Modern Warfare 2 Will Render at 600p

The ironic thing here is that Infinity Ward could have said that it ran at 720p, and even the most hardcore graphics whore wouldn't be able to tell that it actually didn't.

Unless of course they have nothing better to do than be like one of those "pixel-counters" :lol
 
So, let me get this straight:

Judging from the thread on Mark Rein's comments, GAF really wants the next-next-gen consoles to come right the fuck now so they can plunk another $300-$400 down to get real HD, 'cause sub-HD just doesn't cut it anymore.

But in this thread, GAF either
1) doesn't care about sub-HD, it's all about gameplay
or
2) cares a lot, but doesn't want to plunk down $200-300 on a video card that can make their PC run it.
 
Bumblebeetuna said:
How do you know any of this? We have seen a brief MP video and a brief section of one level at E3.

And it isn't a technical limitation, because other shooters are more open ended. It's about presentation and atmosphere.
I'm making assumptions here, but from what I've read in GI and from what we've seen at E3, things are pointing in that direction (corridors, scripted, etc.).

I can't condone great presentation and atmosphere, but I really would love for a different experience each time I played the game. All those barriers and limitations hindered my engrossment with the game, not to mention that fast movement and pacing.
 
Asmodai said:
The ironic thing here is that Infinity Ward could have said that it ran at 720p, and even the most hardcore graphics whore wouldn't be able to tell that it actually didn't.

Unless of course they have nothing better to do than be like one of those "pixel-counters" :lol
That's just not true.
 
Don't listen to them IW, CoD4 rocked and so will MW2. Glad you guys have your priorities straight. Too many games then generation have painful framerate issues and tearing for the sake of hitting "720p."
 
BattleMonkey said:
But what about having both? WHOA!

Mind blown

On consoles, I have more respect for devs that go for higher framerate, than for those who release games at sub 25, because it needs to look pretty for the casual crowds.
Do you understand why I wrote the post you have quoted now?
 
People, there's something far more sinister at work here. It isn't an issue *just* of missing pixels. The humble pixel could be seen as an analog of the cell, a fundamental subunit of all life. Without cells, life is nothing, without pixels, games are nothing. Pixels are not rocks, their colours and values change, they can even die and grow dim. None of them are immortal. What Infinity Ward is perpetuating here is tantamount to abortion, it gleefully wipes out pixels before they even have a chance at life. Several years in "development", several hundred thousand innocent victims. You fuckers have some nerve laughing about this wholesale slaughter, it makes me ill. But what is even worse is that Infinity Ward is blind, it refuses to see the malicious nature of its acts.

Infinity Ward, publicly apologize and cancel this pixel-death orgy or you can kiss your business goodbye.
 
Asmodai said:
The ironic thing here is that Infinity Ward could have said that it ran at 720p, and even the most hardcore graphics whore wouldn't be able to tell that it actually didn't.

Unless of course they have nothing better to do than be like one of those "pixel-counters" :lol
I knew that the PS3 version of GTA IV wasn't running in 720p within five seconds of playing it.
 
dojokun said:
Now now, no need to get mad.

Well, perhaps I got caught up with semantics. Still, both Blizzard and Valve do go for high resolutions in their games...Diablo 2 was 9 years ago. Things have changed.
 
I'll caveat that I'm not especially interested in this game. That said, I can't understand why people care about this one bit. Different developers use different methods to reach different levels if fidelity for what they want to achieve. As long as the end results looks good enough for the goal, it doesn't mantter.
 
mysticstylez said:
PC gamers that are running out of reasons to champion pc FPS' over console FPS'.

Nice use of sarcasm

Misterinenja said:
What is it with the super aggressive PC elitism? We get it. :lol

Apparently you guys don't, otherwise everyone would be part of the glorious master race and the world would be a much better place.
 
GhaleonEB said:
I'll caveat that I'm not especially interested in this game. That said, I can't understand why people care about this one bit. Different developers use different methods to reach different levels if fidelity for what they want to achieve. As long as the end results looks good enough for the goal, it doesn't mantter.


People can easily relate to and take a stance with numbers and <> signs vs having to sit there and actually evalute the product.
 
I commend IW for making 600p look as good as it does. COD4 is still one of the best looking games on a console. Sure if you put your nose into an odd texture you can find flaws, but playing through the game like a normal human being doesn't reveal anything sub par.

If not for those pixel sniffers I never would have known.
 
ninjavanish said:
You guys are thinking about this all wrong. You're looking at pixels per frame, 922k vs 614k. If you assume the 720p game is 30 fps and MW2 is 60fps you can calculate pixels per second.

720p game @ 30fps = 921k * 30 = 27 million pixels / second
600p game @ 60fps = 614k * 60 = 37 million pixels / second

33% more pixels/second from MW2 compared to a 30fps 720p game!


This teaches you three things: stfu and enjoy your games, numbers without context lack meaning, don't trust statistics.
OK, noob question: from where did you get these two numbers: 922k and 614k? I'd like to know.
 
RobertM said:
I can't condone great presentation and atmosphere, but I really would love for a different experience each time I played the game. All those barriers and limitations hindered my engrossment with the game, not to mention that fast movement and pacing.

Condone is not the word you want here. Perhaps you were thinking of "condemn?"

I don't know how you can consider a "fast paced" shooter to be a bad thing. Would you prefer a more slovenly shooter? :lol The whole point of COD4 was that it hit hard and fast, it surprised and impressed many people that way.

I commend IW for making 600p look as good as it does. COD4 is still one of the best looking games on a console. Sure if you put your nose into an odd texture you can find flaws, but playing through the game like a normal human being doesn't reveal anything sub par.

If not for those pixel sniffers I never would have known.

Aye. Pointless thread, really. People who care about resolutions that much will have a high end PC anyway. It's just an opportunity for the "PC Master Gaming Race" to come and remind us once more how vastly superior their hardware is.
 
Misterinenja said:
What is it with the super aggressive PC elitism? We get it. :lol
Judging by the CODWii thread, no, you really don't.

EDIT: To clarify, games like Halo, Call of Duty and Fallout, are PC games and were originally developed for the PC. They have been re-tuned and put out for console. This modern hardcore gaming is really casualized PC gaming. The pixel counting just makes that crystal clear... and doubly ironic when this same casual crowd pretends to be the hardest of the hardcore in threads about this game on the Wii or Epic Mickey.
 
Pumpkins said:
After reading this thread, I dearly miss the days of the NES and SNES...

(Please don't bring up blast processing, thanks.)

it was fanboy hell back then! of course i was a kid so it didn't seem like a big deal. i'm not a kid anymore and now the fanboy thing is just kind of.....sad, really. but i do try to remember than there are actual kids on GAF so when i see fanboy posts i just assume they're a kid and not an adult behaving like that behind their video games.
 
So it mattered when Halo 3 was "sub-HD", but even when the resolution is lower than Halo 3 - it now is "Who cares about pixels?"

Hurr.
 
agaru said:
OK, noob question: from where did you get these two numbers: 922k and 614k? I'd like to know.

720p means 1280 lines of horizontal resolution and 720 lines of vertical resolution.
600p, as described in the OP, measn 1024 lines of horizontal resolution and 600 lines of vertical resolution.

1280 * 720 = ~922k
1024 * 600 = ~614k
 
xenorevlis said:
Are you serious? Go read his post again.

RESOLUTION is NOT the big selling point of their games on the PC.

That's because we can change resolutions at will on the PC so they don't need to be a selling point. Got a 1920x1200 resolution Monitor? you can set the resolution of the game to 800x600 or 1920x1080 or 1280x720 or even 1024x768, it doesn't matter.

PC gamers are so used to changing resolutions at will that it just comes as standard.
 
agaru said:
OK, now it's clear. Thanks. Yeah, I asked because I didn't know. It's always good to learn. :p

339qb9d.png
 
Huttie0 said:
So it mattered when Halo 3 was "sub-HD", but even when the resolution is lower than Halo 3 - it now is "Who cares about pixels?"

omg ur right its a conspiracy!1! Those damn haloz haters!

Wait, nobody ever cared about pixels? Yeah, that would be it.
 
Asmodai said:
omg ur right its a conspiracy!1! Those damn haloz haters!

Wait, nobody ever cared about pixels? Yeah, that would be it.

Right, because if nobody cared - we wouldn't have retarded threads like these.
 
Top Bottom