Originally Posted by KoRn
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.
Originally Posted by Ripeer
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.
Originally Posted by Quidam67
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.
Originally Posted by KoRn
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.