Haze dev shuns resolution criticism

Printable View

May 19th, 2008, 18:51
Shrygue

Haze dev shuns resolution criticism

via Computer and Video Games

Free Radical's creative lead, Derek Littlewood has shunned internet hissy-fits over the revelation that Haze on PS3 doesn't run in native 720p.

Haze is the latest of a number of games to run in a lower frame rate than the HD standard 720p, for the benefit of a smoother frame rate.

Littlewood confirmed that the final game will run in a resolution of 1024 x 576, essentially shaving 144 horizontal lines off of a typical 1024 x 720 picture, but he dismisses critics' "it's not true HD" cries.

"We prioritise a nice smooth framerate over a different res," Littlewood told Ripten.

"Personally, I don't really buy the whole thing. People did the same with Call of Duty, they did the same with Halo, and they say with those games 'It's not running at true HD!'

"I don't care. If the game looks good and it runs smoothly, those are the important things to me. I don't understand why people care whether there's 20 pixels, 50 pixels, or 100 pixels more..."

In case you're not up on this techy babble, developers occasionally reduce the pixels on screen to help free up some processing power for a smoother frame rate - as did FPS big wigs Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4.

Did you notice? Do you care?
May 19th, 2008, 23:49
DPyro

No and No...CoD4 is quite a fun game, why does it matter if devs don't run at 'standard' resolutions?
May 20th, 2008, 00:59
Greg_Alexander

I do care. CoD4 still looks great, but I thought that most games would be running at 1080p(with 720p as the absolute minimum) prior to me buying a PS3 a month ago.
Most PC games run at what I would call a medium-low res of 1280x768(16:9 ratio), with no Issues at all, and I thought these supposedly 'super consoles' would be raising the bar.
Instead, they're left choking in the dust of the PC with it's uber HD resolutions. compare CoD4 on a console, to it on a high-end PC...
May 20th, 2008, 03:16
DPyro

You have to remember that PC's use the latest graphics cards and CPU's so the devs don't have any limits to what they can put in the game.
May 20th, 2008, 03:22
F9zDark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg_Alexander

I do care. CoD4 still looks great, but I thought that most games would be running at 1080p(with 720p as the absolute minimum) prior to me buying a PS3 a month ago.
Most PC games run at what I would call a medium-low res of 1280x768(16:9 ratio), with no Issues at all, and I thought these supposedly 'super consoles' would be raising the bar.
Instead, they're left choking in the dust of the PC with it's uber HD resolutions. compare CoD4 on a console, to it on a high-end PC...

Problem is, with consoles, that the devs have a set limit with which they can work and not to mention, they have to "learn" how to code effectively for the consoles.

PCs have remained relatively unchanged for decades (C/C++ are still the dominant programming languages) and the hardware limitations aren't really "set". Yes PC game programmers have to keep in mind all hardware specs but they can decide who they want to make the game playable for (low end users - high end users, or just high end users).

The benefit of PC games are that, the developers can also make a game require a high end machine the day it comes out, but next year's mid range machine (essentially the year prior's high end) will play it.

What I am getting at is, PCs cannot really be compared to consoles because the developers really have no set limit to work with (game runs poorly, upgrade the memory or GPU); the only thing that troubles developers is having to make the game run on as many configurations as possible because they will want the profits from high game sales.
May 20th, 2008, 04:40
Ashen

I think, specifically with the ps3, its an issue of learning to code well with it.

I'd speculate that there is probably a complexity issue with crunching significantly large numbers of pixels on the machine with the techniques that are used (Though I've never worked with the hardware before). At the same time it might not be worth the slowdown/complexity with the lighting and texturing effects technologies at the moment making a much greater difference to the look of the game than the slight crispness gained by higher resolutions (it mattered a lot more in the old days when this sort of stuff wasn't around).

The other point of course is that a significant portion of the install base will only be running 720p tv's anyway, meaning the difference should be nigh on invisible on these.

That said, COD4 saw massive differences between the PC and PS3 versions... I think comparatively Haze looks significantly better-- which to me means that COD4 probably had more restrictions with the whole multi-platform thing (which really tend to bring the quality of the games down). Still fun to play though ;).

Cheers.
Ash.
May 20th, 2008, 06:04
quzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by $n!pR

You have to remember that PC's use the latest graphics cards and CPU's so the devs don't have any limits to what they can put in the game.

I love it how when it's in your favor the PS3 is a super computer much better than PCs because it is all working towards 'teh gamez' and has the magical number of processors to run 4D games but when it's revealed by an actual dev that the games don't even run in 720p (which, by the way, sony continuously refuses to call full HD; reserved for 1080p) it is limited in capability.
May 20th, 2008, 10:37
Panini

Quote:

Originally Posted by quzar

I love it how when it's in your favor the PS3 is a super computer much better than PCs because it is all working towards 'teh gamez' and has the magical number of processors to run 4D games but when it's revealed by an actual dev that the games don't even run in 720p (which, by the way, sony continuously refuses to call full HD; reserved for 1080p) it is limited in capability.

:rofl:
May 20th, 2008, 12:15
Triv1um

Quote:

Originally Posted by quzar

I love it how when it's in your favor the PS3 is a super computer much better than PCs because it is all working towards 'teh gamez' and has the magical number of processors to run 4D games but when it's revealed by an actual dev that the games don't even run in 720p (which, by the way, sony continuously refuses to call full HD; reserved for 1080p) it is limited in capability.

Totally agree big Q, things like this are starting to make me regret my PS3. To be honest I didnt understand what all that 4D crap was all about before release.

I brought this console, i brought a HDTV for it. I deserve to get full 1080p games.

If the engine cant handle it, optimise it so it can.

If this game is like the demo, they might aswell not bother releasing the pile of shit.

Im not joking when i say this, its the worst demo on PSN. I would be ashamed to build up all that hype and release that shit.

Giving a REALLY good name to the few PS3 exclusives, HUH?!!
May 20th, 2008, 12:41
Shadowblind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triv1um

If this game is like the demo, they might aswell not bother releasing the pile of shit.

Im not joking when i say this, its the worst demo on PSN. I would be ashamed to build up all that hype and release that shit.

Giving a REALLY good name to the few PS3 exclusives, HUH?!!

I was actually going to recommend this to my friend after its release (hes my PS3 connection).

But I don't think 1080ip or 720p or 438606437p even matters since this game sucks.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/875/875229p1.html

PS3 exclusives usually aren't bad. This and Lair aside, anyway. We're not talking about Wii exclusives on the other hand...
May 20th, 2008, 13:39
Triv1um

I was actually talking about the amount of exclusives really.

Yeah, i would mind if the game was good. Hell, Wonder Boy III on the master system is my favorite ever game. So im really not bothered about that.

But they could of atleast got 1 thing right. I could let it go if it had AMAZING graphics, AMAZING framerates and good AI. But no.

This is about the demo - The AI is horrible! Graphics look like a PS1 game, the dialogue is HORRIBLE, the weapons are same old, the 'nectar' practically does nothing.

This game shouldnt be allowed to be release.

We need large amounts of GOOD exclusives. Or the PS3 wont stand up to the other consoles.
May 20th, 2008, 19:11
DPyro

Quote:

Originally Posted by quzar

I love it how when it's in your favor the PS3 is a super computer much better than PCs because it is all working towards 'teh gamez' and has the magical number of processors to run 4D games but when it's revealed by an actual dev that the games don't even run in 720p (which, by the way, sony continuously refuses to call full HD; reserved for 1080p) it is limited in capability.

When have I ever said that?
May 21st, 2008, 02:42
F9zDark

Quote:

Originally Posted by quzar

I love it how when it's in your favor the PS3 is a super computer much better than PCs because it is all working towards 'teh gamez' and has the magical number of processors to run 4D games but when it's revealed by an actual dev that the games don't even run in 720p (which, by the way, sony continuously refuses to call full HD; reserved for 1080p) it is limited in capability.

This is not a very intelligent point; the PS3 runs circles around PCs in SOMEWAYS. Number crunching (Floating Point Operations mainly) it beats the shit out of 10 year old super computers.

Research firms are continually buying many PS3s to make clustered super computers out of them, one such article even made it to this very forum where the firm said the PS3 cluster had a quarter the computing power as their 80,000 sq. ft super computer.

Gaming, however, the PS3 has issues with because games aren't (yet) 100% floating point operations. Now if games generated everything, on the fly, using floating point mathematics ONLY, the PS3 would probably be a great gaming machine; but since games don't work like that, and probably won't for quite some time, its only a "good" gaming machine.

PCs on the other hand are made specifically to handle the majority of tasks end users will put them through (would any average computer owner care to use their PC to chart a black hole's position across the cosmos over a period of 10 years?). The PS3, sadly, wasn't designed in this way, although it IS being used for the very purpose I just described above in parentheses..
May 21st, 2008, 03:35
quzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by F9zDark

This is not a very intelligent point; the PS3 runs circles around PCs in SOMEWAYS.

I love this sentence in somanyways.
May 21st, 2008, 05:20
pibs

Aw what! I was really looking forward to this game. I don't really purchase games by ratings but after seeing the review it has changed my mind. I don't mind it playing at 720p or w/e but if it has crappy gameplay then its a no go.
May 22nd, 2008, 00:42
F9zDark

Quote:

Originally Posted by quzar

I love this sentence in somanyways.

I have yet to see you provide any proof that the PS3 isn't better than PCs...

Again, the PS3 have the FLOPS to do awesome calculations that would otherwise DEMOLISH a PC. But again, FLOPS capabilities doesn't necessarily mean better games.

If you think thats a fanboy statement then so be it and I have yet to see the more intelligent PS3 owners state otherwise.