Haze doesn't quite measure up to 720p
[Via PS3 Fanboy]
Filed under: Other hardware, New content
[Via PS3 Fanboy]
Relevant Posts
- Ask Engadget HD: Which gaming console suits HD junkies best? (42 days ago - 108 Comments)
- 87% of PlayStation 3 owners watching Blu-ray movies? Survey says yes (5 days ago - 28 Comments)
- No other movie studios signed with Sony's PlayStation download service yet (11 days ago - 15 Comments)
- PS3 Burnout: Paradise "Cagney" update adds 1080i support (10 days ago - 8 Comments)
- Sony's PS3 movie download service rolling out Stateside this summer (13 days ago - 14 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
lakersin2025 @ May 20th 2008 12:26PM
Yea, it wouldn't be that big of a deal if Sony wasn't bragging about 1080p over the xbox360. I would rather have smooth frame rates than a couple more lines of res but I thought we didn't have to choose either or with the PS3. I actually prefer the look of GTA IV on the PS3 over the 360 even with lower lines of res but imagine how it would look more than the 360 with the same smoothness.
Nfinity @ May 20th 2008 12:58PM
It's pretty hilarious how Sony and Blu-Ray fanboys were hyping how 1080i is not even good enough when compared to 1080p and now you are satisfied with subar (not even HD) resolutions in gaming and find some kind of excuses how it looks better. Please..
PS3, the look and sound of "good enough" RIGHT?
Freaking hypocrites.
XDragon @ May 20th 2008 1:22PM
What a system is capable of doing vs what developers choose to do with it are not the same thing.
lakersin2025 @ May 20th 2008 1:22PM
I'm not a fanboy. I have both systems and a Wii and my wife has a DS so I can play whatever I want. If anything I try to support the xbox games because the controller feels better in my hands and they are from Washington, even though 99.9% of the parts are made outside the U.S.
northcranky @ May 20th 2008 12:33PM
The demo looked just fine and if I remember correctly said 720p on my onkyo 905. Since it looked fine does it matter? Nope.
jsn @ May 20th 2008 1:33PM
doesn't matter, if the game is fun it'll still be fun, but it does show that the ps3 isn't quite as powerful as Sony made it out to be.
foxb @ May 20th 2008 1:36PM
XDragon,
I don't think any developers prefer lower resolution of game designs. It's more likely the trade off due to the platform that isn't capable of support higher resolution while maintain the complexity and smoothness (framerate) of the game play. Neither of the two systems (360 and PS3) is capable of deliver full 1080p on any game that is worth paying for. You have to chose.
XDragon @ May 20th 2008 8:20PM
I couldn't disagree with you more about developers as I am one.
It takes a lot of skill to optimise your resourses as opposed to throwing power at a problem.
Developers are dealing with a totaly new technology with the cell chip and as time goes on they will get better but that doesn't mean they will delay a game for a long time to improve it to its max potential.
I'm not saying the PS3 can meet all of Sony's claims as Sony is and always will be the biggest over hyping company but to say that it can't make a game worth playing in true 1080p is ignorant and based on no facts.
mntwister @ May 20th 2008 1:52PM
If you look at some of the gamer sites, you will see that this decision was made by the studio that is releasing Haze because they felt the game ran smoother at this resolution. I don't remember all the details but there were many factors that went into the decision and many of them were because in some ways it made the game play better. I am not a tech on these issues though so I have no idea, but the company that released Haze has made statements on the issue. I don't have time to find links but check out IGN PS3 news and I have downloaded the demo and it looks pretty darn good anyway. This had nothing to do with Sony. Here's one link (I hope links are allowed here):
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/19/haze-says-no-to-hd-yes-to-hdd/
Nfinity @ May 20th 2008 2:12PM
Let me explain something to you.. the reason it runs SMOOTHER is because the PS3 is not capable of running all they imagine at higher resolution. What kind of explanation is that to say "Oh we went with crap resolution because we really think it's better it runs smoother". Runs smoother is keyword for we couldn't make the system run it as smooth as at 720p at least.
PS3 is poorly engineered creating severe bottlenecks in memory and graphics and that's why recently almost all multi platform games are either lower resolution on PS3 or have some kind of other issues visual or framerate.
But good thing there's Blu-Ray on it since you gotta fit 50gb of game data on it. Oh wait, you install like a huge chunk of that on hard drive too. LOL.
Talk about inefficient design.
northcranky @ May 20th 2008 3:22PM
Time to get cranky on you.
You can have the best performing console ever and a crappy coder or a lazy job of coding can have what outcome? A poorly performing engine. Now most companies will not stick around with a game long enough to have it perform the way it should. Why dump money out when you can get it performing in a faster and easier way and it works.
Simply put there are many games for either console that look better and perform better than haze. A crappy coded game IS a crappy coded game. Stop bashing the PS3. If it was designed for the 360 as well it would probably look the same on that crap console too.
Nfinity @ May 20th 2008 2:14PM
Btw, the game is garbage anyways. Looks totally plain, gameplay pretty much sucks with injecting nectar like an idiot every 3 minutes just in order to see your opponents etc.
It's not even an average shooter.
Achilles @ May 20th 2008 2:32PM
Why do you hate Blu-Ray so much???
Nfinity @ May 20th 2008 2:44PM
First off we are not talking about Blu-Ray. Second of all, I understand why you feel that I "hate" Blu-Ray. To a fanboy there's no logical explanation or reasoning about how some technology is shit. You simply can't accept anything in objective way.
PS3 is an unfinished console that's neither entertainment center, neither a game console. Blu-Ray is not a picked format by people and completely ineffecient and unfinished that has no way of going mainstream for at least 2 more years. Something we could've already had with HD DVD for example. Why we don't? Well greed from scumbags and corporate payoffs .. that's why.
These are all facts that I'm pretty sure you will never be able to accept.
I have all 3 consoles too and PS3 is the biggest failure I've seen in any device I bought.
The only thing I occasionally use it for is rented Blu-Rays and since that thing is not really working out, Blockbuster and Netflix simply either don't have enough copies or they don't get certain movies on Blu-Ray at all, because BDA scumbags and all the studios that got fat payoffs are trying to rip off people and not allow renting either, the PS3 stays pretty much shut down.
I even use my old HD DVD player A20 for upscaling DVDs that look superb over PS3.
All in all.. PS3 is simply waste of money.
northcranky @ May 20th 2008 3:28PM
Seeing as how objective is emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation... It looks like your being very objective after everything you just stated. Yeah, objective indeed.
DrXym @ May 20th 2008 4:52PM
Nfinity, the PS3 is not "unfinished". It makes an excellent games console and an excellent multimedia player. You are projecting in a quite childish manner based off one mediocre title.
xemumanic @ May 20th 2008 5:30PM
Achilles is right. Nfinity is making fun of the PS3 because its due to the PS3 that his format of choice died.
As a gaming console I don't think much of the PS3 (and I own one, as well as a 360) and although much of what he's said is true, he's fueled by his hate for Blu Ray. If the consoles weren't involved with the HD format war, he wouldn't be saying these things right now.
Also, to settle things, GTA4 was 630p on PS3 (compared to a full 720p on the 360), COD4 was 600p on both consoles, and Halo 3 was 640p. Haze at 576p is the lowest res game this generation. IMO its not HD at all, its pretty much PAL.
Nfinity @ May 20th 2008 8:38PM
xemumanic..
believe it or not, I don't hate Blu-Ray from the technology point of view in terms of providing us 1080p footage. I dont' have a problem with that.
I have a problem with how it was forced on consumers and how they continue to simply ripoff people from players to movies.
If a Blu-Ray had FINISHED spec-ed standalones and were $200 even $250 (but I'm talking fully fully featured and finished) or below (which is their objective value), if movies were just a little bit more expensive then regular DVD releases because they are not really super revolutionary, it's just slightly enhanced quality of image, it's hardly worth 3-4 or 5 times the price of DVDs. Let's say if new releases were $19.99. I wouldn't have problems at all with it, despite the payoffs and stuff Sony and BDA did to enforce it on the consumers.
What I hate is this whole notion that we should be paying prices for HD players and movies at the level of 1999. I mean how retarded one has to be to support this. Do you go and say, oh ok laptop was $5000 5 years ago, I should go and pay the new laptop with wifi and all the next gen goodies $5k? It's ridiculous.
Blu-ray or HD DVD are neither revolutionary nor offer a bunch of things DVD doesn't have to warrant such a huge jump, not to mention that most of these movies won't be encoded to the max quality anyways, the justification to pay these prices shows their greed even more. It's more like a jump that happened from CD to DVD. Improved size of the discs, better quality as they had more space etc etc.
DrXym @ May 21st 2008 2:55AM
Nfinity you are demanding the absurd. Are you even old enough to remember how DVD started? I don't think so or you wouldn't even be using this silly argument.
Blu Ray player prices are tracking exactly as DVD did before. CEs sell high to cover their R&D and production costs. They want to make a profit after all. As more players sell and the technology matures, the price drops. I noticed you slipped in some weasel words like as long as its "fully featured", this of course being because you know there will be $200 players by the year end and want to cling on to your hate a little longer by dismissing them as 1.1 players.
As for titles at $20 titles, these too will happen as the format expands and there are more titles. Go to Amazon and you can already see most bestsellers are in the $20-25 range. Personally I judge whether I would buy a movie on a combination of price and how good the movie is. A lot of movies aren't even worth $20 but clearly someone is buying them or they wouldn't be bestsellers.
Scott @ May 20th 2008 3:47PM
Isn't 576 the PAL SD resolution? Interlaced of course, not progressive.
Torgo @ May 20th 2008 4:26PM
Yeah, CoD4 and Halo 3 run at that resolution as well.
Shape @ May 20th 2008 9:26PM
No, COD4 runs at 600p.
Halo 3 runs at 640p.
And neither of them have the horrible jagginess that is present in Haze.
DrXym @ May 21st 2008 3:08AM
Given the number of PS3 titles including first person shooters that run at higher resolutions and offer better gameplay, I think its safe to lay the blame squarely on Ubisoft for this one.
XDragon @ May 21st 2008 6:52AM
I'm going to call out the developer on this one because there is no excuse. Usualy games are ported from the 360 to the PS3 and in those cases, there's only so muh you can do but this is an exclusive title! Its not a shot a Sony or the PS3, just the lazy devs.