digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bungie Confirms: Halo 3 Doesn't Run Natively in HD

xbox-scene.com — The latest Bungie Weekly Update has Luke Smith confessing that in fact, Halo 3 doesn't run natively at 720p like all other Xbox 360 games...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • spidoman, on 10/10/2007, -77/+24The pièce de résistance of Microsoft's HD console is.... ED. Awesome game, but that seems strange.
    • NYC10004, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6"We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s propensity for drama where none exists."
      I play in HD and I wasn't aware this was some type of issue. It looks great.
    • Laughsatyou, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2 this is really just an Xbox games, and not a 360 game. lols. graphics suck but ive been playing it pretty much 24/7 since its release.

      and no to everyone who thinks it looks great. it looks like halo 2.5, well atleast the multiplayer.
  • jimbojim, 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."
    • Nobi-Wan, on 10/10/2007, -53/+35Bungie - 1
      Halo-hating, self-proclaimed A/V geniuses - 0
      • 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!'
        • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -15/+15I don't read any sense of bitterness...
          • therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11they i think you should learn to read.
    • 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?
      • subterfuge, on 10/10/2007, -26/+8no, because they also said, "the 360 scales the 'almost-720p' image effortlessly all the way up to 1080p if you so desire." so they just used 80 fewer pixels because they felt like it.
        • 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.
        • davidrools, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8I'm sure they would have used 720 lines on each engine if they could have. It's much easier and more cost effective to use existing 720 technology/code/experience/whatever as well as avoiding this whole 680p issue if it was possible. Running two parallel frame buffers would probably run into some bandwidth or hardware limitations before they could get to 720 lines.
      • 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.
        • 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.
          • dbr_onix, on 10/10/2007, -41/+2This may be a silly question, but why do you need to render a game in "HDR", when no screen is capable of displaying HDR imagery..?
          • TheNik, on 10/16/2007, -4/+22Are you serious, dbr_onix?
          • Shaflugi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+32HDR isn't a resolution or type of video input or whatever, HDR is a kind of lighting.
          • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6um, I think he's referring to the fact that most monitors/tvs can't display HDR images properly. The dynamic range of a true HDR image is too wide, so what's the point of using HDR lighting in the game? I'm wondering the same thing.
          • logandurand, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Once of the goal's of HDR rendering is to make better use of the monitor's color range to *approximate* the appearance of the lighting effects. Obviously, current display technologies can't display the brightness of, say, the sun, so designers use a variety of rendering tricks to simulate said brightness. For example, we've all seen the use of "overexposed" images, which creates that "brighter-than-bright" blooming effect.
        • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -11/+15"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."

          even if your not viewing twice as many pixels the system still has to render up to twice as many.

          "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."

          Have you ever tried saying that to a 13 year old? Try it some time. I can take a guess at the name he will call you. Unlike you Bungie seems to understand that not all people speak nerd. For that reason they simplify it to the point were it at least makes some sense to the average Joe.

          "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."

          So news sites aren't part of the internet now?
          • potofgravy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13So that explains why Bush speaks complete drivel whenever he talks. It's not his fault, it's for his audience!

            Oh yes, I successfully segued to politics! *high five for me*
          • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14The people who care about this issue are capable of understanding the real, technical answer. The non-technical 13 year olds already don't care about this entire thing in the first place...
          • Shirt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This speech should have been for the technical crowd, jackass. 13 year olds aren't even the target audience for this game (it's rated MA) so why on earth would you use that example? People that don't understand simple technical jargon like that probably don't understand how resolution and scaling work in the first place, and probably aren't going to care "why" their Halo doesn't look as good on a 1080p screen, they just understand that it's not right. Personally, I think it's cute that Consoles are still dealing with 640p rez graphics, and even 720 is still laughable. PC still owns them.
      • BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1Pixel count has nothing to do with lighting. A more accurate statement would be lighting (as many other graphical assets) has to do with the quality per pixel. Meaning the more pixels you want the less complex each pixel needs to be to calculate.
        • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10you state that pixel count has NOTHING to do with lighting... and then lay a case for how increased "quality per pixel" will at some point force a reduction in resolution after it reaches a certain "quality" and even make the connection between lighting and "quality per pixel."

          You made a statement in a way that insinuates you're trying to convince other people it is a correct statement, and then IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE you explain why you are wrong. Split personalities maybe?
      • neffy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Math is hard, huh Nudar?

        More like 92160 pixels (@1152x720) or even 102400 (@1280x720).
      • BlackMask, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4And how come ps3 exclusives (warhawk, to name a few) can have 32 online players on one single goddamn screen at either 740p or 1080p? answer that Bungie HAHAHAHA

        By the way, GTHD concept is now running at 1080p at 60 FPS and wait till the biggest exclusives come out in 2008. PS3 eats 360 every morning for breakfast ROFLMAO
        • theaceoffire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I like the PS3, and I believe that the 360 is lower quality.
          However, please try to be a nice person about it.
          Sorry, gonna have to block you for fanboy-ism with the others (X360, Wii, PC, etc).
        • dethsesh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3your an idiot blackmask
      • ChildeRoland420, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11It is NOT 80 fewer pixels. 640p is 737,280 pixels and the 1080p that is advertised ON THE BOX is 2,073,600 pixels. That is more than 1.3 million pixels fewer.
      • BobStatesman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3640p ought to be enough for anybody.
    • 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
        • Biznarie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I believe he said "limited hardware." and that includes memory, good point though. I like the chart :)
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -32/+6"They were getting slowdowns when rendering at 720p native resolution"

        Hey, mrASSMAN, do you work at Bungie? If not, STFU, and stop presuming.
        • 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.
        • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12it's comments like yours that make me glad there is a block button.
        • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5If they weren't getting slowdowns at that higher resolution they would've used that resolution. Even with all their talk of lighting and whatnot, they would've used a higher resolution if it didn't slow the game down, period.
        • skyfire1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4*****.
      • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7While it might be less sharp it still shouldn't be a problem. Few computer gamers play games above 1280x720 (720p) resolution (as a result of hardware limitations), most prefer 800x600 with a heavy amount of Anti-Aliasing which quite frankly does look better in many cases and as good in most. And I have to say Bioshock and Halflife 2: Episode 1 both look amazing at 800x600 with AAx4. That said I prefer to play them at 1680x1050 with AAx6 and all other settings maxed out, just cause I get bragging rights. Yeh, I'm a geek with no life.

        Oh and I played halo 3 the other day. If some people have a problem with those graphics then I say some people need to get the flag pole out of their ass.
        • 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.
          • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah I'd have to agree, unless you have a vision problem and can't see smaller stuff as well, then he'd have an excellent point. My brother plays like wolferz does with a nice 8800GTS, because he can't see *****. I usually play at 720p on my 32 LCD on the other hand.
        • therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7yeah, so its important to note that you are a ***** idiot if you think that "most prefer 800x600". 800x600 hasn't been the standard in gaming since like 1998.
    • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -21/+23Thank you for posting this.

      It just goes to show that people do not understand their technology anywhere near as well as they think they do. This whole buzz over HD has lost sight of the fact that it's not all down to pure resolution, and it never has been, as any PC user will clearly attest.
    • 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.
      • 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
        • therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3way to point out the exact same thing as the guy you're responding to. what a dick.
      • jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6that would be a valid comparison, if killzone was a decent game. alas, you've just shown yourself to be a ps3 dweeb trolling on anti x360 threads.. again.
    • 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.
      • Yarnage, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2You do realize they are NOT rendering the entire scene in both buffers, correct? They're rendering the entire scene with one type of lighting, then rendering only where certain lighting goes in another frame and combining it.

        If they were really rendering two frames that were identical, minus the lighting differences... well, that would be dumb as they could use something FAR more optimized than that approach.
        • Flynnz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3wow how long have you been programming game engines? thats impressive that you know more than Bungie's highly paid staff of programmers.
      • firstpost, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think you mean 2304x640?
        2304x1280 is four times the size of 1152x640: (2 x width) x (2 x height) = 4 x width x height
    • Refrag, on 10/10/2007, -13/+24Halo 3 is 184,320 pixels short of High Definition gaming. That's how many extra pixels they would need to render to reach 720p.

      (1280 x 720) - (1152 x 640) = 184,320
      • BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -15/+13Halo 3 renders 2 frames to make one frame, so to argue what the 360 actually renders the correct computation would be 1,152x640x2 = 1,474,560 while 720P with 1 frame buffer is only 921,600. The thing is, 2 frames are rendered per displayed frame to allow for their HDR and other PP effects. Halo 3 displays 640P, yes, but what the GPU actually spits out workload wise is 1280P.
        • BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5If you are burying me you just don't understand what is going on with rendering or can't tell the difference between rendering and displaying.
        • jacenat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7the 2nd renderpass isn't rendering all scene information.
          so your comparision is *****. but that has already been pointed out in t he replies to your comment above.
      • SSCrow, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Technically 480p is the bar for High definition.
        • RevJonathan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Do me a favor and Wikipedia EDTV.
        • djSyndrome, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Is that what Nintendo told you?
          • Mrstupid7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I've noticed that the Wii has HDTV plastered all over it and in the manual. Wait no it doesn't.
        • Mrstupid7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually technically you're right.

          My girlfriend's dad won an "HDTV" that has HDTV logos plastered all over it and it's highest resolution is 480p.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+22His argument that you could say they're giving you 1280 lines of resolution is insipid. They have two buffers that are overlaid. They only really differ in the lighting (color) at each pixel, they don't convey additional spatial information.

      By his argument I could say real 720p games give 2160 lines of vertical resolution, because there are 720 red ones, 720 green ones and 720 blue ones.

      It's complete *****.

      The game is 640p, not 720p and not 1280p.

      Yeah, it still looks pretty good, but it could have looked 20% better if they could have made it render at full 720p HD resolution.
      • nipterink, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16a 20% improvement is a huge exaggeration. sure it's 20% in pixels, but that means nothing in terms of what you actually perceive. how many people think 1080p looks 225% better 720p?
        • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10Given that Halo 3 has poor to no AA, any increase in resolution would lead to reduced jaggies and help a lot.

          As to 1080p vs 720p, it depends on your TV size and viewing distance. In most setups, increases in resolution up to 720p are perceivable and noticeable. In some setups this continues even further than 720p.

          So yeah, I'm sticking by my 20% comment.

          Your math is poor, btw. You should have said how many people think 1080p looks 125% better than 720p. With your math, I could ask how many people think 720p looks 44% better than 1080p (as 720p has 44% as many pixels as 1080p)?
        • jacenat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4i have seen 1080p movies. i would say that the increase in sharpness over 720p is about 2 fold.
          also, with aliased rendered images, lower resolutions always hurt your perception of fidelity.
      • pleetonboy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+820% more pixels on the screen is not the same thing as looking 20% better. Is it really that hard to understand?
        • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5You're just making a bald-faced assertion. You shouldn't be so high and mighty.

          At the resolutions spoken of, yes 20% more pixels would be fully resolvable by the viewer (in almost all setups) and thus it would look 20% better.
    • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Basically they're saying that yeah, it isn't the HD you were expecting, and here are some of the technical reasons why we weren't able to deliver the HD you were expecting, that proves that you were an idiot all along. That's a ridiculous defense. That's like a thief telling the judge he should be let go because he used the money to buy something. Of course he used the money to buy something! It's not like anyone ever thought Bungie left HD out just to ***** with people.
    • wiifm69, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Where do you draw the line though? How many pixels will you let Microsoft short change you before you give a *****? What it they upscaled 600p? 500p? 640x480? Enough is enough, Microsoft need to be aware that this skullduggery will not be tolerated
      • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Atleast they don't void your warranty for upscaling to 720p.
      • ericrous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I draw the line at what looks good on my HDTV and what doesn't. And Halo 3 looks GREAT on my HDTV (as good or better than Bioshock), and maintains a rock-steady framerate to boot.
    • negativenancy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The explanation and reason of creating Halo 3 in 640p is somewhat justified now... however his excuse for not telling people and letting Microsoft "lie" or otherwise deceive gamers is complete *****. A game's resolution, while arguably nowhere near as important as gameplay, is still pretty significant, especially to certain people. It is nowhere near as minute as he implies. I'd rather have heard about this and its justification earlier rather than sifting through numerous "important" flamethrower updates. I love Bungie and Halo but this is a major copout.
    • MrSteamTank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Short Answer : Yes....but (insert excuse here)
    • Thabor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't doubt the game still looks fine, but it is still an issue that they advertising and labeling is misleading. If they really believe it stands up graphically they should have no issue labeling it correctly with the native resolution. No company should be allowed to slip upscaled games by as if they are natively hi-def. They should all list the native resolution, and any resolutions supported by up or down scaling should be labeled as such. Then they can build it however they need, and let the consumers decide if it matters or not.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2yeah, nobody in their right mind would call Halo 3 a good game.
    • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -17/+7You mean that the Xbox couldn't handle true HD? That's not really something to be proud of is it?

      I mean Epic games was able to handle 720p correct? I call Shinanigans!
    • EmperorAwesome, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I prefer a smooth framerate above all else. This is the same as the Bioshock 4:3 debacle. Ehhhh....I have a newer monitor, I don't want those standard plebeians to get a decent field of view. There's more to game design choices than numbers.
      • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah, Bungie had to make sacrifices, but the almost final battle with the 2 scarabs running at a solid 30 FPS, more than makes up for the 80 vertical pixels that were lost.
    • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7"it was done for a good reason"

      As opposed to being done just to ***** with people? I don't think those who are upset ever suggested that, what with it being ridiculous and all. Bungie is responding to a straw man argument.
  • TheRealToma, on 10/10/2007, -51/+34Might aswell port it to Wii! :>
    • ashrafneo, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7i dont see why u got dugg down, that was funny
      • DarkShroud, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Yes it is funny.

        He's being dugg down because the xBots don't like their flag ship game being put in it's place. Because Metroid Prime 3 runs at 680p as well.
        • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4And it also looks crap. High resolution does not good graphics make.
        • chazuk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8ZOMG! JOO PWN3D ALL THE XBOX FANZ BY TYPING "XBOT" LOLz
        • therightclique, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7metroid doesn't run at 680p. the wii isn't even capable of that.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • Tahiri, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13ITs not a few pixels, it's 200,000 pixels. Which results in a much jaggier game.
    • 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
      • TheNik, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11If the Xbox upscales the image you are playing it in HD.

        They weren't lying to you. If the image you see is in HD that means the game is HD, just not in its code.
        • 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
        • ninjakoala, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Actually the 720p / 1080i / 1080p on the back of 360 games used to show the actual rendered resolution rather than the scaled one, so I'm not too fond of this new approach either.

          At the end of the day, though, I couldn't really care less as Halo 3 is still a great game and looks pretty darn good (even amazing in some areas of the game).
      • Tahiri, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9That's a retarded way of thinking since HDTVs upscale anyway. Just because my HDTV upscales to 1080p doesn't make the SD footage I'm watching bluray quality
      • alexkorova, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2TheNik,
        Ah, that means my Wii is HD, because the monitor I have connected it too upscales it! Great, finally a HD Wii!
  • Lane, on 10/26/2007, -81/+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.
    • BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -26/+81Or you could just play UT3 and stomp on Halo 3 with graphical goodness.
    • 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.
      • 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.
      • jacenat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1i bet my ass that halo2 on the pc will look almost as good as halo3 on the 360 ...
        :>
        • ninjakoala, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I have it. No. No it doesn't. Not even close. Heck, it doesn't even look as good as Half-Life 2.
        • Fayettemat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2agreed I own it also for the PC (Halo 2) but it is alot better then Halo
      • ninjakoala, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Nor will they have the horsepower to run it. My quad core + 8600 GTS can only just run Halo 2 at 1680*1050 and I do get some chop-chop along the way. Actually playing the original Halo 2 on a 360 (where it's rendered at 720p) is a quite superior experience even if you do miss out on achievements and Live while playing single player.
        • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's because Halo 2 has been so awfully ported, not because the original Xbox is faster.
          • ninjakoala, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I know. That doesn't change the validity of what I said.
    • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3I bet you're one of those people who simply can't understand how first-gen games don't look as good as ones that come out 1-2 years later.
    • gothsquirrel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1I don't think thats the case i think it was a matter of ease of programing so they could upscale to 1080p not because the system couldn't handle it gears of war and bioshock both are graphiclly superior. The game runs silky smooth and that is much more important to me.
    • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -28/+28Yes because lord knows a tri-core 3.2ghz cpu with a 21.6GB/sec FSB with native multi-threading support and R500 graphics architecture sucks horribly in comparison to a modern PC.

      Oh wait, no it doesn't, the architecture's so different it's not even possible to compare the two. Holy crap, facts! Good luck finding a PC that powerful for $350.
      • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Don't even get into this debate. Try getting your Xbox to do all the things PCs can do and then we'll talk. An average PC, (that isn't a hunk of garbage eMachines) usually will have a decent dual-core processor and at least 1GB of RAM (most likely 2GB for Vista). All you'd have to do to get that machine more powerful than an Xbox would be to buy a decent video card. By the way what are you using to comment on Digg?
        • ninjakoala, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5What does browsing etc have to do with games?
          Macs for browsing, consoles for games. Thanks.
        • jasmus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Consoles are built for a specific purpose, PC's are a general purpose machine. It's hard to fault one for not being the other. Can we stop this ***** about which is better and start talking about the actual gaming experience?

          My car isn't a 4wd, but if i spent enough money i could make it one and it could do what a 4wd does. Or I could buy a 4wd.
    • Calculon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22And Halo 1 and 2 were just SOOOO awesome on PC....
      • logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At least I could aim properly. Not to mention playing them in 1200x1600.
    • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20Welcome to Digg, where you get buried for stating facts. Bunch of delusional wankers O_o
      • m3mn0n, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5It's not about truth here, it's about agreement. If I agree with your point/message, I'll digg you. If I disagree, you're buried.

        It's that simple.
        • chazuk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Do sometimes you disagree with fact then?

          "The sky is blue"

          NO IT AIN'T, IT'S GREEN. - Buried.
        • Thabor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Sometimes the one here is red or pink, usually around sunset... Maybe you should find a better fact next time.
    • neko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10You'll need DirectX12 and Windows 7 ;)
    • 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!
    • MikedaSnipe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Because we all know how bad-ass the other halo PC games are.
  • totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -29/+17So as long as you have a good reason*, its ok for games to not run natively at 720? I'm glad thats been cleared up :P

    *substitute "excuse" for "reason", depending on your biases :p

    • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Exactly. As if giving the technical reasons the game can't run in 720 somehow make it okay and make everyone who was upset about it retards. Of course there are technical reasons, what else would it be? Gremlins in the xbox?
  • 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.
    • Sk8SkaNJ, on 10/10/2007, -29/+35Except PC's do a lot more than just gaming, so the extra price is justified.
      • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -18/+11So? What if people don't care about the extras? What if they just want to play games therefore the "extras" doesn't make it justified.

        Kind of like the whole being forced to pay for Blu-Ray or having the choice with HD-DVD among other comparisons I could make.
        • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4except that blu-ray is used for games and you're a dirty little fanboy?
        • Narwaffle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10If you don't want the extras, buy a console. Problem solved.
        • edicius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9He did...that's his point.
      • 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.
        • johnny23, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2On Vista it does. Aero Glass renders the desktop using your $500 video card.

          Btw, try buring DVDs, CDs, running an ftp site with that console, let me know how it turns out.
          • avihappy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2A CPU does that, not a GPU.
          • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You are aware that the 360 can run Linux, and if you have a USB dvd writer, you can do everything you mentioned...
          • chazuk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Try running Halo3 on your PC, let me know how that turns out.
        • t3hprogrammer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9An integrated graphics card can render Aero Glass with the same quality, so Vista doesn't really "take advantage" of your $500 video card. A cheap secondhand computer can easily burn DVDs, CDs and run an
      • XXLGamer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1meh.
    • BARTZ13, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9Here's some things to make PCs good...
      1. 98.9 of ALL PC games work ON NEW PCs.. so i get a new PC the old games work...
      2. I don't have to shell out money evertime for a new console, or get THE SAME console but with 65nm processor.. i just buy a new processor...
      3. Console Only tiles like HALO(2) - Xbox, Medal gear, and other games have PC versions.. Why do i need 3-4 different consoles.
      • DudleyInnocent, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17What the fruit is a "Medal gear"?
      • avihappy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+61. 98.9 of ALL PC games work ON NEW PCs.. so i get a new PC the old games work...
        That is upgrading, how much do you pay? $1200 not including monitor? Most console have some kind of backward compatibility. I want to see you run an old game that works with Vista well.

        2. I don't have to shell out money evertime for a new console, or get THE SAME console but with 65nm processor.. i just buy a new processor...
        The 64nms are not required, the lod 360s will still pay new 360 games perfectly.

        3. Console Only tiles like HALO(2) - Xbox, Medal gear, and other games have PC versions.. Why do i need 3-4 different consoles.
        Halo had a PC version after 2 years, I don't think Metal Gear ever had a PC port.
      • nygrissplz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Are you serious? Let me just crush you now. HOW ABOUT THAT GRAPHICS CARD. I have to shell out money every time for a new video card about every year that can handle the newest games. Do you know how much that costs by the time I have to buy my next Xbox that can run the same thing at great quality for 5 years straight? I'd much rather pay 350$ once for something that will last 5 years than 300 dollars for something mid-range that will last only 1 to 1.5 years.
        Seriously, get a clue. The pricing for consoles is so much cheaper.
    • MaTT2011, on 10/10/2007, -17/+5I don't think anyone really cares why you became a console gamer.

      I mean; i'm trying to think of some reasons why other people MIGHT care....but i got nothing.
      • karel747, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The same can be said about your *****-post. No one cares that you don't care. At least EdmAn had points and arguments to support his assertions. You're just useless. Have fun wallowing in your own self-worth.
    • Synchro, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Totally agree. While there are games I miss on the PC, switching to console gaming freed me from the clutches of windows and allowed to be switch to a different OS I will not mention. This other OS fulfills 99% of my computing needs and ultimately I save money. I save money because I am now not putting together an entirely new gaming rig ever year with a new $300+ graphics card every year. Of the limited time I have to play games these days, it has worked out SOO much better than I thought. I used to be that guy you know that you could always go to to bum old parts off of or old machines he had laying around. no more!
    • firstpost, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I became a console gamer when I bought a mac. I didn't think I really cared about games but after a few months I found out I had to get a 360.
      I think the great thing about console gaming is the fact that it just works: no video configuration, no control set-up.
      • logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yea, but then again, you don't even have the OPTION to configure anything the way you want to.
    • Dot0, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You pay more for better hardware. It's natural. But for the extra cost you are being given a choice in how exactly do you want to play those games and whether you want to max them out, or you can live without it. And as for the rest, you should factor in the price of a work PC to go along with your consoles, because then you'd have a more realistic estimate there. A 360 costs as much as a high-end GPU. If you have a PC with not-too-outdated components, it becomes a good deal, on par with the console itself.
      And stupid stuff like this doesn't happen on PCs where you can configure any game to run however you'd like it to.
    • wiii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The main difference to me is that a console is a combination of hardware and software, a PC game is software running against some more or less clear specs.
      The fixed hardware model can do some fine things that the PC can't. Coding against specs always requires some form of abstraction. AFAIK on a PC it is impossible for a program to really know when an image is exactly displayed on the monitor, making a smooth scrolling (which needs a sync between the monitor and the program) impossible. With fixed hardware, this is easy.
      Same applies to the controllers. Knowing exactly what controllers will be used gives the developers more possibilities.
    • heresy_fnord, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You have to pump money into new consoles to play their new games, otherwise you're stuck in whatever year that console came out. For example Halo 3. You will never, ever see it on the original XBOX. The XBOX 360 looks great now, but over time it will look dated. By the way, a lot of games come out for the xbox and on the PC, like Bioshock for example. And they look as good if not better on the PC then they do on the console. So to me, it's already becoming dated.
    • XXLGamer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2well, both have their advantages, and I'm sure everyone has the preference, but consoles are there for the purpose of gaming, and gaming is fun. While the PC is great(i have one myself) one cant deny, with PC gaming also comes the obsession with the constant upgrading, tweaking, troubleshooting. I got very tired of that. Took the fun of gaming out of me.
    • logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1To all the people complaining about having to upgrade PCs often: You don't NEED to upgrade, you only do so if you want to get better graphics. If you're happy with the graphics you have, then don't buy new hardware. Keep in mind that the 360 can't be upgraded at all, and yet you can still play games on it years after it's release - the graphics will just be the same, that's all. The idea with a computer is that you have the OPTION to upgrade if you so choose - unlike a console, where the "one-size-fits-all" philosophy means that you, the consumer, have no say in what kind of hardware you buy.

      Also, to the people who say you need to spend $1000 or more to get a good gaming machine: You must be the worst shoppers in all of history. For the $350 it costs to buy a 360, you could buy a motherboard, processor, memory, and graphics card that would make for an INSANE gaming machine. It's about choice - the choice to have the machine you want, for the price you can afford. Again, compare this to the 360, where everyone buys the same hardware, regardless of their needs.
  • keviniskool, on 10/10/2007, -24/+12Normally, Apple fanboys would attack Microsoft and Bungie for being crap. But they forget that Bungie was once in bed with Apple. So what should the trolls do?
    • AdonalFoyle, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11Of course everyone knows Bungie was once "in bed" with Apple. It's the fact that they sold out to Microsoft is why Apple fanboys hate Bungie.
    • GrammerPants, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Ah Marathon.....had it not been for you halo would not be around, so many things copied and borrowed....
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Not True AdonalFoyle..
      Although Apple users would have preferred Bungie to stay Mac Faithful, there isn't much resentment. Mac users don't really pay many games to begin with. (Unless they dual-boot windows for games.)
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2***** that, I had Marathon, I had a Mac, gave them up a year after the first marathon came out, after using them for 10 years I assume use a Mac for toilet paper before putting it on my desk.

      Macs should be for people who want choice after learning to use a PC, so they are not crippled should they have to use a PC. Can't believe how much Public school revolves around those POS. Thank god I had a post-mortum MAC year to learn PC before hitting college.
    • cfulp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I love macs. I love my 360. Why can't the world just live in peace.
  • samadam, on 10/10/2007, -18/+49okay, fine. still a fun and great looking game.
    • crazybugger, on 10/10/2007, -18/+7okay, fine. Still you got cheated.
      • KlayBorg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6OH NOES, THEY STOLE MAH 80 PIXELS!!!
      • RealityCheque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"I'm in ur Halo 3, stealin ur pixels!"
      • cfulp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Eh...the game still looks amazing. Plays good. How did he get cheated again?
        • DarkShroud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The case says it's in HD, which is supposed to mean native not upscaled. And when you have a large HDTV screen you start to notice the difference.
  • wafflesomd, on 10/10/2007, -43/+248What? Oh, sorry, I was busy playing Halo to give a ***** about these stupid articles.
    • sakuraz, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3Ah, I see what you did ther.....

      WAIT, WHAT?

      Is that you, Schroedinger's cat?
    • NecroSexy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Playing Halo? More like QQin.
  • SoxFanNH, on 10/10/2007, -33/+105Who cares, it looks awesome anyway....
    • 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.
      • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, there are millions of people enjoying Halo 3 to the max, but those that don't, have to nitpick at the tiniest little things. I heard a girl whining on Xbox Live about not being able to respawn on legendary co-op if your partner was in combat.
      • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I didn't know apple users played halo.
    • crazybugger, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3You just got cheat, moron.
  • Poi159, on 10/10/2007, -23/+15well... they just shot them selves in the foot for false advertising.
  • GodIsntReal, on 10/10/2007, -27/+18How sad they cant even make one of their biggest games of the year 1080p let alone 720p.
    • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -11/+11Well, they could have *made it 1080P*...but then you'd bitch about it running at 5fps.
    • n344853835, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5It should read, "720p let alone 1080p." *****. And if you'd have read the article you would know it was damn well worth it.

      Note: I'm not a Halo fanboy... I don't even own a now-current-gen gaming system.
  • yohojones, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3+digg for Luke Smith. We miss you on 1up Luke.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Why? He only ever talked about 4 games.

      Halo
      WoW
      Megaman
      Elite Beat Agents

      Yeah, he had snarky comments to say, but that's about it. I think 1up can find someone who is capable of making snarky comments and brings some game knowledge to the podcast.
    • Refrag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Yeah, now he is a shill trying -- but not succeeding -- to spin the truth for Microsoft. Lame.
  • 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
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5better lighting effects = shiny, native HD = quality
      • Bega, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10err yeah. that's like saying half-life 1 at 1280x720 looks better than half-life 2 at 1024x768.

        Exaggerated yeah, but my point holds.
      • Tahiri, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Your comparison holds no water as the difference between half life 1 and 2 is not lighting effects
  • Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -35/+36How come the box says 1080p? Microsoft lieing? No way!
    • IsmaelZ, on 10/10/2007, -20/+6Im sure you would have enjoyed overpriced apple ***** that doesn't deliver what it promises, am I right?
    • MalDON, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7just because it says 1080p on the box does not mean the game is rendered at that resolution. Technically, you could resize any image to a HD size and it can be called HD. The game runs upscaled to 1080p, which is still better than having only 720p.
  • 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, -15/+1Actually PGR3 was pretty lousy.
    • asurroca, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Dude, that's what I was thinking... No one made a fuss over any of the other games (not just X360 either) running at less than 720p.
    • profingersk8er, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3actually that WAS the biggest complain about that game when it was first released, don't cry now simply because this is Halo we're pointing fingers at
    • MikedaSnipe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2quote from OP -
      "Halo 3 doesn't run natively at 720p like all other Xbox 360 games..."
      well educated about this i see.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I was pretty much on your side of things, until you brought up PG3, if Halo3 is the same resolution as PG3 then I'm screwed..... because PG3 looks good, but lots of jagged stuff. Albeit I'm running it on a 52" LCD, but my 720p games still look amazing on it.
  • 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.
    • Tahiri, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6The average blind person can't tell the difference

      *Fixed*

      I'm sorry but I noticed it right away, the game is abnormally jaggy
    • wiifm69, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6this is because YOU OBVIOUSLY ONLY OWN A 14" TV running COMPOSITE VIDEO. ***** tool
    • cfulp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I only noticed the jaggles in a handful of instances. And I have a 72inch beast. Didn't really bother me.
    • cyberfelon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm playing Halo 3 on a projector and I knew something was up before I read about it. You really can tell Halo 3 looks worse than a lot of other games. Sure, the HDR is nice but the level of jaggies is just ridiculous. AA should be a baseline standard in this gen, but it looks like we're going to have to wait another generation until we're finally free from those damn PS2-style jaggies.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19To bad gears had a ***** online system and a campaign that lasted about 3 hours...
      • IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Yeah, it could have been longer. The single player was the shining star of that game.
    • petard, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3actually gears is 1080p
    • 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.
      • TheNik, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8The lighting effects in Gears were all cliche bloom. The game looked like you were watching a 70s soap opera with a soft-focus lens.
    • mashw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Gears can have like 8 people on the screen only.
    • MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Gears looks like all other Unreal games: way the ***** too shiny in weird places, too much bad bump mapping, etc... I'm tired of seeing games where everything looks wet for no reason. Halo 3 looks much better, I don't care what anyone says.
    • DPimp1262, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Seriously have you seen the amount of things that are usually going on at one time in halo 3. Cars exploding, air battles as scarabs are recarving the gigantic scenery all the while your playing at a clean 60 frames a second 99.9 percent of the time. Common. Gears had 8 guys in tiny locals. Halo 3>gears of war
  • Spartandog, on 10/10/2007, -16/+20I played it on a 42-inch HD monitor and the detail was incredible! You'd have to be incredibly picky to complain about the quality. This game still looks better and plays better than almost any game right now. Kicks ass in multiplayer mode.
    • IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9>This game still looks better and plays better than almost any game right now.

      Bull! The game looks about 1.5 years old in terms of raw graphics. The gameplay I won't say anything about, but there is nothing amazing about the graphics. They are "good" but not "great".
      • solinent, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The 360 came out roughly 2 years ago.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -18/+12So, basically, Bungie cut Halo 2 in half, said, "Hey, we can stretch this out to a sequel!" then gave the finished game a polished sheen before tossing it out for mass consumption.
    • MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Play both games and then come back and comment, ok?
  • lostmongoose, on 10/10/2007, -15/+86And this makes it ok to put '720p' on the back of the box how, exactly?
    • chriskzoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28Actually, I think it has 1080p.
    • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5because thats the output format that will reach the screen. That information is there for compatibility. The game image can be output at a resolution of 720p thus it is compatible with 720p equipment.
      • jacenat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5i am just waiting for the first 640x360 game to be advertised as 720p :P
      • Tahiri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Considering TVs upscale anyway, scaling does not count as a supported resolution. Upscaled DVD doesn't look as good as bluray on a 1080p display.

        Put a tuxedo on a goat, still a goat.
    • Shootfast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Infact, it has 720p/1080i/1080p on the box
    • mastersquirrel3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Because it ***** runs in 720p. Just because it isn't native doesn't change the fact that it can run in 720p.
      • syncomm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3An up-converted DVD is not an HDDVD...
        • opnickc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1an up-converting dvd player still says 720p/1080i/1080p on the box. . .
  • MaTT2011, on 10/10/2007, -21/+26Jesus H.

    I couldnt imagine anything LESS important than this. This is what you get when you shift the focus away from the games, and gameplay, and over to graphics, presentation and visuals; a bunch of overly dramatic fanboys who complain about pixels.

    Maybe if some of you so called "gamers" actually played your games instead of just drooling over the graphics while oogling spec numbers you might start enjoying gaming for what it is; the gameplay that makes it fun!

    God damn i hate graphics whores, especially when they are complaining about graphics on a system that is ENTIRELY graphics.....the x360.
    • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I agreed with everything up until the "entirely graphics" comment. While I've had a long standing issue with developers and "gamers" that only really care about graphics (perhaps a byproduct of having played the Atari as my first system and learning early on to have fun controlling stick figures) there are still a few games on the 360 that are actually fun to play.

      You get a digg any way though...
  • PrototypeV, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Sort of makes me glad that I don't play in HD. I'd still love to though.
    • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Why? You're getting half the pixels of 640p. What's the downside of higher resolutions? People with HDTVs aren't worse off because of this, they still get a more defined picture than SD.
      • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2The downside would be realizing your an anally retentive dork with no life. Not that I'm saying you are, but thats one of the possible downsides.
  • 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.
    • MaTT2011, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Very valid points.

      While i also dont care about graphics, to the extent that its reasonable (meaning i dont need the latest and greatest graphical masterpiece to be a happy and content gamer) i do think that its very much wrong to advertise a game as being able to do one thing and then not doing it; thats what we call *****.

      IF bungie is advertising that the game runs in native 1080p then they need to deliver that, IF they dont deliver then they are in the wrong and no amount of technical back peddling is going to make their false advertising acceptable.
    • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Again that information is for determining compatibility. They are claiming that it will OUTPUT in 1080p. They are not claiming that it renders in 1080p. I would have a much more serious issue with them if they were to claim it outputs in 640p. After all there's no equipment that can use a 640p signal. They would be complete and utter retards to make a game that outputs 640p. Never mind that they would have to tinker with your 360 to even make it possible.
  • 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.
    • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Looking at the big picture instead of getting hung up on details is embarrassing? My what an interesting world you live in.
    • nygrissplz, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Embarrassing? By no means is this embarrassing. By their explanation alone they don't care what the very very small visual-phile minority thinks about this issue. They know they made a great game, I know they made a great game, and that is all that matters.
    • Tahiri, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Yeah it is embarassing. Killzone 2 for PS3 looks better, runs at 720p native, and has full screen anti aliasing,
  • 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
    • quamb, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Are you serious?!

      Only wanted to get this game for the offline co-op.... Maybe don't bother?
    • convergent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It does for me...
    • toppgun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i have to play offline co op b/c my school blocks xbox live in the dorms. its fun but the black bars annoy me
  • Zap2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6I'd played the game...on 480i...its looked amazing...I'd eager to see it on my HDTV
    • trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4You'd eager? That's a little kinky don't you think?
  • DirtySnachez, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1ah, for the glorious days of Nethack.
  • lithiumlab, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7OMG! Now you can port halo 3 to the Wii and zapper up the 360! HO HO HO
  • friendlyman, 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.
    • Morgoth666, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6hm, why should PGR2 be in HD? it came out for the old xbox ;)
    • jacenat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2hahahah.
      clever marketing i would say :)
  • sk545, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8well they get the last laugh because 1) Majority of the Halo players are non-geek and don't know there 20p from SD television 2) It sold enough already, so bunjie and MS are laughing to the bank.

    Too bad us geeks waste our time on digg arguing instead of enjoying the game.
  • Calculon, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10Why is no one (here) complaining that if you don't buy the Xbox Live GOLD pack, you're only getting 1/2 a game?
    • ultraJesus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Because multiplayer has defined the Halo franchise and is what allot of people care about the most. I know a few people who won't even play the campaign all the way through. They just pop in the disk and head online.
    • Calculon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8That's my point... if you dont buy Live GOLD, you can't play the part of the game most people are interested in!
      • TheNik, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Who the ***** (besides users in the third-world and rural areas) doesn't have XBL?
        • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Those of us who aren't sheep.

          XBL is just yet another way for MS to make people pay for what they already have. Computer games have always implemented online play themselves. Until the xbox so did consoles. Many will argue that XBL frees up time from developers to improve the game or allows the price to be lower. And yet nether of these things are happening with any greater regularity than before. So again, XBL is just another way for Microsoft to make what used to be free a source of profit for them.

          Welcome to Capitalist America, would you like fries with that?
          • Boomh4u3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Right.I guess all those servers that keeps XBL running,don't cost money?
        • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3except microsoft is actually providing services in exchange for that fee
        • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You pay to play online, so. From the looks of xbox live vs anything sony has done, it would seem paying is well worth it.
    • Boomh4u3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Nobody is complaining about it,because most Halo 3 players probably already have a Gold account
    • toppgun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2system link FTW!

      /school blocks live in the dorm
    • jacksons98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@Calculon If you don't pay for Live you are essentially missing a good chunk of almost every game. If you aren't willing to pay for Live you probably shouldn't get an X360.
  • crashingechelon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11the game looks and plays wonderfully, they did a good job on the design of it and i would have never known about this 'issue' if people didn't complain. heck i'm playing it on an SD set and i was amazed at how beautiful it looked in non HD
  • Racerx52, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5The game looks great with or without teh 80pz.
  • 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*
    • jacksons98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No but you can feel lied too, oh wait Microsoft fans are used to that. Go back to having good time.
  • solinent, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1780 pixels? More like ~102, 400 pixels
    80 * 1 280 = 102 400

    The whole point of gaming is not to make huge compromises. Halo 3's 'subtle' effect is simply the lighting. But with the resolution comprimise, and other compromises (little AA), it is not a good compromise.

    Also, there's no such thing a s 640p. The p implies a standard, of which 640p is not. We are simply referring to vertical resolution.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10p just means progressive. It doesn't imply a standard.

      Many HDTVs are sold as "768p" when there is no 768p standard either.
    • nygrissplz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2P implies standard....wow.
      Your argument is no longer taken seriously.
      As happy said, P = Progressive scan. I = Interlaced.
      This resolution compromise you speak of, unless you told somebody they were missing out, they'd never know the difference. Who cares? the game is still great.
  • tlow, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3BURIED. Just because it renders in a resolution that isn't 720p, doesn't mean it can't output to 720p.
    • profingersk8er, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7dugg down, ignorant.
      native vs. upscale, they are not the same. If a DVD player upscales to 1080p, it is still displaying the same 480 vertical pixels.
  • davwham, on 10/10/2007, -9/+16What everyone forgets is that Halo 3 has a draw distance of 16 kilometers (10 miles). Gears of War didn't have anything like that. If you have those insane draw distances, you're going to pay in the up close geometry detail.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Geometry is different from render resolution. You can have crud geometry and still render natively at 1280x720. Heck, Tony Hawk 4 did this on the original Xbox!

      But just asking: MS gave a coherent and reasonable explanation, why did you feel compelled to make up your own conflicting one?
    • Tahiri, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3HAlo 3's drawdistance is like GTAs though, sure the level itself can be seen from afar, but the objects pop in just as poorly/closely
    • rude0197, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2To bad 50% of the game is spent progressing down a 5 foot wide liniar path.
  • 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.
    • grumbel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1In other news, Metroid Prime 3 doesn't run at full 480p either and compensates with a black border and I am thank full for that. Resolution really is not all that important, steady FPS are far more critical and I like that developers actually acknowledge that and don't pull of stunts like some games on the PS3, where you have them running in shiny full 1080p, but with crap FPS. This generation there is really no more excuse for not heaving steady FPS and if downscaling the resolution helps a bit, so be it.
      • jacksons98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, but Halo was hyped by Gates himself to have the best graphics of any console game and run in full 1080p. It was just two E3s ago that Gates & Moore showed the supposed "in-game" footage of Halo 3. Now the game has come out and it's not even close.
        • DarkShroud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, I remember people going crazy on the killzone2 trailer because it was cgi and not in game footage. Well who is giving what they promised? Not MS that's for sure.
  • santasing, on 10/10/2007, -16/+10I call BS. BS on fanboys and BS on game reviewers. I mean WTF! I buy their game and they call us whiners. Get over yourself Bungie. And what about those reviewers who couldn't give Halo 3 a 10/10 fast enough. Now that I have played it, its by no means 10/10. Campaign mode is not that good, resolution sucks, campaign is short. Remind me again, why did they give Halo 10/10 again. FAKE!
    • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6You seem to be mistaking your personal opinion for influential fact. Unless you aim to be US President, this won't get you very far.
      • santasing, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Bungie's words, not mine, "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."
    • Tweekster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wish i had a link right now. that picture of the guy getting hit by a flame thrower with a "you are here" caption
      i agree. its halo so therefore its great. the fanboys hate to admit, halo ***** sucks. its a ***** game. the only thing good out of that "franchise" is red vs blue. otherwise its a waste of time, money, and the developers should be shot in the head for ripping off descent, and every other real fps
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Dude, you are either a) stupid b) arrogant c)both.... because if you think Halo sucks and it's a ripoff of descent, then I can't imagine the games you must like.

        The Halo series reached the hysteria it has because it is one of the best controls/gameplay experiences ever created. when I played Halo1 back in 03, I thought that was one of the sickest games of all time before hearing much hype. I went from not playing video games hardly at all since age 12 after my sega genesis got stolen, to getting hooked all over again to the new era, just because of that game.

        Descent? Descent ***** sucked. Gameplay and premise we're useless with mindlessly boring stage design. Bungie also made Marathon, which I actually owned on a Mac in 96, now that was very similar to Halo. Yes, my family used Macs back in 96, NOW I grant you permission to call me an idiot.
  • seneyr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14So much for the Hi-Def Era starting in 2005...
    • 33PercentGod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Actually,I believe anything above 480 is HD so...
  • supersteve, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18why am i even on DIGG i should be playing Halo 3
    • MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Haha, I know, this ***** just makes me want to go in the other room and start it up :)
  • NaziHatinChimp, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10If you have to have a company tell you that it isn't native HD, and that you can't tell the difference with your eye, then what the ***** do you care?
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So you're saying that resolution doesn't matter.

      If you accept that argument, why did MS put "1080p" on the back of the box? Why advertise (inaccurate!) resolutions on there if you're arguing that resolution doesn't matter?
      • nygrissplz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Oh but it does output 1080p, technically. They didn't lie to you, technically. It's called a technicality. The upscaler puts it close enough.
        The resolution they advertise is not inaccurate. They are outputting 720/1080p, only it is upscaled. They don't say the NATIVE resolution for the game is 1080p.
        • Tahiri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That still counts as a lie, TVs upscale anyway. Slapping 1080p on a DVD player doesn't make it the same quality as a bluray player
    • Tahiri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because you CAN tell the difference with your eyes. I did, and so did the people who discovered it. H3 is massively jaggy, why do you think they checked in the first place?
  • santasing, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Bungie's words, not mine, "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."
    • Pallas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I don't even have a 360 and thus have no dog in this fight, but Bungie's wording is classic rhetorical technique - if you get caught out on a weakness, divert attention by denigrating those who are pointing it out. Their "tinfoil hats" and "toenail clippings" jabs are a pretty clever way to disarm the legitimate complaint that the game does not natively generate an actual HD resolution, as is advertised on its retail packaging. While I don't give a crap whether the game is 640 or 720 or 1080 lines of vertical resolution, the company should have been up front about it. If they really believed it didn't matter, then they wouldn't have minded being more accurate with the resolution specs on the product's packaging.

      If upconverting is equivalent to HD, then it should be OK for DVD movies to advertise "The content on this disk will display at HD-resolution on equipment capable of 720p or 1080i output." Hell - that would actually be *more* accurate than what Bungie's packaging claims for Halo3.
  • doctordbx, on 10/10/2007, -18/+30I see there's 2 camps here....

    Those who own an XBox 360 and are currently playing Halo 3...

    and those who wish they were.

    The game is glorious, in both gameplay and graphics.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I guess I'm in the 3rd camp. Those who have an Xbox 360 but can't play anything because it's in Mc Allen, TX busted, AGAIN.

      I would love for it to come back soon so I can play Bioshock. Maybe Halo 3 later, but first things first, I have a lot of catching up to do.
    • frygar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I'm in the other camp, the one where "my 360 kept busing so I went with PS3 and never looked back, oh ***** Warhawk...." and now Halo feels very slow and sluggish (speaking as someone who religiously played Halo 2 for years).
  • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If this is the biggest critique you can come up with for Halo 3, you better keep trying. I could care less about the resolution, I'm still having a blast. The Wii already proved that gamers care about gameplay.
  • jwyse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dugg for the interesting info; not for the drama. No matter what the actual resolution is, it still looks beautiful.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.