[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"] After seeing the rest of the "non-HD" games (for lack of a better term) like COD and DMC my opinion is I would sacrifice resolution for smoother gameplay every time.
This is not a win for the 360 it just looks that way because it's easy to point and say "HA HA! 600-something resolution vs. native 720p"
GTA4 outperformed my expectations (and how many times do you get to say that?) and thats what counts for me, nice job R* I admit I was not expecting it to look as good as it did.
Riverwolf007
DMC4 was confirmed 720p on both consoles.
Yeah? I haven't been keeping up here very well, the last thing I saw on it was that it was another one of the upscaled games. In that case I guess COD is my goto game for my opinion on things other than resolution being more important in some cases.Dear god, please don't try to make this argument.
Call of Duty 4 does have great performance, but the image quality is so ugly that it actually affects my in-game performance because everything muddies together. Yes, as many review sites have mentioned, it does look very attractive when you're CLOSE to objects. Contrary to many of our reports here on this forum the textures are actually of a decent quality, but the LOD and aggressive reduction of poly counts at distance kills it at any decent range.
Yes, it may have 60 frames, and I REALLY appreciate that it has 2xAA versus not having any at all, but the 600p combined with the poor aliasing just destroys image quality.
I am a HUGE proponent of image quality OVER shading effects, which are bogus to begin with. Image quality is of utmost importance in shooting games, especially when they employ motion blur, smoke effects, and ridiculous bloom to try and destroy your vision. Have you ever played a game where you can actually see? It makes a damn big difference in your shooting ability, I'll tell you that.
Play Red Orchestra. You have to impose antialiasing on it because it's running on UE2k4 which is apparently incapable of antialiasing in-game. The difference is extreme, you can actually see your targets barely poking out of windows.
I am just so damn sick of all you guys saying you're willing to sacrifice image quality for performance and shading effects. Shading effects are the kind of stuff that DON'T affect your ability to play the game, image quality and performance DO.
Image quality for performance=good. Image quality for shading effects=bad. Best compromise=cut back on shading effects for some solid AA, high resolution visuals, and stable or better yet smooth performance. Or, you could just make a game like Haze that has terrible LOD, texture quality, aliasing, low resolution, and less than ideal performance. Lolz.
Anyway, as though I need to point this out to the TC, the Sony Playstation 3 is capable of a hell of a lot more than what schlubs at Rockstar and Ubi can crank out of it. First and second party devs have proven that again and again with astonishing games with superb performance, image quality, and all the other visual goodies. The PS3 is capable of a lot with no tradeoffs, despite hitting a few roadblocks.
But I could always sit here and say the same thing about Halo and the Xbox 360. See what I'm getting at? Why are we having this discussion?
Log in to comment