It appears that many games this generation aren't meeting the 1080p HD standard that Sony set on PS3. Heck, many games aren't meeting the standard 720p HD resolution, either. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV runs at 640p on PS3. While these kind of shortcomings don't impact the overall visual fidelity, many gamers are still up in arms about these missing pixels.Haze is the next game to fall under the careful watch of videophiles. The recently released demo, when scrutinized, is shown to be running at 576p. Free Radical's Derek Littlewood confirmed to Ripten that the final game also runs in a lower resolution. "That's where we ended up with for Haze ... but I don't understand why people care whether there's 20 pixels, 50 pixels, or 100 pixels more."
Other games, like Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3 on Xbox 360, have used lower resolutions to improve overall visual effects. It should be up to every gamer to decide, with their own eyes, whether or not the lowered resolution has created a diminished visual experience for Haze.
[Via Digg]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
5-19-2008 @ 12:06PM
evilfoxhound said...
I'd take a lower res over choppy framerate any day.
Reply
5-20-2008 @ 11:11AM
Lars said...
I would too, but I'd rather have both.
It's fairly noticeable to me when a game isn't running at a high resolution. It's not a huge deal, but it does bug me a little.
5-19-2008 @ 12:08PM
Brodie-san said...
I'm not a pixel-junkie and I'm open to be corrected by someone who is well versed in the "visual arts" but, from what I can see, just having MORE pixels does not mean it's automatically going to look better.
It appears in GTAIV for example that reducing the pixels and increasing certain effects actually improves the quality of the image.
It's like the developers were faced with the dilemma: "Ok, we can reduce the pixels and increase the effects and not only does it look better but we experience a reduction in pop-up. Or ... we can keep it at 1080 like everyone is expecting and it looks like garbage."
As I say - I'm no expert but in this case maybe less can mean more?
Reply
5-19-2008 @ 4:52PM
ghost reveries said...
Alrightie then, how bout you trade me your 1600x1200 monitor for this shiny 640x480 beastie circa 1989 .. after all, the 640x480 supports 120hz refresh rates =D, more FPS!
5-19-2008 @ 5:04PM
Volomon said...
"Alrightie then, how bout you trade me your 1600x1200 monitor for this shiny 640x480 beastie circa 1989 .. after all, the 640x480 supports 120hz refresh rates =D, more FPS!"
Thats a dumb analogy, and goes to show you missed the point. There is more to visuals than the resolution, and refresh rates don't equal FPS.
The difference is more like we can display a black and white tv show with no special effects in it at 1080p or we can do full color with Light and Magic effects at below 720p.
5-19-2008 @ 5:08PM
theberlindoctor said...
wow, way to miss a joke..
5-19-2008 @ 12:08PM
Popfrogs said...
Stolen from the Ripten forum:
Full 720p - 1280×720 = 921,600 pixels
Some Sub-HD games:
Lair - 800×1080 = 864,000 pixels
MGS4 - 1024×768 = 786,432 pixels
Metal Gear Online - 1024×768 = 786,432 pixels
GTA4 (PS3) - 1152×640 = 737,280 pixels
Halo3 - 1152×640 = 737,280 pixels
Dark Sector (PS3) - 1152×640 = 737,280 pixels
Call of Duty 4 (PS3 , X360) - 1024×600 = 614,400 pixels
Haze (PS3) - 1024×576 = 589,824 pixels
Most people look to COD4 as the touchstone for graphics especially when it comes to FPS games. To see it running in such a low resolution with a relatively low pixel count really says alot.
Seeing this chart, you should realize that games can look great without a huge pixel count. Sure, it's preferable to have high resolution, but like the first poster up there, I'd rather have a solid framerate any day.
Reply
5-19-2008 @ 1:45PM
Pete said...
COD4 ran at 1024x600 in order to run at 60fps.
Haze only runs at 30fps, and it runs at a lower resolution than COD4 does. And the graphics in the game aren't all that great. And the jaggies from that low resolution really stick out like a sore thumb in Haze.
I understand tradeoffs. I think that the COD4 tradeoff was a good one. 60fps in that game is awesome! I don't understand what Haze got in return for running at such a low resolution.
Just for a point of reference, the Wii runs at 576p in PAL territories.
5-19-2008 @ 2:01PM
BananaBoat said...
It's a bit of a joke that the developer wonders why gamers care if there are "20, 50, or 100 pixels more" when in reality, we are talking in the neighborhood of 400-500 THOUSAND pixels less than the 720p standard. It doesn't take a videophile to notice a loss of 400,000+ pixels. Lower resolutions generally mean more jaggies, a less sharp image, etc. Call of Duty 4 is really the only FPS I can think of that looks absolutely stunning at 640p, though I'm sure MGS4 is going to look amazing as well (though according to that list, it's roughly 200 thousand more pixels than haze).
At the end of the day, pixels don't matter as much as gameplay, and from what I've played in the Haze demo, I don't care about this game in the slightest. Certainly not a buy, though I could see myself renting it, and playing it the week before a certain Ninja game launches (which will be enjoyed for a week, before a certain stealth game launches).
5-19-2008 @ 9:17PM
The Sound said...
Since when is MGS4 running at 1024×768? I know MGO is running near that, but have we got any confirmation? I thought it was running at least 720P native, which is 1200X720p ish.
5-19-2008 @ 12:17PM
Acme said...
Ill take higher resolution with a smooth frame rate everyday.
Reply
5-19-2008 @ 5:53PM
john paul said...
But this game has a low resolution with a low framerate.
I liked the demo, so we'll see.
5-19-2008 @ 12:20PM
HektikLyfe said...
A higher resolution does not fix a bad, uninspired game.
In a generation full of more innovative 3D shooters, Haze does not interest me at all anyway. This is important because I am a big 3D shooter fan.
It just gets lost in the crowd.
Reply
5-19-2008 @ 1:20PM
James said...
I agree. I played the demo. It's an uninspired shooter. I'll stick with Crysis on my PC, which I haven't finished, and GTA4 for right now. I'm going to save my money for GRiD and MGS4.
5-19-2008 @ 11:54PM
knightsray said...
i totally agree with what you just said! haze honestly just looks like the ps3s version of halo...i mean does no one else notice the warthog??? i was really hyped for haze at first but now after seeing video and the demo it's like yea right i'm not wasting money on this thing lol! if they ever release crysis on consoles it'll totally blow away all these games and finally get the sales it deserves
5-19-2008 @ 12:21PM
dirtbag66 said...
Is it just me, or does it seem like a good percentage of articles on this website are really negative? I mean, I get a lot of negativity on other sites *cough* G4 *cough* when it comes to the PS3, but why here? This site is called "PS3 Fanboy" and yet, you guys bash the PS3 almost as much as every other site!
I mean, the 360 Fanboy page rarely posts anything negative about their system. They even have a link called "Console Wars" in which 99% of the articles bash the PS3.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but it just seems like lately the articles on this site have been a downer in general.
Reply
5-19-2008 @ 12:48PM
Dan said...
I get the point you trying to run across, but Andrew isn't even bashing on the game or system in this article. He even says clearly at the end that it should be up to the individual to decide whether the developers choice is right and if the game looks glorious despite the lower resolution.
Its their job more or less to report news that is happening in regards to the PS3, they can't help it if negative articles are put out. And even if they post it here I'm sure its not to diminish the actual value of the PS3, we get more articles of the good Sony is doing with the PS3 then what is bad. Sure the system has its fault but so does every other system out now, and I'll still choose my PS3 over the 360 or wii anyday.
5-19-2008 @ 12:58PM
Josh said...
Every system has its own ups and downs and you would be ignorant to believe otherwise. Why should PS3Fanboy.com or Playstation 3 gamers in general lower their morals just to bash another console, what good can come from this? Just more ill advised childish name calling. From what I can tell Playstation 3 fans tend to be less abrasive to rival formats than the competition. I think partly the reason is that Playstation 3 fans are more cognitive to the problems that our system faces and can openly discuss them and we find no reason to because we are happy with the purchase we made which is in my perspective the best kind of "fanboy".
5-19-2008 @ 1:08PM
Nintendo is Fail said...
Lmao Josh if you don't believe in sony fanboys then you obviously haven't been to sonydefenseforce.com or any other ps3-biased website
5-19-2008 @ 1:15PM
Kspraydad said...
I think it is the lack of writers (hint Andrew!). There are only 3 writers plus Andrew afaik and Andrew is a Joystiq writer...his tone is 'different'.
Once the hiring is finished (hint Andrew!) there will be more focused writing from a purely PS perspective afaik.
*****
@Nintendo is Fail...
Not sure I understand your comment but you do know that the sonydefenseforce is a pro Wii60 website right?
At