Haze is 576P?!

nero120 · 20 May 2008 at 09:42

SiD the Turtle said:
I shall quote the creative lead, Derek Littlewood:

I think he sums it up quite nicely.

100 pixels more? You do realise that we are in fact talking about a difference of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND pixels? What a chump that dev is! He doesn't realise why people are up in arms about his sub standard game using 200k less pixels than it should in return for a measily 30fps? Just what has this game got going for it that requires it to run at a lower res and lower fps than COD4? And do I need to mention that COD4 wasn't even ps3 exclusive?

God, I sound like a 360 fangirl!! :eek:

james.miller · 20 May 2008 at 09:56

nero120 said:
100 pixels more? You do realise that we are in fact talking about a difference of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND pixels? What a chump that dev is! He doesn't realise why people are up in arms about his sub standard game using 200k less pixels than it should in return for a measily 30fps? Just what has this game got going for it that requires it to run at a lower res and lower fps than COD4? And do I need to mention that COD4 wasn't even ps3 exclusive?

God, I sound like a 360 fangirl!!

its not really resolution thats so important IF the picture quality is on par, gt5p has shown this. in this light, that 'chump' dev is quite correct. however, its their implementation at that resolution thats failed, misserable, not necessarily the resolution itself. that said 576p just isnt good enough regardless, but they could have done far better with it.

nero120 · 20 May 2008 at 10:04

james.miller said:
the resolution is irrelvant IF the picture quality is on par, gt5p has shown this. in this light, that 'chump' dev is quite correct. however, its their implementation at that resolution thats failed, no the res itself.

The resolution is NEVER irrelevant. The ps3 was marketed as an HD gaming experience, which Haze certainly does not meet. If you play it on a big tv I bet by god you would know how bad it actually looks.

The technical implementation of Haze cannot be seen in any way other than a failure. Massive delays complimented with a sub par final res and a low framerate this far into the ps3's release is indefensible, yet that dev is happy to sit there and try to defend it (albeit understandably). I think they need to go do a bit of work experience at infinity ward.

james.miller · 20 May 2008 at 10:06

nero120 said:
The resolution is NEVER irrelevant. The ps3 was marketed as an HD gaming experience, which Haze certainly does not meet. If you play it on a big tv I bet by god you would know how bad it actually looks.

i have a 40" 1080p screen. so ill stop you right there. I have also said that its a failure on their part. i have played the demo, on a big tv, and have said how bad it looks. even if you quoted my posted before i reworded it. what i was implying was that they still could have done a lot better with that resolution.

nero120 · 20 May 2008 at 10:12

james.miller said:
i have a 40" 1080p screen. so ill stop you right there. I have also said that its a failure on their part. i have played the demo, on a big tv, and have said how bad it looks. even if you quoted my posted before i reworded it.

My point was just that the ps3 is meant to be an HD gaming machine, therefore by that reasoning even COD4 could be seen as a technical "failure" because it doesn't reach HD resolutions. However, thankfully the game was awesome so everyone overlooked this issue, yet now it seems devs see COD4 as the target to reach not the bare minimum, and are releasing games more and more that are sub HD resolutions with the old excuse that "no one should care about an odd 100 pixels".

I'm just a bit concerned as to the attitude of certain developers with regards to ps3 games development, and I hope that games like Haze don't represent the mainstay of future games development for the ps3.

james.miller · 20 May 2008 at 10:17

no, no thats the wrong attitude to take of course. cod4 did look great. Thats just an example of graphics done right - even if the resolution was low. of course, cod4 on the ps3 is no competition to cod4 on my pc at a native 1920x1080 but its by no means a bad experience on the ps3. the ps3 and 360 were supposed to be a lot of things but they both fell short. more so the ps3, but i guess if they'd have been released at the same time it wouldnt see that way so much. anyway thats another discussion lol. Haze has failed on a somewhat epic proportion. it felt like it would all along and that demo just confirmed it unfortunately. there's no aruement here - they could have done a lot better.

im still waiting for this magical time when the ps3 takes over as the lead console and delivers better looking games. oh look a flying pig! :/

Kreeeee · 20 May 2008 at 10:22

james.miller said:
im still waiting for this magical time when the ps3 takes over as the lead console and delivers better looking games. oh look a flying pig! :/

If it happens it will only be 1-1.5 years before the next XBox is released.

carlazai · 20 May 2008 at 11:18

lowrider007 said:
No offence mate but who cares honestly ?, do you think the main demographic is gonna tell the difference from 576p and 720p, no, and not only that some of the most successful games have been of a similar resolution, COD4, Halo3 etc, but what makes me laugh inside the most is the following, the demo is released, everyone plays, nobody knows what resolution it is, think about it, nobody knows, I'll say it one more time, nobody knows it's running at 576p, right, now then, someone then confirms it's running at 576p and everyone is like "OMFG!!!11111oNe1!!!, how is this possible whaaaaa whaaaaa " yet before that same person who is crying didn't even know this,

Now tell me what would happen if right now someone confirmed it was 720p, everyone would be happy, you see what I'm saying, not only do the main demographic not care about resolutions but even the geek brigades don't even know what resolution it's running at so they all sit around waiting for an uber geek to confirm what resolution the game is being rendered at so they can decide if the game is any good or not lol, how can you let that number dictate for enjoyment of the game when you didn't know in the first place, these 'next gen' res arguments are so ******* silly ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Well i can quickly tell which resoliution it is in as my Pany plasma tells me.

RichieM · 20 May 2008 at 11:20

carlazai said:
Well i can quickly tell which resoliution it is in as my Pany plasma tells me.

wow thats really clever, how does it know when the console is sending an upscaled signal to it? :confused:

mmj_uk · 20 May 2008 at 11:22

What happened to Timesplitters anyway? that was really good why did they ditch it for this rubbish?

carlazai · 20 May 2008 at 11:29

RichieM said:
wow thats really clever, how does it know when the console is sending an upscaled signal to it?

Okay i did jump a little quickly when i wrote that lol.

Theres a little onscreen display when you start up an application that tells you what resolution the film or game is going to be played.

Kreeeee · 20 May 2008 at 11:31

carlazai said:
Okay i did jump a little quickly when i wrote that lol.

Theres a little onscreen display when you start up an application that tells you what resolution the film or game is going to be played.

All TVs have that, but it doesn't actually tell you the resolution of the original content, just the source stream.

carlazai · 20 May 2008 at 11:33

Kreeeee said:
All TVs have that, but it doesn't actually tell you the resolution of the original content, just the source stream.

I never noticed it on the samsung i had before. Maybe i was trying to be a little clever

dirtydog · 20 May 2008 at 11:36

dannyjo22 said:
As I've said before neither console has the power to run these games properly at 720/1080 and maintain a decent framerate or game size.

Roll on the next gen

I also formed the opinion early on in the 360's life (the first 'HD' console - I know this game is on PS3) that this generation of consoles had bitten off more than they could chew by trying to run at HD resolutions while improving the graphics markedly from the previous gen. You can do one or the other, but doing both has clearly proved difficult without corner cutting, whether it be knocking down the resolution from true HD or cutting the frame rate. Or in the case of this game: both

KNiVES · 20 May 2008 at 11:54

carlazai said:
Well i can quickly tell which resoliution it is in as my Pany plasma tells me.

Haze is blurry as ****, I could tell straight off the bat it was at an extremely low resolution. Even Halo 2 on my 360 looks sharper than this.

V1N · 20 May 2008 at 12:54

nero120 said:
The resolution is NEVER irrelevant. The ps3 was marketed as an HD gaming experience, which Haze certainly does not meet. If you play it on a big tv I bet by god you would know how bad it actually looks.

The technical implementation of Haze cannot be seen in any way other than a failure. Massive delays complimented with a sub par final res and a low framerate this far into the ps3's release is indefensible, yet that dev is happy to sit there and try to defend it (albeit understandably). I think they need to go do a bit of work experience at infinity ward.

I played it on a 100" screen, and thought it looked quite good.
I wouldn't say it looked great, and I certainly wouldn't say it looked crap.
Sure, it was a little fuzzy around the edges

the colours didn't seem as vibrant as I'd have liked, but nevertheless, it looked quite good.

I must be nearly alone then in actually enjoying the demo too.
I've left my pre-order stand, and I look forward to playing the full game.

The feeling of the controls was good, nice and smooth, and a nice game to just sit back, and enjoy shooting the baddies, arcade "leave your brain at home" style.

Still, each to their own!

Vin.