Bungie confirms Halo 3 is not running HD

old news.

anyway, it's still HD, just upconverting to higher formats.

old news.

anyway, it's still HD, just upconverting to higher formats.

TENTHROW2

Dude your 360 scales it perfectly. Go cry b/c you couldn't find a difference between their res and 720p if you tried.superstud101

[QUOTE="superstud101"]Dude your 360 scales it perfectly. Go cry b/c you couldn't find a difference between their res and 720p if you tried.teebeenz

While I totally agree its terrible microsoft would lie like that. They are a big corporation, what do you expect? Of course you should expect better, but in case you havent noticed most major corporations lie, then cover their asses. say, ciggarettes many years back, or say the US government today.

It still is barely even noticeable, the ones that notice it have barely any lives, and are probably little kids who are noticing stupid stuff like this instead of focusing on their education. When i played the first 6 or so levels in online co op i thought the explosions were excellent in high definition. The graphics are next generation either way, so it really is just nitpicking.

Im currently playing through the game. Although i think in essence it IS a good game with great gameplay, I am a bit disapointed in the graphics. The previous 2 halos were always up there in terms of graphics and sound. So i expected this one, being the last one, to end the trilogy with a bang (technically and with gamplay...not one of the two alone). Im sorry but thats what i expected. As i should have, considering all of the hype I have been subjected to. Its my right to expect all that and to expect to be satisfied in both senses.

That said, I think the outdoor environments look pretty good! But the indoor environments look HORRIBLE imo. Everytime I go inside somewhere, I cant wait to go back outside. The look of the walls alone makes me feel like im playing halo 2.1

There is no question in my mind that they sacrificed detail here....probably for the sake of the save film feature. A feature that is REALLY cool...but one that I dont need. I would much rather have been treated to a graphically awesome experience.

I am enjoying the game no doubt. But im having trouble getting into it AS MUCH as i hoped i would. Even my wife, who loves to sit with me and watch me play games if they are good games (she sat with me throughout ALL of Bioshock), watched me play for 15 minutes then lost interest. I mean its just more of the same...ESPECIALLY if there isnt that technical leap that we have all come to expect. ESPECIALLY considering the leap bungie made between halo CE and halo 2 on the SAME console. Naturally, we all expected to be blown away by the graphics. This was the game most people bought their 360 for...its the game I originally bought my 360 for. And so far, its DEFINITELY NOT the best game Ive played on my 360 yet.

All of this....i thought BEFORE i read the news about the HD (or lack thereof).....so naturally, Im very disapointed now. I wsa giving the game the benefit of the doubt, thinking that maybe I was being too harsh on it because of all the hype. But now I see that there is more to it than just that.

And this is how MOST people who arent mindless halo fanboys, might actually feel about this.....

[QUOTE="TENTHROW2"]

old news.

anyway, it's still HD, just upconverting to higher formats.

teebeenz

OMG 80 lines that I couldn't see and couldn't tell the difference once upconverted ISN'T THERE ANYMORE NOOOO!! Jabababa screw BUNGIE!!!

Man I hate when people who think they know technology because they browse cnet.com once in a while or pick up a PC world mag while waiting at the local Publix aisle..

*EDIT

Oh and apparently for the past 4-8 days no one who played Halo 3 didn't notice the 80 line difference except for one guy who needed to find a way to make Halo 3 appear bad to upset its record breaking sales. Oh and I HATE Halo games, but I defend any game against as$hats whoops I meant fanboys.

i smell a troll :)PMatt722

And you would be correct.

I upscale to 1080p and it looks great.

lol microsoft lies to their customers once again. what a suprise. what do gamespot users do? call the OP a troll and say so what because it is a good game. somthing like that is big news. you don't want microsoft to put that HD label on every game when we know that the games arnt running in HD. rob1101

You are right is is big news. But MS doesnt make a habit of lying to customers any more than any other company does. ALL large companies bend the truth. Lets not even get started with Sony..."HD out of the box"??? Hey...its not HD out of the box if you have to buy ANOTHER separate box with a special cable in it to actually get HD out of the PS3. Of course...the Sony fan boys didnt complain...Sony can do no wrong in their eyes! THAT to me is just blatant lying in the most disrespectful way. A person might assume that the cable is included in the box....after all, you take the PS3 out of the box and it is all set to run in HD right?? Then come home, and realize that you have to make another trip to the store to get an expensive cable.

Also...how do you know that Sony hasnt done similar things with a couple of their games? Maybe they have, they just havent been busted yet.

dude even if MS said this wasn't gonna be a HD game to the public it would still sell by the millions! so be quiet and go try to make useless BS about a game elsewhere. It's a game at it's core like any other, the difference between resolutions are barely noticable, hell i didn't even notice it til i just read it on GS. everyone knows this and you should too, GAMEPLAY > graphics!! lair is the perfect example, it looks amazing, but that can't make up for it's terrible controls, even after an update people still complain.

i hope you read this and hopefully others will too. if you care about graphics so damn much go to the PC forums.

I think plent of people were noticing the missing 180,000 pixels, but it wasn't reported that, haven't any of you guys noticed since launch all the jaggy threads. Being lower resolution than 720p will make jaggies worse. Just look at PGR3, it's what, 600p, and it had 2x AA and was still jaggy. So imagine 640p with no AA. Atleast the game could have run at 720p to help reduce the large jaggies, it was already annoying that it didn't have it, now we know why it seemed to bug is more than any other game.

Well, this game sold millions at 640p with no AA. If we don't say anything bad what will they look at from this? They'll think it's okay and then everyone will cut corners in development and just releases non-HD games with no AA. Don't see how you guys don't see this dangerous road we are going down. For freaking sakes we are talking about the biggest game ever on the 360, biggest game of all time in sales, $40 million budget, $10million something advertising, 360 Halo Editions with HDMI for 1080p, and then the damn game doesn't even meet requirements for the console, and they tried to just see if they'd get away with it?

I like the game. Don't get me wrong. But this pisses me off. The system is suppose to be HD generation, 720p minimum, suppose to have 2-4xAA minimum. I spent $2800 on a new HDTV and more on a sound system when the 360 system was coming around back in 2005 based on MS advertising instead of putting money into a gaming computer. BUt boy, PGR3, PDZ, not even 720p, horribly jagged even with 2xAA thanks to non-HD. I forgive them, it was launch, rushed deadlines. But 2 freaking years later, biggest dang budget in gaming, and it's not even HD again and lacks AA this time. What the heck as happened.

If one of you thinks there's nothing wrong with that, despite how good the game is, I guess lets just go back and let them make games at 480p no AA, I mean what do you care, it's a good game right?

Now I'm off to have fun playing Halo 3 :) on a 1080p 65inch tv at 640p, no AA, and the sharpness turned way dow to soften the jaggies enough that you might as well not even call it HD tv anymore. Looking forward to more games like that since again, no one seems to care even on the biggest title.

The game looks awesome

PLAYS amazing

Multiplayer and 4 player co-op is amazing

its selling like no other game

and its the best game of year yet

and its betterTHAN "True HD" games such as Lair and heaven sword.....

.....umm, yeah, i can really give **** about what resolution its running on.

It's not below 720p - in fact it's much higher - they just programmed it with 2 frame buffers instead of one. It's funny how you cite the part of the article that backs up what you're saying without going on to the further explanation that actually puts the images above 720p.

Quote from Bungie: "...In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers..."

So actually you're getting better than 720p on the screen, and no this is not the same as interlacing. Every screen image is in essence 1280p - scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at. Both buffers being used display simultaneously on the screen.

Nice try - but next time be accurate about the information you are putting out. Someone saying "Bungie confirms Halo 3 is not running HD" obviously has no idea of how the technology works - and Bungie not only didn't confirm that it's not HD -but actually confirmed that it's "ultra high HD" (1280p). They just used a different technique to achieve this that frame buffer measurement software can't accurately detect because the measurement software is only capable of registering one buffer at a time and not the two that Halo 3 is using.

Well, this game sold millions at 640p with no AA. If we don't say anything bad what will they look at from this? They'll think it's okay and then everyone will cut corners in development and just releases non-HD games with no AA. Don't see how you guys don't see this dangerous road we are going down. For freaking sakes we are talking about the biggest game ever on the 360, biggest game of all time in sales, $40 million budget, $10million something advertising, 360 Halo Editions with HDMI for 1080p, and then the damn game doesn't even meet requirements for the console, and they tried to just see if they'd get away with it?

I like the game. Don't get me wrong. But this pisses me off. The system is suppose to be HD generation, 720p minimum, suppose to have 2-4xAA minimum. I spent $2800 on a new HDTV and more on a sound system when the 360 system was coming around back in 2005 based on MS advertising instead of putting money into a gaming computer. BUt boy, PGR3, PDZ, not even 720p, horribly jagged even with 2xAA thanks to non-HD. I forgive them, it was launch, rushed deadlines. But 2 freaking years later, biggest dang budget in gaming, and it's not even HD again and lacks AA this time. What the heck as happened.

If one of you thinks there's nothing wrong with that, despite how good the game is, I guess lets just go back and let them make games at 480p no AA, I mean what do you care, it's a good game right?

Now I'm off to have fun playing Halo 3 :) on a 1080p 65inch tv at 640p, no AA, and the sharpness turned way dow to soften the jaggies enough that you might as well not even call it HD tv anymore. Looking forward to more games like that since again, no one seems to care even on the biggest title.

TimothyB

I bet you're playing Halo 3. It does not look like a game in 480p.

The game looks awesome

PLAYS amazing

Multiplayer and 4 player co-op is amazing

its selling like no other game

and its the best game of year yet

and its betterTHAN "True HD" games such as Lair and heaven sword.....

.....umm, yeah, i can really give **** about what resolution its running on.

Unreal_393

i think it's pretty shocking actually....

still.. best multi plaer out there..

I bet you're playing Halo 3. It does not look like a game in 480p.

BioShockOwnz

I didn't say it looked like a 480p game, I said if people don't care about Halo 3 at 640p, why not just go backwards again just make 480p games labled as 720p.

It's not below 720p - in fact it's much higher - they just programmed it with 2 frame buffers instead of one. It's funny how you cite the part of the article that backs up what you're saying without going on to the further explanation that actually puts the images above 720p.

Quote from Bungie: "...In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers..."

So actually you're getting better than 720p on the screen, and no this is not the same as interlacing. Every screen image is in essence 1280p - scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at. Both buffers being used display simultaneously on the screen.

Nice try - but next time be accurate about the information you are putting out. Someone saying "Bungie confirms Halo 3 is not running HD" obviously has no idea of how the technology works - and Bungie not only didn't confirm that it's not HD -but actually confirmed that it's "ultra high HD" (1280p). They just used a different technique to achieve this that frame buffer measurement software can't accurately detect because the measurement software is only capable of registering one buffer at a time and not the two that Halo 3 is using.

DataDream

The frame buffer is just a technical excuse. I bet most other 720p games have similar buffers for whatever reasons. Like bringing up something that's been in most games as something new to explain this (atleast until proven wrong). It's still 640p, not 1280 since they are overlapped them into one 640p image.

I don't want them to change anything. If anything, 2x AA would be a nice addition even if left at 640p. But because they didn't say anything and come clean first, we had people here so full of themselves on telling others that the game was running at true 1080p for them let alone 720p.

So why are they listing the game as 1080p on this page and not even as little as 720p like other games?:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/h/halo3/gamedetailpage.htm

[QUOTE="DataDream"]

It's not below 720p - in fact it's much higher - they just programmed it with 2 frame buffers instead of one. It's funny how you cite the part of the article that backs up what you're saying without going on to the further explanation that actually puts the images above 720p.

Quote from Bungie: "...In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers..."

So actually you're getting better than 720p on the screen, and no this is not the same as interlacing. Every screen image is in essence 1280p - scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at. Both buffers being used display simultaneously on the screen.

Nice try - but next time be accurate about the information you are putting out. Someone saying "Bungie confirms Halo 3 is not running HD" obviously has no idea of how the technology works - and Bungie not only didn't confirm that it's not HD -but actually confirmed that it's "ultra high HD" (1280p). They just used a different technique to achieve this that frame buffer measurement software can't accurately detect because the measurement software is only capable of registering one buffer at a time and not the two that Halo 3 is using.

TimothyB

The frame buffer is just a technical excuse. I bet most other 720p games have similar buffers for whatever reasons. Like bringing up something that's been in most games as something new to explain this (atleast until proven wrong). It's still 640p, not 1280 since they are overlapped them into one 640p image.

I don't want them to change anything. If anything, 2x AA would be a nice addition even if left at 640p. But because they didn't say anything and come clean first, we had people here so full of themselves on telling others that the game was running at true 1080p for them let alone 720p.

So why are they listing the game as 1080p on this page and not even as little as 720p like other games?

I think you may have gotten interlacing confused with the use of 2 frame buffers. Other games only use a single frame buffer having 2 buffers is NOT a technical excuse as you've suggested - 2 frame buffers is a technology advancement- 2 frame buffers can in fact display both of their content simultaneously in the same frame. Therefore it is no way 640p or even 720p - but is in fact 1280p in reality as Bungie has stated. This is not interlacing. If 2 frame buffers meant that the image had to be interlaced then yes your argument that each frame only contained half of the image (640p) would be correct - but that's not the case. 2 frame buffers does not mean interlaced. Both buffers - each containing 640p of pixels are displayed at the same exact time in every frame - making 1280 vertical lines of resolution displayed in every single frame. That is why MS has listed it at 1080p because the game is actually a higher resolution than that but is scaled down to 1080p which is the highest currently supported resolution on consumer televisions.

Not to you specifically...

This is frustrating that people are completely misunderstanding the technology used here and are misrepresenting what is actually being displayed by the game. Again 2 frame buffers is NOT interlaced - both buffers are showing all 640 lines each at the same time in every frame - so any frame you are looking at is actually 1280 lines displayed progressively and then scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at.

I love how people think. One of the best looking games I have played and some how through the specs your trying to tell people it isnt? WTF have I been seeing? I would choose Halo 3 over Gears or War graphics ANY DAY? Why because Bungie used more than the color black and the environments look much better on Halo 3(never mind triple the size).

Edit: DataDream explained it well.

The game looks killer in HD and is a blast to play.

Next ......

Here's a question: If you play PC games, which would you rather do? Crank the resolution at a sacrifice to game details or keep at a modest resolution and crank the details? Resolution is only a small factor in graphics compared to other things like textures, lighting, frame rate, and clarity. Oh noes! It's not 720p. Lower number equals bad! At least Halo 3 has a smooth framerate during multiplayer, which a lot of 360 games can't even claim. I can't tell a think on my 32" Samsung HDTV. Maybe if I sat and scrutinized all the model edges I'd see some jaggies.

Why didn't I do that? Oh yeah, I was to busy having fun with the game...

[QUOTE="TimothyB"][QUOTE="DataDream"]

It's not below 720p - in fact it's much higher - they just programmed it with 2 frame buffers instead of one. It's funny how you cite the part of the article that backs up what you're saying without going on to the further explanation that actually puts the images above 720p.

Quote from Bungie: "...In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers..."

So actually you're getting better than 720p on the screen, and no this is not the same as interlacing. Every screen image is in essence 1280p - scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at. Both buffers being used display simultaneously on the screen.

Nice try - but next time be accurate about the information you are putting out. Someone saying "Bungie confirms Halo 3 is not running HD" obviously has no idea of how the technology works - and Bungie not only didn't confirm that it's not HD -but actually confirmed that it's "ultra high HD" (1280p). They just used a different technique to achieve this that frame buffer measurement software can't accurately detect because the measurement software is only capable of registering one buffer at a time and not the two that Halo 3 is using.

DataDream

The frame buffer is just a technical excuse. I bet most other 720p games have similar buffers for whatever reasons. Like bringing up something that's been in most games as something new to explain this (atleast until proven wrong). It's still 640p, not 1280 since they are overlapped them into one 640p image.

I don't want them to change anything. If anything, 2x AA would be a nice addition even if left at 640p. But because they didn't say anything and come clean first, we had people here so full of themselves on telling others that the game was running at true 1080p for them let alone 720p.

So why are they listing the game as 1080p on this page and not even as little as 720p like other games?

I think you may have gotten interlacing confused with the use of 2 frame buffers. Other games only use a single frame buffer having 2 buffers is NOT a technical excuse as you've suggested - 2 frame buffers is a technology advancement- 2 frame buffers can in fact display both of their content simultaneously in the same frame. Therefore it is no way 640p or even 720p - but is in fact 1280p in reality as Bungie has stated. This is not interlacing. If 2 frame buffers meant that the image had to be interlaced then yes your argument that each frame only contained half of the image (640p) would be correct - but that's not the case. 2 frame buffers does not mean interlaced. Both buffers - each containing 640p of pixels are displayed at the same exact time in every frame - making 1280 vertical lines of resolution displayed in every single frame. That is why MS has listed it at 1080p because the game is actually a higher resolution than that but is scaled down to 1080p which is the highest currently supported resolution on consumer televisions.

Not to you specifically...

This is frustrating that people are completely misunderstanding the technology used here and are misrepresenting what is actually being displayed by the game. Again 2 frame buffers is NOT interlaced - both buffers are showing all 640 lines each at the same time in every frame - so any frame you are looking at is actually 1280 lines displayed progressively and then scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at.

It couldnt be explained any better than this, and it should be the end of this conversation.

Dude your 360 scales it perfectly. Go cry b/c you couldn't find a difference between their res and 720p if you tried.superstud101

[QUOTE="TENTHROW2"]

old news.

anyway, it's still HD, just upconverting to higher formats.

teebeenz

Well HD or not, The game looks way better then some others which also claim to be HD. That's all i care about.
Also, It's not a big deal. They explained why it was made like that.

Another thing..This is on gamespot news. No need to re-post it here in the 360 forum. This thread is pretty much useless.

Dude your 360 scales it perfectly. Go cry b/c you couldn't find a difference between their res and 720p if you tried.superstud101

Did you miss the fact that Halo 3 is one of the jaggiest games on the 360?

[QUOTE="TimothyB"][QUOTE="DataDream"]

It's not below 720p - in fact it's much higher - they just programmed it with 2 frame buffers instead of one. It's funny how you cite the part of the article that backs up what you're saying without going on to the further explanation that actually puts the images above 720p.

Quote from Bungie: "...In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers..."

So actually you're getting better than 720p on the screen, and no this is not the same as interlacing. Every screen image is in essence 1280p - scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at. Both buffers being used display simultaneously on the screen.

Nice try - but next time be accurate about the information you are putting out. Someone saying "Bungie confirms Halo 3 is not running HD" obviously has no idea of how the technology works - and Bungie not only didn't confirm that it's not HD -but actually confirmed that it's "ultra high HD" (1280p). They just used a different technique to achieve this that frame buffer measurement software can't accurately detect because the measurement software is only capable of registering one buffer at a time and not the two that Halo 3 is using.

DataDream

The frame buffer is just a technical excuse. I bet most other 720p games have similar buffers for whatever reasons. Like bringing up something that's been in most games as something new to explain this (atleast until proven wrong). It's still 640p, not 1280 since they are overlapped them into one 640p image.

I don't want them to change anything. If anything, 2x AA would be a nice addition even if left at 640p. But because they didn't say anything and come clean first, we had people here so full of themselves on telling others that the game was running at true 1080p for them let alone 720p.

So why are they listing the game as 1080p on this page and not even as little as 720p like other games?

I think you may have gotten interlacing confused with the use of 2 frame buffers. Other games only use a single frame buffer having 2 buffers is NOT a technical excuse as you've suggested - 2 frame buffers is a technology advancement- 2 frame buffers can in fact display both of their content simultaneously in the same frame. Therefore it is no way 640p or even 720p - but is in fact 1280p in reality as Bungie has stated. This is not interlacing. If 2 frame buffers meant that the image had to be interlaced then yes your argument that each frame only contained half of the image (640p) would be correct - but that's not the case. 2 frame buffers does not mean interlaced. Both buffers - each containing 640p of pixels are displayed at the same exact time in every frame - making 1280 vertical lines of resolution displayed in every single frame. That is why MS has listed it at 1080p because the game is actually a higher resolution than that but is scaled down to 1080p which is the highest currently supported resolution on consumer televisions.

Not to you specifically...

This is frustrating that people are completely misunderstanding the technology used here and are misrepresenting what is actually being displayed by the game. Again 2 frame buffers is NOT interlaced - both buffers are showing all 640 lines each at the same time in every frame - so any frame you are looking at is actually 1280 lines displayed progressively and then scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at.

Than why is Halo 3 one of the "jaggiest" games on the market for the 360?

[QUOTE="DataDream"][QUOTE="TimothyB"][QUOTE="DataDream"]

It's not below 720p - in fact it's much higher - they just programmed it with 2 frame buffers instead of one. It's funny how you cite the part of the article that backs up what you're saying without going on to the further explanation that actually puts the images above 720p.

Quote from Bungie: "...In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers..."

So actually you're getting better than 720p on the screen, and no this is not the same as interlacing. Every screen image is in essence 1280p - scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at. Both buffers being used display simultaneously on the screen.

Nice try - but next time be accurate about the information you are putting out. Someone saying "Bungie confirms Halo 3 is not running HD" obviously has no idea of how the technology works - and Bungie not only didn't confirm that it's not HD -but actually confirmed that it's "ultra high HD" (1280p). They just used a different technique to achieve this that frame buffer measurement software can't accurately detect because the measurement software is only capable of registering one buffer at a time and not the two that Halo 3 is using.

Endgame_basic

The frame buffer is just a technical excuse. I bet most other 720p games have similar buffers for whatever reasons. Like bringing up something that's been in most games as something new to explain this (atleast until proven wrong). It's still 640p, not 1280 since they are overlapped them into one 640p image.

I don't want them to change anything. If anything, 2x AA would be a nice addition even if left at 640p. But because they didn't say anything and come clean first, we had people here so full of themselves on telling others that the game was running at true 1080p for them let alone 720p.

So why are they listing the game as 1080p on this page and not even as little as 720p like other games?

I think you may have gotten interlacing confused with the use of 2 frame buffers. Other games only use a single frame buffer having 2 buffers is NOT a technical excuse as you've suggested - 2 frame buffers is a technology advancement- 2 frame buffers can in fact display both of their content simultaneously in the same frame. Therefore it is no way 640p or even 720p - but is in fact 1280p in reality as Bungie has stated. This is not interlacing. If 2 frame buffers meant that the image had to be interlaced then yes your argument that each frame only contained half of the image (640p) would be correct - but that's not the case. 2 frame buffers does not mean interlaced. Both buffers - each containing 640p of pixels are displayed at the same exact time in every frame - making 1280 vertical lines of resolution displayed in every single frame. That is why MS has listed it at 1080p because the game is actually a higher resolution than that but is scaled down to 1080p which is the highest currently supported resolution on consumer televisions.

Not to you specifically...

This is frustrating that people are completely misunderstanding the technology used here and are misrepresenting what is actually being displayed by the game. Again 2 frame buffers is NOT interlaced - both buffers are showing all 640 lines each at the same time in every frame - so any frame you are looking at is actually 1280 lines displayed progressively and then scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at.

Than why is Halo 3 one of the "jaggiest" games on the market for the 360?

Because in order to get smooth frame rates at those resolutions they did not incorporate any anti-aliasing. Nearly all games on the 360 have anti-aliasing enabled which is what helps eliminate the "jaggies" (aliasing) which are especially noticable at lower than 1080p resolutions. Bungie could have cut the resolution in half (640p) and included anti-aliasing and essentially provided a slightly smoother looking product at lower resolutions but I believe there are many reasons that they chose not too.

I think the main reason is that because at full 1080p the "jaggies" are not noticeable anyway - even without anti-aliasing. In order to release a true 1080p game (which they wanted to cite as a spec for marketing reasons) they had to eliminate the anti-aliasing to achieve smooth frame rates while playing at that resolution.

Essentially what this has done is reward the gamers with high end TV's and Monitors that are capable of true 1080p to play the game in an amazing quality (true 1080p without jaggies) - unfortunately the trade off to that is that people playing at lower resolutions than 1080p will probably notice "jaggies" due to no anti-aliasing being enabeled. Bungie has rewarded the high end gamer at the sacrifice of graphics at lower resolutions.

I'm lucky and have a true 1080p TV - trust me when I say, Halo 3 has no "jaggies" at that resolution and plays very smoothly. So I have reaped the reward - I'm sorry more people can't just enjoy the game and marvel at the images instead of getting so wrapped up in the technological choices that Bungie made.

[QUOTE="Endgame_basic"][QUOTE="DataDream"][QUOTE="TimothyB"][QUOTE="DataDream"]

It's not below 720p - in fact it's much higher - they just programmed it with 2 frame buffers instead of one. It's funny how you cite the part of the article that backs up what you're saying without going on to the further explanation that actually puts the images above 720p.

Quote from Bungie: "...In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers..."

So actually you're getting better than 720p on the screen, and no this is not the same as interlacing. Every screen image is in essence 1280p - scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at. Both buffers being used display simultaneously on the screen.

Nice try - but next time be accurate about the information you are putting out. Someone saying "Bungie confirms Halo 3 is not running HD" obviously has no idea of how the technology works - and Bungie not only didn't confirm that it's not HD -but actually confirmed that it's "ultra high HD" (1280p). They just used a different technique to achieve this that frame buffer measurement software can't accurately detect because the measurement software is only capable of registering one buffer at a time and not the two that Halo 3 is using.

DataDream

The frame buffer is just a technical excuse. I bet most other 720p games have similar buffers for whatever reasons. Like bringing up something that's been in most games as something new to explain this (atleast until proven wrong). It's still 640p, not 1280 since they are overlapped them into one 640p image.

I don't want them to change anything. If anything, 2x AA would be a nice addition even if left at 640p. But because they didn't say anything and come clean first, we had people here so full of themselves on telling others that the game was running at true 1080p for them let alone 720p.

So why are they listing the game as 1080p on this page and not even as little as 720p like other games?

I think you may have gotten interlacing confused with the use of 2 frame buffers. Other games only use a single frame buffer having 2 buffers is NOT a technical excuse as you've suggested - 2 frame buffers is a technology advancement- 2 frame buffers can in fact display both of their content simultaneously in the same frame. Therefore it is no way 640p or even 720p - but is in fact 1280p in reality as Bungie has stated. This is not interlacing. If 2 frame buffers meant that the image had to be interlaced then yes your argument that each frame only contained half of the image (640p) would be correct - but that's not the case. 2 frame buffers does not mean interlaced. Both buffers - each containing 640p of pixels are displayed at the same exact time in every frame - making 1280 vertical lines of resolution displayed in every single frame. That is why MS has listed it at 1080p because the game is actually a higher resolution than that but is scaled down to 1080p which is the highest currently supported resolution on consumer televisions.

Not to you specifically...

This is frustrating that people are completely misunderstanding the technology used here and are misrepresenting what is actually being displayed by the game. Again 2 frame buffers is NOT interlaced - both buffers are showing all 640 lines each at the same time in every frame - so any frame you are looking at is actually 1280 lines displayed progressively and then scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at.

Than why is Halo 3 one of the "jaggiest" games on the market for the 360?

Because in order to get smooth frame rates at those resolutions they did not incorporate any anti-aliasing. Nearly all games on the 360 have anti-aliasing enabled which is what helps eliminate the "jaggies" (aliasing) which are especially noticable at lower than 1080p resolutions. Bungie could have cut the resolution in half (640p) and included anti-aliasing and essentially provided a slightly smoother looking product at lower resolutions but I believe there are many reasons that they chose not too.

I think the main reason is that because at full 1080p the "jaggies" are not noticeable anyway - even without anti-aliasing. In order to release a true 1080p game (which they wanted to cite as a spec for marketing reasons) they had to eliminate the anti-aliasing to achieve smooth frame rates while playing at that resolution.

Essentially what this has done is reward the gamers with high end TV's and Monitors that are capable of true 1080p to play the game in an amazing quality (true 1080p without jaggies) - unfortunately the trade off to that is that people playing at lower resolutions than 1080p will probably notice "jaggies" due to no anti-aliasing being enabeled. Bungie has rewarded the high end gamer at the sacrifice of graphics at lower resolutions.

I'm lucky and have a true 1080p TV - trust me when I say, Halo 3 has no "jaggies" at that resolution and plays very smoothly. So I have reaped the reward - I'm sorry more people can't just enjoy the game and marvel at the images instead of getting so wrapped up in the technological choices that Bungie made.

You are either lieing or are blind. I have a very nice high end 1080p tv and Halo3 is only surpassed jaggy wise by PDZ and PGR3. You want to see what 1080p actually looks like, download the NBA Homecourt demo. It is the only game I have seen zero, none, notta jaggies in. Halo 3 is a great game gameplay wise, but it's a jagged mess.

[QUOTE="DataDream"][QUOTE="Endgame_basic"][QUOTE="DataDream"][QUOTE="TimothyB"][QUOTE="DataDream"]

It's not below 720p - in fact it's much higher - they just programmed it with 2 frame buffers instead of one. It's funny how you cite the part of the article that backs up what you're saying without going on to the further explanation that actually puts the images above 720p.

Quote from Bungie: "...In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers..."

So actually you're getting better than 720p on the screen, and no this is not the same as interlacing. Every screen image is in essence 1280p - scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at. Both buffers being used display simultaneously on the screen.

Nice try - but next time be accurate about the information you are putting out. Someone saying "Bungie confirms Halo 3 is not running HD" obviously has no idea of how the technology works - and Bungie not only didn't confirm that it's not HD -but actually confirmed that it's "ultra high HD" (1280p). They just used a different technique to achieve this that frame buffer measurement software can't accurately detect because the measurement software is only capable of registering one buffer at a time and not the two that Halo 3 is using.

Endgame_basic

The frame buffer is just a technical excuse. I bet most other 720p games have similar buffers for whatever reasons. Like bringing up something that's been in most games as something new to explain this (atleast until proven wrong). It's still 640p, not 1280 since they are overlapped them into one 640p image.

I don't want them to change anything. If anything, 2x AA would be a nice addition even if left at 640p. But because they didn't say anything and come clean first, we had people here so full of themselves on telling others that the game was running at true 1080p for them let alone 720p.

So why are they listing the game as 1080p on this page and not even as little as 720p like other games?

I think you may have gotten interlacing confused with the use of 2 frame buffers. Other games only use a single frame buffer having 2 buffers is NOT a technical excuse as you've suggested - 2 frame buffers is a technology advancement- 2 frame buffers can in fact display both of their content simultaneously in the same frame. Therefore it is no way 640p or even 720p - but is in fact 1280p in reality as Bungie has stated. This is not interlacing. If 2 frame buffers meant that the image had to be interlaced then yes your argument that each frame only contained half of the image (640p) would be correct - but that's not the case. 2 frame buffers does not mean interlaced. Both buffers - each containing 640p of pixels are displayed at the same exact time in every frame - making 1280 vertical lines of resolution displayed in every single frame. That is why MS has listed it at 1080p because the game is actually a higher resolution than that but is scaled down to 1080p which is the highest currently supported resolution on consumer televisions.

Not to you specifically...

This is frustrating that people are completely misunderstanding the technology used here and are misrepresenting what is actually being displayed by the game. Again 2 frame buffers is NOT interlaced - both buffers are showing all 640 lines each at the same time in every frame - so any frame you are looking at is actually 1280 lines displayed progressively and then scaled down to whatever resolution you are running at.

Than why is Halo 3 one of the "jaggiest" games on the market for the 360?

Because in order to get smooth frame rates at those resolutions they did not incorporate any anti-aliasing. Nearly all games on the 360 have anti-aliasing enabled which is what helps eliminate the "jaggies" (aliasing) which are especially noticable at lower than 1080p resolutions. Bungie could have cut the resolution in half (640p) and included anti-aliasing and essentially provided a slightly smoother looking product at lower resolutions but I believe there are many reasons that they chose not too.

I think the main reason is that because at full 1080p the "jaggies" are not noticeable anyway - even without anti-aliasing. In order to release a true 1080p game (which they wanted to cite as a spec for marketing reasons) they had to eliminate the anti-aliasing to achieve smooth frame rates while playing at that resolution.

Essentially what this has done is reward the gamers with high end TV's and Monitors that are capable of true 1080p to play the game in an amazing quality (true 1080p without jaggies) - unfortunately the trade off to that is that people playing at lower resolutions than 1080p will probably notice "jaggies" due to no anti-aliasing being enabeled. Bungie has rewarded the high end gamer at the sacrifice of graphics at lower resolutions.

I'm lucky and have a true 1080p TV - trust me when I say, Halo 3 has no "jaggies" at that resolution and plays very smoothly. So I have reaped the reward - I'm sorry more people can't just enjoy the game and marvel at the images instead of getting so wrapped up in the technological choices that Bungie made.

You are either lieing or are blind. I have a very nice high end 1080p tv and Halo3 is only surpassed jaggy wise by PDZ and PGR3. You want to see what 1080p actually looks like, download the NBA Homecourt demo. It is the only game I have seen zero, none, notta jaggies in. Halo 3 is a great game gameplay wise, but it's a jagged mess.

Yup - you got me - I am lying and I am blind.

This thread is getting absolutely rediculous. Either love the game or hate you all - I could care less.

PEACE!!!

Yup - you got me - I am lying and I am blind.

This thread is getting absolutely rediculous. Either love the game or hate you all - I could care less.

PEACE!!!

Umm, didn't I say I think it's a great game? That doesn't change the fact that it's running in a low resolution and is very jaggy. There is no tv on the planet on which this game would not have any jaggies. It's not a tv issue, it's because the image is being upscaled from a low resolution without any AA.

Im currently playing through the game. Although i think in essence it IS a good game with great gameplay, I am a bit disapointed in the graphics. The previous 2 halos were always up there in terms of graphics and sound. So i expected this one, being the last one, to end the trilogy with a bang (technically and with gamplay...not one of the two alone). Im sorry but thats what i expected. As i should have, considering all of the hype I have been subjected to. Its my right to expect all that and to expect to be satisfied in both senses.

That said, I think the outdoor environments look pretty good! But the indoor environments look HORRIBLE imo. Everytime I go inside somewhere, I cant wait to go back outside. The look of the walls alone makes me feel like im playing halo 2.1

There is no question in my mind that they sacrificed detail here....probably for the sake of the save film feature. A feature that is REALLY cool...but one that I dont need. I would much rather have been treated to a graphically awesome experience.

I am enjoying the game no doubt. But im having trouble getting into it AS MUCH as i hoped i would. Even my wife, who loves to sit with me and watch me play games if they are good games (she sat with me throughout ALL of Bioshock), watched me play for 15 minutes then lost interest. I mean its just more of the same...ESPECIALLY if there isnt that technical leap that we have all come to expect. ESPECIALLY considering the leap bungie made between halo CE and halo 2 on the SAME console. Naturally, we all expected to be blown away by the graphics. This was the game most people bought their 360 for...its the game I originally bought my 360 for. And so far, its DEFINITELY NOT the best game Ive played on my 360 yet.

All of this....i thought BEFORE i read the news about the HD (or lack thereof).....so naturally, Im very disapointed now. I wsa giving the game the benefit of the doubt, thinking that maybe I was being too harsh on it because of all the hype. But now I see that there is more to it than just that.

And this is how MOST people who arent mindless halo fanboys, might actually feel about this.....

gnomegnasher

Sounds like you know a lot about graphics. Anyone who knows graphics who has seen images or footage of Halo 3 knows that the game is "cartoonish", and not really trying to mimic real world colors. This was probably done to keep the frame rate high, especially for multiplayer.

"Doesn't matter" is what Bungie and MS said--we are going to make so much money off of this hype that it doesn't matter what the graphics look like. A sucker is born every second.

But yeah, so what? If people like the game because they think it's fun then who am I to judge?

I am not even remotely interested in Halo 3 right now. I am playing Call of Duty 3 which is a 10 in graphics, sound, and gameplay.