And this means or displays what? Are there visible/noticeable results? like upper half of the image is clear and the lower half is blurred? Or its so fast that you wont see a thing at all?

pittongkid

The screen is not split between top and bottom. With interlaced images, at one moment, all the odd numbered horizontal rows of pixels are displaying the image while the even rows are blank (black), and in the next moment, the even numbered horizontal rows of pixels are showing the rest of the image. The only time you reall notice the difference is when the picture is fast moving. For instance, on the 60" plasma, with CoD4 on 1080i, I can clearly see black lines and broken images due to interlacing when I'm running, whereas the same textures are clear and not broken when I have the display settings on 720p. It even gets a little more confusing though when you factor in the fact that some TV's will try to take a 1080i input and convert it to 720p. I'm almost sure that my 30" LCD does this because I don't notice a difference at all in CoD4 like I do on the larger plasma.

It all comes down to the fact that different brands/sizes/makes of TV's will output better in 720p or 1080i, so it's best to just do a comparison with your TV. If you don't notice a difference, that's great, and you can flip a coin to decide which you'll leave it on. For me, 720p looks better, and that coupled with the fact that most games output natively in 720p anyway means that I'm happy with 720p over 1080i.

It's really all about space. Most people have the 20GB unit and after a couple of games no more space.RawhideSphinx

Just what I was thinking. I already have to delete old demos and game videos whenever I want to download something new, so I sure as heck don't have room for full xbox games. Not to mention that the games are cheaper in disc form. When I first heard about xbox originals, I told myself the only one I might make room for was Halo and that was only in the tiny chance that Bungie added live multiplayer. If that happened, I would drop CoD4 in a nanosecond (at least for a night or two).

Rainbow Six: Vegas

Call of Duty 4

Call of Duty 2

With 1080i the image is interlaced. This means you see half of the information from the picture, or 540 lines of pixels, in one moment with the remaining 540 lines in the next moment. For example, if you're playing a game that runs at 30 fps, you see 540 lines of one picture in 1/60th of a second and the remaining 540 lines of that frame in the next 1/60th of a second.

With 720p the image is progressive scan. This means you see all the information from the picture at once, or all 720 lines (in this case) of the image are displayed at the same time. If you're watching the same 30 fps game then your monitor will display all 720 lines for two periods of 1/60th of a second before moving on.

Basically, with 1080i you technically get more information in the picture (though you'd be hard pressed to notice since most games run at 720p or lower natively and only upscale to 1080i/1080p even if the box lists 1080i/1080p) but not as stable of a picture. With 720p you get a more stable picture but not as much information in each full frame.

My philosophy has always been to go with the native resolution of the monitor I'm using, and in the case of HDTV's I use 720p for my 32" LCD (native resolution 1366x768 (don't ask me where the extra pixels go 'cause I don't know)) and 1080p for my family's 60" Plasma (native resolution 1920x1080).

I think that CoD5 should be similar in setting to GRAW and GRAW2 in that it takes place in the near future using weapons which are just emerging now (Barrett M468 PLEASE!!!!).

As someone else mentioned above, I would also like to see a WW2 pacific theatre game, though one which lets you fight from the perspective of (1) the Marines in the Pacific, (2) the Chinese nationalists in China, (3) Australians in the Pacific, and maybe even (4) the Japanese.

Both are incredible games IMO, though they are very different:

VEGAS:

RSV is a much slower paced shooter. It takes a lot more thought and planning to win a RS match. You have less chance of killing someone with the "spray and pray" technique than in CoD4. Also, the cover system alone completely differentiates the two games. I find myself communicating with my team WAY more in RS than in CoD, because that's what it takes to win. I also move a lot slower through the levels being way more cautious and I tend to camp more in RS.

CoD4:

Call of Duty is much more run and gun. Whereas my style in Rainbow Six is to hang back or move very slowly, CoD4 for me is all about constant and quick flanking maneuvers. I am almost constantly sprinting to get behind the other team or skirting the outside of the map. I am very run-and-gun in CoD, usually to great success (2.25 k/d ratio, over 4000 kills so far). I also tend to operate much more independently in CoD4 when in RS I relied more on my team and communication.

In conclusion, they are just very different games. I love that both share a similar health system and that it is very easy to take someone down with a few well placed shots, but it's hard to say that one is better than the other. Your play style should really determine which game you choose.