30°

Sub-HD 360 games have been around for years; was 720p ever a requirement?

It's said that Microsoft has dropped their previous requirement of 720p for Xbox 360 games, even though sub-HD games have been released for the console since its launch.

Black Rock Studio's David Jefferies has revealed that Microsoft previously required all Xbox 360 games to be rendered in a 1280x720 resolution.

It is now reportedly the case that developers are free to make the trade-off between resolution and image quality as they see fit on the Xbox 360 - an option that has been open to PlayStation 3 developers since launch.

However, Halo 3 wasn't the only game to feature a sub-HD resolution before this requirement was apparently dropped.

Read Full Story >>
gamezine.co.uk
SonySoldiers5409d ago (Edited 5409d ago )

PLEASE APPROVE THIS ARTICLE NEWS! WE NEED TO RESURFACE THIS SO IT WOULD HURT XBOTS AND AMERICAN FOOLS

JAPAN SONY MUST WIN, AMERICA MICROSOFT MUST LOSE

BUY PLAYSTATION 3 NOW

DTClown5409d ago

Next thing you know they will require devs to put their games on retro DVD discs..oh wait....

techie5409d ago

There are just as many sub-hd games on the ps3.

marison5409d ago

There's no such thing. Developers could do on PS3 whatever they want. On Xbox 360 is more easy get at least 2x antialiasing due to the eDRAM + framebuffer logic. I do not understand why so many fanboys are bytching about this.

techie5408d ago

Yes people shouldn't really be b*tching about it.

darthv725409d ago

I just want to play games not worry if the native res is or is not matching what my display can do. I think some people just dont like gaming enough to just sit back, relax and play. This gen its all about the pixel counting and it is ruining the experience for me.

If no one ever told me that a game was sub hd or exceeded native res of a screen I wouldnt even care. To me it is all about how much fun you have playing it. I expect quality color saturation and clarity from my movies because they are linear and meant to be played the same each time. Games are to random in their course of events and so I am more interested in how the storyline flows instead of how much detail I see in the clothing the character is wearing.

People need to stop making this such a big thing.

techie5408d ago

Depends on the title. Ghostbusters on PS3 looked awful. They changed it.

100°

Infamous Franchise Deserves Another Chance From PlayStation

Sucker Punch rejuvenated the superhero genre with Infamous, a series that focused on the pure fun of wielding destructive powers.

Read Full Story >>
tech4gamers.com
shinoff21832d ago

Atleast release a remaster trilogy or something to gage interest. I'd buy it. With that said I'm pretty over superheroes at this point. Infamous is still dope as fk though so it'd be a buy

isarai1d 22h ago

Omfg i would go apesh!t for that 😩

jznrpg2d ago

I agree but games take 4-6 years to make so who knows when they would do it? After Ghost of Tsushima2? They could have something else in the world as well in early production who knows.

mkis0072d ago

It's a shame Sucker Punch finally figured out a good open world formula only while making Ghost of Tsushima. Infamous 1 and 2 were great for their time, but Second son felt too much like a checklist in It's design. I love the hell out of all 3 games (2 and 3 are just so damn good, while 1 shows it's age and the ps3 struggles), but I would love to see how they would do another infamous with all they have learned. Wouldn't hurt to release a remastered collection either.

Demetrius2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

This series, days gone, will continue to get ignored by sony, luckily we still have the horizon series, sly cooper not getting pushed anymore, speaking of that I'm bout to get on my ps2 and play some sly 2 anyways lol, but seriously I never woulda thought back then sony would ever cold shoulder most of their franchises I'm actually surprised they're still letting ratchet&clank be around

Show all comments (8)
80°

Why Far Cry 3 Was The Best Of The Franchise?

Far Cry 3, an open-world masterpiece that redefined the series. Gameplay and storyline makes it a timeless classic that still inspires today.

Read Full Story >>
tech4gamers.com
Deeeeznuuuts4d ago

It's gotta be Far Cry 2 for me, the feeling of that game I'm still yet to find again, just everything about it, I'd kill for a remaster, I'd even be happy with just a bump in resolution and frame rate, occasionally go back to it, think I'm gunna have to do just that now 😂

porkChop4d ago

A remaster of Far Cry 2 would be amazing, especially with the mods that fixed the broken stealth system and the dumb checkpoint respawns. Include those fixes and it would be a huge upgrade over the original.

JEECE4d ago

Enemies respawn in Far Cry 2? Terrible! It's a broken system! Make me a one-man army who can inexplicably hold an entire region!

Enemies respawn in Dark Souls and Zelda? Brilliant! So much more hardcore! Glad the devs took risks!

porkChop4d ago

The problem isn't them respawning. It's that they respawned after just 5 minutes. Like you'd still be in the area looking for diamonds, loot, exploring, etc, and the enemies would just respawn with you there.

220°

Red Dead Redemption 1 Isn't As Good As People Remember It To Be

RDR 1 was a great game, but the lack of screen time for some characters, boring horse riding, and lack of mission variety takes away the fun at times.

Read Full Story >>
tech4gamers.com
jambola6d ago

Yeah
It's as good as you remember
Feels like one of those "10 HARSH realities of Re-watching" articles

just_looken5d ago

I love how it seems a extreme few remember that red dead redemption is red dead revolver 2.

red dead revolver now that is rough red dead redemption for its time was groundbreaking and it still has way better cover system/dlc/mp content then red dead 2.

I remember all the bugs the game had day one like donkey lady so dam funny

Cacabunga5d ago

RDR1 is a legendary game!!!

Really how to cope with a slow news day…

just_looken5d ago

@caca

I know i said that

Oh boy let me guess no one here knows what red dead revolver is

Or you all never played version 1.0 of rdr 1 i bet its that so many on here have the stench of being in gaming for 10 years at most.

Cacabunga5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

Stop pretending being superior in knowledge to everyone else..

The article title is about RDR1 and the thumbnail also confirma that. No one (at least i dont) care about what you say about RDRev.

You are the only one who spoke off topic abt another game.
If it makes you glad that you are the only one who knows what RDRev is then congratulations.. just pathetic

“ red dead revolver now that is rough red dead redemption for its time was groundbreaking and it still has way better cover system/dlc/mp content then red dead 2.”

Oh and thanks for the laugh ..

jznrpg5d ago

They didn’t name it Red Dead Revolver 2. They named it Red Dead Redemption

neutralgamer19925d ago

Looken

It was made by Capcom until they gave up and R* bought the IP. Hopefully one day we get a complete remake of the original to bring it in line with rest of the series along with other quality if life features. Another great is Gun very under rated

On topic:

If we are going to compare RDR to current generation games then we will surly find some stuff that's lacking but for it's time it was a masterpiece and for me it's one of the best games I have ever played. I hope it ends up on Pc where nodding community can take full advantage and make the game even better. Other than that's no it's not overrated at all. We don't even get that many western games and it's to me the best one (yes better then RDR2)

jeromeface4d ago

is also so damn funny how no one agrees with you

just_looken2d ago

@neutralgamer1992

Really so that gaint R symbol on the box is just a myth
https://th.bing.com/th/id/O...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

@all

the disagrees with actual evidence just shows how many on this site ignore truth fact.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
shinoff21836d ago

Junk article. Game was dope and still is. The swimming part sucks though.

just_looken5d ago

It does but the game was made originally for ps2 back after san andreas so for the dev window and timeline it makes sense.

just_looken5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

red dead revolver was back in 2004
https://www.gamesradar.com/...

after this they were making gta iv and a squeal that became read dead redemption

But you all will hate this because facts are scary

"Red Dead [Redemption] has been in production for six years (mainly because of horrible management/lack of direction due to fear of disrespecting Rockstar NY) and it will never get the money back in sales it cost to create for those six years," claimed another source.

From a 2010 article hmm what is 2010 - 6 hmmm

https://www.engadget.com/20...

The swimming in red dead one made sense for the time period and dev hell it was in

Again though it seems alot on here have 0 game knowledge before 2018.

jambola5d ago

Nobody asked about or mentioned revolver
Why are you bringing it up in every reply?

shinoff21834d ago (Edited 4d ago )

Just looken

I could agree with you about the swimming part but I was swimming my ass off in San Andreas which pre dates

Either way it's not a deal breaker and the game was dope af

-Foxtrot5d ago

I liked it a bit better because I didn’t think it had many “small nitpicky” things RDR2 had that on its own meant nothing but when a lot built up it was annoying. For example getting off your horse and you had to reselect your weapons again or walking around the camp slowly. None issues but built up with others sometimes it was a little frustrating at times.

Show all comments (35)