COD3 and THP8 not running at 720P on Xbox360

rp2000 · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:08

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/13/cod3-thp8-not-720p/

It's all tarnslated from a german site, but it looks like these 2 games run at lower resolutions (I can only assume for performance enhancing reasons).

When the tests were run, CoD3 was shown to be running at 1040x620 pixels and THP8 at 1040x584 pixels. The pixel drop reflects a resolution drop of 30% and 34%, respectively.

In light of this, are comparisons between the PS3 version that black and white? Surely we can all agree that 720P minimum is essential for a 360 game (Even though we can't all agree 60fps is

) I think the only otehr game that went this route was PGR3 and *** developrs stated it was because of them trying to release it for the 360 launch (i.e. they could have made it 720P if given time).

Can't see the excuse considering the games are released 1 yr after the console launch (approx).

rp2000

~J~ · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:11

I refuse to believe a game is running at a resolution that isn't available to the console.

Wyrdo · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:12

Saw this reported elsewhere.

It is very strange that they've done this, I thought all games had to be developed in 720p? Obvioulsy PGR3 has been the exception up until now as thye had to get it out for launch.

rp2000 · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:13

~J~ said:
I refuse to believe a game is running at a resolution that isn't available to the console.

It just upscales it using the built in scaler. This was done for PGR3 (as mentioned) and worked fine, although I think it can lead to increased bluriness/jaggies depending on what display/connection you use.

rp2000

dirtydog · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:15

This is bad if true - why did MS certify the games for release if they don't meet its specific requirements?

~J~ · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:16

If the article is saying the game has been developed with a 1040x620 resolution and the console is upscaling to 1080x768 (or whatever) then I can believe that because it's done in most games to gain extra speed.

But if they are saying the console is physically outputting at 1040x620 then there's no way that can be true as the hardware doesn't support that res.

Wyrdo · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:17

No, I think they're saying the game is developed in a res less than 720P and is being upscaled. The thing is games are meant to be developed in no less than 720P.

dirtydog · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:18

~J~ said:
If the article is saying the game has been developed with a 1040x620 resolution and the console is upscaling to 1080x768 (or whatever) then I can believe that because it's done in most games to gain extra speed.

Not on most games on the 360 though - it's supposed to be against the rules.

rp2000 · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:19

~J~ said:
If the article is saying the game has been developed with a 1040x620 resolution and the console is upscaling to 1080x768 (or whatever) then I can believe that because it's done in most games to gain extra speed.

But if they are saying the console is physically outputting at 1040x620 then there's no way that can be true as the hardware doesn't support that res.

The article is saying they are rendered internally at lower res and upscaled, I think. (Your interpretation is as good as mine as it's all from a german translation to start with!!!)

~J~ said:
....it's done in most games to gain extra speed.

I don't know that other 360 games do this tbh apart from PGR3.

rp2000

Cronox · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:28

Will be interesting to see if the PS3 versions are running at these resolutions too, but it their not it’s bad news for Microsoft going forward.

JUMPURS · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:28

kinda puts a bit of a cork in the framerate issues in the PS3 version. For getting a marginally better framerate the dropped the resolution, yet MS said the min they would do is 720 (which was never right from the start)

Demon · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:30

If you look at the PS3 Vs XBOX 360 THP8 on www.gametrailers.com from my eyes they look the same res.. does that mean the PS3 version is also done at a lower resolution..

Cronox · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:31

JUMPURS said:
kinda puts a bit of a cork in the framerate issues in the PS3 version. For getting a marginally better framerate the dropped the resolution, yet MS said the min they would do is 720 (which was never right from the start)

To be honest though, if you made me pick between a higher resolution and a smooth frame rate, I would take the smooth frame rate any day.

~J~ · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:35

I don't know of any official development docs from Microsoft stating the internal graphics had to be developed at 720, I'm aware that they should output at that as this was the requirements for Next-Gen and the ability to compliment HDTV's.

It would be absolutly crazy to create backgrounds and/or additional entities that make up a landscape at 720 res. And if there's any other game that proves this, Oblivion is one game where the graphics are not rendered at 720. Perhaps the main detail is, but additional extras like trees, textures, bushes, etc, they are far far lower than 720.

JUMPURS · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:38

Cronox said:
To be honest though, if you made me pick between a higher resolution and a smooth frame rate, I would take the smooth frame rate any day.

The problem is they both apparently have chronic framerate issues, just that the PS3 is a bit worse. If it was dropped resolution and a solid FPS then fine but the 360 is drop res and still not even a Solid fps.

dirtydog · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:40

ATI revealed this afternoon that every single Xbox 360 game will be required to run at a minimum of 720p resolution with 4x Anti-Aliasing.

Speaking at a press conference in London, ATI technology specialist Rene Froeleke told journalists that Microsoft had specified that games must run at the 1280x720 resolution at 4xAA with no slowdown. Every single game will be supported at this graphical specification, which we think is great news for gamers playing on big-screen TVs.

When questionned as to why the minimum wasn't 1080p, Rene responded that most of Europe hadn't even reached 720, let alone 1080.

Because of the embedded DRAM architecture of Xbox 360, the AA was described as 'Absolutely free'.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/05/25/ati_xbox_360_london/

Maybe game devs got confused and thought MS meant every 360 game had to have slowdown and shouldn't run at 4xAA?

Cronox · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:43

JUMPURS said:
The problem is they both apparently have chronic framerate issues, just that the PS3 is a bit worse. If it was dropped resolution and a solid FPS then fine but the 360 is drop res and still not even a Solid fps.

Sorry, I haven’t really been following news/reviews on either game.
I think its bad form that both next gen consoles are having such common frame rate issues. It's almost expected at this point on the 360 and the ps3 doesn’t sound like it's going to be much better.

JUMPURS · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:46

Cronox said:
Sorry, I haven’t really been following news/reviews on either game.
I think its bad form that both next gen consoles are having such common frame rate issues. It's almost expected at this point on the 360 and the ps3 doesn’t sound like it's going to be much better.

Yeah the reviews slated both of them. Sure i still think questions should have been asked if it was lower rez yet a solid framerate, but to do both is shocking.

Edit sorry i am talking about framerates in Tony Hawk's i have read nothing on COD3 though

The Running Man · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:47

hmm when they say "run at 720P" do they mean simply output at 720p, or actually have to render the game at 720p?

i think its a case similar to GT4 and its HD modes where the console simply upscales to the required res, but does not actually render in that res...

or am i completely wrong?

JUMPURS · 14 Nov 2006 at 13:49

they are saying the game isn't rendered at 720p, but upscaled, like a DVD would be.

Which makes you wonder what 1080 looks like with it :eek:

Its strange that COD3 is like that, is COD2 a lower rez too, because i thought it was the same engine?