What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
411 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -14/+338Here is the entire statement from Bungie, instead of just picking one paragraph out of context:
"You Owe me 80p!
One item making the interwebs rounds this week was the scandalous revelation that Halo 3 runs at “640p” which isn’t even technically a resolution. However, the interweb detectives did notice that Halo 3’s vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is indeed 640 pixels. So what gives? Did we short change you 80 pixels?
Naturally it’s more complicated than that. In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see – lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible – so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image.
This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately “real” feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels. Making this decision simpler still is the fact that the 360 scales the
“almost-720p” image effortlessly all the way up to 1080p if you so desire.
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven’t mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings." - wafflesomd, on 10/10/2007, -43/+247What? Oh, sorry, I was busy playing Halo to give a ***** about these stupid articles.
- hassanchop13, on 10/10/2007, -6/+138by the time the pc version comes out (judging by how long it took for the others), nobody will even care anymore.
- Nudar, on 10/10/2007, -38/+133So let me get this straight. In order to have good lighting in a game you need to use 80 less pixels?
- EDmAN, on 10/10/2007, -44/+122It really annoys me that there is always someone on here that mentions how the PC is better. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about Wii, 360, or PS3. So let me just tell you now why I became a console gamer. I became a console gamer because I was tired of having to pump more money into my already expensive computer just to play the latest games. Consoles are designed for games. And for the graphics that you get out of these machines for the price is well worth it. A PC that can run a game like Halo 3 even at the resolution that the 360 is running would still cost well over $350. A Pc that can run Motostorm is going to cost well over $500. And even though you might be able to pick up a computer that could play Metroid 3 for $250 used, you're not going to get it's equivalent on PC. Consoles are cheaper and have better games. I don't have to have it at 8000X5400 resolution to think its high def and that anything below that sucks. How much did you pay for that PC? I have a PC powerful enough to play Bioshock fairly well, I will not buy another PC for gaming though, strictly business for me with computers unless they prove the more affordable option in the future.
- Lane, on 10/26/2007, -80/+157The bottom line is the 360 can't pump out enough graphical glory to show what halo 3 should really look like. I can't wait till the PC version comes out and kicks it's ass.
- SoxFanNH, on 10/10/2007, -33/+105Who cares, it looks awesome anyway....
- lostmongoose, on 10/10/2007, -15/+86And this makes it ok to put '720p' on the back of the box how, exactly?
- OpCzar, on 10/10/2007, -10/+80I remember when the 360 was launching, it was hyped that all developers were to follow the HD rule: 720p 4XAA as a minimum. Seems like many 1st party projects have veered off that ideal.
- logicalnoise, on 10/10/2007, -42/+100people will still cry about it, in the end though it's bungie's good point that it was done for a good reason.
- codelogic, on 10/10/2007, -26/+83My thoughts on Bungie's response:
"Naturally it’s more complicated than that. In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels"
Riiight, that's like saying, in case of multipass rendering, adding up the vertical resolutions of all the passes gives you the game's vertical resolution, obvious nonsense.
"The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see – lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible – so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image. "
Cool trick, but the trick isn't resolution dependent obviously. What actually limits the resolution is the 360's 9.83MB of edram, 2 framebuffers higher than 1152x640 wouldn't have fit in it. It doesn't hurt to state the correct technical reason, which has nothing to do with LIGHTING.
"In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference."
Unless you're running it on a large 1080p display. Apparently quite a few people noticed it.
"We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s propensity for drama where none exists."
Expect drama when a game receives as much hype as Halo does. Moreover the people who made the discovery had no intention of dramatizing anything, it's obviously news sites that picked it up and made it public. - BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -26/+81Or you could just play UT3 and stomp on Halo 3 with graphical goodness.
- JayD16, on 10/10/2007, -7/+60I don't really see anyone complaining about the missing lines in the context of making halo a good game. People are just upset that they still market the game as 1080p.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -12/+65In context, it's exactly the same explanation as when taken out of context. They were getting slowdowns when rendering at 720p native resolution, so they lowered it to "640p" and let the 360 upconvert to 720p or 1080p. That's it, and it is honestly a bit disappointing considering the image will be less sharp. But that's what you have to do when you're using limited hardware. If you want the full visual experience, you'll have to wait for the PC version.
- nuvem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+43Actually, it's not necessarily speed that would be the issue. Keep in mind they are limited in memory as well. The 360 has a 10MB Framebuffer, and their rendering system uses a standard 32bit per pixel (4 byte) framebuffer, and one would assume a FP16 (8 byte) HDR framebuffer. So:
Resolution | Pixels (p) | Standard (p*4) | HDR (p*8) | Total (Standard+HDR)
1280x720 | 921,600 | 3,686,400 bytes | 7,372,800 bytes | 11,059,200 bytes
1152x640 | 737,280 | 2,949,120 bytes | 5,898,240 bytes |8,847,360 bytes - Bartboy919, on 10/10/2007, -42/+83Now that I know why it is "HD", and after seeing the lighting effects, I have no qualms with this decision.
- TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -20/+61The average person can't tell the difference.
Why didn't all these naysayers point this out before someone literally had to count the pixels? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TELL. - trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -14/+55I only have a wii, so obviously I could care less about graphics, but if the box says 1080p I expect it to be native 1080p. Saying this is 1080p is as bad as the companies saying that their DVD players will "upscale" regular DVD's to "HDDVD resolution". Yes, standard definition DVD's look fine on an HDTV, but if you market them as being 1080p you are still a liar.
- BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -4/+42He is referring to the fact the choice of 2 frame buffers was for lighting's sake. To get the HDR and other PP effects the way they were they needed to use 2 frame buffers but the problem is the 360s eDRAM isn't large enough for 2 buffers @ 1280x720P. He is just trying to put it into words non-technical people would understand. You have to agree the 360 GPU's workload is much more than 640P, it is actually rendering an effective workload of 1280P but uses the 2 frames to create one resulting in a 640P displayed image, still an achievement if you ask me.
- BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -14/+49If people would read what he is explaining is that the 360 is rendering 2 frames to make 1. Meaning the 360 renders one 1152x640 image and then another and combines the two. This is done to make the HDR look the way it does. Effectively, the 360 is rendering Halo 3's resolution as a workload equal to 2304x1280 if they took the second frame buffer out, but then you would lose out on the high quality HDR, post processing effects, etc. I love PC games and play them the most, but Halo 3's HDR is the best I have ever seen (Though Crysis looks just as good if not better, can't say for sure isn't out...), there is NO aliasing of the HDR bloom effect (bloom aliasing, not alias from the pixels of the rendered image) unlike GoW, HL2E2 and other games. From a technical standpoint, I can't believe they got the game to run at 1152x640 pixels with 2 frame buffers with near unflinching 30FPS with V-sync. But no matter, I am going to go play the game now and hope others understand this and the fanboys fight it out with the usual intelligible insults.
- samadam, on 10/10/2007, -18/+49okay, fine. still a fun and great looking game.
- xXMetalJesusXx, on 10/10/2007, -28/+57Honestly...who ***** cares?
Further proof that people prefer shiny things to quality things. Have you people even bothered to look at the saved film feature, the movable camera...it's ***** insane. Besides, it still looks KICK ASS on my Toshiba HDTV - Shaflugi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+32HDR isn't a resolution or type of video input or whatever, HDR is a kind of lighting.
- chriskzoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28Actually, I think it has 1080p.
- davidrools, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29Nothing else on your PC takes advantage of your $500 video card, though. And nowadays your console can be used as a media center and internet portal as well.
- theseaweedking, on 10/10/2007, -14/+39This is Xbox 360. If you strain the GPU, you kill the console.
- bigthecat, on 10/10/2007, -17/+39Err, the AV guys were right, even about guessing it was probably for lighting and framerate. The Bungie guys came across as bitter that they were called on it to be honest - 'We didn't tell you because it wasn't important!'
- chriskzoo, on 10/10/2007, -19/+41Killzone, therefore, gives you 2880 lines b/c it's 720p and has 4 fram buffers. I love the "Oh, we only shorted you 80 pixels" when they mean 200,000 pixels.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27I recall the requirements set out by Microsoft for third party game developers was that ALL games need to be 720p. Both Halo 3 and PGR2 don't run at the full 720p resolution. So it seems Microsoft are happy with "do as i say not as i do" attitude.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25Well they didn't explain what the problem was, so I can only make assumptions. The point is, they couldn't achieve true HD graphics due to hardware limitations, so they applied workarounds instead.
- profingersk8er, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25totally agree, it is not only "missing" 80 pixels, it is missing 80 vertical pixels, which means 184,320 less!
1280x720=921,600
1152x640=737,280
total difference = 184,320 pixels - ultraJesus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+25Obviously the game has been ruined by this startling fact. Thats it.
*stops having a great time with Halo 3 and smashes disk* - sparkmonkeyz, on 10/10/2007, -20/+40There is so much that has to be rendered in Halo 3 than gears, like 16 people through multilayer for instance, instead of only 8. Plus the maps are much more vast than Gears, but don't get me wrong, I love me some Gears of War, but I do Halo 3 as well. I personally think it is like comparing Apples and oranges, the Apples fanboys will always say there better, even though that is just an opinion.
- estvir, on 10/10/2007, -12/+31> Who cares
The people not enjoying it and who have some stupid, pathetic incessant bias concreted in their useless minds. - BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28You haven't played Halo 3 then, I own both, texture resolution is higher in Halo 3. Halo 3's HDR lighting is the best I have ever seen, PC or 360, there is no bloom aliasing, that's amazing and I see why the 2 frame buffer choice. Gears, even though I love the game, is on a much smaller scale, alot less characters hence alot less AI going on, no vehicles hence less physics load, no film program running no matter what mode you are playing. Look, games on consoles comes down to optimizing (which is good) where you want and hiding the ugly. Gears is small and as linear as it gets in campaign and tiny maps online, less characters, lower quality HDR, slightly smaller detail textures sizes, fewer entities (objects that are physicalized, interactive and cast real time shadows). Halo 3 gains on all this and gives up 80P, not a bad deal IMHO.
- Calculon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22And Halo 1 and 2 were just SOOOO awesome on PC....
- TheNik, on 10/16/2007, -4/+22Are you serious, dbr_onix?
- JayD16, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20The only reason for the delay is to force people to support the 360. Seeing as how many support Vista I could see a speedy DX10 release.
- aggies11, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21So i guess the Xbox could then render in 320x240 and "upscale" to HD, and that'd be "playing in HD" too right?
I can upscale a 4pixel image to 720P, but it's *obviously* not the same, and certainly not equivalent.
Ultimately I find this whole discussion entertaining. As a PC gamer, this is nothing new, you very often have to reduce resolution to improve performance. It would seem that over time the two platforms are converging as PC's become more console like, and console's more PC like.
Aggies - profingersk8er, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24I don't think people are complaining about how the game looks, but more about how the game was advertised as "HD" when it clearly isn't, and the "720p" + "1080p" printed on the back of the box
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+23The article says like "all other Xbox 360 games".
Many 360 games don't run at 720p.
PGR3 runs at 576p (1024x576).
THPS8 also runs at something like 600p.
And there are some others too.
What can I say? Even if the games are still good, selling 640p and 576p games with "720p" (and 1080p!) labels on the back is just plain dishonest.
Clearly MS feels that raw resolution isn't all that important, enough so that they shipped their premier game at lower than HD resolutions. If they really feel this way, it's time to show it. Put the real resolutions on the box.
Then either people will see that you can have great games without full resolutions. Either that or customers will make it clear they expect more. - Dougman82, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20I don't give a crap how much AA or AF you use... 800x600 is never cool to play at.
- jc265, on 10/10/2007, -21/+37Who gives a *****? This game is too much fun to be counting pixels all day...PGR3 runs at the same resolution Halo 3 does...lets start bitching about that too!
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24Which is a lame way of excusing the fact they couldn't optimize their code and design enough to get full HD out of the Halo 3 engine.
- 22justin, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22what really pisses me off is when you play 2 player offline coop, it doesnt play in widescreen!?!!?! like what would it take to implement that? seriously thats just slacking
- geolittle, on 10/10/2007, -13/+28I have to agree. It look fantastic to me. I'm not going to quibble about a few pixels.
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -25/+40Compare screenshots of Halo 3 and Gears of War. Gears is far more glorious, far more detail on the characters, and better lighting. Gears uses the Unreal engine. Halo uses its own engine. I think the real deal is that Gears just uses a more refined technology platform, so they managed to squeeze more out of the box. End of story. Halo is 640 vertical, Gears is 720 vertical. You could chop out the 80 lines and Gears still has far more detail in general, regardless.
Did I mention that Gears is about a year old?
Another gorgeous game on the 360 is DIRT.. great scenery. Makes games like PGR3 and PGR4 look downright chunky. - readme, on 10/10/2007, -16/+31This makes sense for a third-party title but not for a console's flagship title. The is very embarrassing for Microsoft and Bungie.
- DudleyInnocent, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17What the fruit is a "Medal gear"?
- iEnigma, on 10/10/2007, -11/+24I can't wait to buy a $3000 computer to see it in it's full glory! Yeah, people who paid for that $400 360 sure are suckers!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 412 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is