Halo 3 running in 640p?

  • By Polybren, GameSpot
  • Posted Sep 28, 2007 3:55 pm PT

High-definition graphics have always been a major selling point for the Xbox 360, but the biggest title on the system to date, Bungie's Halo 3, might not even meet the HD resolution threshold.That's the implication made in this thread from the graphics-centric Beyond 3D forums. In early August, a...

High-definition graphics have always been a major selling point for the Xbox 360, but the biggest title on the system to date, Bungie's Halo 3, might not even meet the HD resolution threshold.

That's the implication made in this thread from the graphics-centric Beyond 3D forums. In early August, a user going by the handle "one" posted a picture of Halo 3 with a jagged edge highlighted. Combining a little math and Photoshop, the poster came to the conclusion that Halo 3 was actually running natively at 624p, and being upscaled to run at 720p.

Bungie didn't address the issue initially, but it continued to stick in the craws of some graphics aficionados, who eventually came to the conclusion that the game was running in 640p. Today they have their answer, as Bungie finally addressed the 80p gap in its weekly Web site update.

The studio admitted in the update that "Halo 3's vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is indeed 640 pixels," but offered a deeper explanation as to why.

"[Y]ou could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers, both of which render at 1152x640 pixels,"a Bungie representativewrote. "The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see: lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible, so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image."

The approach helps to give the game a "real" feeling at a steady frame rate, the update said, adding that the Xbox 360 can upscale the image to 1080p without a problem.

"In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it's practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the Internet's propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven't mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."

858 Comments

  • Chinch1

    Posted Jan 2, 2008 2:20 pm PT

    I agree that this isn't a big deal. BUT I must say that if you are upscaling an image don't say that it is HD, because it's not. Bungie put out a beautiful game and should be VERY proud of their achievement. But really, don't falsely advertise to your product to your fans (ya know the ones that purchase your products and keep you in business) Just be honest from the get go and all will be right with the world.

  • zachslayer

    Posted Dec 29, 2007 6:48 am PT

    the fact that it still looks good is irrelevant, bungie was still dishonest and it just another example of microsofts dirty game.(even if halo 3 is pretty)

  • ss3zolo

    Posted Dec 24, 2007 5:30 pm PT

    Big difference

  • Myrull

    Posted Dec 20, 2007 6:50 pm PT

    The last paragraph is B.S.. Of course the scaled 720p image looks the same as the 640p image, it's just a scaled up version of the same image.

    If the resolution was increased to 1280x720 there would be 25% more detail.

    If you do the math you have to be within about 11 feet of a 50 inch plasma or (9 and a half of a 42 incher) to notice the difference. Lots of people place only ten feet away from 50 inch or large plasma's though.

  • jasonen

    Posted Oct 4, 2007 11:23 pm PT

    Utgardaloki I am not saying that is how games are meant to be played I was just responding to the person who said halo 3 look good from up close which is the other way around.

    anyways good job M$ you rushed bungie to release halo 3 now they are leaving.

  • thesaxmaniac

    Posted Oct 4, 2007 3:00 pm PT

    This game does not have awesome graphics. SO WHAT. It's about the art direction, which is fantastic by any standards.

  • Utgardaloki

    Posted Oct 4, 2007 2:20 pm PT

    :
    from afar Halo 3 looks amazing! this is why Bungie decided to use HDR instead of AA. stand 5-7 feet away from the TV and you will notice how good Halo 3 actualy looks.


    Is that how a game is supposed to be played… from afar so you can't notice its flaws? I need to stand in my neighbours' house to get that kind of picture. Not very user friendly. Knock knock.

    :
    I am till not sure why Bungie decided to go with no AA at all


    Probably because they blew all cream on the double buffer making AA a non-possible feat.

  • Chaudzff

    Posted Oct 4, 2007 11:37 am PT

    Last Paragraph is well funny lol.

  • jasonen

    Posted Oct 4, 2007 12:15 am PT

    "You guys Are blinded, by some strange force or by hype or by Fanatism...Halo 3 looks like crap! except if you look really close into things, if you look at an enviroment from afar you just see awful textures jagged edges with great lighting...ok, now hate me..."

    your an idiot the lack of AA makes Halo 3 look like crap up close. from afar Halo 3 looks amazing! this is why Bungie decided to use HDR instead of AA. stand 5-7 feet away from the TV and you will notice how good Halo 3 actualy looks. I am till not sure why Bungie decided to go with no AA at all ... look at gears they used AA + bloom and it worked out well. take my advice play halo 3 from distance and you will see what I am talking about

  • Silicon_Noob

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 10:27 pm PT

    Ok so it runs at low res with tons of jaggies due to a deficiency in AA........character models are underwhelming to say the least.........levels for the most part are bland with a lack of diversity and detail of concept art leaving non-fanboys nonplussed.......but hey the game has some nice lighting right?......an it has 2 filters rather than one, that must make it at least twice as good as any other game yeah?.......and c'mon guys its Halo, therefore it shouldn't be held accountable to the standards of other games! Cuz Halo's just awesome!!!!!

  • Cromeus

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 4:30 pm PT

    If this had been KZ2 The MS fanboys would have been all over it like flies on sh*t and it just kills me how any negative mention about this they hide the comment. Such a sorry bunch lmao zombies to the last.

  • X_CAPCOM_X

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 2:23 pm PT

    If anybody actually cares about this they should probably get a life.

    Why are people saying things like this? Wasn't HD important? If this was any PS3 game, people would openly bash it.

  • Evinco_DX

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 1:32 pm PT

    Halo 3 looks great, so what's the big deal about this?

  • Wolverine

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 8:13 am PT

    I play this game on my 58" HDTV and it looks amazing. It's definitely an HD game in my opinion. They just created the HD in a different way. Whatever works to make it look like it does is ok in my book.

  • Swift18

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 3:55 am PT

    Also just to say somthing that never gets posted for some reason Graw 2 looks better on the ps3 never been a vs on that one but i just looked through the pics today idk check it out

  • Swift18

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 3:53 am PT

    thats strangly intresting who woulda thunk it was a down scaled up scale lol. Idk about the 1080i i think that would look kinda jaggy but thats what p is for haha hmmm that sounds kinda wrong

  • Pudgieluv

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 3:51 am PT

    Over hyped, Underspeced, and just lame, 640 p... seriously.. is the 360 so bad @ dynamic range lighting that u have to drop resoulution to add light... lol..

  • SalarianChemist

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 3:33 am PT

    Halo 3 is using "two" Frame Buffers, so that is where the big difference, which is an improvement, takes place.

    This actually offers performance that is superior to 1080p in many situations.

    This "dual-buffer" technology is very similar to the technology that Hitachi uses in their 1080pII HDTV sets.

    Halo 3 really does look amazing with all the impressive lighting, shading, and incredible texture quality.

  • DanteDiPasquale

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 3:31 am PT

    I appreciate the effoprt in trying to curb some of the rediculous debates and arguments that run rampant over the internet but I think in regards to that that final point -- Bungie should have kept it to themselves simply because it makes them sound like they are just trying to protect possible sales which is fine just it should have been a view point that people outside the project were not privy too.

    Regardles the game is great so I'm happy.

  • cocomacoco

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 1:16 am PT

    what a waste of time, i'm playing halo 3 and if you see my review, you'll get the point:
    'love and beauty is in the air", panpanpanpanpan.

  • Cobalt1365

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 12:35 am PT

    "...it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."

    hahaha!
    Bungie pwnage!

  • funbunny

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 5:24 pm PT

    "Oddly, all the PS3 games I have say either 1080p or more commonly 720p on them, as that's what they natively render at."

    Can you guarantee this is true? The only reason someone found out Halo 3 was running at 640p is because Halo 3 is relevent and garners that kind of scrutiny. Nobody cares about any games on the PS3, at least at the moment. Maybe someone will when Ratchet and Clank comes out.

  • HXCDEW

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 4:24 pm PT

    Halo 3, more like Halo 2.5. If it was a PS3 game this would be making news on CNN.

    "Latest News - WAR ON PS3 - Halo 3 for the PS3 is not true HD... US administration is seeking UN clearance to launch war on Sony headquarters in Japan... Kaz Hirai releases new video tape message- 'Death to America!'... OJ Simpson sued for the name Simpson appearing in The Simpsons video game..."

  • MGSteve

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 4:02 pm PT

    "The point is simple, the resolution printed for this game is "HDTV 720p/1080i/1080p" "

    -- If that is true, that is misleading. Just because a console can upscale to 1080p, doesn't mean the game can say it outputs at 1080p.

    Otherwise, you could say that a DVD is 1080p, because the player is upscaling it.

    Oddly, all the PS3 games I have say either 1080p or more commonly 720p on them, as that's what they natively render at.

    I can't believe someone like MS would intentionally mislead consumers..... Oh hold on, its the same company that pretended Windows ME was an operating system.

    And as for saying the 1280x640 is HD - I suggest you read the HDTV specs... 1280x640 is not HD. Sure, its higher than NTSC/PAL, but its not HDTV (and yes I know I'm splitting hairs here).

    And SalarianChemist, as for saying the PS3's worse because of COD3 - that's ONE GAME! There are plenty of PS3 games which look better than the 360 - Obvilion for one - most reviews say that it looks slightly better on the PS3 due to a better draw distance. You can't draw a comparasion for a game that was a port from the 360 and then claim it as an example of how the 360 is better, it simply doesn't work. Who's to say that if the developer had spent more time on it, they couldn't have optimised it a bit better on the PS3?

    Its all subjective at the end of the day, and completely off topic. The point is MS misleading people over the resolution the game supports.

  • Adrik

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 3:54 pm PT

    You guys Are blinded, by some strange force or by hype or by Fanatism...Halo 3 looks like crap! except if you look really close into things, if you look at an enviroment from afar you just see awful textures jagged edges with great lighting...ok, now hate me...

  • brianpoetzel

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 3:47 pm PT

    Could you imagine if Crysis played at 1152x640 resolution? Maybe on a GPU and monitor from 5 years ago. Most people I know play their games at 1680x1050 plus. That's HD! Not barely over DVD quality.

  • chudllama

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 3:44 pm PT

    I thought it looked worse than some of my other games.

  • xenonick23

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 1:30 pm PT

    Kind of amusing how defensive it got all of a sudden. "Doesnt matter, still looks and plays great..." No matter what, people wont take a hit cuz it's their precious Halo 3. 360 just has no flaw apparantly.

  • Legacyoftain

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 12:43 pm PT

    ZOMG HALO3 NOT HD??!?!? LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING *****BLAM!!!****** brain splatter

  • G-Master111

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 12:22 pm PT

    I like wii. I like pc. All I need is good gameplay, good physics and sharp resolutions. I like nice graphics, don't get me wrong, but I think the fundamentals are all that matters.

  • Extreme124

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 11:39 am PT

    They can update this though the Xbox 360, Then it would keep people happy as some arcade games got a simular update in the past

    I like the game, dosent bother me as it can be upscaled to 720p 1080i,P

  • heywoodj2001

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 11:16 am PT

    Halo is JUST a game. Halo is NOT your mother. You would all do well to stop attacking each other as if Halo WERE your mother.

    Now, I love Halo - I still play the first and second on my Xbox, and H1 on PC. Don't have a 360. But in 1280 x 1024 Halo PC looks AMAZING. Better than any screenshot I've ever seen of H2 or H3. My first point is - resolution matters. A lot.

    Now, I was semi-interested in getting a 360 for H3, because I have a 50-inch HDTV DLP monitor. A true HD game would look fantastic on it.

    But take away the marketing-speak: Upconversion is just stretching an image across multiple pixels. Hence the jaggies. That's NOT HDTV guys. No way. By that logic, so would be Halo 1 if the 360 upconverted it to 720p - but the game's engine renders at 640 X 480. Stretching it to 1280 x 1024 isn't HD. It's STRETCHING. I recognize that H3 is really close to HD. Close enough for most - but certainly not for all 720p / 1080p HDTV owners.

    Now I'm more hesitant to buy in. My nephew has H3, so I'll hook it up to my TV and check it out to see if it's worth shelling out for a 360. That doesn't mean the game doesn't look great at the resolution it is - we all know Bungie's graphics / gameplay are top notch. That ain't the issue here - so let's drop the defensiveness, okay?

    The issue is HDTV compliance and the fuzziness of the definition, and why Microsoft tried to hide this information.

  • Pedro7_2000

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 11:05 am PT

    That last paragraph is priceless.

    And WOW did they deliver on the "lightening" effect. Between the use of Flares and the blinding light scenes when you're around the ARK....awesome, simply awesome.

    Anybody who's played the game knows what I'm talking about.

  • Shifty_Pete

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 10:34 am PT

    P0T, upscaling isn't true HD. If you count upscaling, then every single PS2 game supports 720p since the PS3 can upscale them. I don't care that the game's native resolution is 640p--not at all. I care that MS lied about it by marking 720p on the back of the box, then when caught in the lie, Bungie got insulting and defensive.

    All I'm asking for is the truth. Don't say on the back of the box that a game is 2-player if its really a one-player game, don't say it supports a special peripheral if it doesn't, and DON'T say the game runs in 720p if you have to upscale it to get it there.

  • NND1

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 10:28 am PT

    Halo is 3 fun as heck and super Awesome!!

  • uk_beny

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 9:08 am PT

    i swear this wont affect anything at all its game play is why people play it the tinyest bit of pp that went walkies wont affect it in anyway seriosly

  • qiwihead

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 8:49 am PT

    It's sad how the lemmings get so attached to numbers that most of them don't even understand. This isn't a technical flaw or proof of the 360's shortcomings. This was an artistic decision made by the developers based on how they wanted the game to look. They decided that 640p with two frame buffers gave the visuals the look they wanted. The vast majority of people who have actually seen the game running on an HDTV think it looks beautiful. But boo-hoo, it's 80 lines short of supposedly "true" HD. Go whine to your mommy while I continue enjoying this gorgeous game. Who's having the better time?

  • P0T

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 7:56 am PT

    My HALO 3 looks great upscaled to 1080p. The game is still HD smart guys, anything over 480p is considered HD. The haters can hate while we enjoy this great game. Its the best multiplayer game out at the moment for consoles IMO. 4 player co-op, replays, forge, sweet vehicles and map and etc etc etc. So how did LAIR turn out for the SONY fanboys? haha

  • wavey_gravey

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 7:29 am PT

    I can't tell the difference either way! It still looks great!

  • Ardiendo_1

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 7:26 am PT

    To me, this isn't really a big deal. The game isn't true HD, surprising but not really that important as I have never really been a fan of Halos art direction anyway. Besides the game still looks pretty good as it is.

    What I will say though is that it isn't exactly good PR for Microsofts flagship game of its HD console to not even run in actual HD. So, although the actual effects of not running the game in HD should only bother the truly pedantic, the signals it gives of the direction of HD gaming is not good for Microsoft at all.

  • incredibilistic

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 7:09 am PT

    The biggest problem all of you Halo freaks need to realize is that the biggest game on the console can't reach an HD resolution what does that say about the future of your favorite console?

    The worst part about this is all the hypocritical 360 fans that worship the ground Halo stomps on. If this was a PS3 most of you would be ripping the game apart for everything wrong with it. But no matter. We'll see how things go 2 years from now.

  • abadgirl84

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 6:31 am PT

    looks pretty good

  • MaxBlaze

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 1:49 am PT

    Does this have anything to do with the fact that the game is extremely jagged around the edges in real-time? AKA: Lack of AA(Antialiasing)

  • MetalZombieII

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 1:31 am PT

    Here is something that I find kind of funny, this game is awesome and yet people are going to get pissy and complain about this game running in native 640p and saying it's not high definition unless it's at least 720p, when from a technical stand point anything above 480i/p IS high definition. Just because the FCC doesn't designate it that way doesn't mean that it's not high definition. The FCC and other bodies that produce digital content, want to set a standard and basically simplify things buy saying High definition is 720p, 1080i and 1080p. Do you want to know why? It's because they were afraid that if there were to many resolutions it would be confusing and it would also make their job more difficult when television completely transitions to digital, having a set standard for broadcasting makes there lives easier. They are trying to force a standard for purposes of simplification and just because they say it's so, doesn't make it law.

    There is a lot of documentation out there if you look and most of it states that anything over 480i/p IS technically high definition.

    SO, even though it isn't 720p it doesn't mean that it isn't HD, oh and as far as the argument from many on here that marking the box 720p, 1080p is false advertising you're wrong. The 360 can up-convert to those resolutions so even though it's not the native resolution it can still attain said resolution. Sneaky on M$ part? Sure, but that doesn't make it any less true.

    Oh and before you ask, no i will not provide links use your brain and do some research on your own it's there if you look.

  • WNxUSA

    Posted Oct 1, 2007 10:06 pm PT

    It adds a little bit to it. Why would M$ market the 360 as a HD Platform if there most Prized game that is suppose to SAVE the XBOX 360 as a decent console and put it on the map for good not run like it should in true HD that M$ said it would? Makes sense wouldn't it to put your best game you could out there with the best you can get for it? Sure everything has its limitations but i'm definitely sure they can do as they promised instead of falling short and saying its there and marking it on the box. Kinda dis-hearting for all the people who buy a 360. Maybe it's just me but if your gonna promise something and say its in HD then it should be in HD.

  • mjax211

    Posted Oct 1, 2007 9:53 pm PT

    Obviously not a problem unless you're looking for it, and then it is still not a problem, just mountains from molehills.

  • KBFTodd

    Posted Oct 1, 2007 9:14 pm PT

    Why must we complain about everything???

  • yung_slym

    Posted Oct 1, 2007 8:05 pm PT

    Only got to stare at it for a few hours, but from what I saw the game looks great. Can't wait to link up with some friends....

  • Cult_of_Cthulhu

    Posted Oct 1, 2007 7:05 pm PT

    yeah what he said! umm *shuffles from room*

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!