Modern Warfare 2 Will Render at 600p
- Thread starter lionelhutz
- Start date
xemumanic
Member
Only point I can bring up in all this is to point out that CoD2 on 360 was 720p@60fps. And that was a launch game. Ditto CoD3. The PS3 version of CoD3 was 600p if I'm not mistaken.
But you know what? At least for CoD4 (didn't play CoD3 on PS3 to compare), it didn't seem to matter. Even on the PC version at 1080p, I don't see much of a difference.
So yeah, this isn't a big deal, hell we should have expected this frankly, but the CoD4 engine is just an optimized CoD2 engine..........so why have they gotta drop the res at all?
But you know what? At least for CoD4 (didn't play CoD3 on PS3 to compare), it didn't seem to matter. Even on the PC version at 1080p, I don't see much of a difference.
So yeah, this isn't a big deal, hell we should have expected this frankly, but the CoD4 engine is just an optimized CoD2 engine..........so why have they gotta drop the res at all?
Asmodai said:
If you'd like me to say "ease of use" instead of "comfort," that's fine. Again, my point was that it's a sacrifice of technology/graphics/networking superiority of comfort/accessibilty. "Ease of use" certainly falls within that dsecription.
Right, this is also accessibility: you don't have to worry about any technical challenges, you can just pop it in and play.
And, I might add, there are now OS updates, which have caused corruptions/errors. Just like with Windows, I've seen MS have to do patches for patches which caused problems. And now there are some hardware updates (i.e. you can upgrade your 360 HD, and with fully downloadable games, there is now ample reason to do so) as well as hardware issues (360 owners need no reminder of this).
There was a point when consoles had none of these concerns. They were entirely PC-centric problems. Back in the NES days, buying a console made much more sense to me: it actually had a profound advantage in accessibility and ease of use. But now? Consoles are getting closer and closer to PCs, and the problems that come with PCs are slowly creeping in.
It's frustrating, I agree.
Cow Mengde
Banned
xemumanic said:
I think both versions of COD3 ran below 720p, but I don't remember for certain.
MWS Natural said:The jump from Wii graphics to HD consoles is much bigger than from consoles to PC (ouside of Crysis).
And guess why that is? Because we aren't getting more games like Crysis, as you say. And guess why that is? Because PS3/360 gamers are soaking up all the development dollars.
This argument is absurd. It would be like if the Wii got all the games, and then people said, "the jump from Wii to PS3/360 isn't that big (outside of Killzone/Halo)." Well yeah, the jump WOULDN'T be that big because no one would be taking advantage of the jump.
Of course, as a "core" gamer, the unrealized potential of the PS3 and 360 would upset you. It's being dragged down by the Wii, in this example. Similarly, as a "core" gamer, the unrealized potential of the PC should upset you, too. It's being dragged down by the PS3/360. This does upset you, right?
xemumanic
Member
Cow Mengde said:
I've checked and rechecked. below 720p, but 60fps, on 360, the ps3 version I believe was 30fps in fact, but that I don't know for sure.
I just checked the Beyond3D thread that keeps track.
PS3:
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) ~1088x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty 4 = 1024x600 (2x AA)
360:
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) = 1040x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty 4 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
oddly enough, there's no entry for cod2.
EDITED for EPIC FAIL.
Opiate said:
Ah yes, I understand what you meant now.
And I agree that as consoles seem to be becoming basically standardized PCs. That said, a standardized PC would avoid most of the problems I have with PCs in the first place, so I have no problem with that. If everyone has the same PC configuration, then developers only have to worry about making it run nicely on that configuration. And with standardized software, playing with friends is much easier. On the PC, some games have their own friend systems, some make you use Xfire or a different independent program, etc. But of course if you had a standardized PC, then the hardware enthusiasts wouldn't be able to put a new GPU in it every 3 months, so they wouldn't like it.
Rather than always be at the bleeding edge of the state of the art, I'm happy to be a little ways back, but I know that by the time a product ends up here, it usually works well. It's the same reason I don't beta test Windows operating systems. I'll wait until the second Service Pack hits, then I know that it will be pretty much bug free and much more stable.
I also agree that console hardware is becoming much less reliable than it used to be: my old Super NES has never had a problem and is still holding in there all these years later. But the Xbox 360 and PS3 both have serious reliability problems, especially with earlier SKUs.
With the lessons of this generation in mind, I would not want to buy a future console at launch, or even within a year of launch. You're just going to get screwed when it turns out to be unreliable, loud, most likely smaller HD than later SKUs, etc.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Also, beyond3d confirmed COD2 didn't run at a silky 60fps either. It had drops as bad as 20fps.
xemumanic said:
Eurogamer measured the PS3 and 360 versions of COD4, and the frame drops were not that severe, usually down to 50 or at worst in the 40s. Thats a huge difference, a drop in framerate from 60 to 20 is extremely noticeable, whereas a drop from 60 to 50 will be noticed only by the most eagle-eyed gamer.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Yeah and about the 60fps part... Here's what they said.
TheSonicRetard
Banned
dammitmattt said:
"innit" isn't "make believe words"
It's slang from the UK, you linguistic lummox.
I don't even get the argument here.
CoD2 doesn't look any where near as good as CoD4, and with a more stable framerate they had to do something, so they lowered the native res.
If they were rereleasing CoD2 every year, you'd expect it to run a little better, look a little sharper etc, but they're not. It's not the same game.
MGS2 ran at 60fps, MGS3 ran at 30fps. The PS2 didn't change, the game changed, and they did what they had to for that game to work.
CoD2 doesn't look any where near as good as CoD4, and with a more stable framerate they had to do something, so they lowered the native res.
If they were rereleasing CoD2 every year, you'd expect it to run a little better, look a little sharper etc, but they're not. It's not the same game.
MGS2 ran at 60fps, MGS3 ran at 30fps. The PS2 didn't change, the game changed, and they did what they had to for that game to work.
CorporalDork
Banned
This thread is going to be epic...
Oh wait, I'm a bit late.
Oh wait, I'm a bit late.
buying the pc version day 1.
i'm sure 600 penis will be enough to keep the console side of gaf playing for many hours to come
edit: did anyone else notice the 1080 penis tax pc is being charged? do other publishers charge $59 for their pc versions now?
http://www.ebgames.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?sku=647600
i'm sure 600 penis will be enough to keep the console side of gaf playing for many hours to come
edit: did anyone else notice the 1080 penis tax pc is being charged? do other publishers charge $59 for their pc versions now?
http://www.ebgames.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?sku=647600
MWS Natural said:The jump from Wii graphics to HD consoles is much bigger than from consoles to PC (ouside of Crysis
I can agree with this. Coming from someone who had a solid gaming rig that played Crysis at launch with a "good" framerate at higher settings, the jump from the HD consoles to PC, specifically, games like KZ2, GT5P, and of course Uncharted 2 (if beta is any indication), is not nearly the same length as the Wii to the HD consoles. It's absolutely tremendous when you compare Wii to PS360.
TheHeretic
Banned
J-Rzez said:
Careful not to list any 360 games now!
Consoles have the advantage of usually being viewed from TV's. This means distance, which hides imperfections.
The power of running at a high resolution with enhancements going on is undeniable. TF2, not even that technically impressive, mops the floor with console games because of how crisp and smooth the image quality is.
MightyHedgehog
Member
There's nothing too terribly concrete keeping X360 or PS3 from supporting great-looking 60FPS games at 1080p/720p with zero blatant tearing. If developers wanted to prioritize 60FPS at 720p/1080p, they easily could...especially if they only have one platform to focus their efforts on. Whether the resulting games would look as good to players as they seem to want from this generation depends on what kind of job the overall art does for the game, I think.DXPetti said:
MW2 has to match or outdo a game in the same generation, on the same platforms that still looks quite awesome today and another recent game (WaW) in the series which continues to look great as well as keeping the bar to raise fresh in the minds of gamers and fans of the series. Wipeout HD had only to pass a relatively low technical bar considering its predecessors' platforms and the PS3's technical capabilities. Seems, to me, that it was really the art & presentation side of things that was most important to live up to on the visual end.
MW2 does seem to ask a lot of the consoles, but it seems reasonable to assume that some of this is down to the pressure to deliver equivalent experiences across three platforms simultaneously, working with a lowest common denominator somewhere which caps certain things across the board on the console side, and a lack of time and resources spent to push the resolution to 720p native with the same performance level.
I'm not sure it's correct to assume that what happens with CoD: MW2 represents the maximum potential of X360 and PS3. It seems rather doubtful as the next few years will likely prove. Every generation of console hardware sees pretty large improvements in the software performance and utilization well into the fifth and sixth years of active development. Even beyond that should there be developers pushing things that far in. Nevermind that we're also making a rather large assumption about where, when, and how this hardware is 'tapped out'...which seems to be never fully possible to know until well after the next generation is in full swing.
MickeyKnox
Member
Hence my earlier statement that resolution is the least of the game's problems.Draft said:
Those screenshots look small and it looks just as good, if not better on my big screen tv. LOL @ last shot with 19.2fps MW2 is gonna do 60. HD Consoles > PC.cameltoe said:
I see you were banned for making bad posts, though!
Yeah. I've never seen exploits or cheaters on Xbox Live. And, on Xbox live, a few games have the option to kick people...sometimes. On PC I doubt you can control that stuff.
DodgyGeezerFella
Member
Rorschach said:
This post is so bad in so many ways. Cant control voting to kick someone out of a server........... behave.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Opiate said:
Not all consoles are. *Cough*
Asmodai said:
Yes, I can understand these complaints, and I consider your preferences completely valid. Just to repeat again, here, you're sacrificing bleeding edge technology (standarization falls behind the curve) for the sake of consistency -- that is, not having to worry about compatability. Sacrificing high end tech for compatability.
Sure, I can understand that. I just want people to recognize that handheld gamers, for example, could make the same claim you are, only to an even greater to dgree: they are willing to be even farther back than you are. They're willing to wait until the technology becomes so well understood that it can be miniaturized and made portable. Most handhelds can be tossed in the air and dropped from 10 feet up and be fine: that's consistency and reliability that consoles can't claim.
It's the exact same principle as what you're describing aboe -- and yet, handheld gamers are almost ignored on these forums, as if they were second class citizens, despite the fact that NDS/PSP users far outnumber PS3/360 users, and that's before you consider platforms like the iPhone.
This is all I'm asking for: philosophical consistency. I know you're not doing this Asmodai, it just frustrates me terribly when I DO see it.
The closer consoles get, the more problems consoles systems will share with PCs. We're almost at the point where the only things separating them are that you can swap out the GPU/CPU/RAM on a PC.
Scottlarock
Banned
thanks.EviLore said:
Parallax Scroll
Banned
Is it 60 fps? Cause if it is I'm OK with this.
