like someone just leveled the playing field."

menoyou3836d ago

Pretty pathetic considering the game has poor visuals, animations, fx, etc. plus the fact that they've had the 360 for many years now. Bungie is a mediocre developer.

ShabzS3836d ago

good god ... go play some video games people ... typing and hunting down links from google is fun but... come on ...

Dareaver13836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

I personally think Halo looks great. And at sometimes, looks incredible....

Here are some pics from the multiplayer, which we all know is usually downgraded from the campaign, and they look awesome....

In game baby, in game, and un-retouched.

Dareaver13836d ago

How could you hate this game....

Check this video out.... It's awesome, and it's all in the name of fun. Be forwarned, it start off slow. All the action comes in after about a minute and seven seconds.

zag3836d ago

"GTA4 on PS3 looks blury at speed and you don't get this on 360"

Um, The blur is a speed blur it's meant to be there to show that your going really fast, you know whoosh 200mph 400kph what ever.

If the 360 doesn't have that then it doesn't have all the PS3 versions features.

Immortal Kaim3836d ago

ODST won't run at 720p...who cares? It should still be a decent game, no matter the resolution.

The Lazy One3836d ago

I don't know why anyone would expect them to make changes that deep in the engine for ODST. Reach is the game where I'd look for actual engine changes.

likedamaster3836d ago

It's just the fanboys on here that make it a big deal. Halo 3 looks phenomenal, it's no slouch in the graphics department and that's with co-op no less.

FlamingBozo3836d ago

ODST was sure at first just DLC but now the single player is actually longer than what Halo 3 was.... so really theres nothing wrong with them releasing it as retail.... Its the same thing as what happened with L4D 2, they start to work on DLC and the next thing they know is that its bigger than the original....

@Blaze

the screen crop doesnt happen because its not at 720 it happens because bungie decided that they felt the game worked better if that happened and i actuallly agree... I hated it when on a widescreen tv each player would be forced to have tunnel vision or short but to wide of view depending on where the two screens split... so what the cropped screens allow is that both player have a equal amount of screen to everybody else

Sarcasm3836d ago

"It's just the fanboys on here that make it a big deal. Halo 3 looks phenomenal, it's no slouch in the graphics department and that's with co-op no less."

LMAO

Sorry. But Halo 3 looked like doo doo. Literally. Did you even look at the character models? They looked like doo doo textures plastered with jaggies. It has some decent HDR lighting, but that's about it.

It can be said though, graphics isn't everything. That's why millions still play Halo 3 online because of the gameplay. It's fun, that's why they could overlook the presentation's shortcomings.

But to some, presentation is key to an overall experience. Why not have excellent gameplay, as well as mind blowing graphics. That's what games like Uncharted or Killzone 2 delivers.

Or heck, it doesn't even have to have "mind blowing, shatter your world" graphics. Just as long as it's up to par with other games in the same generation. Like Battlefield BC. Sure it has some aliasing. Sure some of the animations aren't that great. But at least it has great textures, tons of destructability, and great gameplay.

So what's my point? I'm defending why Halo 3 is 640p and why most people really just don't care. But I'll stick to my guns and say it looks like crap at least in comparison to other games like Gears of War or Killzone 2.

But lastly, developers like Bungie needs to get through their skulls, that people who spend their money EXPECTS higher quality graphics and gameplay. They need to push the envelope and not accept mediocrity.

Mu5afir3835d ago

Sony NEVER stated all games would run at 1080p and 60fps. They stated, games COULD run at 1080p and 60fps.

+ Show (46) more repliesLast reply 3835d ago
whateva3836d ago

by the media and fanboys.

MiloGarret3836d ago

Because MS and Bungie haven't taken a masive amount of crap for this matter before, and probably will again?

Right?

Read... Think... Comment...

not Comment... blank... blank...

Perjoss3836d ago

god of war and GT5 are full sequels with a big gap since last games in the series, odst is kind of a spin off expansion. Having said that i hate the low resolution like they had in halo3, gta4 & ghostbusters on ps3, this is 2009, i have an xbox and ps2 if i want to play in low res :(

3836d ago
Once Upon a Fable3836d ago

Shadow Flare take the delusional nonsense to the open zone please.

3836d ago
Hoolock3836d ago

This is an expasion of a game that never ran in HD before, not to say the resolution couldnt of been increased but they are using the same engine. If Reach is announced to be running Sub HD then many people would be annoyed.

PAPERCHASER03963836d ago

You are correct... Whenever a Ps3 exclusive runs below 60fps or anywhere below 720p It get's crapped on with media attention.. oh and don't let it perform a smidgen less than a multi-plat and you will wish there was a pop-up blocker on this site when the articles hit..lol Some people are so biased it's not even funny one minute pixels matter the next they dont wth!

wbouler3836d ago

Anytime its something wrong with XBOX 360 its wiped under the rug but put the same claim on PLAYSTATION 3 and its the worst thing ever to happen to the gaming industry

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3836d ago
Omega43836d ago

As long as it still plays good and is still fun, thats all that matters to its millions of fans.

People only focus on graphics when they got no good gameplay

Greywulf3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

For the rest of your stay on n4g.

As well as all the other "faithful". Thanks for stating that.

Mr_Bun3836d ago

Could you be any more hypocritical?

Johnny Rotten3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

lol, bookmarked for later hypicritical replies!

The Wood3836d ago

*drags article to bookmarks* too easy

IdleLeeSiuLung3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

I kind of agree...

Graphics is important, but more importantly is the game-play.

Is the game is a graphical marvel, but the game play is poor, would that compel you to buy it?

edit: as Omega stated below, comparison between two (or more) almost identical games is completely different, because they both are more or less the same experience. However, to most it is insignificant as nobody would probably notice the differences unless you are playing Ghostbuster!

edit2: Mr Bun, do you seriously think it is ok for Ghostbuster to have subpar release on the PS3? You should be outraged at how Terminal Reality did a disservice to all PS3 gamers. Clearly the PS3 is capable of so much more!

Omega43836d ago

What are you guys on about, when have i ever said graphics > gameplay

Graphic comparisons of the same game on different consoles is a completely different story

Mr_Bun3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

OMFG!....I am still floored at your first response.

You are completely oblivious to your own fanboyism... *shakes head*

Most of your comments have been deleted (I'm sure it's unrelated), but you were one of the first to jump on the "Bash Ghostbuster for being only 3/4 the resolution of the 360" wagon

f7897903836d ago

you would think Bungie would be able to get the game to run at 720p. Plenty of other games do it fine.

Omega43836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

@ Mr Bun

Are you silly? IF and ONLY IF Halo 3:ODST was on the PS3 and the PS3 version ran at a better resolution would bad mouthing the 360 be justified, the fact the PS3 hasnt proved it can run H3:ODST better than the 360 you cant complain.

Ghostbusters was on both consoles so it should be the same but it wasnt hence the reason i can claim the PS3 is worse. Is that so hard for you to comprehend.

Edit: @ Johnny Rotten
Im not claiming the actual game is worse, im claiming a console is "worse" at handling the same game.

Johnny Rotten3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

Omega why does something need to be claimed "the worse" because of graphics when I quote:

"As long as it still plays good and is still fun, thats all that matters to its millions of fans.
People only focus on graphics when they got no good gameplay"

was Ghost Buster's not fun on the other systems? did the lower pixels make it unfun to play? maybe your reasoning behind "justifying" why something is good or not does not line up with my views I guess.

PS: I'm not trying to be rude, just curious.

The Wood3836d ago

Johnny Rotten

fun goes out the window when something is a lower res.... didnt you know. He is being what he has always been.... a hypocrite

Pennywise3836d ago (Edited 3836d ago )

But it is a big deal when a multiplatform game has more cracks in the concrete on the 360 version. Thats what makes a game better... cracks in the concrete.

That is why you have been called hypocritical.

@above omega - The CONSOLE isnt worse... its the stupid developers and coders. When will you realize that. Uncharted, KZ, GT, and all the true PS3 exclusives CRUSH your favorite consoles graphics. If it wasnt for the devs to keep the playing field as equal as possible for the both versions we would be enjoying the PS3 at its most potential when it comes to multiplatform games.

Its funny how the PS3 stays right on the same line of graphics with multiplatform games when the code used to run the game on the system isnt even utilizing its hardware. How hard is it to realize this?