Halo Reach is Sub-HD, catastrophic fail

did some research and found out halo reach runs at 1152x720, which is not 1280 or so required to be considered HD. catastrophic fail, all discussion about halo reach vs killzone 2 or 3 in the graphics department is over. it runs at 30 and sometimes 20 frames per second. sigh

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-alpha-analysis-blog-entry

[QUOTE="Heirren"](...)As of today, (...) the 360, has yet to produce visuals in the same league as the best the PS3 has to offer.(...)the fact is that the absolute best visuals this gen have been produced by the ps3.

soulitane

[QUOTE="shroofnayef"][QUOTE="dotWithShoes"] And the game will still be better than anything on the ps3... and one of the highest rated games of the year. And without a doubt a great game. I forgot I'm not allowed to have fun with a game unless there are enough pixels on screen.delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="shroofnayef"] lol wut? U2, LBP/2, DS, GT5, MGS4, etc, etc anyone?shroofnayef

I didn't say it looked better, i said it was in the same ball park. Let's be reaosnable. A lot of the time i see description of Uncharted as if it is on some whole other level of technical godliness. It's probably the best looking game on consoles, but not by some extreme margin. Plenty of games are punching at the same weight.

To pretend that saying Gears is in the same ballpark as Uncharted is laughably absurd is just silly.

[QUOTE="shroofnayef"][QUOTE="delta3074"]that's typical, you automatically assumed that he meant graphics when he said Reach would be better than anything on the Ps3, you do know UC2 borrowed various parts of Halo 3's online,naughty dog even thanked bungie for it,lolocstew

[QUOTE="shroofnayef"][QUOTE="delta3074"]that's typical, you automatically assumed that he meant graphics when he said Reach would be better than anything on the Ps3, you do know UC2 borrowed various parts of Halo 3's online,naughty dog even thanked bungie for it,lolocstew

I didn't say it looked better, i said it was in the same ball park. Let's be reaosnable. A lot of the time i see description of Uncharted as if it is on some whole other level of technical godliness. It's probably the best looking game on consoles, but not by some extreme margin. Plenty of games are punching at the same weight.

To pretend that saying Gears is in the same ballpark as Uncharted is laughably absurd is just silly.

[QUOTE="soulitane"] [QUOTE="Heirren"](...)As of today, (...) the 360, has yet to produce visuals in the same league as the best the PS3 has to offer.(...)the fact is that the absolute best visuals this gen have been produced by the ps3.

Kane04

[QUOTE="YankeesNYC4life"]

did some research and found out halo reach runs at 1152x720, which is not 1280 or so required to be considered HD. catastrophic fail, all discussion about halo reach vs killzone 2 or 3 in the graphics department is over. it runs at 30 and sometimes 20 frames per second. sigh, im not a big killzone fan but this should end all "halo reach graphics king" topics, remarks, whatever.

720p is 1280x720... The Halo Reach was 1152x720, technically lower than 720p.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-alpha-analysis-blog-entry

kejigoto

I agree with the sub HD thing it means nothing.

Dude Killzone 2 took 4 years,but Uncharted took just 2 and easily over power Halo 3,Killzone 3, 2 years as well and look out of this wolrd,but you are wrong in another thing Halo 3 cost $55 million to make Killzone 2 just $45 millions which pust Halo 3 budget 10 million over Killzone 2 one,who do you think you are talking of,you talk like if the company that make Halo 3 was small is MS and its their biggest game,they can spend 100 million on it easy.

Also considering that Halo 3 story was done before Halo 2 was even release,i say it took them a while to make Halo 3,since the last Halo game was release o 2004 and Halo 3 on 2007.

*cancels his halo reach 360s preorder, and sells his 360, and all his 360 games* i hate you microsoft you have lied to me the last time!

I didn't say it looked better, i said it was in the same ball park. Let's be reaosnable. A lot of the time i see description of Uncharted as if it is on some whole other level of technical godliness. It's probably the best looking game on consoles, but not by some extreme margin. Plenty of games are punching at the same weight.

To pretend that saying Gears is in the same ballpark as Uncharted is laughably absurd is just silly.

[QUOTE="Kane04"]

[QUOTE="soulitane"]First of all that doesn't say anything about what the 360 can or can't do. Yes the ps3 has the better looking games, but how does that say what the 360 can do? Secondly the absolute best visuals this gen have been produced on the pc.soulitane

meh, if it was on ps3 it would run at 640*480

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="soulitane"]First of all that doesn't say anything about what the 360 can or can't do. Yes the ps3 has the better looking games, but how does that say what the 360 can do? Secondly the absolute best visuals this gen have been produced on the pc.soulitane

That's why I said it was part opinion and part fact, though. It is like comparing two high performance cars. One being the 360, but the other the ps3 which produces the best lap time. The problem with calling the ps3 as a faster car as fact is that the driver is a variable in the equation. Even with that said though, the only fact we have to go on are the results that have been produces, and this shows that the ps3 is more capable. I'll eat my words if I see an xbox 360 as technically advanced as Uncharted 2, but I'm yet to see this--and please don't throw around screenshots, especially of unreleased games.

Nothing will really tell us which console is absolutely more powerful. The only factualy things we can go off are the games released, and up to this point in time, the ps3 comes across as the more powerful console. The one other fact the is often overlooked is that devs have had likely 6+ years to develop for the 360--which is already similar to the pc to my understanding, while devs seem to be just coming to grips with utilizing the power of the ps3. If you look at the 360 library, Gears1 still holds up with its other graphical powerhouses. The PS3 keeps raising the bar within its own library.

Also, it is annoying when people that claim the ps3 the more powerful console are automatically labelled as Sony fanboys. I bought a 360 shortly after launch, and have only gotten a ps3 within the last year. I have way more games for the xbox than I do the ps3, play halo most of the time, but honestly if you see games like Uncharted 2 in motion, nothing on the 360 measures up. I have a feeling that the people that post decent looking screens of Gears2 have never actually played Uncharted 2, because looking at screens of that game, and seeing it in motion are two different stories.

[QUOTE="soulitane"][QUOTE="Kane04"] 1st its funny to see how when the PS3 seemed it couldnt put out visual lemming party around laughing saying it was a broken and weak system and it simply couldn't do it, how does that doesnt work in reverse now? why can't i say the PS3 puts out better graphics and its more capable than a 360 when i can get them side to side and prove it? and PC as nothing to do with the argue, best visuals are on CGI movies if i follow your line of thought...

Kane04

meh, if it was on ps3 it would run at 640*480

TerrorRizzing

I didn't say it looked better, i said it was in the same ball park. Let's be reaosnable. A lot of the time i see description of Uncharted as if it is on some whole other level of technical godliness. It's probably the best looking game on consoles, but not by some extreme margin. Plenty of games are punching at the same weight.

To pretend that saying Gears is in the same ballpark as Uncharted is laughably absurd is just silly.

[QUOTE="dotWithShoes"][QUOTE="YankeesNYC4life"]

did some research and found out halo reach runs at 1152x720, which is not 1280 or so required to be considered HD. catastrophic fail, all discussion about halo reach vs killzone 2 or 3 in the graphics department is over. it runs at 30 and sometimes 20 frames per second. sigh

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-alpha-analysis-blog-entry

Kleeyook

its outta of thought because consoles can never beat pc's, they never will but the few months of a year at best right after they out, theres no point theres no point on bringing a pc to a console graphic comparison and i didnt said the 360 cant do it, i just said it havent yet anyways, maybe i said it in a rough way but it what i meant anyway... and i'm a PS3 boy fanboy so what? sorry for not have fallen in love with the 360 and think halo series is overrated, why? because Halo 2 is the most overrated game i own still today, i cant believe after everything i've read about how better than God the game was it was so little after all, i just dont get what people see in Halo series and i'll say it imo its overrated and not that good as many times as i like because this is system wars and i can give my negative opinion about any game as long as i dont violate TOS. Kane04

[QUOTE="soulitane"] [QUOTE="Heirren"](...)As of today, (...) the 360, has yet to produce visuals in the same league as the best the PS3 has to offer.(...)the fact is that the absolute best visuals this gen have been produced by the ps3.

Kane04

The whole GOW thing that whent for almost a year,the whole PS3 under power,the mighty Xenox,how Cell was over hyped that sony always under deliver,but when Uncharted landed on 2007 hell broke loose and 360 fans were silence,trying to find something bad about Uncharted which detroned Gear as best looking game on the console market.

It remind me of a friend i had which was a huge sega lover,and when the PS2 was launch he laugh,sying look at all that bad crap the DC looks better,but when GT3 landed he was walking with me to what use to be EB here,and he saw the game running on PS2 and just look at the game without saying anything,i was laughing he was trying to find something bad about it..

Well most 360 fans fell that way,you have to laugh at how they think Killzone 2 is not impressive any more,and how they talk like if the game has PDZ graphics.there is not a single FPS or 3rd personon the market with better visuals than Killzone 2 on 360 to this day,and the game is more than a year old.

And yet I could never tell the resolution difference between the beta and a normal 720p game on my TV.

Looked just as crisp as anything else.

Great news, I was worried it was running 640x480

[QUOTE="emperorzhang66"][QUOTE="delta3074"]UC2 looks better, but not MUCH better,people need to quit with thw myth that the Ps3 is 'miles' ahead of the 360 in graphics fidelity, it's impossible, they are both capped at 512mb of RAM recources.TerrorRizzing

[QUOTE="emperorzhang66"][QUOTE="delta3074"]UC2 looks better, but not MUCH better,people need to quit with thw myth that the Ps3 is 'miles' ahead of the 360 in graphics fidelity, it's impossible, they are both capped at 512mb of RAM recources.TerrorRizzing

lol..

That is a new one why would the PS3 not allow games to be impressive,let me guess the whole Xenos is much more powerful than then RSX,dude power is not messure by triangles with no FX what so ever,the advantage the Xenos has over the RSX is null when you bring Cell into the whole picture,if funny that you say the game look good because of the art style no the game look good because it is a beatuy,don't take away anything from Uncharted 2 which look almost CG like,because the xbox 360 can't match it.

When i actually look close at Uncharted 2 like you say i just drool like the rest of the industry have,saying Uncharted 2 is not that impressive is silly the game look CG like,admit it and move on man.

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"]First, there is a sticky... Second, that is alpha gameplay. Third, 1152x720=720p=HD.....jhcho2

Not quite right. The official definition of HD is achieving the 1 megapixel count. That's why most HD TVs are 1366x768 = 1,049,088 pixels, hence it's HD. A 'Full HD' TV achieves the 2 megapixel count, namely 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels.

1280x720 = 921,600 pixels, 'sub-1 megapixel', hence not HD.

I dont say this often at System Wars, but i found that a really informative post as i honestly didnt know that before now so thanks.

Anyway about the Reach alpha being sub-hd, "oh teh noooooes, what will i do !!!!" ... the same thing i did with Alan Wake, play an awesome game without worrying about some "missing" pixels.

not even the first few months, the first few months a console is out the games all look like butt crack. Later on they look better, but by then well you know the rest...

TerrorRizzing

[QUOTE="Kane04"]its outta of thought because consoles can never beat pc's(...my jibba jaba)soulitane

i see your point and its completely valid, for whats worth i don't see the PS3 THAT MUCH ahead so i guess saying this makes me a non-brainless-fanboy

the way i see it Halo 3 was nothing really amazing as far as graphics go, and when i see people saying Reach looks better than anything on the PS3 and its heavier to process than Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 combined (read this the other day) this things just make me uncomfortable.

the idea of seeing yet another Halo being excused for everything and anything is frustrating.
like when i hear Halo3>Killzone2 when i see "wierd"(nicest word i can find) locations for Halo 3 fights, anything from the architecture to the colors, its just "weird" hearing someone saying it beats Killzone 2... :/ really?

when it comes to gameplay, idk why people say Halo is such a God, handles great on the controller, no one can say its doesn't, imo its prob better to handle than any other FPS but thats as far as it goes.
the weapons look and sound like they were made by a toy company and its plain "weird" to shoot those 2 feet tall midgets landing bullet after bullet on them and getting no reaction at all, specially if you play on legendary, its like the weapons are bb guns compared to Killzone 2 where its actually fun to grab a gun and shoot, better than mw imo

and finaly the story, to be fair i've only play Halo 2 beginning to end several times, but i think its enough to look where the supposedly amazing-story-good-enough-to-write-15-books had to be and find an empty space there.
remember every cutscene of Halo 2, not only they were few (imo if a game did had that great story) but half of the time was just to show off "can you possible make any more noise? i guess so", "dear humanity, we regret being alien bastards, we regret coming to earth and we most definitely regret the corp just blew up our sorry..."
where's the so called "amazing story" i ask?

finally and speaking of cutscenes, and just another prove on how Halo is excused for everything, whats wrong with those cutscenes in Halo 2? i thought my Xbox had a problem or the dvd was scratched till i realize it was "normal" somehow and after 2 months of the game being out, reading how mind blowing the game was, people kinda forget that "LITTLE" detail along with so many others
any other game would have seen the score dropped over something like that, but not Halo, because its above that. this is (along with everything i left out) in my opinion, why Halo is so overrated and i cannot see why such a fuzz around Reach regardless of the resolution or what ever far-cry-2 like stuff they are trowing in peoples face these days.

oh and GS destroyed my paragraphs, thanks ;) i was gonna leave it but edited again...

[QUOTE="shroofnayef"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

I didn't say it looked better, i said it was in the same ball park. Let's be reaosnable. A lot of the time i see description of Uncharted as if it is on some whole other level of technical godliness. It's probably the best looking game on consoles, but not by some extreme margin. Plenty of games are punching at the same weight.

To pretend that saying Gears is in the same ballpark as Uncharted is laughably absurd is just silly.

delta3074

Ha memory has little to do with the difference,is not apple to apple comparison,the xbox 360 has 512 MB of GDDR 3 700 MHZ,the PS3 has 256 MB of GDR 3 700 MHZ,but also has 256 MB of XDR which is an incredibly fast ram clocked at 3.2 GHZ they may look like they have the same ammount,but half od the PS3 ram is much faster than GDDR 3 is.

Any one who say uncharted 2 look miles away from 360 games is not making anything up,the game look CG like is incredibly impressive,and has great animation unlike say Gears in which the character look like they drink a pile of cement,they are stiff compare to how Uncharted 2 animation looks.

Is not just 1 thing is many which make Uncharted 2 look so distant.

@Kane04: tl;dr?ExESGO

Indeed, just like all the AAA & the AAAA on the Wii - pure fail. :P

[QUOTE="ExESGO"]@Kane04: tl;dr?deleterguy

@response:

*looks at sigs*

Credibility lost.

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"][QUOTE="emperorzhang66"] Uncharted visuals are overatted by miles. They are good. But it pretty much has slightly above average enviroments + really good character models/lighting. Thats why it looks good. But when you actually look closely.; its not all that amazing. NOTE : i did not say the visuals were bad. Ontopic - Reach will still be an amazing game whether it's has 128 pixels less or not. its basically 720 in 4:3. Which makes sense when you look at their Splitscreen.Eltormo

lol..

That is a new one why would the PS3 not allow games to be impressive,let me guess the whole Xenos is much more powerful than then RSX,dude power is not messure by triangles with no FX what so ever,the advantage the Xenos has over the RSX is null when you bring Cell into the whole picture,if funny that you say the game look good because of the art style no the game look good because it is a beatuy,don't take away anything from Uncharted 2 which look almost CG like,because the xbox 360 can't match it.

When i actually look close at Uncharted 2 like you say i just drool like the rest of the industry have,saying Uncharted 2 is not that impressive is silly the game look CG like,admit it and move on man.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"] uncharted 2 looks good mostly because of the design choices and art style. It shows the devs are talented, but technically it isnt that impressive since the ps3 just wont allow it to be.TerrorRizzing

lol..

That is a new one why would the PS3 not allow games to be impressive,let me guess the whole Xenos is much more powerful than then RSX,dude power is not messure by triangles with no FX what so ever,the advantage the Xenos has over the RSX is null when you bring Cell into the whole picture,if funny that you say the game look good because of the art style no the game look good because it is a beatuy,don't take away anything from Uncharted 2 which look almost CG like,because the xbox 360 can't match it.

When i actually look close at Uncharted 2 like you say i just drool like the rest of the industry have,saying Uncharted 2 is not that impressive is silly the game look CG like,admit it and move on man.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"] uncharted 2 looks good mostly because of the design choices and art style. It shows the devs are talented, but technically it isnt that impressive since the ps3 just wont allow it to be.TerrorRizzing

lol..

That is a new one why would the PS3 not allow games to be impressive,let me guess the whole Xenos is much more powerful than then RSX,dude power is not messure by triangles with no FX what so ever,the advantage the Xenos has over the RSX is null when you bring Cell into the whole picture,if funny that you say the game look good because of the art style no the game look good because it is a beatuy,don't take away anything from Uncharted 2 which look almost CG like,because the xbox 360 can't match it.

When i actually look close at Uncharted 2 like you say i just drool like the rest of the industry have,saying Uncharted 2 is not that impressive is silly the game look CG like,admit it and move on man.

It does look close to some, also what the hell does PC has to do here,if the PS3 get a new GPU and CPU every six month by now it would be scorching the PC graphics deparment,the topic was Halo Reach which is a console game not a PC one,we all know PC games look better,oh and if the PS3 can't match a 3 year old game on PC imagine the xbox 360.:oops:

[QUOTE="ExESGO"]@Kane04: tl;dr?deleterguy

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="shroofnayef"] Thats a bullshot anyways, but even if that was in-game, it isnt impressive...I had U2 and Gears 2 both next to me in a comparison on the same T.V., and U2 looks much betterEltormo

Ha memory has little to do with the difference,is not apple to apple comparison,the xbox 360 has 512 MB of GDDR 3 700 MHZ,the PS3 has 256 MB of GDR 3 700 MHZ,but also has 256 MB of XDR which is an incredibly fast ram clocked at 3.2 GHZ they may look like they have the same ammount,but half od the PS3 ram is much faster than GDDR 3 is.

Any one who say uncharted 2 look miles away from 360 games is not making anything up,the game look CG like is incredibly impressive,and has great animation unlike say Gears in which the character look like they drink a pile of cement,they are stiff compare to how Uncharted 2 animation looks.

Is not just 1 thing is many which make Uncharted 2 look so distant.

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"][QUOTE="Eltormo"]

lol..

That is a new one why would the PS3 not allow games to be impressive,let me guess the whole Xenos is much more powerful than then RSX,dude power is not messure by triangles with no FX what so ever,the advantage the Xenos has over the RSX is null when you bring Cell into the whole picture,if funny that you say the game look good because of the art style no the game look good because it is a beatuy,don't take away anything from Uncharted 2 which look almost CG like,because the xbox 360 can't match it.

When i actually look close at Uncharted 2 like you say i just drool like the rest of the industry have,saying Uncharted 2 is not that impressive is silly the game look CG like,admit it and move on man.

Eltormo

It does look close to some, also what the hell does PC has to do here,if the PS3 get a new GPU and CPU every six month by now it would be scorching the PC graphics deparment,the topic was Halo Reach which is a console game not a PC one,we all know PC games look better,oh and if the PS3 can't match a 3 year old game on PC imagine the xbox 360.:oops:

[QUOTE="YankeesNYC4life"]

did some research and found out halo reach runs at 1152x720, which is not 1280 or so required to be considered HD. catastrophic fail, all discussion about halo reach vs killzone 2 or 3 in the graphics department is over. it runs at 30 and sometimes 20 frames per second. sigh

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-alpha-analysis-blog-entry

dotWithShoes

[QUOTE="deleterguy"][QUOTE="ExESGO"]@Kane04: tl;dr?Kane04

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="shroofnayef"] Thats a bullshot anyways, but even if that was in-game, it isnt impressive...I had U2 and Gears 2 both next to me in a comparison on the same T.V., and U2 looks much betterEltormo

Ha memory has little to do with the difference,is not apple to apple comparison,the xbox 360 has 512 MB of GDDR 3 700 MHZ,the PS3 has 256 MB of GDR 3 700 MHZ,but also has 256 MB of XDR which is an incredibly fast ram clocked at 3.2 GHZ they may look like they have the same ammount,but half od the PS3 ram is much faster than GDDR 3 is.

Any one who say uncharted 2 look miles away from 360 games is not making anything up,the game look CG like is incredibly impressive,and has great animation unlike say Gears in which the character look like they drink a pile of cement,they are stiff compare to how Uncharted 2 animation looks.

Is not just 1 thing is many which make Uncharted 2 look so distant.

Hmm low level poster with a ridiculous thread? We all know what's going on here...