are there any official sources that list the actual internal rendering resolution before the scaler?

Halo 3 lists on the back as 720p, 1080i, 1080p.. but we should all know to take that with a grain of salt. If you don't, Halo 3 renders at 1152x640. But hey, I still think Halo 3 looks amazing.

i'm just looking for definitive resolutions, because i like to know what resolution i'm actually playing at..

Render resolution is over-rated.
Unless the reviews make a point of the game running at 1080p or you see an online wave of hysteria, you can safely assume the games render at 720p.

Console game design is all about trading off resources and, pre-launch hype for the nameless console aside, current-gen HD gaming consoles are generally understood to be adequate for 1080p-rendered games but barely so and only by sacrificing something; either you sacrifice gameplay (creating, in effect a prettied-up last gen game) or you sacrifice graphics quality somewhere else (framerate, antialiasing, lighting, model complexity, textures, etc). It is generally understood that 720p at 60 frames per second is better than 1080p at sub-30fps; that antialiased 720p is better than jaggified 1080p; that complex character models and/or texture at 720p is better than simplistic models at 1080p.

As you point out, Halo 3 looks amazing, *precisely* because the developers chose to allocate resources into double-rendering the lighting and then compositing them for the final output buffer, while maintaining a 30+ framerate.

If you look around, you can find plenty of examples of games where developers put resolution or some bragging point or another (say, number of online players supported) *above* gamer experience, resulting in a game with a great features list but with a sub-standard play experience. Fortunately, the poster child for that kind of coding is *not* a 360 game.

If game-render resolution is so important to you, you may be better off in the realm of PC gaming, where *you* make the trade-offs, not the developers. You directly choose what resolution and complexity (and indirectly control the framerate) the game renders at by the game settings you choose and the quality of hardware you choose to buy.

Or, you could just plug in Halo and take a run through the Forge. :D

Render resolution is over-rated.

If game-render resolution is so important to you, you may be better off in the realm of PC gaming, where *you* make the trade-offs, not the developers. You directly choose what resolution and complexity (and indirectly control the framerate) the game renders at by the game settings you choose and the quality of hardware you choose to buy.

I agree.. when it comes to console gaming you have to look at the market itself. Id give a educated guess that 70% of the market only plays on SDTV.. 20% game on a 720P HDTV.. 5% game on a 1080P HDTV.. and 5% game on a HDTV but have it hooked up with SD cables.

So if you are talking making a game where the real world says only 5% of your audience will be able to enjoy the "true 1080P" rez.. and only 20% can enjoy the 720P rez.. then you arent going to kill the resources of the game to make outright resolution the highest priority.

And Halo3 is a great example of that. They focused on the lighting and many other variables first. Things that will look great on ANY tv at any resolution. Then they bumped the resolution as much as possible. Yeah 640P was the max.. but the overall visual experience you get is much more impressive than alot of other games running at either 720 or 1080P. There arent as many lines on the screen, but theres more "wow" factor happening on the screen. Even more important you managed to impress mostly your entire audience.. versus focusing on pleasing only the 25% or so that own 720P tvs or better.

As you said above.. if absolute resolution is whats most important to you. Then stick to the PC. Because this round of gaming.. 720P is going to be the sweet spot for console resolution.

because i like to know what resolution i'm actually playing at..

Why? Does a higher number make you like the game any more? :rolleyes:

Unless the reviews make a point of the game running at 1080p or you see an online wave of hysteria, you can safely assume the games render at 720p.

No you cannot assume. There are a ton of Xbox 360 games running internally at sub-720p resolutions. It's common enough that I might say it's the norm rather than the exception.

If you'll look back in this forum when Halo 3 came out, some lab or something did a pixel resolution test and said Halo 3 ran at 640p.

No you cannot assume. There are a ton of Xbox 360 games running internally at sub-720p resolutions. It's common enough that I might say it's the norm rather than the exception.
Hardly, I'll wadger you can't even name a dozen.

Hardly, I'll wadger you can't even name a dozen.

I doubt if he can name 10.

Even using google.

This whole resolution thing reminds me of the people who complain that LIVE games don't support 24 or 36 people. If the game looks good and is fun, what more can you ask for ?

Halo 3
PGR 3
COD3
THP8
Tomb Raider
Perfect Dark
Conan
FIFA 2006
FIFA 2007
PES6

And not all 360 games have been tested yet. Reason why this is such a black eye for Microsoft is that we were told that developers would be REQUIRED to run 720p NATIVE and have multisampled AA ("free" AA). Now their own flagship title is sub-HD resolution with no enhancements.

You can clearly tell that Halo 3 suffers from some jaggies. And I don't think that it's that pretty of a game. My son is playing it right now and I say that.

Halo 3
PGR 3
COD3
THP8
Tomb Raider
Perfect Dark
Conan
FIFA 2006
FIFA 2007
PES6

And not all 360 games have been tested yet. Reason why this is such a black eye for Microsoft is that we were told that developers would be REQUIRED to run 720p NATIVE and have multisampled AA ("free" AA). Now their own flagship title is sub-HD resolution with no enhancements.

You can clearly tell that Halo 3 suffers from some jaggies. And I don't think that it's that pretty of a game. My son is playing it right now and I say that.

Is your moniker just a coincidence? http://ozymandias.com/default.aspx

You are clearly not the Ozy who works for MS -I mean, I used to read/contribute to his blogg until I figured out he was censoring my (and other posts) if they made him look bad. The guy almost put me off the 360 -which is a shame, considering what a great console it has turned out to be.

ps. I think the ability for the developer to pick the internal resolution of their games is a very good one -even if MS did not originally think it was going to be necessary). I means the developer can decide exactly where the trade-off between resolution and performance is made. If the game is fun enough to play, they can internally render at 480p for all I care (and I'm just trying to make a point in saying that). In fact, I kind of wish that some games had chosen a lower resolution -they probably would have run better if they had (eg Oblivion).

Halo 3
PGR 3
COD3
THP8
Tomb Raider
Perfect Dark
Conan
FIFA 2006
FIFA 2007
PES6

And not all 360 games have been tested yet. Reason why this is such a black eye for Microsoft is that we were told that developers would be REQUIRED to run 720p NATIVE and have multisampled AA ("free" AA). Now their own flagship title is sub-HD resolution with no enhancements.

You can clearly tell that Halo 3 suffers from some jaggies. And I don't think that it's that pretty of a game. My son is playing it right now and I say that.
Heh, you are still one short of a dozen, and far short of proving your previous suggesting of a majorty.

I agree that a lower res doesn't ruin a gaming experience, I just wish the backs of the game cases said "1152x640p native" or "1000x600p native" or whatever.

PD:Zero was a jaggy mess.

Why is everyone so defensive about this resolution topic?

What is wrong with being an informed consumer? If I pay 60 dollars for a game I would like to know as many details about it as possible. Does a lower resolution mean I won't buy Halo 3. NO, but I would still like to know what resolution the game is being rendered.

Putting 720p/1080p on the box is dishonest and should be illegal. Maybe it's because I am a PC gamer at heart, but I know that resolution and Anti-Aliasing make a huge difference in the picture quality of a game. As a consumer I should be able to look at the box and see what resolution and level of AA is being used by the game.

Just my .02

Why? Does a higher number make you like the game any more? :rolleyes:

Maybe he just wants to know. For example, somebody might look at all their favorite games and see that none of them render at 1080p and then decide that having a 1080p TV is pointless.

using a 1080p TV to play games rendered at lower resolutions is hardy pointless. Good upscaling benifts image quality too.

using a 1080p TV to play games rendered at lower resolutions is hardy pointless. Good upscaling benifts image quality too.

Actually if you do nothing but play 720p video games, a 720p set will look better. When you start scaling, you introduce artifacts and damage the image quality. You can't just create pixels. The XBOX has a pretty good scaler, but its still better to play at the native resolution if possible.

Of course, since "720p" sets aren't actually 720p (they are usually 1366x768) you have to scale the image either way. So you're screwed either way you look at it.

A good scaler will upscale the images without damage the image quality. No scalers don't just create pixels, rather they resamplesample the whole image to a higher resolution, providing a clearer and shaper picture. Besides, even if you have a game rendered at 720p on a 720p display, it is most likely getting scaled a bit as most TVs overscan slightly to avoid users seeing the errors found on the edges of poorly edited content.

A good scaler will upscale the images without damage the image quality. No scalers don't just create pixels, rather they resamplesample the whole image to a higher resolution, providing a clearer and shaper picture. Besides, even if you have a game rendered at 720p on a 720p display, it is most likely getting scaled a bit as most TVs overscan slightly to avoid users seeing the errors found on the edges of poorly edited content.

You are right about the overscan part, but not the scaling part. See HERE (http://pixelmapping.wikispaces.com/Pixel+mapping+explained)

I have a 1080p sony LCD that does 1:1 pixel mapping. I would love to play a game at 1920x1080 with no scaling. Just me and the wonderful world of High Def 3d rendered graphic goodness.

Right now, that is a pipe dream unless I drop 3000+ bucks on a computer with two 8800GTX video cards.

A good scaler will upscale the images without damage the image quality. No scalers don't just create pixels, rather they resamplesample the whole image to a higher resolution, providing a clearer and shaper picture.

Really?

Clearer and sharper than the original, native image?

Why is everyone so defensive about this resolution topic?

What is wrong with being an informed consumer? If I pay 60 dollars for a game I would like to know as many details about it as possible.

What you really want to know is pixels per second. What is resolution without framerate? Why not combine both of them into one pixels per second number?

That way you will know exactly how many pixels are bombarding your corneas in a given hour of playtime, and you will finally feel fulfilled about your gaming experience. :D

What you really want to know is pixels per second. What is resolution without framerate? Why not combine both of them into one pixels per second number?

That way you will know exactly how many pixels are bombarding your corneas in a given hour of playtime, and you will finally feel fulfilled about your gaming experience. :D

I know you are being sarcastic but you make a good point.

I would like to see these things on the box

1. native resolution
2. AA level
3. AF level
3. FPS locked at 30/60 or no Vsync?

For those that don't understand the usefullness of such information, I will give you a scenario.

You own an XBOX 360 and a PS3.

You go into Best Buy to purchase GTA IV. You look at the box and notice that the game is natively 720p on the XBOX but natively 1152x640 on the PS3. Both games are the same price. Which game do you buy?

For those that don't understand the usefullness of such information, I will give you a scenario.

You own an XBOX 360 and a PS3.

You go into Best Buy to purchase GTA IV. You look at the box and notice that the game is natively 720p on the XBOX but natively 1152x640 on the PS3. Both games are the same price. Which game do you buy?

The one with the comfortable controller.

Plus I would still be picking the 360 version over the PS3 version as most purchases would be the case due to Live. If that wasn't the case and the game still looked as good as the 360 then it doesn't matter what the native res is to me. Wait for a side comparision then decide.

The one with the comfortable controller.

Plus I would still be picking the 360 version over the PS3 version as most purchases would be the case due to Live. If that wasn't the case and the game still looked as good as the 360 then it doesn't matter what the native res is to me. Wait for a side comparision then decide.

Not everyone shares your opinion, so I don't see the harm in knowing the rendering resolution. Personally, I'd buy the one with the higher render resolution, instead.

Actually if you do nothing but play 720p video games, a 720p set will look better.

right. Lets assume that everything is not the way it is and you'd be correct.

There are far too many variables for that statement to even be remotely accurate.

right. Lets assume that everything is not the way it is and you'd be correct.

There are far too many variables for that statement to even be remotely accurate.

I addressed that, if you actually read the whole post.

Maybe I should have written it this way. If you have a 1280x720 display with 1:1 pixel mode and play a native 720 game on that display it will look better than a native 720p game being upscaled on a 1080p display.

You are right about the overscan part, but not the scaling part. See HERE (http://pixelmapping.wikispaces.com/Pixel+mapping+explained)
That article is nonsense, the author is using straight point sampling to scale the example image, and even the worst of TVs do better scaling than that.


I have a 1080p sony LCD that does 1:1 pixel mapping. I would love to play a game at 1920x1080 with no scaling. Just me and the wonderful world of High Def 3d rendered graphic goodness.

Right now, that is a pipe dream unless I drop 3000+ bucks on a computer with two 8800GTX video cards.
I've got a 768p Panasonic plasma and I commonly run newer games rendered at below the display resolution to allow them to run with respectable performance with higher graphics quality settings as running those games at 1:1 with lower settings doesn't look nearly as good.

Furthermore, play plenty of games rendered at far higher resolutions than that with far lesser hardware, granted I'm talking about older games here were performance isn't an issue regardless of graphics quality settings, but it hardly a pipe dream, and using rendering resolutions like 2560x1440 and having the display downsample that looks far better than running the games at 1:1.

Not everyone shares your opinion, so I don't see the harm in knowing the rendering resolution. Personally, I'd buy the one with the higher render resolution, instead.

Your right it is my opinion.

I'd buy the one with the higher render resolution, instead.

Thats all your post should have said to show your opinion since not everyone shares that one either.

Maybe I should have written it this way. If you have a 1280x720 display with 1:1 pixel mode and play a native 720 game on that display it will look better than a native 720p game being upscaled on a 1080p display.
No, it won't, just like a 640x480 image displayed at 640x480 on a CRT monitor won't look nearly as good as when running that same monitor at 1600x1200 while using decent resampling to upscale that same 640x480 image. The upscaled image will look notably sharper and clearer.

I have a 480p projector. HDTV, be it 1080i or 720p, looks much better on it than does DVD, a 480 line source.

Why is this?

Short Answer: There is more to a good picture than just raw resolution.

That article is nonsense, the author is using straight point sampling to scale the example image, and even the worst of TVs do better scaling than that.

The example may be extreme but the theory is sound.

I've got a 768p Panasonic plasma and I commonly run newer games rendered at below the display resolution to allow them to run with respectable performance with higher graphics quality settings as running those games at 1:1 with lower settings doesn't look nearly as good.

Furthermore, play plenty of games rendered at far higher resolutions than that with far lesser hardware, granted I'm talking about older games here were performance isn't an issue regardless of graphics quality settings, but it hardly a pipe dream, and using rendering resolutions like 2560x1440 and having the display downsample that looks far better than running the games at 1:1.

I'm not saying that resolution is everything. There are many factors that contribute to graphics quality. However, All things being equal I would choose a resolution that matches the native resolution of my FIXED PIXEL display and avoid any scaling whatsoever.

I have a 480p projector. HDTV, be it 1080i or 720p, looks much better on it than does DVD, a 480 line source.

Why is this?

Short Answer: There is more to a good picture than just raw resolution.

I guarantee your projector scales every image you give it(overscan). Therefore, there is no advantage to feeding it the native resolution. In this case Better source = Better picture

I'm not saying that resolution is everything. There are many factors that contribute to graphics quality. However, All things being equal I would choose a resolution that matches the native resolution of my FIXED PIXEL display and avoid any scaling whatsoever.

I'd use whatever looked better.

Alright, I'm done witht the point-couterpoint crap. We could go on all day.

Bottom line - It is my OPINION that all console games should tell you native resolution, AA, AF, and FPS/Vsync on the back of the case. I'm not trying to bash Halo 3 or Xbox in general. I don't understand why any consumer would have a problem with this information being displayed on the packaging.

I'm not saying that resolution is everything. There are many factors that contribute to graphics quality. However, All things being equal I would choose a resolution that matches the native resolution of my FIXED PIXEL display and avoid any scaling whatsoever.
And in doing so you'll miss out on the superior image quality which rendering at higher than your display resolution would provide.

I can't believe that there is even an argument going on here. What the OP proposes is that the back of the box states some info that he and others would find useful or interesting as opposed to what we have now. Even for those who don't think that it would matter, how is more info worse than less info?

Alright, I'm done witht the point-couterpoint crap. We could go on all day.

Bottom line - It is my OPINION that all console games should tell you native resolution, AA, AF, and FPS/Vsync on the back of the case. I'm not trying to bash Halo 3 or Xbox in general. I don't understand why any consumer would have a problem with this information being displayed on the packaging.
It's not that anyone has a problem with it, it's that most people don't care. I'm a hardcore PC gamer, and even I don't really care, since it doesn't impact the overall game that much.

Alright, I'm done witht the point-couterpoint crap. We could go on all day.

Bottom line - It is my OPINION that all console games should tell you native resolution, AA, AF, and FPS/Vsync on the back of the case. I'm not trying to bash Halo 3 or Xbox in general. I don't understand why any consumer would have a problem with this information being displayed on the packaging.

I'm one of those people who dont care what resolution it is.. as long as it looks good. Im happy. But everyone is open their opinion and you make an excellent point.

I can't believe that there is even an argument going on here. What the OP proposes is that the back of the box states some info that he and others would find useful or interesting as opposed to what we have now. Even for those who don't think that it would matter, how is more info worse than less info?

And you extend that point even further. More information is in no way worse than information. The developers (and the console manufacter) on the other hand probably would care that you not concentrate as much on how many specific lines, which is why the native resolution printed on the box is discouraged.

Its a situation where not enough people are going to care, to complain about it.. and get developers & manufacters to change their mind to print the native resolution and please the 2% of the console audience that wants to know exactly what native resolution their game is running is. Get that number up to 35% and you will see change. Too bad it will never happen.

It's not that anyone has a problem with it, it's that most people don't care. I'm a hardcore PC gamer, and even I don't really care, since it doesn't impact the overall game that much.

Bingo..

The upscaled image will look notably sharper and clearer.

Sharper? No.

Clearer? No.

Smoother? Yes.

Upscaling doesn't add any detail whatsoever. It merely fills in the obvious empty pockets, such as the missing pixels around the edge of a circle.

The final upscaled image will still be just as blurry as the original.

Sharper? No.

Clearer? No.

Smoother? Yes.

Upscaling doesn't add any detail whatsoever. It merely fills in the obvious empty pockets, such as the missing pixels around the edge of a circle.

The final upscaled image will still be just as blurry as the original.
So why do upscaled DVD's look noticably superior to 480i/p DVD's?

I have a 480p projector. HDTV, be it 1080i or 720p, looks much better on it than does DVD, a 480 line source.

Why is this?

Short Answer: There is more to a good picture than just raw resolution.

technically you would be wrong. However its almost impossible to find a uncompressed 480p source. so i agree with you that your picture is going to look better with the HD sources. but perfect 480p source can look just as good on your display as any HD source.

So why do upscaled DVD's look noticably superior to 480i/p DVD's?

because the scaler in the dvd player is better then the TV's. it runs the picture through a logical processor similar to touching up a picture with adobe photo shop like adding gain or sharpness. modern displays have a fixed pixel resolution so its got to he scaled one place or the other. CRT still have a set number of phosphers that "smudge" the image a bit when not in there native resolution.

Sharper? No.

Clearer? No.

Smoother? Yes.

Upscaling doesn't add any detail whatsoever. It merely fills in the obvious empty pockets, such as the missing pixels around the edge of a circle.

The final upscaled image will still be just as blurry as the original.

not true scalers can add false sharpness and microblocking correct to smooth out large areas that have similar colors. the preception of the image looks sharper in the end.

not true scalers can add false sharpness and microblocking correct to smooth out large areas that have similar colors. the preception of the image looks sharper in the end.

So then, we're admitting that the scaling does somehow degrade the image quality to a point where these sharpness and microblocking corrections need to be added to the image?

OK then...

Back to the native actual pixels... Why would enhancing altered pixels make for a better image (perceived or objective) than enhancing the native un-altered pixels?

I'm still trying to understand how scaling gets you a clearer and sharper image than the original.

I'm still trying to understand how scaling gets you a clearer and sharper image than the original.

Scalers can do more than just scale. They can "clean" the image, looking for what might best be described as "white noise" in the original picture, and removing it with their "best guess" as to what should probably be there. It's similar to image enhancement on a crappy-photo, bringing it back to life.

But this concept is far more relevent to (for example) a VHS tape that has degraded, than it is to a video game image that needs to be scaled to the native resolution of your TV. There is no white noise (barring degradation on the analog cables, or lost bits on the HDMI connection) there is simply a picture that is too small (or big) to fit on your TV without scaling being applied first.

In the context of gaming, scaling is not a good thing, it is a necessary thing -when the source image does not perfectly match the dimensions of your TV. And it's going to happen, whether it is the XBOX, or the TV that does the work. In fact in most cases, both your XBOX and TV both scale the source image, so it's going through 2 transformations before you finally get to see it. Don't beleve me? Lets say the XBOX game is internally scaled to 720p (Halo 3) which is 1280*720 and your LCD TV is 1366*768 or your Plasma TV is 1024*768 -in both cases, the 720p image needs to be scaled by your TV's native resolution before it will fit properly onto your TV.

This raises (IMO) a strong case for the VGA cable, because using such a connection you can use the 360's internal scaler to hit the true native resolution of your TV meaning you only scale once (on the XBOX).

Why is everyone so defensive about this resolution topic?

What is wrong with being an informed consumer? If I pay 60 dollars for a game I would like to know as many details about it as possible. Does a lower resolution mean I won't buy Halo 3. NO, but I would still like to know what resolution the game is being rendered.

Putting 720p/1080p on the box is dishonest and should be illegal. Maybe it's because I am a PC gamer at heart, but I know that resolution and Anti-Aliasing make a huge difference in the picture quality of a game. As a consumer I should be able to look at the box and see what resolution and level of AA is being used by the game.

Just my .02

You must realize that people generally defend what they have. If you are a 360 owner with a 720p HDTV you are more likely to argue that resolution is not a deal breaker, and that games can't run at 1080p with any decent effects anyway, so 1080p is basically a marketing ploy this generation.

1080p on a 50 inch TV or larger is noticeable to the scrutinizing eye, which I have. I look forward to 1080p games that don't sacrifice on the effects. It may be a while, but I think they will come as the devs improve.

By no means is 1080p a neccessity for a great looking game. On the contrary, making a game 1080p just so you can say so (while sacrificing other more visually important effects) is stupid. But I heard that MGS4 is gonna be 1080p, and if that turns out to be true, then that could be a game that doesn't sacrifice to be 1080p. Time will tell.

All else being equal, I would love 1080p games to go with my 1080p TV set.

Scalers can do more than just scale. They can "clean" the image, looking for what might best be described as "white noise" in the original picture, and removing it with their "best guess" as to what should probably be there. It's similar to image enhancement on a crappy-photo, bringing it back to life.

But this concept is far more relevent to (for example) a VHS tape that has degraded, than it is to a video game image that needs to be scaled to the native resolution of your TV. There is no white noise (barring degradation on the analog cables, or lost bits on the HDMI connection) there is simply a picture that is too small (or big) to fit on your TV without scaling being applied first.

In the context of gaming, scaling is not a good thing, it is a necessary thing -when the source image does not perfectly match the dimensions of your TV. And it's going to happen, whether it is the XBOX, or the TV that does the work. In fact in most cases, both your XBOX and TV both scale the source image, so it's going through 2 transformations before you finally get to see it. Don't beleve me? Lets say the XBOX game is internally scaled to 720p (Halo 3) which is 1280*720 and your LCD TV is 1366*768 or your Plasma TV is 1024*768 -in both cases, the 720p image needs to be scaled by your TV's native resolution before it will fit properly onto your TV.

This raises (IMO) a strong case for the VGA cable, because using such a connection you can use the 360's internal scaler to hit the true native resolution of your TV meaning you only scale once (on the XBOX).

Well, now I assume we're talking about a better scaler than the one in my Xbox or Panasonic Plasma. :)

So, understanding this, it still seems apparent to me that scaling does not (and can never) improve the quality of your picture. Perhaps image enhancements, cleaning of white noise, sharpening, etc. can be applied to a scaled image to give it the appearance of something better... However, those same image enhancements could be made to the original, un-altered and un-scaled image.

I'm simply seeing no logic in the statement that:
No[,] scalers don't just create pixels, rather they resamplesample the whole image to a higher resolution, providing a clearer and shaper picture.

I don't know how you scale a picture larger and get any more sharpness or clarity. If I'm wrong, I just want to understand how you get something better than the original simply by scaling it larger.

You must realize that people generally defend what they have. If you are a 360 owner with a 720p HDTV you are more likely to argue that resolution is not a deal breaker, and that games can't run at 1080p with any decent effects anyway, so 1080p is basically a marketing ploy this generation.

1080p on a 50 inch TV or larger is noticeable to the scrutinizing eye, which I have. I look forward to 1080p games that don't sacrifice on the effects. It may be a while, but I think they will come as the devs improve.

By no means is 1080p a neccessity for a great looking game. On the contrary, making a game 1080p just so you can say so (while sacrificing other more visually important effects) is stupid. But I heard that MGS4 is gonna be 1080p, and if that turns out to be true, then that could be a game that doesn't sacrifice to be 1080p. Time will tell.

All else being equal, I would love 1080p games to go with my 1080p TV set.

I don't think we will see true 1080p gaming on this generation. If we do, it will be at the cost of other eye candy. Besides, they need marketing hype for the next round of consoles. I can see it now - "FULL 1080p HD gaming on the XBOX 720":D

I hope you are right about MGS4. That would rock, but I'm not holding my breath.

This is about as pointless as a topic gets.

Why do you need resolution, mapping, AA information? If you like the looks of the game, buy it. If you don't like it, don't. There are demos out for most of the top titles, you can try before you buy.

Only reason you want all the crap that no sane people in real-world cares about is just so that you come back to a board like this and complain endlessly about how this game looks terrible because it doesn't have this and this game looks horrible because they don't enable that.

What good does that serve?

I think Bioshock/FOV controversy has demonstrated clearly that knowing "extra" stuff only LESSENS the amount of enjoyment that people receive from the game. Knowing all the information is NOT going to let you enjoy the game more and it is most likely going to ruin your experience (even if the game looks gorgeous) so why bother?

You need to let go of these control-freak issues. The designers of the game make choices on resolutions and other graphics features based on what is best for the game (guess what? The game designers run the game in mulitple resolutions and features before making the final choices). It is THEIR choice and they should be free to make it without bunch of people on these boards who have really very little clue about how computer graphics really work telling them how they screwed up.

If you don't like the game, fine, say so. But this "I cannot enjoy this game because it is 640P instead of 720P" or "This game is crap because FOV is 90' instead of 95'" crap needs to stop. And no one should do anything to encourage this behavior.

This is about as pointless as a topic gets.

Why do you need resolution, mapping, AA information? If you like the looks of the game, buy it. If you don't like it, don't. There are demos out for most of the top titles, you can try before you buy.

Only reason you want all the crap that no sane people in real-world cares about is just so that you come back to a board like this and complain endlessly about how this game looks terrible because it doesn't have this and this game looks horrible because they don't enable that.

What good does that serve?

I think Bioshock/FOV controversy has demonstrated clearly that knowing "extra" stuff only LESSENS the amount of enjoyment that people receive from the game. Knowing all the information is NOT going to let you enjoy the game more and it is most likely going to ruin your experience (even if the game looks gorgeous) so why bother?

You need to let go of these control-freak issues. The designers of the game make choices on resolutions and other graphics features based on what is best for the game (guess what? The game designers run the game in mulitple resolutions and features before making the final choices). It is THEIR choice and they should be free to make it without bunch of people on these boards who have really very little clue about how computer graphics really work telling them how they screwed up.

If you don't like the game, fine, say so. But this "I cannot enjoy this game because it is 640P instead of 720P" or "This game is crap because FOV is 90' instead of 95'" crap needs to stop. And no one should do anything to encourage this behavior.

First of all, I have not seen anyone on this thread with the attitude you are talking about. No one said it ruined any game. Find a post in this thread where someone said Halo 3 is crap because it runs at 640p or Bioshock sucks because of the FOV.

Second, If I want to buy a game that is released on multiple platforms I would like to use the information to make an informed decision. It has nothing to do with bashing a game or system. Some people like to make informed decisions based on facts. I am sorry that this concept eludes you.

Bioshock was released on PC and Xbox. If I know my pc will provide better graphics than the XBOX version, I would purchase that version and Vice-Versa.

There are plenty of discussion around Halo 640P and Bioshock FOV complaints on this board. I don't think you have to look too far or deep.

If you REALLY want to make informed decision on FACTS, then you should download the demo and try the game before you buy it. THERE are NUMEROUS other factors on whether or not that game is going to look good on the platform - least of which are framerate (which is probably more importan than resolution) and scaling quality.

The numbers about resolution and other features don't tell the whole story, experiencing the demos do.

Only reason you want it is so that you can complain about it.

So then, we're admitting that the scaling does somehow degrade the image quality to a point where these sharpness and microblocking corrections need to be added to the image?

OK then...

Back to the native actual pixels... Why would enhancing altered pixels make for a better image (perceived or objective) than enhancing the native un-altered pixels?

I'm still trying to understand how scaling gets you a clearer and sharper image than the original.

i am not sure you get what i am saying.

if you took a 16:9 480p wide scan lcd so that its native 1:1 pixel mapping for a dvd.

you probably will not get a better picture with a external scaler. you can but lets not get into that most likely it wont. especially if you have a high quality 480p display. (actually you can but lets not get into that)

ok so we take that same dvd and put it on a 16:9 1080p display. The image is going to get scaled either way. because the tv has to make the image fit on the display. Most TV scalers do a sub par job and have no logic applied to it. So thats where the external scaler comes in it fills in pixels adds effect overlays to the picture like "sharpness' similar to a adobe picture but it does it based on logicAlso scalers can and what it sees from the pixel fills.

Well, now I assume we're talking about a better scaler than the one in my Xbox or Panasonic Plasma. :)

So, understanding this, it still seems apparent to me that scaling does not (and can never) improve the quality of your picture. Perhaps image enhancements, cleaning of white noise, sharpening, etc. can be applied to a scaled image to give it the appearance of something better... However, those same image enhancements could be made to the original, un-altered and un-scaled image.

I'm simply seeing no logic in the statement that:


I don't know how you scale a picture larger and get any more sharpness or clarity. If I'm wrong, I just want to understand how you get something better than the original simply by scaling it larger.


yes he is talking about scalers that are way better then anything your panasonic plasma has in and the xbox has in it. i dont see how this concept is so hard. if you take a crappy picture but really like the subject open up adobe you can make the picture a lot more presentable then the original with tools.

i am not sure you get what i am saying.

if you took a 16:9 480p wide scan lcd so that its native 1:1 pixel mapping for a dvd.

you probably will not get a better picture with a external scaler. you can but lets not get into that most likely it wont. especially if you have a high quality 480p display. (actually you can but lets not get into that)

ok so we take that same dvd and put it on a 16:9 1080p display. The imageis going to get scaled either way. because the tv has to make the image fit on the display. Most TV scalers do a sub par job and have no logic applied to it. So thats where the external scaler comes in it fills in pixels adds effect overlays to the picture like "sharpness' similar to a adobe picture but it does it based on logicAlso scalers can and what it sees from the pixel fills.

Right...

I think we all agree that scaling in some form needs to occur in many cases... I'm just questioning the logic that says scaling improves the image quality...

For discussion sake, let's start with a perfectly pristine 1366 x 768 original image. This is the format the content was created in and finished in...

Now, you have a 50" 720p (1368 X 768) native monitor and a 50" 1080p (1920 x 1080) monitor...

How would the picture ever look better, clearer or sharper on the 1080p monitor vs seeing the original, un-altered, un-scaled image.

Besides, they need marketing hype for the next round of consoles. I can see it now - "FULL 1080p HD gaming on the XBOX 720":DHeh, make that the Xbox 1080 to play into that hype.

yes he is talking about scalers that are way better then anything your panasonic plasma has in and the xbox has in it. i dont see how this concept is so hard. if you take a crappy picture but really like the subject open up adobe you can make the picture a lot more presentable then the original with tools.

That part is easy to understand. :) I know Photoshop well.

But if I start with a perfect image (not a crappy one), making it larger never increases sharpness or clarity.

We're talking about video games here... Isn't whatever that final image resolution that the developer used going to be the best/cleanest/sharpest image quality... Sure, the aspect ratio might be off, or it might need to be scaled... and the better your scaler, the better for you... But the image quality isn't getting improved. If something is getting scaled UP TO 720p, what logic could say that scaling it FURTHER UP TO 1080p would further increase the quality of that image?

There are plenty of discussion around Halo 640P and Bioshock FOV complaints on this board. I don't think you have to look too far or deep.

If you REALLY want to make informed decision on FACTS, then you should download the demo and try the game before you buy it. THERE are NUMEROUS other factors on whether or not that game is going to look good on the platform - least of which are framerate (which is probably more importan than resolution) and scaling quality.

The numbers about resolution and other features don't tell the whole story, experiencing the demos do.

Only reason you want it is so that you can complain about it.

Find one example of me complaining about it. Go ahead.

Demo's are rarely a good representation of the final product and not all games have demos before the release date. Your logic is flawed and your homerism is blatant.

TV 1 is a 50 inch 1080p set -they have 1920*1080 pixels to fill on their screen.
TV 2 is a (true) 50 inch 720p set -they have 1280*720 pixels to fill.

If the source image is 720p the question therefore seems to be which TV is going to look better?

In theory, the 720p TV will look best -no scaling required. In practice, the 360's internal scaler is probably good enough that the difference would more likely be measured by the comparative quality of the TVs.

There is one caveat to that assertion. When people develop "fonts" they develop them to work with specific resolutions (or multiples of those resolutions). When you scale a text string, you introduce unavoidable artifacts into the uniformity of the font, making the text uneven and less clear. I believe TV's with a native resolution of 1366*768 are definately a victim of this. text designed for 720p that is scaled to 1366*768 (by your TV) produces un-even text: This is a mathematical fact -it doesn't matter how good the scaler is. (The scaler does not know it is scaling text)

The only way this could be avoided would be if the 360 used a specific font designed for exactly that resolution, and the only way I can see that they could do that would be if you were running a VGA cable because then the 360 could be told exactly what resolution you are using and therefore use the right text font for your resolution.

Lastly, this conversation is far from useless, if you are of the view that knowledge is a good thing. Granted, for some people knowledge is used to feed neurosis but it is unreasonable to claim that anyone who asks a technical question like this has a neurotic agenda.

No, it won't, just like a 640x480 image displayed at 640x480 on a CRT monitor won't look nearly as good as when running that same monitor at 1600x1200 while using decent resampling to upscale that same 640x480 image. The upscaled image will look notably sharper and clearer.

I don't agree -- 640x480 scanned directly by a CRT monitor looks sharper than 640x480 upscaled. The upscaled version might be preferable for other reasons (to hide aliasing, perhaps), but it isn't sharper.

That part is easy to understand. :) I know Photoshop well.

But if I start with a perfect image (not a crappy one), making it larger never increases sharpness or clarity.

We're talking about video games here... Isn't whatever that final image resolution that the developer used going to be the best/cleanest/sharpest image quality... Sure, the aspect ratio might be off, or it might need to be scaled... and the better your scaler, the better for you... But the image quality isn't getting improved. If something is getting scaled UP TO 720p, what logic could say that scaling it FURTHER UP TO 1080p would further increase the quality of that image?


dvds are never perfect images. thats why they work.

I don't agree -- 640x480 scanned directly by a CRT monitor looks sharper than 640x480 upscaled. The upscaled version might be preferable for other reasons (to hide aliasing, perhaps), but it isn't sharper.

even CRT monitors set standard resolution has its a myth that they jump 1:1 mapping on the display. there is a set number of phosphers just like a flat panel has pixels.

even CRT monitors set standard resolution has its a myth that they jump 1:1 mapping on the display. there is a set number of phosphers just like a flat panel has pixels.

But the phosphor "dots" are analog. They aren't on-or-off like LCDs, because the electron beam can activate partial dots wherever it wants to. The only thing the dots govern is the maximum resolution.

Demo's are rarely a good representation of the final product and not all games have demos before the release date. Your logic is flawed and your homerism is blatant.

I call BS. A MAJOR BS!!!

Find me just ONE product where the Demo was NOT a good representation of the final product. I am not talking about Beta, I am talking about final demos downloadable on Xbox Live.

Find me a SINGLE one.

And there are literally HUNDREDS of demos on Xbox Live. I think the coverage is over 90% for shipped products. Vast majority of which are available just before the release date or on release dates.

What a BS.

I call BS. A MAJOR BS!!!

Find me just ONE product where the Demo was NOT a good representation of the final product. I am not talking about Beta, I am talking about final demos downloadable on Xbox Live.

Find me a SINGLE one.

And there are literally HUNDREDS of demos on Xbox Live. I think the coverage is over 90% for shipped products. Vast majority of which are available just before the release date or on release dates.

What a BS.

Once again you think of nothing but XBOX. :rolleyes:

Demo's for most PC games are crap, or are released well after the game has been released. I don't have a PS3 yet so I can't speak about that. XBOX does a pretty good job, but there is still not a demo for Halo3 and the Beta was dreadful.

What is the point in your "Demo comparison" if I can only play the Demo on one system??????

You, sir, are the BS artist.

Once again you think of nothing but XBOX. :rolleyes:

Demo's for most PC games are crap, or are released well after the game has been released. I don't have a PS3 yet so I can't speak about that. XBOX does a pretty good job, but there is still not a demo for Halo3 and the Beta was dreadful.

What is the point in your "Demo comparison" if I can only play the Demo on one system??????

You, sir, are the BS artist.

What would you expect him to think. You are in the Xbox forum discussing res in and then the demoes get brought up. You can't assume you mean PC demos included especially since you have so many variables based on your system setup to begin with. Thats my confusion why you would even use PC demos as an example. If the system is chugging along a person is going to decide to upgrade or say fu*k it if they can't run the game. I thougth you only meant 360 demos too.

How was the beta dreadful. There is not going to be a demo Bungie said they will not release a demo and none of the Halo games ever had a demo released for them.

What would you expect him to think. You are in the Xbox forum discussing res in and then the demoes get brought up. You can't assume you mean PC demos included especially since you have so many variables based on your system setup to begin with. Thats my confusion why you would even use PC demos as an example. If the system is chugging along a person is going to decide to upgrade or say fu*k it if they can't run the game. I thougth you only meant 360 demos too.

How was the beta dreadful. There is not going to be a demo Bungie said they will not release a demo and none of the Halo games ever had a demo released for them.

Did you actually read our discussion?

I have been saying all along that the point in having the information on the box is to choose which platform I want to play the game on. He said instead of looking at Resolution, AA, Framer Rate, etc. I should play the demo to compare the games before I buy. How can I use the Demo to compare between PC, Xbox, PS3 if there is only a demo on the XBOX???:confused:

To be fair, I shouldn't have even brought up Halo 3 since it is not available on any other platforms.

Some demos can't have the full resolution textures because of download size limitations. So yeah, I can see some demos not being very good representations of the final game. The gameplay should hopefully be there.

Once again you think of nothing but XBOX. :rolleyes:

Demo's for most PC games are crap, or are released well after the game has been released. I don't have a PS3 yet so I can't speak about that. XBOX does a pretty good job, but there is still not a demo for Halo3 and the Beta was dreadful.

What is the point in your "Demo comparison" if I can only play the Demo on one system??????

You, sir, are the BS artist.

Oh, assuming that you are talking about Xbox on a Xbox forum makes me a BS artist

Ummmm... OK, whatever you say.

So what you are saying is that even though a demo is available on Xbox 360, you will get BETTER information by having the resolution number on a box. Even if demos are not available on other platforms, you can still view the demo on Xbox 360 before you decide which platform version to buy.

So, you are one of those types who believe 8 to 10 characters of numbers are more informative than a full playable version of a game

Yeah... right....

I see now that this thread was just a joke to you. Sorry for barging in. I won't click on this thread any more. Please carry on with whatever is that you are doing.

BTW, the resolution and major graphics features in the released version of Halo is identical to the Beta. But then again, you really don't care about that, do you?

This is really a simple question of veracity. If a game says 720p on the back it should be 720p. It shouldn't mean that the game will work on a 720 display. By that logic every game should say 1080p on the back!

Peole that take issue with resoultion falsifications have that right. Just like you have the right to not care about the technical specs of a game, just how it plays and looks.

But you shouldn't get on their case becasue they want technical accuracy, especially when you consider the forum you are in............AVS forum. We are into technical specs.

How could you argue with someone that wants the specs to be ACCURATE. You should argue that while you see their point, and that it is misleading, especially after all the marketing hoopla about HD this, HD that, you personally just go by look.

Good for you. Go by look only. But the most vociferous defenders of this BS practice of lying about resolution are hardcore system defenders. Try leaving the bias at the door for once. The conversation could go to so much more of an interesting place.

My take: I care a lot about the resolution. I have invested lots of time and money into my AV hobby, and I get a thrill out of feeding my set pristine Hd sources. That's my perogative. So if you go by looks, that great for you. But why would you defend the indefensible just to defend your sytem??? Mistating resolution isn't a capital offense, but it is clearly wrong. And so are you if you defend it.

This is really a simple question of veracity. If a game says 720p on the back it should be 720p. It shouldn't mean that the game will work on a 720 display. By that logic every game should say 1080p on the back!

Peole that take issue with resoultion falsifications have that right. Just like you have the right to not care about the technical specs of a game, just how it plays and looks.

But you shouldn't get on their case becasue they want technical accuracy, especially when you consider the forum you are in............AVS forum. We are into technical specs.

How could you argue with someone that wants the specs to be ACCURATE. You should argue that while you see their point, and that it is misleading, especially after all the marketing hoopla about HD this, HD that, you personally just go by look.

Good for you. Go by look only. But the most vociferous defenders of this BS practice of lying about resolution are hardcore system defenders. Try leaving the bias at the door for once. The conversation could go to so much more of an interesting place.

My take: I care a lot about the resolution. I have invested lots of time and money into my AV hobby, and I get a thrill out of feeding my set pristine Hd sources. That's my perogative. So if you go by looks, that great for you. But why would you defend the indefensible just to defend your sytem??? Mistating resolution isn't a capital offense, but it is clearly wrong. And so are you if you defend it.
The thing is... What difference would it make?

Would you not buy Halo just because it's 640p?

Would you buy the PS3 version of CoD3 (720p) over the 360 version (640p), even though the 360 version looks noticably better?

I'm a big graphics whore, but that only goes so far, as I'm a gamer.

Most of the games that render below 720p would have looked identical at that res... With lower performance. If AA had been applied to Halo 3, no one would have been counting pixels in the first place.

Ok, so it's wrong to mistate the actual rendering resolution on the box. No one is defending that. What they're saying is that they don't care and it's fickle to cause an uproar over such a minor issue.

Oh, assuming that you are talking about Xbox on a Xbox forum makes me a BS artist

Ummmm... OK, whatever you say.

So what you are saying is that even though a demo is available on Xbox 360, you will get BETTER information by having the resolution number on a box. Even if demos are not available on other platforms, you can still view the demo on Xbox 360 before you decide which platform version to buy.

So, you are one of those types who believe 8 to 10 characters of numbers are more informative than a full playable version of a game

Yeah... right....

I see now that this thread was just a joke to you. Sorry for barging in. I won't click on this thread any more. Please carry on with whatever is that you are doing.

BTW, the resolution and major graphics features in the released version of Halo is identical to the Beta. But then again, you really don't care about that, do you?

It's all about comparing apples-apples. That makes sense to most people, do you not understand that concept? No, you are too busy defending your precious XBOX. Do you work for Microsoft or Bungie? What is your stake in this? My guess would be none and that makes you a ........

FANBOY!!

No, you are too busy defending your precious XBOX. Do you work for Microsoft or Bungie

Can't take you too seriously when you start making comments like this. Maybe you should just give MS or Bungie a call for their future games and see what answer they give you about listing those technical specs. I personally don't care to see somthing similar as you do with PC game boxes stated minumum requirements vs required. In this case what is the actual res or blah blah blah. If videos, interviews, demoes any of those combination of options you have before buying a game can't help you decide and all your focus is mainly worrying about res then all you are doing is to just bitching which hey you have the right too but honestly nobody cares that damn much to be concerned about walking in a store and saying hmmm what is the rez like. Majority of games on the 360 are 720P. Majority of games on the xbox were 480P. Being a multiplatform owner it was easy for me personally to choose what games I wanted for what system. Controller was a factor like I mentioned earlier, 480P at the time was a good thing being offered and then Live basically sealed the deal. Fast forward to today, The same choices and options. If you really need to know about a game contact the company and maybe they will tell you for future reference if you can't compare all 3 games if it is that serious to you.

Whats so funny about this is your basically asking companies to list the same type of information that food productions break down the ingredients. What other company actually goes this far in trying to have you focus on this information? It makes sense for PC games because of the variables but it doesn't for consoles. Thats why we don't care we know it will work on the game consoles. Just seems to me you make your decisions harder than they need to be.

Can't take you too seriously when you start making comments like this. Maybe you should just give MS or Bungie a call for their future games and see what answer they give you about listing those technical specs. I personally don't care to see somthing similar as you do with PC game boxes stated minumum requirements vs required. In this case what is the actual res or blah blah blah. If videos, interviews, demoes any of those combination of options you have before buying a game can't help you decide and all your focus is mainly worrying about res then all you are doing is to just bitching which hey you have the right too but honestly nobody cares that damn much to be concerned about walking in a store and saying hmmm what is the rez like. Majority of games on the 360 are 720P. Majority of games on the xbox were 480P. Being a multiplatform owner it was easy for me personally to choose what games I wanted for what system. Controller was a factor like I mentioned earlier, 480P at the time was a good thing being offered and then Live basically sealed the deal. Fast forward to today, The same choices and options. If you really need to know about a game contact the company and maybe they will tell you for future reference if you can't compare all 3 games if it is that serious to you.

Whats so funny about this is your basically asking companies to list the same type of information that food productions break down the ingredients. What other company actually goes this far in trying to have you focus on this information? It makes sense for PC games because of the variables but it doesn't for consoles. Thats why we don't care we know it will work on the game consoles. Just seems to me you make your decisions harder than they need to be.

I respect your opinion and I understand your point of view. We simply disagree.

I see nothing wrong with disecting the specifications of a game or a game console. I'm a geek and I enjoy those things. I don't do it to insult anybody, I do it because I enjoy knowing the truth. I also think it is dishonest to display 720p or 1080p on the game box when the game is actually being rendered at a lower resolution.

I don't base my entire decision on the resolution like you say. I take all of the factors into consideration. I would simply like to look at the box and know the actual resolution of a game. That shouldn't be such a huge deal. The problem is that some Xbox owners and Halo lovers are overly defensive because PS3 fanboys like to poke fun at the 640p Halo3. For the record, I don't own a PS3 because there are not enough good games yet.

Regular unleaded fuel(87 Octane) may work great in your car. Should gas companies stop listing the Octane levels of their fuel and sell 87 octane as "Premium"?? Thats how I see the 1080p labeling of Xbox games.

Is your moniker just a coincidence? http://ozymandias.com/default.aspx

It is a coincidence, yes. I've been using this moniker since '97 online :)

ps. I think the ability for the developer to pick the internal resolution of their games is a very good one -even if MS did not originally think it was going to be necessary). I means the developer can decide exactly where the trade-off between resolution and performance is made. If the game is fun enough to play, they can internally render at 480p for all I care (and I'm just trying to make a point in saying that). In fact, I kind of wish that some games had chosen a lower resolution -they probably would have run better if they had (eg Oblivion).

That kind of thinking is un-console-like. On a fixed platform you should be supporting performance standards. I can't stress that enough. In this age of multiple resolutions, from 480i to 1080p, it is more important than ever to have a minimum level of consistency. If you can't get your game to run smoothly at the standard 720p, optimize, trim the fat, manage your resources better.

Halo 2 had the same sort of lazy, "get it to market" thinking. It's like PC gaming's "we'll just patch it later", it's worrying as a console gamer. I don't mean to specifically bash Microsoft but this from them should come as no surprise.

Halo 3 is the flagship Xbox 360 title probably for the entire lifespan of the system. And it's first-party as well! To break their own promises there is just disgusting.

Heh, you are still one short of a dozen, and far short of proving your previous suggesting of a majorty.

I didn't say "majority", I said "a ton". Honestly I wouldn't really care that much but for Halo 3 to short us on resolution and anti-aliasing is a slap in the face. I mean, you can clearly see the difference.

You also said:
It's common enough that I might say it's the norm rather than the exception.
and that implies a majority.

Halo 2 had the same sort of lazy, "get it to market" thinking. It's like PC gaming's "we'll just patch it later", it's worrying as a console gamer. I don't mean to specifically bash Microsoft but this from them should come as no surprise.


Halo 2apparently had that sort of thinking. But I definitely wouldn't accuse Halo 3 of this. This is one of the most polished games I have ever seen. It is obvious that they spent a LOT of time on the game.

If they had rushed the game out the door, people would be clamoring for a patch right now to fix all the issues. I haven't seen any issues. All I see is a game that looks great, is a hell of a lot of fun to play, and has nearly flawless party and networking support.

Halo 3 is definitely a step above Halo 2 in all areas. I don't mean to say that it was as badly rushed, it's not, at all.

I need to get more time in the game tbh. My son has monopolized the 360 since Halo 3 came out ;)

The thing is... What difference would it make?

Would you not buy Halo just because it's 640p?

Would you buy the PS3 version of CoD3 (720p) over the 360 version (640p), even though the 360 version looks noticably better?

I'm a big graphics whore, but that only goes so far, as I'm a gamer.

Most of the games that render below 720p would have looked identical at that res... With lower performance. If AA had been applied to Halo 3, no one would have been counting pixels in the first place.

Ok, so it's wrong to mistate the actual rendering resolution on the box. No one is defending that. What they're saying is that they don't care and it's fickle to cause an uproar over such a minor issue.
Maybe someone wouldn't buy it because they see 640p on the box, and that's their right. The point is: just be truthful, and let others make the decision best for them. Developers are scared, and they should be. We were promised HD gaming, so, just make all games at least 720p, and there's no problem.;)