Xbox 360 beats PS3 in Japan for third week
Nintendo confirms DSi software as region-locked
Eidos - Next Tomb Raider will have 360-only DLC
May 19th, 2008 @ 07:35
In an interview with Ripten, Haze creative lead Derek Littlewood confirmed that - contrary to reports on the Playstation blog - the game does not run in high definition.
The shooter runs in 1024×576 (576p) and not 1024×720 (720p), meaning it leaves the PS3 to upscale.
Littlewood, however, doesn’t see what the fuss is about:
“We prioritise a nice smooth framerate over a different res,” he said.
“Personally, I don’t really buy the whole thing. People did the same with Call of Duty, they did the same with Halo, and they say with those games ‘It’s not running at true HD!’ And it’s like, ‘I don’t care’. If the game looks good and it runs smoothly, those are the important things to me.”
Right on, brother. More Littlewood through the link.
By Mike Bowden
Del.icio.us | Digg | Share on Facebook
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:53 am
I’m tired of the nitty-gritty details, I just want to waste some time playing a few games
May 19th, 2008 at 7:58 am
3 days then the game speaks for itself. At last.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:03 am
It’s only been delayed what eleventy billion times?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Should get them to send you a copy, morriss. I’ll mail them today.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Dan: At least.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Thanks! (y)
May 19th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Purple haze all in my brain
Lately things just don’t seem the same
Actin’ funny, but I don’t know why
’scuse me while I kiss the sky
May 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Poo.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Why bother getting them to send morriss a copy? Unless they’re sending him a new telly as well?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Ha! Gameplay > graphics.
Or so they tell me!
Anyway, looks like I’ll be playing it at its native res anyway! :p
May 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Ouch!
May 19th, 2008 at 9:44 am
“Ha! Gameplay > graphics.”
I believe that they have more of a symbiotic relationship these days…
May 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I wasn’t being serious.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I believe you!
May 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I’m glad, It’s a good attitude for a dev to have. I’d take a rock solid frame rate any day over some ultra crisp textures chugging along.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:04 am
BB: One concurs. Dropped frames are sourer than the devil’s own ejaculate.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Well I reckon that it needs to run at 60fps really. He’s comparing it to COD4, which runs at a higher resolution, so if it doesn’t get close to matching the frame rate, something’s gone a cropper.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:13 am
On the one hand, I agree that a smooth frame rate is very important. On the other hand, have you actually looked at Haze? I think it looks really bad. Low-res and smothered in blur (sorry, special effects) to compensate for it. 1024×576 means you’re losing 36% of the HD resolution.
As for the comparisons with the other games:
1. Call of Duty 4 runs at a higher resolution than Haze and is pretty rock solid at 60fps, not 30fps like Haze. That’s a trade-off work taking.
2. Halo 3 also runs at a higher resolution than Haze, albeit with a less than rock solid frame rate.
I just wasn’t impressed with the Haze demo. If it is indeed just a timed exclusive, I’ll be VERY intrigued to see the Xbox 360 code.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Littlewood’s right. It really doesn’t matter.
There was nothing wrong with Halo 3’s frame rate afaics.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Remember back in the good old days when we didn’t know what resolution games ran at? And didn’t care either?
May 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I think deep down in the depths of our subconscious, we always cared a little bit.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
+1 for the rock solid frame rate = goodness.
If it looks ok - which Haze does - then it’s on to the gameplay.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Halo 3 had a couple of minor issues - bizarrely it seemed to cope worse when it had less to do. Indoors facing a wall would actually cause some stutters. Simple test, stand still and spin round. However if you had no problems with Halo 3 then the devs have done their job.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
“Remember back in the good old days when we didn’t know what resolution games ran at? And didn’t care either?”
Yeah, but nintendo never pimped the NES on the claim that it was better than the Master System because it ran at 640×480, only for us to find out that the vast majority of its games actually only ran at 520×380.
The more you build yourself up, the more stick you’re bound to get when you fail to deliver.
Also, PC gamers going onto consoles after the promise of true HD gaming are not going to be happy with this continuing trend either.
PC gamers are the biggest graphics whores around!
May 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am
720p is not 1024×720, it’s 1280×720.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Correct. Well spotted. Just testing.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:11 am
One thing that surprises me is that the guy that does this “pixel counting” is consistently right. Whatever his method is, it clearly works.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am
An array of 1280×720 on a 16:9 display has square pixels. An array of 1024×768 on a 16:9 display has rectangular pixels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
May 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am
You changed that well quick morriss!
May 19th, 2008 at 11:34 am
You can’t prove I changed anything!
Still it’s true, all plasma HD TV’s will say 1024*768 whereas LCDs will say 1280*768. Rectangular and square pixels, innit.
Interesting conversation, this. Anyone want to kill themselves, yet?
May 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Resolution talk gives me the right horn, frankly. Kris Eurogamer’s got a 50″ plasma. It’s fucking epic.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Whenever I try to play PS3 on Comet’s 52″ Bravia I have to stand about half a mile back from the screen or it’s impossible. Good job those controllers are wireless.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I’m just caught in between a rock and hard place atm. I really want a new TV but at the same time I don’t. The picture quality on my Philips plasma from digital TV via RGB is fucking superb, I literally haven’t seen it bettered by almost any High Street LCD to date.
However, it really bugs me that I can’t output 1080p and as an avid viewer of HD/BD I really want to experience this.
Sticking point is money. I won’t go for an LCD due to the lower quality terrestrial image, but to buy a Full HD 40″+ Plasma is going to cost upwards of £1500 (Danish prices).
I only bought my TV 4 years ago for £2500!! eek!
The missus will never come round to the idea. :’(
May 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
morriss: The latest LCDs are far better than the old ones for SD feeds. They still all suck though (including plasmas).
/rants
May 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Wow. And I thought that UK technology prices were high!
http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/review/2008/04/01/LG-50PG6000-50in-Plasma-TV/p1
May 19th, 2008 at 11:50 am
No, seriously. If only you could see my picture. I’ve had EG’s resident HD-TV whore phAge over, and he’ll confirm it really does look the fucking business. As do HD movies, although not as good as they could, admittedly.
However, his LCD Sony 32D3000 is sharper and cleaner for gaming.
/needs a windfall.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am
G1GA: your link doesn’t work
May 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
poo!
Try this one
May 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Much better!