Sad, but despite the back of the box of the game you buy which says "1080p", its more then likely the game is nothing more then 720p upscaled to 1080p. In reality most games you buy should say "upscaled to 1080p" on the box.

Does anyone have an accurate list of what games are actually 1080p? If you post a game tittle can you please add a source which proves it is actually 1080p. Sadly the list below which I have is short, and even more sad doesn't come from a great source. Personally I think the list below is more wishful thinking then reality.

Honestly I personally think the amount of games that are actually 1080p is less then 10.

http://www.makeyougohmm.com/xbox360-1080p-games/

A (2)
All Pro Football 2K8
Armored Core 4

B (4)
Battlefield 2 (Platinum Hits)
The Bigs
Bioshock
Bullet Witch

C (3)
Call of Duty 3
Call of Juarez
Command & Conquer 3

D (2)
Dead or Alive 4 (Platinum Hits)
Dance Dance Revolution Universe

F (2)
Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer
Fight Night Round 3

G (1)
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter

H (3)
Harry Potter
Halo 3
Hour of Victory

I (1)
Icon

M (2)
Meet The Robinsons
Monster Madness Battle for Suburbia

N (2)
NCAA 08 Football
NCAA 07 March Madness

O (1)
Overlord

P (1)
Pirates of the Carribean

R (2)
Ratatouilio
Rayman Raving Rabbit

S (5)
Saints Row
Shadowrun
Spiderman 3
Superman Returns
Surf’s Up

T (2)
Tetris Evolution
Two Worlds

U (1)
UEFA Championship Soccer

V (1)
Vampire Rain

Most of the games you have listed here does not produce true 1080P in-game resolution. If you are so inclined, there are countless threads that discuss this issue.

What is really sad is that someone actually cares enough to produce a list. Does it really matter that COD3 runs at 720P instead of 1080P? It is still a fantastic game with gorgeous graphics whether or not it is running at whatever resolution.

Stop counting pixels and start playing and actually enjoy games for what they are.

Does it really matter that COD3 runs at 720P instead of 1080P?

YES. Compare Geometry Wars (720p) to Geometry Wars 2 (1080p). Geometry Wars 2 looks so much sharper and nicer. Yes that extra res does make a difference, a big one.

That said, 360 was never about 1080p, that was PS3's game, and neither system can really do it. So 720p is fine for now, but I really would love to see more 1080p games moving forward.

so the real question is does it run or look any better or worse if you put it to 720p?

That list is just so flawed. For example, Halo 3 is known to only natively render at 6xxp (less than 720p).


The problem is that the limited hardware resource (memory) and processing power makes current gen consoles, both Xbox 360 and PS3, incapable of rendering 1080p games while maintain a complex story line, level, effects, physics and other stuff that makes a game truely worth playing. So you will find a handful of true 1080p games are usually eye candy only games.

Look at games like Gears 2, then look at "full 1080p" games like virtua tennis, and tell me which looks better ;)

...both Xbox 360 and PS3, incapable of rendering 1080p games while maintain a complex story line, level, effects, physics and other stuff that makes a game truely worth playing. So you will find a handful of true 1080p games are usually eye candy only games.

That's so true. I heard that they were going to add one more sub-plot element to the Bioshock story but then they realized the 360 just didn't have the processing power to handle it. ;)

Most of the games you have listed here does not produce true 1080P in-game resolution. If you are so inclined, there are countless threads that discuss this issue.

What is really sad is that someone actually cares enough to produce a list. Does it really matter that COD3 runs at 720P instead of 1080P? It is still a fantastic game with gorgeous graphics whether or not it is running at whatever resolution.

Stop counting pixels and start playing and actually enjoy games for what they are.

God I couldnt agree more with you.. about the resolution crybabies. Whatever happened to having fun??????

The onslaught of quality gameplay, multiplayer online, GREAT looking titles are absolutely incredible this generation. I honestly cant even keep up. And I doubt if most people can. There are entirely too many to choose from.

If youre that concerned about native 1080p gaming.. then I dont think the $199 Xbox is your answer. You need to look into much more expensive PC gaming.

Look at games like Gears 2, then look at "full 1080p" games like virtua tennis, and tell me which looks better ;)

exactly.

When you go on to more "common" boards, such as IGN, it seems like huge amount of gamers don't even have HD displays, and if they do its in the form 20-24 monitor hooked via VGA that there sitting right in front of.

exactly.

When you go on to more "common" boards, such as IGN, it seems like huge amount of games don't even have HD displays, and if they do its in the form 20-24 monitor hooked via VGA that there sitting right in front of.
i take it by games you meant gamers? but if so, you're right. i remember going over over to co-workers house last year because he needed me to do some work on his PC, and while i was there he decided to play the PS3 version of COD4 on his 27" RCA television that was connected via comPOSite. then i started cracking up, and his friend that was over looks at me and asks what i'm laughing at, so i tell him and then he tells me that he has the same television hooked up to his PS3 too...

and don't get me wrong, i would never make fun of someone for not being able to afford something, being single and owning my own house, i can understand what it means to have to pass on something because i can't afford it at the time. the thing that really cracked me up is that when we used to be at work, he says blah blah blah about how the PS3 is better than the 360, when he doesn't even know how good either of them REALLY are considering the circumstances. i saw him about a month or so ago, and he started laughing and told me that he just got a new 32" Samsung 550, and i started laughing and told him that's EXACTLY what i use for my 360...

No AAA titles (or any game of signicant substance) will be 1080p -they need the processing power (and memory) for much more than just frame-rendering. Games like Geometry Wars 2 can do 1080p because they are simple in design and construction -a throwback to an earlier (Asteriods could run on a VIC 20) generation of games. And I'm not knocking simple design -GW2 is a brilliant game.

A reality check on the hardware gets you through the hype (and this is true of both the 360 and PS3).

The 360 only has 512 ram (the PS3 even less, if you take unification into account). Rendering a 1080p frame means there is precious little left over for the actual game.

The obsession with rendering resoluion is misguided though. Post-processing is more important. The biggest thing that hit me with Gears of War 2 was the lack of AA. Depending on what is being rendered, the Jaggies really hit you in the eye. Again, it just sucks too much power/memory, and the compromise the developers made was the right one. Frame rate and playability should always win over eye-candy.

For the money, the 360 is a brilliant piece of hardware. Price vs Performance, I think it's currently the best there is. But it is a 720p gaming console. It can do native 1080p, but you will be left with only a couple of donkey's in the engine bay.

ps. this reminds me of when the 360 was launched -it was actually the Gears of War team (Epic) that convinced MS they needed the 360 to be a 512K machine, as versus 256, which was their original plan. Thank god for that, or else it would have been the PS3 with the distinct technical edge, as versus the other way around. On the other hand, if the PS3 had been designed better (I swear to god I don't know what the engineers were thinking) it should have been a much better performing piece of hardware.

I remember Epic pleading for 512. Wonder what GOW would look like with only 256? MS promised us all and hyped the 360 as true 720p at the very minimum with all games. Sony being even worse and promising full 1080p at the minimum for all games. Neither has delivered. That is why people are pissed. Shame on you Sony and MS. The next gen of consoles should be at 1080p standard for ALL games. No excuse. The problem I see with that though is cost of making the console and then what they could sell it to the consumer for. I still say the jump from this gen to last is really not that much if you look at it. The a.i. is still stale. Where is some innovation? I think they are all running out of ideas finally. The graphics have shown improvement. But, not like ps1 to ps2 difference. I remember when Madden came out for ps2. That was a MASSIVE jump in graphics. Maybe I had to many high hopes for these current gen consoles. I cannot help it though. MS and Sony really made you feel the jump was going to be huge.

God I couldnt agree more with you.. about the resolution crybabies. Whatever happened to having fun??????



There's room for both discussions.

Games are about fun, but some people like to obsess over the presentation of their fun. Movies are about story/characters, but that doesn't stop certain people from obsessing over aspect ratio, seven channel surround sound, etc..

While these details might not interest you, AVS is a good place to discuss maximizing entertainment presentation -- please remember the forum you are in. ;)

There's room for both discussions.

Games are about fun, but some people like to obsess over the presentation of their fun. Movies are about story/characters, but that doesn't stop certain people from obsessing over aspect ratio, seven channel surround sound, etc..

While these details might not interest you, AVS is a good place to discuss maximizing entertainment presentation -- please remember the forum you are in. ;)


Well said.

and I will say it again. And I say this as I believe that the majourity of people here are playing on HD.

But when you wander off the AVSF you find alot of people not playing HD or not even using new connection standards, as per told in the previous story. Or even caring about HD.

Look at the Wii, it just went for fun (through I hate it)

I'm hoping next gen there will be enough horsepower and talented people that it will be hard for the developers not to spend time on the fun factor of there game.

Fable 2 for me was a game that had some eye candy, didn't look bad inless you wanted to get critical and start looking at the textures on things.

It was the right mix of fun and graphics.

As for stale AI and games I think that comes about from people getting to upset with pixel counts, AA/AF........ and not focusing on the game. Or they just have bland desings/lack inovation.

God I couldnt agree more with you.. about the resolution crybabies. Whatever happened to having fun??????
/B].

I think its reasonable to expect what is being printed on the packaging. Real 1080p looks better then 720p. Maybe you dont have a monitor that shows this, but I do. I enjoy games at 480p and 720p, but that is not the point.


The point is 1080p looks better, 1080p is whats printed on the package and 1080p is what my system is set up to do. To me part of the enjoyment of video games are the graphics and look of the game as much as the actual game itself. It has always been that way for me in my 20+ years of gaming history.

I think its reasonable to expect what is being printed on the packaging. Real 1080p looks better then 720p. Maybe you dont have a monitor that shows this, but I do. I enjoy games at 480p and 720p, but that is not the point.


The point is 1080p looks better, 1080p is whats printed on the package and 1080p is what my system is set up to do. To me part of the enjoyment of video games are the graphics and look of the game as much as the actual game itself. It has always been that way for me in my 20+ years of gaming history.

It wouldn't appear anyone is disputing 1080p is noticeably better than 720p, they're just pointing out that it's not possible and therefor pointless to be upset about not having. Sure every game released for the 360 and PS3 could theoretically render at 1080p, but that game would take a serious hit to any combination of framerate, poly count, lighting effects, physics, texture resolution and AA. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure others feel this way to, all those things are a lot more important than resolution once you've already crossed the boundary into HD.

So yes, 1080p would be nice, but it's not feasible for these systems to render they're best looking games at that resolution. So then as the previous poster mentioned: Why would one complain about it?

The graphics have shown improvement. But, not like ps1 to ps2 difference. I remember when Madden came out for ps2. That was a MASSIVE jump in graphics. Maybe I had to many high hopes for these current gen consoles. I cannot help it though. MS and Sony really made you feel the jump was going to be huge.

The issue is that even though the hardware improved (3 core CPU with 2 threads per core; An ATI Videocard with similar performance to a HD3850; and 512K shared ram) the resolution increased as well (typically native 720p, up or downscaled to the output resolution).

The result is that the new hardware did not actually give us much more than what we had in the previous generation, when you take the resolution jump into account. It's quite possible that the same sort of thing could happen in the next generation which will no doubt render at native 1080p. In fact, Ironically, if they had considered allowing developers to produce native 480p games, we might have seen a greater improvement in other areas of the game (such as load times/frequency; post processing effects; physics and AI). Obviously, native 480p would have been a marketing nightmare for a console that was supposedly nextgen -but it didn't stop Nintendo from conecting with the mainstream of people who don't care about such details.

Having said all that, other aspects, such as Xbox Live have come a long way; we've got the best wireless controllers on the market (they have even made their way to the PC). I do think the 360 should have had support for 802.11n, but you can work around that.

MS promised us all and hyped the 360 as true 720p at the very minimum with all games

Except that hasn't happened, either. The system's flagship title was 640p (Halo 3), and the biggest selling game of the generation is only 600p. Look, I know the whole deal about performance, and sacrificing res for other things, and so forth, but its still a fact that these systems have not measured up to what the manufacturers claimed. Whether or not it was a good idea to make CoD4 run at 600p to get a solid 60fps (and I think it WAS a good idea), it's still a fact that we are losing 33% of the detail because the hardware couldn't do the game at 720p/60fps.


It was the right mix of fun and graphics.

So, you can't have them both? I have been playing Fable 2, and its great looking except for the obvious problems - inconsistent framerate, no v-sync, long loading times, etc. The 360 seems barely able to handle this game, which concerns me for the games coming out in 1-2 years that are even more ambitious. My guess is we will see a lot more sub-720p games as the complexity grows and the system struggles to keep up.

Ironically, if they had considered allowing developers to produce native 480p games, we might have seen a greater improvement in other areas of the game (such as load times/frequency; post processing effects; physics and AI).

I have read just that argument elsewhere. Yea, we probably would've been pretty close to photorealistic but it was obviously not to be. Well, it made sense for MS to move to HD, it would've looked awfully silly selling a 480p console next to all these HDTVs, but it is still an interesting thing to think about.

The graphics have shown improvement. But, not like ps1 to ps2 difference. I remember when Madden came out for ps2. That was a MASSIVE jump in graphics. Maybe I had to many high hopes for these current gen consoles. I cannot help it though. MS and Sony really made you feel the jump was going to be huge.

I don't think you will EVER see a jump like that again, even if the consoles were 5X more powerful than they are. It all comes down to image quality. PSX hardware was pretty dreadful, most textures weren't filtered, no z-buffering, no mip-mapping, etc. N64 had some of these features but it also had an extremely small texture cache (whic hled to the "vaseline smear" you see in all but 2 or 3 N64 games) and a general low-poly look to everything (the N64 couldn't render as many polygons as the PSX). So the PSX made everything look like a pixelly, splotchy mess and the N64 made everything look smeary and simple. PS2 and Xbox came out and the graphics were solid - smooth and filtered textures, lighting, good details in the scenes, solid framerate, all of that. That jump to solid, decent image quality was everything - anything going forward is just extra.

The only console I was even hoping for 1080p on was the PS3. Heck, I distinctly remember them talking about dual 1080p with 2 HDMI outputs. I figured even for a 100% hype inflation I'd be left with a single 1080p capable console - not to be and a scaling fiasco to boot. The 360 always had lower expectations. That said, I enjoy the console and games. They look much better than last gen regardless of resolution or scaling.

Right now PCs are the only game in town for 1080p rendering. The back of the box is an output compatibility chart moreso than a proof of rendering resolution. Heck, video games are all rendered in progressive so putting 1080i on there would be a false statement since interlacing is introduced after the fact.

Basically the games are good, at this point there should be no surprise left as to graphics capabilities on these consoles. It's been done over and over for since the 360's launch and the reason you don't see it discussed anymore is that people understand the reality and have moved on. Next gen should provide the 1080p everyone is looking for.

YES. Compare Geometry Wars (720p) to Geometry Wars 2 (1080p). Geometry Wars 2 looks so much sharper and nicer. Yes that extra res does make a difference, a big one.

That said, 360 was never about 1080p, that was PS3's game, and neither system can really do it. So 720p is fine for now, but I really would love to see more 1080p games moving forward.

Right on point there with that thought. I went back to play Geometry Wars 1 to see if my skills had been improved by playing GW2. I thought I was playing some archaic game. The difference was night and day damn near. I remember when playing GW1 when it first came out, I thought it's graphics were incredible. Then playing GW2 in native 1080p and looking back makes me wonder how good a game like GoW2 or H3 would look in 1080p.

I know some can just be satisfied with just a good storyline or gameplay, but graphics can be a deal killer if either of the previous is just meh for me.

Video games have come a long way from the Atari 2600 but I am definitely looking forward to when gaming can be done in pure 1080p goodness. Hopefully something like GoW3...

Video games have come a long way from the Atari 2600 but I am definitely looking forward to when gaming can be done in pure 1080p goodness. Hopefully something like GoW3...

Graphics are the initial thing that hooks me in. Gameplay is king, but it really keeps me playing when I can admire the scenery, high polygon count and/or smooth framerate from time to time. For as great a game as Mario Galaxy is... I just have a hard time playing at 480p anymore.

If the next-gen consoles can do Gears of War 2 (...or God of War 2 even!) quality graphics @ 1080p with locked 60 frames per second, it will be a great achievement. WipEout HD on the PS3 currently does it, so it is possible.

No AAA titles (or any game of signicant substance) will be 1080p -they need the processing power (and memory) for much more than just frame-rendering. Games like Geometry Wars 2 can do 1080p because they are simple in design and construction -a throwback to an earlier (Asteriods could run on a VIC 20) generation of games. And I'm not knocking simple design -GW2 is a brilliant game.


This should not be overlooked. The arcade games are where the 360 can reasonably support true 1080p and get some actual benefit without sacrificing graphical quality.

I'm not sure exactly how many of the other arcade games may be rendered in true 1080p but I would like to see this listed in Xbox live. It apparently was an issue (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/superstreetfighteriiturbohdremix/news.html?sid=6187742&msg_sort=1&cpage=6)in fact for the recent release of Street Fighter II HD Remix where Microsoft lifted the 150mb restriction so the game could support full high resolution:

"Given the sizeable content in Bionic Commando Rearmed and Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix, Microsoft allowed Capcom to work with a larger file size limit for both of those titles in order to provide gamers with the game experience that Capcom desired, such as full hi-res textures (on Bionic Commando Rearmed) or 1080p support (for SSFIIT)," said the Capcom rep. "The Xbox Live Arcade versions of both titles will have complete feature and graphical parity with the iterations that will be available on other platforms.

Evidently MS doesn't want to allow Sony to have 1080p versions of big arcade games while the 360 get's stuck with 720p or less. The game looks beautiful btw.

YES. Compare Geometry Wars (720p) to Geometry Wars 2 (1080p). Geometry Wars 2 looks so much sharper and nicer. Yes that extra res does make a difference, a big one.

That said, 360 was never about 1080p, that was PS3's game, and neither system can really do it. So 720p is fine for now, but I really would love to see more 1080p games moving forward.
That probably has more to do with the actual improvements to the game rather than the 'stated' resolution ;)

This should not be overlooked. The arcade games are where the 360 can reasonably support true 1080p and get some actual benefit without sacrificing graphical quality.

I'm not sure exactly how many of the other arcade games may be rendered in true 1080p but I would like to see this listed in Xbox live. It apparently was an issue (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/superstreetfighteriiturbohdremix/news.html?sid=6187742&msg_sort=1&cpage=6)in fact for the recent release of Street Fighter II HD Remix where Microsoft lifted the 150mb restriction so the game could support full high resolution:



Evidently MS doesn't want to allow Sony to have 1080p versions of big arcade games while the 360 get's stuck with 720p or less. The game looks beautiful btw.

Yea, MS has to lift that damn limit. Seriously does it matter anymore? How many people without harddrive's are buying Arcade titles? Serious beans do away with the limit and stop restricting Arcade developers. They've already had a few releases go over there current cap (what is it now 512mb?) so why the hell not let devs go wild.

I'm not going to dismiss the benefits of a higher resolution, but its easy to get caught up in the 1080p/720p discussion and miss out on the fact that there's a lot more than just resolution that goes into realistic graphics and if I'd much rather have the focus going into lighting/shadows, cloth and hair and physics engines along with more varied textures than squeezing out more pixels. Resolution only does so much, you could render Madden out at 4k resolutions, it still isn't going to look as real as a live game on a 10 year old 480i tv until the other areas catch up.

i dont understand the push for 1080p.

i mean, i do have a 1080p set, but i'd rather have games in true 720p, 8xFSAA, supersampling, hinting, anisotropic filtering, higher quality textures and lighting, uncompressed or lossless sound, etc etc.

It wouldn't appear anyone is disputing 1080p is noticeably better than 720p, they're just pointing out that it's not possible and therefor pointless to be upset about not having. Sure every game released for the 360 and PS3 could theoretically render at 1080p, but that game would take a serious hit to any combination of framerate, poly count, lighting effects, physics, texture resolution and AA. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure others feel this way to, all those things are a lot more important than resolution once you've already crossed the boundary into HD.

So yes, 1080p would be nice, but it's not feasible for these systems to render they're best looking games at that resolution. So then as the previous poster mentioned: Why would one complain about it?

Why would one complain about it?

Here is an example: the back of every 360 game I have says 1080p when its not. We all agree 1080p is better then 720p. If 1080p cant work because of framerate, poly count, lighting effects etc then perhaps its time for MS to correctly label games.

At least I know what the next gen gaming console can offer which this cant. I wonder how they will market it....

"Real 1080p games as opposed the upconverted 1080p that we fooled you into believing was 1080p on the 360"

Im being a little sarcastic, but also realistic. Its not about if things look good the way they are..its about the 360 being a bottle neck in my system (and many others) and miss-representation on the part of people who label the back of games.

1080p is next gen for movies IMO...not 720p. Today i dont even think 720p is hi def. I have the exact same feeling towards games. Does anyone here think the xbox 360 has ever been marked as being "amazing next gen 720p" or have you heard "1080p"?

i dont understand the push for 1080p.

i mean, i do have a 1080p set, but i'd rather have games in true 720p, 8xFSAA, supersampling, hinting, anisotropic filtering, higher quality textures and lighting, uncompressed or lossless sound, etc etc.

I agree that I would rather have a good frame rate etc with 720p then crap with 1080p...but why cant you have it all 1080p? and if you cant it should be made clear.

BTW ...personally the push for 1080p is for more noticable resolution. If you have 50" or less screen then this is a moot point to you. I have a bigger display...and plan on going even bigger.

I would suggest that people who consider 720p to be equal to or close enough to 1080p to not even participate in this thread. Fact is you have not had a chance to properly be exposed to the difference if you feel it is the same or even close close.

I agree that I would rather have a good frame rate etc with 720p then crap with 1080p...but why cant you have it all 1080p? and if you cant it should be made clear.

BTW ...personally the push for 1080p is for more noticable resolution. If you have 50" or less screen then this is a moot point to you. I have a bigger display...and plan on going even bigger.

I would suggest that people who consider 720p to be equal to or close enough to 1080p to not even participate in this thread. Fact is you have not had a chance to properly be exposed to the difference if you feel it is the same or even close close.

Well on displays 50" and less 720p vs 1080p is a moot point as you have to be sitting stupidly close to see a noticeable difference. So there that's the vast majority of people. Even when you do pass 50" 720p still looks fantastic, if you disagree there's an army of people over in the "Below-$3000 Projector" forum who would love to dispute it with you. Sure 1080p offers an advantage over 720p, but even if the next XBox can render good looking games at that resolution it seems like kind of a waste. Fact is the vast majority of people are going to notice and be able to enjoy better textures, higher poly counts, 8xAA, better lighting, better physics and other things that may not be possible when you dump a large amount of system resources into doubling the render resolution from the current standard.

So then why should developers use those precious resources to make that resolution increase, which will benefit the minority in one way. When instead they could use those resources to make a host of changes that will make a significantly more than noticeable difference for everyone.

Edit: O by the way you can say you don't consider 720p high-definition because you've seen the great holy light of 1080p but that would be like me arguing I don't consider Dolby Digital to be true surround sound because I've had the experience of enjoying 7.1 lossless audio.

Even when you do pass 50" 720p still looks fantastic, if you disagree there's an army of people over in the "Below-$3000 Projector" forum who would love to dispute it with you. .

im sure we can agree why they would argue that :rolleyes:

That probably has more to do with the actual improvements to the game rather than the 'stated' resolution

Well, Geometry Wars 2 does have its own look to the graphics, but the up in res definitely makes a big difference. Everything looks razor sharp and clear. There are over double the pixels, it can't not make a difference.

I wasn't a believer in the whole 1080p 4 life thing until Geometry Wars 2 and WipeOut HD... those two games are just gorgeous and sharp. And they wouldn't look nearly as good at 720p, that's just a fact. Now, I am not saying Gears of War 2 or Call of Duty 4 should be 1080p, I understand that's not possible on this hardware. I am just saying it sure would be very nice.

1080p is next gen for movies IMO...not 720p. Today i dont even think 720p is hi def. I have the exact same feeling towards games. Does anyone here think the xbox 360 has ever been marked as being "amazing next gen 720p" or have you heard "1080p"?

Yea, it was, VERY early on, MS made hay about how 360 is all about 720p... the system didn't even do 1080p, at all, until one of the firmware patches. When Sony started talking up 1080p they quieted down about it, and updated the hardware to output it. 360 was never meant to be a 1080p console.

up 1080p they quieted down about it, and updated the hardware to output it. 360 was never meant to be a 1080p console.

My mistake...


Well perhaps I am alone in wanting 1080p an knowing the difference it can make over 720p. Doesnt change the fact I still want it and know there are major improvements which can be made if this xbox or the next one ever does 1080p well and game developers invest the time into 1080p games.

Still doesn't change the fact that 1080p shouldnt be printed on the box. IMO thats like printing 1080p on the box of SD movies. In both cases you are not getting 1080p and must upconvert to get there.


"upconvert" is probably my most hated word in the english language.

I agree that I would rather have a good frame rate etc with 720p then crap with 1080p...but why cant you have it all 1080p? and if you cant it should be made clear.



I think everyone agree that we SHOULD have 1080p games if possible. The reality is XBox 360 is an outdated platform with no guts to support true 1080p games without sacrifice other important game features. A Xbox 360 game has to be able to use 512MB total memory (graphics + system) with no hard drive. And the PowerPC processors are so outdated that even Apple switched over to Intel processors. A modern PC that can run 1080p games smoothly probably has 512MB on its graphics card alone + 2GB or more system memory and a faster 3.5" SATA hard drive to help loading all the stuff faster into the memory.

So what is it going to take out of the NEXT console, to give us honest 1080p?

This argument is just pointless. It is like arguing about why movie makers are still using 24fps instead of 120 fps.

The game designers spend hundreds, if not thousands of hours, trying to decide on the right combination of resolution, frame rate, lighting effects, poly count, texture, etc. to make sure that the game looks its very best on any given platform.

If Halo or COD designers' goal was to run the game at 1080P, it would be so. They could have sacrificed frame rate, poly counts, and lighting effect to a point where the game would run at 1080P, but would look SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE than the game running at its current resolution. But that would defeat the whole purpose of having games at a higher resolution, wouldn't it?

Halo 3 is a great example. The designers made a choice that supporting HDR lighting was worth losing some pixels in the final presentation. You may not agree, but I would go with the decisions made by the people whose livelyhood depends on it rather than some fanboys on forums.

As to the 1080P listed on the packaging. That is to indicate that game SUPPORTS 1080P devices NOT that it necessarily runs at that resolution. It really came about because when HD devices first started rolling out, there were much confusion about what can run on what devices (like 1080i devices that could not run 720P outputs). If you are buying games because your think it runs at 1080P, then it is your problem.

So...does anyone actually know which games render at 1080p? I realize the resolution is far from the most important factor in good graphics, and my TV is only 720p anyway, but I'vm curious.

The whole 1080p thing is just so depressing to me.

I'm a certified graphics whore, and I remember all the excitement I had before the release of the Playstation 3. As far as I was concerned, the PS3 was the first system to "truly" be able to do 1080p in a game, and I couldn't wait to see it. Well, when the PS3 finally did come out, I tried out the handful of games that were 1080p, and to say I was dissapointed was an understatement.

So far, 1080p means absolutely nothing to me, unless you have a screen 65 inches or bigger. Preferably a screen 120 inches or bigger. Other than that, 1080p is a joke as far as I'm concerned.

I don't understand it either. It just doesn't make logical sense. I remember back in the days of PS2 and Xbox 1. About 99 percent of the Xbox 1 library was 480p compatible, and if you had the HD cables for Xbox 1, you could play the games in 480p. There was a "significant" difference playing them in 480p, compared to 480i. This was a difference of only going from interlaced to progressive scan. We aren't even talking an improvement in resolution, but still, the difference was there, you could easily see it and appreciate it. Even on smaller TV's.

Also, back in the old Xbox 1 era, there were a few games with true 720p support. When you saw those games being played on a 720p capable display, they looked amazing too. The difference was so obvious. When it comes to 1080p, you literally have to be sitting a few feet away from the screen to discern any appreciable difference. It just doesn't compute. I was always under the impression that 1080p = 2,000,000 pixels or something like that, with 720p = 800,000. If those numbers are accurate, then 1080p would have over double the number of pixels of 720p, and you would think the difference would be night and day obvious.

What the hell happened?

Well, Geometry Wars 2 does have its own look to the graphics, but the up in res definitely makes a big difference. Everything looks razor sharp and clear. There are over double the pixels, it can't not make a difference.


I'll just repeat what I said earlier....

That probably has more to do with the actual improvements to the game rather than the 'stated' resolution ;)

The whole 1080p thing is just so depressing to me.

I'm a certified graphics whore, and I remember all the excitement I had before the release of the Playstation 3. As far as I was concerned, the PS3 was the first system to "truly" be able to do 1080p in a game, and I couldn't wait to see it. Well, when the PS3 finally did come out, I tried out the handful of games that were 1080p, and to say I was dissapointed was an understatement.

So far, 1080p means absolutely nothing to me, unless you have a screen 65 inches or bigger. Preferably a screen 120 inches or bigger. Other than that, 1080p is a joke as far as I'm concerned.

I don't understand it either. It just doesn't make logical sense. I remember back in the days of PS2 and Xbox 1. About 99 percent of the Xbox 1 library was 480p compatible, and if you had the HD cables for Xbox 1, you could play the games in 480p. There was a "significant" difference playing them in 480p, compared to 480i. This was a difference of only going from interlaced to progressive scan. We aren't even talking an improvement in resolution, but still, the difference was there, you could easily see it and appreciate it. Even on smaller TV's.

Also, back in the old Xbox 1 era, there were a few games with true 720p support. When you saw those games being played on a 720p capable display, they looked amazing too. The difference was so obvious. When it comes to 1080p, you literally have to be sitting a few feet away from the screen to discern any appreciable difference. It just doesn't compute. I was always under the impression that 1080p = 2,000,000 pixels or something like that, with 720p = 800,000. If those numbers are accurate, then 1080p would have over double the number of pixels of 720p, and you would think the difference would be night and day obvious.

What the hell happened?

I agree. I always tell people that the biggest jump is from 480p to 720p, and a much smaller jump from 720p to 1080p in terms of noticeable improvement. My thoughts are this: either a game looks great or it doesn't, no matter what the resolution, and all of the best looking games are 720p or less (I don't consider any of the arcade games to be in the top tier for graphics).

It was the same way with PC gaming, every resolution jump up to 1024x768 was so amazing. After that is kinda meh... Resolution is no longer the limiting factor.

I had the same reaction to lossless sound on ps3 blu-rays. Uuuhhh cool, I guess... (not as impressive as i had dreamed up... ;) )

Midnight Club LA should be. The PS3 can set things to their native resolution even if they support a higher one and that one defaulted to 1080p though I realize it may not be on 360 just because it is on PS3.

I agree. I always tell people that the biggest jump is from 480p to 720p, and a much smaller jump from 720p to 1080p in terms of noticeable improvement. My thoughts are this: either a game looks great or it doesn't, no matter what the resolution, and all of the best looking games are 720p or less (I don't consider any of the arcade games to be in the top tier for graphics).

Completely agree. That jump from 480p to 720p is what gets that "Wow, I didn't know games could look this good" reaction. Everything after that is really entering the realm of diminishing returns. Something the guys defending 1080p to the end here may wanna take into account to: 1080p native games probably look noticeably better on your display because the 720p games are being scaled to more than double their resolution.

Completely agree. That jump from 480p to 720p is what gets that "Wow, I didn't know games could look this good" reaction. Everything after that is really entering the realm of diminishing returns. Something the guys defending 1080p to the end here may wanna take into account to: 1080p native games probably look noticeably better on your display because the 720p games are being scaled to more than double their resolution.
I think the next generation of gaming systems will prove to show that 1080p will be a huge step over 720p, but current console hardware doesn't really have the power.

True comparisons between 720p and 1080p should be made with a 720p NATIVE television next to a 1080p NATIVE television of the same size.

You'd be surprised how impressive 720p looks compared to 1080p.

To be honest, the only reason I prefer 1080p televisions is because there is no downscaling necessary for Full HD movies. No extra processing = no extra artifacts.

As for games, I got over the whole (I wish all games were true 1080p) feeling.

I have a 67" set that I sit pretty close to (7-9 feet), and even though it's not 720p native, 720p content look FANTASTIC.

I'm all for making games run their best and look their best at their optimal resolution as long as the end product LOOKS good.

Call Of Duty 4 at 600p looks AMAZING. I'm sure it'd look even more amazing at 1080p, but until that potential is TRULY attainable, I'm not bothered by it.

As of right now, 1080p is a gimmick only truly worthy on HD movies and a very small amount of games.

I do wish they'd stop labeling games as 1080p though.

They need to CLEARLY SAY that it supports such resolutions, but that it doesn't truly run at that res.

Here's a story about how good 720p actually is. I have two sets. A 720p set in the room, and a 1080p in the living room. I constantly move my 360 between the rooms. For some reason, the 360 doesn't always automatically change the resolution from 720p to 1080p when I switch between rooms. I have sometimes played my 360 in my living room without noticing that it was still outputting at 720p. This is with TRUE 1080p sources like Virtua Tennis 3 (which I DO play).

Yes, the difference is there, but you CAN forget them if a 1080p source isn't right next to a 720p one. Even then, some people CAN'T tell the difference.

So...does anyone actually know which games render at 1080p? I realize the resolution is far from the most important factor in good graphics, and my TV is only 720p anyway, but I'vm curious.

yeah, all discussion aside, I'm actually curious as to which games on the xbox (other than GW2) run in 1080p. I don't think it was the original author's intention to provoke an argument over whether or not "resolution" makes a game better or worse.

I still play doom from time to time, and that has only like 2xx lines, and that game is still better than half the crap that comes out today. Also, it's no doubt that GW2 looks far better than GW1, thanks to the 1080p of the GW2 engine... but that still brings us back to the original question: is there a list of true 1080p games out there? I didn't even know that GW2 had a native resolution of 1080p until just recently so I'd be very curious to just see what the other 1080p games look like...

Alright, I'll start the actual list.

- Virtua Tennis 3
- Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD
- Geometry Wars 2
- NBA Street Homecourt

I'm going to throw a few things out there for people because some of this is really bad and some people have a real lack of fundamental understanding of image quality and the contributions from resolution.

1) Back before the HD run we used to differentiate very significantly among display devices by metrics other than resolution. Flat out honesty - there are other factors which contribute greatly to image quality, accuracy, and realism that are not resolution based.

2) One of the key limitations to improved resolution is the acuity of the human eye. The ability to preceive that extra resolution is a combination of an individual's vision (i.e. 20/20), screen size and how close that person is sitting to a given screen. I'll just throw out that at 20/20 vision most people even in these forums don't sit close enough to their given screen sizes to perceive much more than 720p anyway. To get the full 1080, you need to be pretty darn close to a large screen. There are 20/20 based chart and matrixes out there, one is here: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html. In the end, it's about realism and once resolution is "good enough" other factors can become more important and have greater marginal contributions to image quality.

3) As was mentioned above any comparisons between resolutions need to hold everything else constant. Most of the nimrods on these forums are trying to display 720p sources on their 1080p native displays and complaining that 1080p is obviously better. This type of test does not isolate resolution at all and most would venture that what you are primarily testing is the quality of your display's internal scaler and video processing. Let me also just say that truly good scaling units cost the better part of what today's entire displays do - it wasn't too long ago that video processors were $20K. Most people have actually found that even the modest cost scaling chips in decent upconvert players are significantly better than internal display scalers. Regardless of all that - putting a 720p image on a 1080p native display is grossly unfair in judging resolution quality differences.

4) Now for the real deal. Back when BR and HD-DVD became available there were a few tests done right here on AVS. The best one that I know of can probably be tracked down in either the high end proj forum or maybe the 20K+ forum. Anyway, they began with two high quality nearly identical units where the manufacturer had used the same optics and internals with the only real difference being the projector's native output resolution. They set these up and had one of the ISF guys in attendance calibrate them both on the spot. They then used a 1080p source (King Kong?) and fed it to each. Now obviously they fed said image to the 720p unit through a separate video scaler (Lumagen I think) for the purposes of taking it down to 720p as I don't think either projector had on onboard scaler anyway which was pretty common at that time esp for higher end equipment because it's expected that you have your separate unit anyway. Right off - this is more unfair to the 720p projector and resulting image. You don't enhance quality in any way by scaling down, you just cause less damage by doing it right but either way this doesn't favor the 720p side at all. The final step was projecting half an image of a particular frame onto a screen from each projector for a direct side by side comparison. From what I recall this was a 120" screen and they had 10+ videophile types in attendance. You know what - they couldn't tell much difference even up to 8' which is pretty damn close for a big front projector setup being fed by a high quality 1080p transfer (and supposedly well within the range where 1080p should be fully resolvable by the human eye). This is the typical viewing distance of must people here running 42 or 50" screens. What they did note was that the improved resolution of the 1080p projector allowed them to get closer before they began to resolve the pixel matrix (i.e. screen door).

5) Given everything I've said above and what people have already pointed out that the jump in quality between 480 to 720 was huge but is much much smaller between 720 and 1080 despite a very large increase in total resolution, the limitation here is the human eye and we are already well within the diminishing returns area for resolution improvement (realism and immersion is the goal, not absolute pixel number as the eye is the limitation). With respect to games, I don't think many games look as good or real as a film displayed at 480p. Why? If it was all about resolution wouldn't the game look better than film captured reality if the game is 720 or 1080 and the reality is 480? No. Graphics, lighting, textures, etc... The more you do within a given resolution the more intensive it is. You can do geometry wars and other very simple games in 1080p all day long - that doesn't mean it's the best image quality (does Geometry Wars look better than 480p film?). Consoles today, neither the PS3 nor the XBox360 have what it takes in hardware to use all best in class modern eye candy and still hit 1080. If they did 1080 and scaled back the rest of the eye candy, it wouldn't look as good. By the way a lot of this is memory based as that added resolution makes a bigger footprint so you wind up with either fewer textures or less complex textures (I'm not a game designer but this is the basic stuff). Also, most of the PS3 1080 games are being scaled and given that their scaling is some kind of oddball horizontal single dimensional scaling algorithm they render at roughly 10% above 720 and then scale the rest - and you know what, there are a number of games where they can't get good framerate even with a 10% margin and have to leave 1080 scaling compatibility out.

I'll also add that I'm a huge 1080p fan. I suffer like no one else from screen door. I can spot pixel matrices further away than any other human I know. Not a good thing and not bragging. I don't have great vision but something in my brain and internal image processing is very sensitive to picking up patters and the smaller the pixel matrix the better it is for me. I need to sit pretty far back even from a 720p screen to not run into it and it's always an issue even on computer monitors where I tend to use smaller screens with high resolutions so I don't see the grids pop out. That said, I have no illusion or internal biases on resolution's contribution to image quality and hopefully some of the points above help people better understand what is going on here and why they might be unfairly biased despite what they think might be good "testing" done on the subject.

ChrisFB's Above Post

I really don't think there's more that can be said on the subject. That pretty much sums it all up perfectly and hopefully the "1080p is always better!" guys will learn something from that.

I'm going to throw a few things out there for people because some of this is really bad and some people have a real lack of fundamental understanding of image quality and the contributions from resolution.


+1 Great post on the 720p vs 1080p difference which is a very minor one.
Other aspects of visual quality trump it by far in importance to graphics. I have 720p projecter as well as several 1080p displays but it's amazing how good that 720p projector still compares to them even on 110" screen.

Still even if resolution only helps a little I'll still take it if it doesn't cost me anything else in PQ. That's why I like to see it in Arcade Games because it just makes them a bit sharper and shinier to my eyes. :D

Alright, I'll start the actual list.

- Virtua Tennis 3
- Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD
- Geometry Wars 2
- NBA Street Homecourt

FWIW the list of native 1080p games appears fairly hard to come by for the 360 at least if just search for it.
1) It's a small number
2) You don't know unless the Dev company tells you
3) Most of the are arcade games and see #2

Here's a list that appears to have had some verification (http://www.makeyougohmm.com/xbox360-1080p-games)done on it. Add to it SF HD Remix and GW2 from your list.

+1 Great post on the 720p vs 1080p difference which is a very minor one.
Other aspects of visual quality trump it by far in importance to graphics. I have 720p projecter as well as several 1080p displays but it's amazing how good that 720p projector still compares to them even on 110" screen.

Still even if resolution only helps a little I'll still take it if it doesn't cost me anything else in PQ. That's why I like to see it in Arcade Games because it just makes them a bit sharper and shinier to my eyes. :D



FWIW the list of native 1080p games appears fairly hard to come by for the 360 at least if just search for it.
1) It's a small number
2) You don't know unless the Dev company tells you
3) Most of the are arcade games and see #2

Here's a list that appears to have had some verification (http://www.makeyougohmm.com/xbox360-1080p-games)done on it. Add to it SF HD Remix and GW2 from your list.


I've seen people figure out the rendering resolution on their own (using framebuffer captures, as I recall) but you're right that accurate information is very hard to come by.

I saw that list but was skeptical because I've never heard of Portal being 1080p.

ChrisFB - I understand and agree with alot of what you said above. But I still can't get past two things:


1. 1080p is supposedly nearly 2,000,000 pixels of information, with 720p being nearly 800,000 pixels of information. (I'm not saying these estimates are totally accurate, but I think they are within relative range of accuracy, so to speak).

With 1080p having "over" double the number of pixels, how is it possible that we aren't seeing the difference?

which leads to No.2


2. You said that ultimately the wall we are going to run into is the ability of the human eye to perceive improvements in resolution.

I understand the thought process in this, but I personally will be shocked if by the year 2030 we don't have displays that are 4000 x 2000 , or much better, and we can't see an obvious improvement over what we are seeing now. Even from a lengthy viewing distance.

So, if that statement is correct, then we can't possibly be running into the wall of the abiltiy of our human eyes to see the improvements in resolution.



Certainly, I can't explain why 1080p is so underwhelming and somewhat depressing for a graphics whore like myself, I only know that it's true, but according to logic, it shouldn't be true, which has me stumped.

1. 1080p is supposedly nearly 2,000,000 pixels of information
2,073,600

with 720p being nearly 800,000 pixels of information.
921,600

I personally will be shocked if by the year 2030 we don't have displays that are 4000 x 2000 , or much better

QuadHD (3840x2160) already exists TODAY and has 294,400 MORE pixels than a 4000x2000 display would. I can't even begin to imagine what we'll have in 21 years.... i can imagine home theater based sets will be even more wide screen... like 2.39:1

Let me take a swing at these questions before Chris...


With 1080p having "over" double the number of pixels, how is it possible that we aren't seeing the difference?

This is an easy one. As Chris has stated, the problem is not with the number of pixels on the screen, the problem is with the number of "pixels" in your eye. Your eyes ability to discern fine details is not unlimited, when you get past certain pixel/inch/distance away number, it starts exceeding the ability of your eye to resolve an image and you will not see any difference.

To put it another way, you may be able to feel a difference between 200 thread count sheet and 400 thread count sheets. But you probably won't feel any difference between a 600 count sheet and 1200 count sheet, because your nerve endings are not sensitive enough.


but I personally will be shocked if by the year 2030 we don't have displays that are 4000 x 2000 , or much better, and we can't see an obvious improvement over what we are seeing now. Even from a lengthy viewing distance.


Oh, I suppose you will have 4000 by 2000 displays in future decades as you still have room for improvements in movie theaters (where screen sizes are huge) and there will be enough people willing to pay high dollars for improvements that are hardly noticeable (just look at the number of people who pay thousands of dollars for speaker cables).

And I will BET that those displays will look significantly better than the sets today. But NOT because it has higher resolution, but because they will have better color, contrast, and be more responsive.

Just because it will be available doesn't mean it is better. As stated earlier, even today, unless your display is 60" or bigger, it really does not matter whether or not your have 720P or 1080P. But that is not going to stop people from buying 1080P.

As a game developer, I thought I'd chime in here...

Really, this whole discussion boggles my mind and it's very obvious to me that most of you have no idea what you are really asking for. You are basically demanding 1080p games out of the next generation of consoles at the cost of not much improvement anywhere else.

This is why:

In my opinion (and in the opinion of many of my colleagues) it is a bad idea to keep ramping up resolution so fast in the small window of time since even the PS1.

We really had no business going to 720p without coming much closer to photo-realism in 480p. Or, at least, close to the quality of, say, Toy Story in real time.

This is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, and I blame marketing. High resolution is very expensive with budget hardware (consoles). Not only is it a huge resource hog, but the higher the resolution, the more artists you need and the longer art time you need to fill those extra pixels.

This comes at the cost of everything else (since games have limited budgets). This prevents developers from working on more realistic lighting, shadows, and especially physics. This forces a pretty still picture at the cost of everything else.

You can't have your cake and eat it it too. Let's say the next consoles come out in 3 years; I am sure, because of marketing and the prevalent attitudes like those in here, the "All 1080p" promise will be in full effect. But at what cost? A very high cost, indeed - It will cost you physics, it will cost you lighting, it will cost you animation, and it will cost developers even more to make games. This means less frequent quality games, at a much higher price. This will likely even be translated to higher costs to you the consumer.

I only hope to god that smart developers, like Bungie (Halo 3) and Infinity Ward (Cod4) continue to understand this well into the next generations, and work on more important things than resolution.

You people need to understand that you are spoiled with your precious 1080p movies. You can spend all your money on sets and pre-rendered CGI and your playback device doesn't need anything extra special to render it. Games are totally opposite; you spend all your time and money trying to RECREATE images that look that good, in real time, with the hardware you have to work with.

Anyway, this is a futile argument on my part, because there is no talking sense to the 1080p hungry crowds. I would love to have seen what we could do with the PS3/360 hardware if we only aimed at 480p in the hardware design. But we never will, and the graphical "wow" leaps will keep getting smaller with each hardware iteration as long as we demand higher resolutions.

I repeat - we really have no business going higher resolution until we've come closer to photo-realism at lower resolutions. Please try to get this. Would you rather watch a movie in 320 x 200 at 30fps or at 720p at 6 fps? That's what I thought. So stop forcing video game developers into doing the equivalent of the latter.

I'm not a game developer.

But what I can tell you is the 1080p crowd is very, very small. I guarantee you 90% of the people who bought Halo3 doesnt know.. and doesnt care that it runs at 640p or whatever the actual native resolution is. The same goes for COD4. Hell I guarantee you 90% of the people who bought Halo3 or COD4 dont even OWN a 1080p television.

This is AVS. The Nerd Headquarters of the World for anything audio and video related. Here.. and only here at AVS, will find a large group of individuals, somehow dissapointed that console gaming is not 1080p yet. Every where else in the world, gamers are entirely too busy actually having fun with their consoles to worry about how many pixels are on the screen.

I completely agree resources should be focus on making the game look at photorealistic as possible BEFORE concentrating on bumping resolution up another notch. And I must say Im completely satisfied with the graphics current consoles are delivering. The last thing on my mind when Im playing a game on my 360 or PS3.. is "Gee.. If only this game had a million more pixels.. life would be so much better."

If you want to do mainly native 1080p gaming in 2008. Youre best bet is building a gaming PC.

This is AVS. The Nerd Headquarters of the World for anything audio and video related. Here.. and only here at AVS, will find a large group of individuals, somehow dissapointed that console gaming is not 1080p yet. Every where else in the world, gamers are entirely too busy actually having fun with their consoles to worry about how many pixels are on the screen.


This is AVS. The Nerd Headquarters of the World for anything audio and video related. Even though many of us can enjoy a game without being too distracted by jaggies, anti-aliasing, texture pop-in, lighting, etc.. we come here to discuss the finer technical details of our hobby.

Many of us also come to AVS to discuss the technical presentation of movies in our homes without worrying too much about scripting, plot, acting and other things that 90% of the world discuss when talking about movies. There are other forums for those interests.

This is the place to discuss Audio/Video Science. If you think threads regarding the details of high definition home entertainment and wanting to achieve the best possible picture and sound are useless, then maybe you are in the wrong forum...? :confused:

DaverJ thanks for explaining AVS to me.

Eventhough I've been a member here for 2 years longer than yourself.. and a HDTV owner since 2000.



Think about it.

I think there's definitely room for a middle ground here to critique the visuals. That is what this place is about. It's the "give me 1080p or give me death" crowd that I don't understand. The tradeoffs for going 1080p on these consoles is often not worth it, for reasons already stated.

I'd take a hypothetical 720p madden football with the euphoria engine over a 1080p madden with the same canned animations we've been seeing for years.

You can't have your cake and eat it it too.


Then I don't see the point in having a cake...


I would love to have seen what we could do with the PS3/360 hardware if we only aimed at 480p in the hardware design.



Not me... Although I agree with a good deal of what you wrote, there is definitely an improvement when you can't see the pixels and have scalars that can upscale without making a picture look soft. Hardware today may not be able to give you the best detail and FPS at a high resolution, but that's still not a reason to ignore 1080p. If a game looks/plays well upscaled, that's perfectly fine with me... I just don't want to see pixles. 480i/p on a 100" screen sitting 10' away isn't a go for me.


Eventually, it will all start to catch up... And then there will be a nother big change we'll work to catch up with.

This is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, and I blame marketing.

It's 90% Marketing. Gamers (the smaller hardcore segment that cares) are simply responding to the what the CE marketing industry tells them is important.

TV manufacters, the movie industry, PC gaming and yes the Console Video Game industry have all been training the public to focus on 1080p or highest resolution possilble so it's no wonder that's what they look for. Remember it wasn't too long ago that Sony said it was only 1080p that is "FULL HD" and only the PS3 could deliver it. MS had to respond by releasing a "1080p Update". It's all way too technical for consumers to know any better.

The 480p ship has sailed going forward but all you need in next gen is for the console makers to leave the devs free to continue make 720p games if they feel they can produce better visuals at that res.

As a game developer, I thought I'd chime in here...

Really, this whole discussion boggles my mind and it's very obvious to me that most of you have no idea what you are really asking for. You are basically demanding 1080p games out of the next generation of consoles at the cost of not much improvement anywhere else.

This is why:

In my opinion (and in the opinion of many of my colleagues) it is a bad idea to keep ramping up resolution so fast in the small window of time since even the PS1.

We really had no business going to 720p without coming much closer to photo-realism in 480p. Or, at least, close to the quality of, say, Toy Story in real time.

This is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, and I blame marketing. High resolution is very expensive with budget hardware (consoles). Not only is it a huge resource hog, but the higher the resolution, the more artists you need and the longer art time you need to fill those extra pixels.

This comes at the cost of everything else (since games have limited budgets). This prevents developers from working on more realistic lighting, shadows, and especially physics. This forces a pretty still picture at the cost of everything else.

You can't have your cake and eat it it too. Let's say the next consoles come out in 3 years; I am sure, because of marketing and the prevalent attitudes like those in here, the "All 1080p" promise will be in full effect. But at what cost? A very high cost, indeed - It will cost you physics, it will cost you lighting, it will cost you animation, and it will cost developers even more to make games. This means less frequent quality games, at a much higher price. This will likely even be translated to higher costs to you the consumer.

I only hope to god that smart developers, like Bungie (Halo 3) and Infinity Ward (Cod4) continue to understand this well into the next generations, and work on more important things than resolution.

You people need to understand that you are spoiled with your precious 1080p movies. You can spend all your money on sets and pre-rendered CGI and your playback device doesn't need anything extra special to render it. Games are totally opposite; you spend all your time and money trying to RECREATE images that look that good, in real time, with the hardware you have to work with.

Anyway, this is a futile argument on my part, because there is no talking sense to the 1080p hungry crowds. I would love to have seen what we could do with the PS3/360 hardware if we only aimed at 480p in the hardware design. But we never will, and the graphical "wow" leaps will keep getting smaller with each hardware iteration as long as we demand higher resolutions.

I repeat - we really have no business going higher resolution until we've come closer to photo-realism at lower resolutions. Please try to get this. Would you rather watch a movie in 320 x 200 at 30fps or at 720p at 6 fps? That's what I thought. So stop forcing video game developers into doing the equivalent of the latter.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear someone else say that. I've been trying to figure out why the game industry started pushing HD since the 360 was announced. Back in 2004 when MS announced the 360 and it's HD capabilities how many people owned HDTVs? Not that many. A large group of 360 owners still aren't playing on HD sets and many who are don't even have it hooked up properly to actually display HD. Hell I dare say most of the 360 gamers playing their 360 on an HDTV bought that TV specifically for the 360. Same thing applies to many of the PS3 guys. So if their was never a big clamor for HD games why the hell were MS and Sony pushing it? With the current hardware we could have damn near photorealism in 480p. Instead we have a generation of games that don't feel like nearly the giant leap past hardware revisions were. Sure they're incredibly detailed but a large sect of console owners don't even benefit from that and many who do never gave a damn about it until the console manufactures started shoving HD down their throats.

Of course all that is moot now. HD is here and it's here to stay. And that's not a bad thing, don't get me wrong I love playing my games in 720p. I just think we would have been better putting it off a generation when the hardware would allow for it without significant sacrifices in other areas. Really I hope game developers are just smart enough to keep 720p as their mark and if they can go higher than that after accomplishing everything else they wanted to then great, go for it. Not just this generation either, next generation as well. I'd really hate to see a repeat of this generation where devs have to make significant sacrifices in other areas of their game's just to hit some stupid higher resolution that's going to ultimately be fairly insignificant.

ChrisFB - I understand and agree with alot of what you said above. But I still can't get past two things:


1. 1080p is supposedly nearly 2,000,000 pixels of information, with 720p being nearly 800,000 pixels of information. (I'm not saying these estimates are totally accurate, but I think they are within relative range of accuracy, so to speak).

With 1080p having "over" double the number of pixels, how is it possible that we aren't seeing the difference?

which leads to No.2


2. You said that ultimately the wall we are going to run into is the ability of the human eye to perceive improvements in resolution.

I understand the thought process in this, but I personally will be shocked if by the year 2030 we don't have displays that are 4000 x 2000 , or much better, and we can't see an obvious improvement over what we are seeing now. Even from a lengthy viewing distance.

So, if that statement is correct, then we can't possibly be running into the wall of the abiltiy of our human eyes to see the improvements in resolution.



Certainly, I can't explain why 1080p is so underwhelming and somewhat depressing for a graphics whore like myself, I only know that it's true, but according to logic, it shouldn't be true, which has me stumped.

Late to respond but I've been traveling and busy. Gameboy provided the answer but I'll confirm it nonetheless. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15212561#post15212561

In my original post there's a link to 20/20 vision eye acuity and how sensitive the eye is translated to its ability to see basic resolutions under various screen size and viewing distance ratios.

Real simple - the human eye doesn't need to have any better resolution power for our survival. Ability to discern down to microscopic level meant nothing to us. Now we take the eye's limitations and as you can see even doubling the resolution from 720p to 1080p didn't really make a big or even very significant difference. Yet going from 480p to 720p did and similarly 40p to 80p (random illustration just assume double) would be a huge relative improvement in quality and realism. The rate is still double but the improvement is far less. This is diminishing returns.

Additionally it's not so much the resolution but what one does with the resolution in gaming. Very simply, we could do a lot more with lower resolution levels and come closer to reality.

Basically just a regurgitation of some posts after mine but they are right on.

I understand the limitations of the human eye, and all of that, and I get your argument, but I still think that some point in the future when the resolution is like 5760 x 3240, that we will see a "dramatic" difference over what we are seeing now. Gameboy talked about how it won't be the resolution that's wowing us, it will be contrast, color, response time, 3D, holograms, etc, etc.

That's understandable too, but I don't know... I still feel like our eyes haven't run into a resolution wall quite yet. Maybe it all just comes back to viewing distance again. Maybe, we all will eventually sit much closer to our displays. If you think about a 24 inch widescreen computer monitor, and you have it set to 1920 x 1080 or whatever, when you switch it back to 1280 x 720 it looks vastly different. Of course, this is computer resolutions, so it's not really applicable, and people typically sit a foot or two back from their PC displays, compared to 8 or more feet from a bigger TV.

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that I understand what everybody is saying, and it all makes sense, and I've seen the FUBAR myself in person. 1080p right now is a joke at "normal" viewing distances, no question about that, but I still feel like our eyeballs haven't run into a resolution wall quite yet. Again, most likely the biggest factor of all of this is viewing distance. At what point though, do you end up sitting way too close to a giant display?

Real deal 3D technology and holograms will probably come along and make this whole discussion moot anyways.

I don't disagree, the point I was making was diminishing returns - not zero return. Very simply other factors like contrast, color, and black levels can make any given resolution appear much deeper and more realistic. You can get a 3D like effect with images coming right off the screen whereas a similar display not set up as well or as capable looks very ho-hum at the same resolution.

That said, at a certain distance the eye is maxed out completely from a resolution standpoint, at the extreme - 25ft away (even significantly closer if you check out that grid) on a 22" screen HD and SD are identical. You can ask people in the PC gaming section, there's a thread about going from 1080 up to I guess 2500 or whatever it is that the 30" monitors tend to be native at. Those that have them swear by them as they are a couple feet away so there's some utility even if maybe that future resolution is put up on a curved or bowled/IMAX type display to handle peripheral vision like some simulators.

Also, displays including computer monitors are fixed pixel so you can't really compare showing a 720p image on a 1080p screen as once again you get scaling into the mix and it never looks as good.

All these post are remarkable for their informative aspects. I just would like to say that a great game is a great game no matter what the resolution. I love video games and that's all that matters. I could play PONG in a Turkish prison and be happy. (Ok, saying that, I love playing games on my HDTV:D.)

People wondering if resolution makes a difference go pick up a PS1 emulator or even an N64 emulator, both allow games to render 3d objects in higher resolution, and it makes a big difference. (also check out the new Wii emulator that allows the games to run at 720p or 1080p if you have a beast of a PC) I'm not saying that resolution is everything, but it does have a place and it does make a difference. (and if anything, the Wii has proven that few actually care about HD graphics, and the Wii also proved that 480p games still look pretty darn good) I'll be more than happy to try out Gears 2 on my 360 emulator in 10 years at 5760 x 3240 running on a Acer Netbook, but until then, I'll be happy with what we have. :D

Resolution definitely makes a difference, the issue is that it doesn't make as much of a difference as other things.

For example, the PS1 emulators do more than just render at higher resolution. The emulators filter the textures, add anti-aliasing, and up the IQ dramatically. Even at native resolution thsi makes a huge difference - I'd much rather play the game at native resolution with those features than run it at 1080p without them.

1 problem with the human eye limitation argument is that it is based on always processing the entire image at once. with big enough displays you start focusing on portions of the display and you zero in on the most interesting section at that moment.

I currently have a 61" 1080p DLP and I already do that somewhat. If my next display is 100"+, quad hd resolution sure would be nice. Maybe the projector guys have a thought on this.

I agree that I would rather have a good frame rate etc with 720p then crap with 1080p...but why cant you have it all 1080p? and if you cant it should be made clear.

BTW ...personally the push for 1080p is for more noticable resolution. If you have 50" or less screen then this is a moot point to you. I have a bigger display...and plan on going even bigger.

I would suggest that people who consider 720p to be equal to or close enough to 1080p to not even participate in this thread. Fact is you have not had a chance to properly be exposed to the difference if you feel it is the same or even close close.

"720p is not HD?" You really need to get over it, dude. Do you know how many channels on TV are still not offered in 720p, let alone 1080? Do you know how many movies are still not on Blu-ray? Appreciate what you have in the way of resolution. It's only going to improve over time. If they can't do it right now, they can't do it.

I have a 103" front projection screen, in my apartment, and my parents have a 65" rear projection in their home, and I am FINE with 720p. Yes, 1080 is NOTICEABLY better. But I still DO think, even on very large screens, 720p looks fantastic. I think it's a huge improvement over 480, and I appreciate the step in the right direction. I don't have even the slightest problem with every single one of 360's games being 720p. I don't want them to needlessly tax their systems, or place constraints on developers for the sake of a higher resolution than that. I'm even completely fine with completely lifting the 720p mandate for everyone, and just allowing any resolution game the developer pleases to be put on the console. I think the current restrictions on Microsoft's part amount to programming censorship, and I think that's utter ********, and it's bad for the industry and it's bad for consumers.

However, I do thoroughly agree that they need to stop lying about it. Putting 1080p on the back of the box when it can only do 600/640/720 is ridiculous, and insulting to the intelligence of those who know better, and damaging to those who don't. Further confusing the ignorant masses about technology is just really, incredibly douchey. People need realistic expectations. Lying to and coddling them only builds further expectations you have to live up to, and causes more marketing problems down the road.

However, I do thoroughly agree that they need to stop lying about it. Putting 1080p on the back of the box when it can only do 600/640/720 is ridiculous, and insulting to the intelligence of those who know better, and damaging to those who don't.

Uh, this has been covered in other threads; if you read the back of the box carefully you'll see that they are only taking about display *compatibility* not render resolution, which is nowhere discussed on the packaging. In fact, if render resolution were the subject, they'd have to drop the 480i, 480p listings since the 360 does not typically render games at 480.
The *need* for such a listing is pretty clear; in light of the, ahem, issues when the other HD box launched when games were in fact *not* HD compatible with certain displays created uncertainty in the mind of some consumers beyond the usual "what is HD" FUD.

All the table tells you is that a 360 game will work properly on a display that accepts 1080p signals. And if that were not there, you *know* certain parties out there would be saying that 360 games don't work on 1080p displays. Cause they did say it. :)

Since all Xbox 360 games will work at all output resolutions, there's no point in saying anything on the box about resolution at all (unless it is indeed going to be highlighting the native render resolution). There's no such thing as an Xbox 360 game that won't automatically scale to 1080p or whatever resolution the user has selected; that's a PS3 problem, not an Xbox 360 problem.

Since all Xbox 360 games will work at all output resolutions, there's no point in saying anything on the box about resolution at all (unless it is indeed going to be highlighting the native render resolution). There's no such thing as an Xbox 360 game that won't automatically scale to 1080p or whatever resolution the user has selected; that's a PS3 problem, not an Xbox 360 problem.

All true.
Except... try telling that to a first time buyer.
Early on in the 360 life that was a common question: will it work with my "ED display?" etc.
Think of it as an anti-fud vaccine or a marketting trick.

someone made the comment that xbox was superior in hardware to the ps3. as a owner of both, i can say in all honesty that that statement is FALSE. i.e. uncharted 1 and 2; infamous 1 and 2, & socom 4. 360 would not be able to produce the graphics in those 5 games as brillant as the ps3 does. end of discussion.

someone made the comment that xbox was superior in hardware to the ps3. as a owner of both, i can say in all honesty that that statement is FALSE. i.e. uncharted 1 and 2; infamous 1 and 2, & socom 4. 360 would not be able to produce the graphics in those 5 games as brillant as the ps3 does. end of discussion.

Crysis 2?