When we first turned on Call of Duty 4, our first response was "wow". But that's because we weren't meticulous or geeky enough to count the number of vertical pixels it throws onto our TV screen.
Someone was though, and that someone has discovered that, just like Halo 3, not running at a 'full HD' resolution. Call of Duty 4 runs at a rather peculiar 600p - that's less than the industry standard 720p, by the way.
So is it time to go mental? No, not really. What difference does it make to the human eye? We've finished the game and put countless hours into the multiplayer mode already, and we never once thought it looked granier than other 360 games. All we've noticed is that it look bloody phenomenal and runs at a higher frame rate than real life.
We suspect that, again just like with Halo 3, which runs at 640p, a few lines of pixels were dropped in favour of pouring more processing power into a drastically improved frame rate. The resolution is artificially upscaled before it gets to your TV screen. You aren't likely to notice the difference on anything smaller than a 50-inch TV.
We don't see what all the fuss is about, but we're awaiting a reply from Infinity Ward on the matter.
Who cares? Really? Get a f**king life you losers. id you even notice until you got told & it still looks better than just about any 720-1080p game Framerate > Resolution anyday
The isn't new news. There are a few games that upscale to 720 even before your TV does it, such as Halo3 and PGR3. As 720 is HD you could argue that these games aren't actually HD. Thats if you didn't have anything better to do, or really into the tech side of gaming.
Well to be honest while not recognisable on a regular HD tv( and sitting 5 feet from that tv ), playing games at 720 with a decent PC LCD looks absolute $hite and blocky( simply because they can produce a better picture for games, note, NOT movies ), also running non native to an LCD's res looks $hite and messy
Having said that, my 28" widescreen cheapo tv died this morning, so im on the lookout for a new one, feckin' timing!!!
No they mean its missing 120p I.E 600p + 120p = 720p!
But anyway what sad f**kers sit there and count anyway and the mugs who moan about it are even worse!
Aha, I see, I'm so used to CVGs comical typos ...
But yes, people who whine about this are pedants, and despite the fact it would be near impossible to tell and at the same time it increases what can be done on screen with regards to chucking polgons around etc...
Dito. CoD4 looks incredible on my 50" Sony Bravia (LCD) screen. In fact, the game looks better than the majority of games out on the system right now - in regards to how sharp the image is, colour contrast, lighting and how flippin silky it runs.
If anything, this news further cements Infinity Wards skill in designing stunning games that look and play fantastic.
Whilst it wouldn't stop me buying a game,if a game advertises itself as a HD game, then it SHOULD be in HD. You can talk all you like about upscaling - I can play PS1 games upscaled on my PS3, but that doesn't make them HD games, and just because a normal dvd can be upscaled and output at HD resolutions, it wouldn't be correct to advertise it as an HD movie. The fact of the matter is that this is an SD game thats been upscaled. Whilst that does mean its not a detailed as it could be if rendered at HD, its a pretty moot point when the art direction and engine looks as beautiful as it does!
I do have to take an issue with the standard of journalism that CVG have now sunk to. To claim that 60 FPS is 'more than real life' is beyond a joke, and plainly shows that no one is proof reading this stuff before posting it! Still - it did make me chuckle!
It's the same people who constantly want to know if a game has nice graphics before they buy it. Guess they pick girlfriends the same way. "Oh, she looks nice.. who cares if she's a complete airhead?"
To claim that 60 FPS is 'more than real life' is beyond a joke
I do believe it wasn't supposed to be a statement of scientific fact. More along the lines of implying that it runs damned fast on their cute little console
Im playing on a 42" HDTV and I wouldn't have known the difference. Same with Halo 3. Sadly the sort of people that kick up such a fuss are the same people have have been brain washed by this 'Full HD' lark... Wake up and use your eyes not the stats.
So, they've had to cut off a full sixth of the vertical resolution, because these new consoles can't even render that extra 120 lines of pixels?
Wow, no wonder people are in such a damn hurry to start throwing the insults and the "It doesn't even matter"s. The real console High-Definition revolution will have to wait another few years, I guess.
(ps. This is a troll post. Get as offended as you like, as your tears will sustain me. )
true, the 360 games have 600p as their native resolution. its not abt counting pixels but the results are visible on an hdtv. and you CAN spot the difference no matter how subtle. that being said, and i dont want to start a flame war, the ps3 version(s) support trueHD so its games are created with either 720p or 1080p as its native resolution. thats probably the reason why the ps3 version of cod4 marginally outshines the 360version when u have a capable enough tv.
I laughed when Sony claimed the PS3 will run all games in 1080p. Not possible. Could you imagine GTAIV running in 1080p? Heck, that'll likely be less than 720p too. This HD stuff sure looks nice, but it puts a huge strain on the GPU. But it is better to have a smoother frame rate, so I'm all for it.
Why should HD put a "huge strain" on the GPU? PC games have supported high resolutions for years, and they don't really put much of a strain on graphics cards. It's things like ultra-smooth shadows, extreme anti-aliasing, very large textures, etc that cause the largest frame rate drops.
My PC is more than capable of running games like Oblivion and BioShock at 2560x1200, as long as you turn a couple of the settings down.
As 720 is HD you could argue that these games aren't actually HD.
Yes but people with that attitude could argue that the films on Blu-Ray/HD-DVD aren't really 1080p because films generally have an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 rather than 1.85:1 (16:9) and the rest of the pixels are wasted with blank space (letterboxed).
Why should HD put a "huge strain" on the GPU? PC games have supported high resolutions for years, and they don't really put much of a strain on graphics cards. It's things like ultra-smooth shadows, extreme anti-aliasing, very large textures, etc that cause the largest frame rate drops.
Yes and with all those things, the consoles are struggling to run a smooth frame-rate when there are large numbers of explosions, while raining with large numbers of characters on screen. So rather than have frame-drops, they lower the resolution slightly, like you do on the PC.
My PC is more than capable of running games like Oblivion and BioShock at 2560x1200, as long as you turn a couple of the settings down.
Yes, and the consoles run both those games at 720p as required.
I'll restate it in a different way: while the resolution does make a difference in frame rate, this difference really isn't thay big when compared to various other graphical options. Therefore if you start to play a game and the average frame rate is low, it's a much better idea to turn down something like anti-aliasing or shadow detail than resolution
This way, not only will the frame rate most likely be improved more, the end result will probably be more graphically pleasing.
The same applies to the developers of console games: even the most action-packed console game could easily support 1080p, simply by reducing one or two other graphical features... features that are most likely barely noticeable anyway; for instance, can anyone really tell the difference between medium and high shadow settings in recent PC games?
An experiment: go play Quake IV in Ultra Quality at, say, 1024x768. Then switch to High Quality and increase the resolution to 1600x1200, and compare the frame rates. My money's on the higer resolution/lower quality providing the better frame rate.
Yes, and the consoles run both those games at 720p as required.
And your point is...? *My* point is that 360 could easily run that game at 1080p with only the smallest sacrifice in the level of other graphical features.
To claim that 60 FPS is 'more than real life' is beyond a joke
I do believe it wasn't supposed to be a statement of scientific fact. More along the lines of implying that it runs damned fast on their cute little console
true, the 360 games have 600p as their native resolution. its not abt counting pixels but the results are visible on an hdtv. and you CAN spot the difference no matter how subtle. that being said, and i dont want to start a flame war, the ps3 version(s) support trueHD so its games are created with either 720p or 1080p as its native resolution. thats probably the reason why the ps3 version of cod4 marginally outshines the 360version when u have a capable enough tv.
Who cares? Really? Get a f**king life you losers. id you even notice until you got told & it still looks better than just about any 720-1080p game Framerate > Resolution anyday
Ahh, thats where PC is better.
Have best of Both Worlds.
Why chose?
I turn up the settings to MAX in COD 4 and run the thing @ 2560 x 1600.
I get 62 FPS easily.
But consoles pwners have to pretend that "resolution dosent matter"
well you see the same game you are playing, im playing but better....
You can say you dont care about graphics but whatever...
I've got to say " so friggin' what !!!!". The game is a dream to play and it looks a damn sight better than anything else I've played recently. I'd rather have less pixels and a smooth running game than something that chugs along but looks amazing. What should matter is the gameplay and nothing else. You could have the crapest looking game, but if it was utterly addictive then who cares? Look at Tetris....
I've got to say " so friggin' what !!!!". The game is a dream to play and it looks a damn sight better than anything else I've played recently. I'd rather have less pixels and a smooth running game than something that chugs along but looks amazing. What should matter is the gameplay and nothing else. You could have the crapest looking game, but if it was utterly addictive then who cares? Look at Tetris....
but PC runs at higher resoltuoion and has better graphics and runs at high FPS.
Consoles cant do all that and you have to pick and chose.
Who cares about all that crap its a great game.I cant tell what framerate its running at or what HD its running at when im playing it.As long as its a good game , which it is, then thats fine by me
I've got to say " so friggin' what !!!!". The game is a dream to play and it looks a damn sight better than anything else I've played recently. I'd rather have less pixels and a smooth running game than something that chugs along but looks amazing. What should matter is the gameplay and nothing else. You could have the crapest looking game, but if it was utterly addictive then who cares? Look at Tetris....
but PC runs at higher resoltuoion and has better graphics and runs at high FPS.
Consoles cant do all that and you have to pick and chose.
An important point to remember though, is that PCs can be a lot more expensive than consoles, particularly if you want to keep the latest games looking pretty.
The bit that gets me is simply online support. Whereas the PC version of COD can allow around 30 players online, whereas on the XBox, we get only 18 players max, with most game types supporting less than that.
To finish my mini-rant, PCs can be oh so problematic if you don't know what's going on under the box, and to some, the humble PC can be seen as a lot less accessible than a console.
I've got to say " so friggin' what !!!!". The game is a dream to play and it looks a damn sight better than anything else I've played recently. I'd rather have less pixels and a smooth running game than something that chugs along but looks amazing. What should matter is the gameplay and nothing else. You could have the crapest looking game, but if it was utterly addictive then who cares? Look at Tetris....
but PC runs at higher resoltuoion and has better graphics and runs at high FPS.
Consoles cant do all that and you have to pick and chose.
An important point to remember though, is that PCs can be a lot more expensive than consoles, particularly if you want to keep the latest games looking pretty.
The bit that gets me is simply online support. Whereas the PC version of COD can allow around 30 players online, whereas on the XBox, we get only 18 players max, with most game types supporting less than that.
To finish my mini-rant, PCs can be oh so problematic if you don't know what's going on under the box, and to some, the humble PC can be seen as a lot less accessible than a console.
I knew someone would bring up the money thing.
A PC does a whole lot more than a Console and a PC is much easier to use.
PC > Console.
Im running the game now with technology miles ahead of the 360....
Who cares? Really? Get a f**king life you losers. id you even notice until you got told & it still looks better than just about any 720-1080p game Framerate > Resolution anyday
Ahh, thats where PC is better.
Have best of Both Worlds.
Why chose?
I turn up the settings to MAX in COD 4 and run the thing @ 2560 x 1600.
I get 62 FPS easily.
But consoles pwners have to pretend that "resolution dosent matter"
well you see the same game you are playing, im playing but better....
You can say you dont care about graphics but whatever...
Come back when you've lost your virginity and tell us how important your graphics/resolution/framerate etc is.
It seems to me that it's not the resolution a game is rendered at that matters, it's the amount of anti-aliasing it uses (which smooth jaggies) that makes all the difference.
For example, Halo 3 runs at 640p and doesn't use any AA at all so it looks rather jaggy and ugly at times (although it's still a great game) whereas Call of Duty 4 might only be 600p but since it uses AA it's almost impossible to discern it from a true 720p game. It's certainly a less jaggy-looking game than Halo 3. Also Oblivion on the 360 is apparently 600p whereas the PS3 version is 720p but the latter version lacks AA which the 360 one has so the former looks better IMO.
It's disappointing to discover that games which had framerate issues like Tony Hawk's Project 8 and Tomb Raider Legend/Anniversay are only running at 600p on a system as powerful as the 360. I guess even the 360 and PS3's hardware isn't capable of running all games at 720p and we'll have to wait until their successors before they can. Makes me laugh really when you think how Microsoft claimed all 360 games would support 720p HD minimum and how Sony arrogantly claimed that anything less than 1080p wasn't "TrueHD".
Aggrhhh, is this the new thing of Consoles V's PC instead of PS3 vs 360? Jez, its really getting tiring, just play the damn games and enjoy, whether at low res or high as long as the player is happy thats enough
I've got to say " so friggin' what !!!!". The game is a dream to play and it looks a damn sight better than anything else I've played recently. I'd rather have less pixels and a smooth running game than something that chugs along but looks amazing. What should matter is the gameplay and nothing else. You could have the crapest looking game, but if it was utterly addictive then who cares? Look at Tetris....
but PC runs at higher resoltuoion and has better graphics and runs at high FPS.
Consoles cant do all that and you have to pick and chose.
An important point to remember though, is that PCs can be a lot more expensive than consoles, particularly if you want to keep the latest games looking pretty.
The bit that gets me is simply online support. Whereas the PC version of COD can allow around 30 players online, whereas on the XBox, we get only 18 players max, with most game types supporting less than that.
To finish my mini-rant, PCs can be oh so problematic if you don't know what's going on under the box, and to some, the humble PC can be seen as a lot less accessible than a console.
Well said, PC can be a pain in the ass sometimes, i guess its a bit of a hobby too lol
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
