Does sub-HD resolution matter?

CVG: So does a sub-HD rendering resolution matter? In short: not exactly. The lower the resolution, the more you're going to notice it - but it really shouldn't be your first port of complaint.

However, if it's a sign of other game engine problems, then alarm bells might start a'ringing. It's definitely not a coincidence that Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and God of War III are the best looking games on the PS3 - and all run at 720p.

[Blaze929]

It matter if you're on a big ass TV. Unacceptable. No idea why Microsoft dropped the 720p requirement for all games.

[-Alpha]

It's funny how this question is suddenly getting rethought after the PS3 version of RDR was proven to be Sub-HD. All of a sudden it doesn't matter?

Just look at the attitude shift when the PS3 gets Sub-HD quality:

http://n4g.com/news/478406/... 360 is last-gen, it's dead, it's for lower class gamers, looks like a Wii game. 12+ agrees, no disagrees.

http://n4g.com/news/525541/... It doesn't matter, no major difference, extra content on PS3 FTW! 25+ agrees.

Anyways, Sub-HD isn't a BIG problem for me. It'd be nice if it wasn't in sub-HD, but graphic whoring has gone way too far and it's become ridiculous that the level of scrutiny has gotten this pointless. It's not even about a big TV. Most people probably don't even notice the difference. I strongly doubt the majority of users have a big TV let alone HD. It's about bragging rights. If something is Sub-HD it automatically means it's inferior to people, which means all sorts of hell be let loose. Look at Alan Wake, and to a lesser extent MGSIV and Halo. If RDR was Sub-HD on 360 I doubt we'd see this article. It's evident from FF13 how badly Sub-HD was ragged on. Yet only after the PS3 version of RDR is known to be in Sub-HD people are downplaying it. Typical.

[PiTCHBLaCK]

It's Ironic that you bring this up, I remember clearly that people saying Graphics and Texture don't matter it was all about gameplay, now Graphics and Textures matter?

[sikbeta]

OF course Resolution Matters.... I'm looking at you RDR and before some x-supporter come here to say "bla...bla... RDR on PS3 Badz, da døømedz", Sub-HD resolution Matters for Every Game, like FF13 576p...

@Alpha

No-1 was hyping The PS3 Version of RDR as the "Best Graphical Showcase ever on PS3", Do you want to see some comments about a Game That Was HYPED as the Freaking Second Coming of God in the Form of a Game?

[tplarkin7]

I'm getting tired of the delusional hypocrisy of Sony fanboys.

[lowcarb]

I get what your saying but lets not mix PS3 gamers up with PS3 fanboys. I would much rather prefer HD then SUB HD but in games like RDR and AW it's almost unnoticeable. Hopefully at E3 these haters lose internet connection and quit trying to ruin the fun for everybody.

edit greywulf: STFU...You guys have more heads turning then a hooker on Vegas strip. AW is a technical master piece which of course you would never understand because your stuck in fanboy land.

[Ju]

I don't know why you think it doesn't matter because the PS3 got a Sub-HD game.

I know it matters to me.

Even more so after the leaks of a KZ3. There is just no justification for sub-HD.

The only "reason" I see is multiplatform and not wanting to invest into technology which want's to push (either) platform - or one just can't be pushed - and the other has to live with the consequences.

Reality is, would R* invest into technology like Guerilla does with KZ3, RDR/PS3 would be a different game.

[lowcarb]

You make the world of KZ3 the size of RDR and then try and keep it at 720p. There's obviously a difference in big games compared to smaller ones. Funny how there such a blind eye on this lol.

[-Alpha]

First of all Grey, thank you for being the only one to actually step forward and give a response to me. We may not agree but I appreciate your effort in having a discussion. For that I'll bubble you up. Now, I don't think you got my point:

This is not about RDR and hype, but the general attitude towards graphics.

"I find it funny that You and every other 360 fan on this site is pretending that Alan Wake didn't take 6 years to make, to show up subhd/bad texturing/tearing."

It's amazing how you only attack me and quickly label me as "one of those 360 guys" anytime I dare defend the 360. This "us or them" mentality is all part of what I'm talking about when it comes to graphics. And where have I EVER said AW didn't take 6 years to make? I'm completely disappointed in AW's linearity after hearing about it since even before the PS3 existed. Please stop assuming that JUST because I defend the 360 in this case that I'm some 360-only fan who hyped AW. This kind of mentality is JUST the problem I'm talking about. I do not care for the consoles one bit, but I do not like flip-flopping attitudes. If you have a principle about Sub-HD, stick to it instead of turning around and acting like it doesn't matter when it suits you. Why is it that every time something anti-PS3 is said people are quick to label me as a 360 fanboy? You people have such a fragile sensitivity to the PS3. Make fun of the 360 and you get bubbled up. Make fun of the PS3, and you get called a troll. I've see it countless times where people are absolutely close minded to any sort of PS3 criticism on this site. And I've seen people go to the point where they called the Sub-HD RDR graphics "more realistic" than the HD ones. Yeah, that's right. Doubt me, and I'll attempt to find the link for you. You will NEVER get this with the 360. There is zero tolerance for the 360 here.

This is exactly how the general attitude has been with RDR.

This has nothing to do with hype. There is an attitude that better graphics= be all and end all.

I cited to you EVIDENCE of people dissing the 360 SOLELY for graphics, yet, when RDR ALSO gets Sub-HD graphics all of a sudden that smug attitude about the 360 being "last gen" and being incapable of HD is traded for "oh, it's not a big deal".

There is an attitude with graphics that, if a game looks great, it's all that matters! It's a plague in this industry: Whatever happened to when graphics didn't matter but gameplay and quality were as important? Now we have these overly simplified mindless games, but god bless the industry for the graphics!

I understand that Alan Wake was hyped. But why this double standard where HD matters one minute and not the next? Why do people insist on battling fanboy logic with more fanboy logic? I understand 360 fans hyped AW, but approve of this "Sub-HD is worthless and makes game look last gen" attitude that was CLEARLY endorsed with FF13 (click the link I provided), and then turn around and say it doesn't matter when it happens to a PS3 game? Instead of attacking a console attack the reasoning behind the attitudes. If you looked at my message I used MGSIV and Halo as other examples. Sub-HD is blown out of proportion. Yes, HD is great, but people are so wound up in how a game looks that people forget about the other factors of a game. As I said to Blaze I sincerely doubt half of these people in care about HD as most don't own TV's big enough to even notice a difference. It's all a mindless battle over miniscule things.

[SpinalRemains138]

The real issue isn't sub HD by itself. The issue people are discussing is when an exclusive title is sub HD. I think that's a big no no when speaking in terms of developing for this gen. You have a team dedicated to one console. Max that shit out.

[piroh]

if Naughty Dog take care about RDR it could be 1080p, but Microsoft can't do anything with Alan Wake, they have weak hardware

on topic: resolution is important, but more important is polygon count. i rather play 720p KillZone 2 where are millions of polygons, than Tetris in FullHD

[bobcostus]

Are you serious man? I've never seen someone type so much idiocy. How the hell can you judge an entire consoles life cycle by one game?

Sure, Alan wake is sub-HD, but it's graphics definitely aren't bad. Just the same way that RDR's graphics on PS3 aren't bad. You try to pretend that you aren't a fan-boy, but you are the worst kind. You are a fan-boy AND a hypocrite. Grow up.

Edit: Seems everyone agrees, your post is now hidden for spam.

[ColdFire]

Different websites.

Personally I do all my gaming at native 1050p, I'm so used to it I find anything below 1050p looks very strange. But I guess it also depends partly on what screen/TV you are using.

[raztad]

"It's funny how this question is suddenly getting rethought after the PS3 version of RDR was proven to be Sub-HD. All of a sudden it doesn't matter?"

That's not true. Even Digital Foundry tried to say resolution wasnt very important:

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

"... but in the context of Alan Wake's visual make-up, it's simply not as much of an issue as it would be on a vast range of other games. "

@lowcarb

"You make the world of KZ3 the size of RDR and then try and keep it at 720p. There's obviously a difference in big games compared to smaller ones. Funny how there such a blind eye on this lol. "

Utterly nonsense. Do you remember pop-ins and the so called depth-of-field? Open world engines render only what they want the player to see at a given time.

BTW, I want to add that resolution is indeed important. I want my new games to look sharper and detailed, not softer and blurred.

[IcarusOne]

It matters a whole lot less what you're shooting on than what you're actually shooting. There are many factors that contribute to a great photograph:

subject
lenses
lighting
color palette
camera placement
movement within the frame
inner framing & composition
and on and on and on

You could give the greatest camera in the world to a complete idiot and you'd get complete garbage. Or you could give a Fisher Price camera to Roger Deakins and still get art.

[Anon1974]

A problem I find with many video games is that they're too sharp. I find when something stands out, or when a texture is particularly sharp compared to others it distracts. I'm all for detail but there's nothing wrong with softening the image and blurring the edges like is done all the time with movies, TV and photography. It makes for a much more natural effect. Sam House from Rockstar said he preferred the PS3's more muted color palette and softer look over the 360's because it more suited the type of game GTA4 was. Having played both of them, I agreed.
Like with movies, it all just depends of the effect you're going for.

Even Lens of Truth admitted that the PS3 version of RDR "blurred shadows better and give better depth of field" due to the slightly lower resolution. It's not always a bad thing. The last Tekken game was another example when the PS3's, lower resolution version looked better than the game running at a slightly higher resolution on the 360. It all depends on the effect you're going for.

[cjflora]

But I don't get why people start blaming the consoles. It's CLEAR that the PS3's hardware is capable of handling more, so the developers are the only ones to blame. Are people trying to claim that the 360 is more powerful because it had higher res?

[commodore64]

You make an excellent point, alpha.

I have said the same thing before, many times and I'll have to say it again.

The double standard amongst the ps3 camp is scarcely a secret anymore.
You can bet money on the fact that when the 360 publishes in a sub HD resolution it is deemed irrefutable proof that it is inferior - even holding the ps3 back.

Ironically, when the ps3 exhibits inferior performance in any way, shape or form, the ps3 owners blame developers, and even make up stories to convince themselves that their subhd game somehow looks better or 'warmer' as a result of being sub HD.
Can you believe that?
Its simply a rather severe case of cognitive bias on their behalf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

It's absolutely crazy, we all know it, yet some of the worst offenders are up to their old cognitive bias and self-delusion in this very thread!
Have a look above.. it's simply laughable.

It's beyond a joke really, and I profess that i fear for the mental health of some people on here who exhibit this behaviour.
It's simply not healthy.
I ask myself whether a rational though process is still possible amidst the cult-like indoctrinated automatic defence of their ps3 god.

Here's hoping.
Better to remain positive.

[Dance]

i hope the alan wake and ff13 sub hd bashers learn their lesson from this

[Raf1k1]

This is supposed to be the HD generation for cryin' out loud.

[axerated]

it's mad that even though we found out at least a week ago, these stories about red dead being inferior or whatever on ps3 are still top billing on n4g. i mean, yea its a real blow in some respects, and i fuel the fire simply by clicking the links to these things, but, while i am a bit naffed off that we get yet another slightly inferior port, i can see past it and enjoy the hell out of what is most definately a landmark title. i've put some hours into this game over the last few days, and i think it's amazing, regardless of resolution, and while i think that this shizz does matter, i don't really give 2 shi7z anymore....and..relaaax

[Christopher]

Flip-flopping, talent #3 behind trolling and flaming in the fanboy handbook.

Seriously, though, graphics only really matter to those who are graphic whores and those who want to use them to belittle someone's choice in console. There are many people who discuss graphics all the time here, but when it comes to playing a game it doesn't really impact their decision on whether they'll buy a game or even the console for which the game is bought.

I'm very disappointed in the RDR results, but not because it doesn't fit my 'needs' for graphic quality. It's because I expected a lot more out of a dev team like R*. The gameplay hasn't changed and it's still very enjoyable, but it's just disappointing to see a company like R* put out something like this on one platform with all the same mistakes from their first game on this gen of consoles present.

[davedagamer]

When a game is shipped to two competing platforms there's always going to be major gripes when the one you care for feels like its short changed. The fact that we are talking about the resolution of the game rather than if its fun and good shows you how far we've falling as gaming fans. Its a steep and hard decline.

If the XBOX version of RDR never existed and all we had to play was the PS3 version, people would be screaming from the Hills about how dominant the PS3 is and that a great game couldn't be done on the 360. Which is so far from the truth.

I believe that in order to stop the criticisms the devs should just decide to make their game for whatever platform they feel comfortable with. These publishers are just grasping for cash by throwing these games out on every system.

[BigPenguin]

I have a 195" Sony bravia HD prejector. Resolution absolutely matters. It is why I love the PS3 compared to my 360(also I have a shitty launch 360 that does not have a HDMI port, so I have to use the 3-prong video 2-prong audio prong cables, so I may be extra biased, I admit it, at least it never RROD, just has a sticky disk tray).

It actually matters so much that RDR was the first non-exclusive game I got for my 360 in the past 2 years. Because when you game on a screen as large as I do, you can really tell.

[Ju]

@lowcarb, if that would be true, there would be no reason for AW beeing 540p and inFamous running full 720p, without compromise. The first is not an open world game, the second is.

[Elven6]

The limit really wasn't enforced that much when it was around, Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, etc were all sub HD when the limit was in place. If Microsoft told a developer to go back and make their game HD, there would be no guarantee that the developer could do it or even come back.

Playing through Alan Wake I can say it really doesn't matter. The buffer was 540p but the textures were pretty high res and it becomes apparent when looking at signs, reading posters, etc.

[ThanatosDMC]

Of course it matters.

[Saigon]

Can you really tell?

[BreakNeckSpeed]

Its not okay when Alan Wake or splinter cell is sub-hd but its fine for the PS3 version of RDR. What ever happened to gameplay > graphics. You will just get disagreed with if you said that around here.

Fanboys are a disgrace to gaming!

[Biggest]

I do believe it matters. I started RDR and thought it wasn't so bad. But after playing it for a few hours, I can see the difference between it and many recent games I have played. While I do enjoy the game I catch myself saying "Well that sure is ugly."

If Uncharted 3, Killzone 3, InFamous 2, or any other high profile PS3 exclusive is released at sub-HD we can talk about Alan Wake and Splinter Cell. As it is now, those games are a black eye on a normally beautiful face. Gameplay is most important, but graphics are there for a reason. I expect more for my money.

[Dance]

now they should do an article on alan wake being bashed for being sub hd

[sid4gamerfreak]

yes it does matter. Next please

Edit: If the gameplay is engaging, then the sub hd graphics don't matter. Just like red dead redemption on the ps3, ill be getting it not because of its sub hd grphics but because the game is actually FUN. If the gameplay mechanics work, then graphics arent such a big deal

It does detract from the experience, however

[Another One]

Did you just flip-flop on it mattering, three times?

First it matters, then it doesn't if game play is good, and then it detracts from the game.

[sid4gamerfreak]

it detracts the overall experience Another One if graphics aren't great. Thats what I mean. Get it? No?

*sigh*

[- Ghost of Sparta -]

The Halo: Reach beta is sub-HD, as are Alan Wake, Halo 3, Forza 3, etc. Does it matter?

[Arnon]

Forza Motorsport 3's native resolution is 720p.

Aside from this, your comment has nothing to do with this subject. The issue at hand is that the PS3 version of RDR is in Sub-HD, and it's somehow fine that it is, when it's unacceptable that a 360 game runs below 720p, and yet, you wouldn't be able to even recognize this if it weren't for an analysis that someone posts on the internet.

Basically, this article is a textbook case of a double-standard.

[Dude420]

The Halo: Reach beta's native res. is at 1152x720, that's pretty damn close to being full 720p

1152x720 = 829440
1280x720 = 921600

lol, it's not that far off.

[IcarusOne]

Maybe the reason why Sony fanboys are so harsh on the 360's subHD resolutions is because they really want to see the xbox do well. Most people who own a 360 are perfectly content with how its games look. But secretly, people who claim to hate the 360 only hate it because they think it can do so much better.

Of course, I'm just being sarcastic.

[Aquanox]

If it's decorated with inferior framerate, textures, quinqux AA (blur) and draw distance among others, then yeah it DOES matter.

[Sarcasm]

It matters to 360 people that RDR is Sub-HD on the PS3 and laughs at them! Then they go and play Alan Wake, Halo 3, FFXIII 360, Splinter Cell Conviction and say Sub-HD doesn't matter, it's about the gameplay!

:)

[kevnb]

but framerate issues like rdr has on ps3 take you right out of the game at times. Havent played it on 360, so I wont comment on that version.

[Biggest]

I have not experienced one frame rate problem in RDR on the PS3. There are many other problems for me, but frame rate is not one of them.

[Inside_out]

Resolution in the hands of the right developer doesn't matter...Their is bigger problems with the port other than the resolution....

What's sad to me is Playstation magazine giving the game 10/10 based on all those problems...That was disgusting...RDR may be a good game but far from perfect never mind the TERIBLE port...half the draw distance...huge drops in FPS as low as 10 in some places...PS2 type textures...many sites running comparisons...there is no denying it...it's pretty bad....

Resolution and FPS are technical aspects of game design. The developer has to weigh all his options at the begging of the project on a huge host of variables...platform, type of game( FPS vs TPS, open vs closed world...etc )and art style...Then decide what looks best....Rockstar are pro's...The cell processor was not up to the task to render a huge game like RDR...

PS3 games are 80% cut scenes for a reason...Except HR which is ALL cut scenes....I hope Agent isn't 540p...just saying....

BTW...AW is STUNNING to look at...every review points it out...GREAT game....540p 4xAA...

[OpenGL]

If Microsoft hadn't dropped the requirement, Alan Wake would not be nearly as impressive as it is. The reason Alan Wake is only 960x540 is to fit the entire frame buffer within the 10MB of eDRAM, completely eliminating the need for tiling. In the 360's case, this gives you 2x the vertex performance possible at 720p with 2xAA, and leaves you with 100% of the Xenos' fill rate to be used elsewhere.

Hopefully this game gets ported to the PC soon so we can see the game in higher resolutions. As it currently stands though, Alan Wake is a damn impressive game regardless of the resolution. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't played it yet.

[TROLL EATER]

according to ps3 fans lool.

[vhero]

I always said it wasn't important as long as the game looked good stop with the attention seeking cry baby act alpha-male22 as nobody cares about you and your fanboy rants. I agree there were a few ps3 fanboys slating 360 for those games being sub HD but there's always gonna be people being like that supporting any console. You don't have to be a douche about it and come out here like you been victimized or something. The fact is though MS had to drop 720p requirement to keep up with PS3 and to deny this would be silly. Halo 3 wouldn't have been possible at 720p native otherwise Bungie would have done it as lets be fair they are some of the best devs about and it they can't do Halo 3 at 720p nobody can.

[OpenGL]

Alan Wake wouldn't have been possible on the PS3, even at 960x540. The only reason it worked on the 360 comes from the fact that they fit the entire frame buffer within the 10MB of eDRAM which leaves you with 100% of the GPU's theoretical vertex performance, and leaves your fill rate completely free to be used elsewhere. Alan Wake uses A TON of transparencies, and had the resolution been higher this game wouldn't have been possible on ANY console.

On the flip side though, Uncharted 2 wouldn't have been possible on the 360, as the GPU's vertex performance, and pixel fill rate both take a hit when you have to use 2 or more tiles.

[pansenbaer]

If you can make the game look good, it really doesn't matter. Call of Duty looks great for not being 720p. Not that I care (the game is still hella fun), but Red Dead Redemption looks good on PS3, but not breathtaking.

[vhero]

To be fair it doesn't look breathtaking on 360 in fact you cannot tell the difference between the 2 versions without looking really hard. If it wasn't for actual technology looking at the resolutions you wouldn't even know it was a lower resolution so the whole argument is pointless.

[rafael05]

Yeah Blaze,i agree,its unacceptable.I bought a HD plasma to take advantage of the screens resolution,otherwise i could just have sticked to good old sd tv.

[lh_swe]

So to me it does matter to some extent, it'll always be in the back of my mind that the one version I didn't pick looks better, luckily I picked the 360 version.

[SKCShifty]

Yes to Sony fanboy's yes it does matter just take a look at Alan Wake thread. Even though the game isn't on ps3 they sure had alot to say about sub-HD.

[lh_swe]

There are more beatiful games out there of course but it's not like that should take away from the greatness of this game even in term of graphics.

[vhero]

@SKCShifty - You need to leave here and go back to wherever you crawled out from.

[CobraKai]

I can tell when a game is sub-HD and it's always disappointing to see a sub-HD game on supposedly HD consoles. While there are games that look great despite sub-HD resolutions, I just end thinking about how much better they would look in True-HD.

[Zerodin]

HD console owners are pixel counters.

[ELite_Ghost]

last time I checked, Wii was for casual ppl and ps3/360 for hardcore gamers...
We might count the pixels... Cause this so called "next-gen" give us udreds sub-hd games which is totally unacceptable

[SpinalRemains138]

Im kinda with you on this one. Although I couldnt see a difference on the HD videos yesterday, I truly believe that no game should be "sub HD" this gen. We all have great hardware. The devs should really make their games shine without cutting corners. But that would be a perfect world I suppose.

[kevnb]

360/ps3 is for the average joe gamer.

[lh_swe]

For example one of my favourite games this gen is Fallout 3 and I think that game is downright ugly same goes for Dragon Age but when there is an alternate version which is clearly superior and for me I'll always have it in the back of my mind if I happen to know there is a better version out there that I didn't pick.

[kevnb]

the console versions are crap, saved only by the awesome content thats still there despite the the games being the crappy versions.

[Sarcasm]

Yeah Wii Owners sure are! Wii Fit and Just Dance are definitely Gamer's Games!

[The Iron Sheik]

Sub HD matters only when it is on the PS3 apparently.

When a 360 exclusive or the 360 version of FF13 is sub HD people say they don't care.

Then those same people bash a PS3 multiplat that is sub hd. Funny how that happens.

[AliTheBrit19]

Who bashes it?

Most people are simply saying opt for the Xbox 360 version of Red Dead Redemption because it is superior

The same way people (rightfully) said opt for the PS3 version of Final Fantasy 13 because it was superior

I dont see the problem.

[Another One]

And Alan Wake sucks because it's sub-HD, but RDR on PS3 is fine although it's sub-HD.

Yeah, it is funny how that happens.

[Ju]

It matters because we can compare it. But it annoys me, that nothing like this went down when AW released. But in all fairness, there was never a 720p AW to compare against to begin with. So, yes, RDR is an easy target, and well, it riles up the PS3 fans again. Always good for one or the other hit.

[mookins]

Yep. Very true.

[IcarusOne]

It seems the people who really care about HD are the PS3 camp because - hey, look at their exclusives. They're all HD so the fanboys feel like this entitles them to bragging rites. Most 360 gamers are fine with subHD because - hey, most or their games run at subHD.

It's less about the 360 boys saying subHD is bad and more about taunting the PS3 crowd. If the consoles were reversed, 360 gamers would probably be obsessed with HD and PS3 gamers would claim that it's all about gameplay.

Is everyone so blind they don't see this?

[reintype]

We're in the frickin HD era for cryin' out loud. So, there should be no excuse for Sub-HD games.

If a Sub-HD game is released for the PS3 and 360, it should retail for $50 or less.

[Elven6]

With that logic I could take Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, set the framebuffer to 1080p and sell it for $80 since it has more pixels than standard HD (720P).

[Swoon]

Doesn't matter to me. Just as long as I can see what's going on then it's all good.

[Ri0tSquad]

Some games make up for it in other departments while it's obvious that others do it to take short cuts instead of optimizing the game for the system.

[tplarkin7]

Framerate and resolution are fundamental requirements of the eye.

An extreme example is when I played PSO on Dreamcast. I used a VGA monitor which doubled the resolution. Other players would complain about eye fatigue since they were playing on blurry TVs.

Also, it is known that the eye can't detect a frequenzy of 72hz or higher.

So the higher the resolution and the higher the frame rate, the better.

[The real killer]

My opinion, yes it does matter becouse of the 1080p resolution TV 3D what i own.
Alan Wake give much blurry pixels on my TV screen, good game with bad resolution.

[tatotiburon]

it matter if it's a xbox 360 exclusive but if it's a PS3 exclusive or version it doesn't matter

[Captain Tuttle]

I'll take a rock solid framerate over "HD" anyday. And before anyone says it, yes, I know that you can have both with a PC.

[KidMakeshift]

This site has turned into propaganda bullsh!t.

99.9% of the links and comments here are just fanboys trying to spin something in their favor.

Ex. PS3 Fanboy: Red Dead Redemption on the PS3 is superior graphically in everyway.
Reality: The PS3 version of Red Dead Redemption is sub-HD just like GTA4.
PS3 Fanboy Response 1: Who needs HD resolution. PS3 for the win!!
Response 2: This site is bias. The writer is a 360 fanboy.

Ex. 360 Fanboy: Alan Wake is going to make Uncharted 2 look like sh!t.
Reality: Alan Wake is sub-HD and lacks detail.
360 Fanboy Response 1: Who needs HD resolution. 360 for the win!!
Response 2: This site is bias. The writer is a PS3 fanboy.

[The_Zeitgeist]

I totally agree with this article. I just bought Red Dead for PS3 yesterday. And I have to say that I am not really noticing the sub HD graphics. All I am noticing is glitches. Pop up here and there, horse and buggies dissapeering like the Manhattan Project and the same buggy controls that all GTA games have had. But I still love every minute. The writing is amazing, the missions so far are fun and varied and overall the game looks beautiful. But I'd say as far as score goes it does not deserve all the perfect 10's its been getting. I'd say 8.9 tops due to all the minor glitches. They are not big but they take away immersion and overall some game play mechanics could have been crafted better.

[kneon]

You may find you'll be revising your score down as you progress in the game. There are far more glitches to come. And some actually affect the game beyond just how it looks, though there are plenty of those. Like the guy that I just saved from wolves running straight into my horse and dieing without me doing anything. I ended up being chased by marshalls and I shot 3 of them before getting away.

This game just has a ridiculous number of glitches. So far I've not heard of too many that affect the online play but it won't surprise me if this game surpasses the glitch fest that is MW2.

[Official General]

I challenge anyone on here to show me an official statement or quote from Rockstar Games that states that the PS3 version of Red Dead Redemption is sub-hd at 640p. If you can show me this, then you've won the debate and I'll accept the fact that it is, you have my word. If no one can do this, then I'm sorry I cannot and will not believe these rumors or claims. And no I dont care about the counting-pixel, NeoGaf geeks that most people have never heard of. I wanna hear and see concrete evidence of the kind I stated above. Please do not give me the excuse, "Game devs wont say come out and say things like that". Remedy did, so why cant Rockstar? Rather than disagree with me, show and prove and you've won my respect for your argument.

I was really interested in this game and therefore I read the reviews and research this game in thorough detail. Not one of the major gaming sites said a bad thing about the PS3 version and not one of them said it was inferior. Maybe one or two smaller, lesser-known ones (that I think are biased), but none of the major ones. I find that very strange indeed. I was myself quite concerened, but after playing it on my PS3, I was so relieved. I just cant see this so-called bad version people are talking about.

I'm playing the PS3 version right now and those screen comparison shots showing the PS3 version to look bad and blurry is pure BS. It looks nothing like that on my on 20' Sony Bravia HDTV at all. I'm not gonna say which version looks better, as thats a matter of subjective opinion. I'm sure the 360 looks very good aswell. But I do know for sure that PS3 version is just fine, the graphics are sharp and clear - they are not blurry at all. It's not the best I've seen on the PS3 but it does looks amazing and spectacular in many parts. There are some very minor hiccups with the framerate and pop-up, but thats about it, nothing that you will really notice. It also plays great too. It says 720p on the back of the box, and it looks like that to me. I'm just saying what I've seen as I own the PS3 version and thats the honest truth. No fanboy talk and thats real.

@ The Zeitgeist - I have the exact same experience as you man.

[qwertyuiopasdfghjkl]

The evidence from the beyond3D is concrete.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/s...

No more bubbles, might as well explain myself... I hate the blind eye on this subject.

Its THERE people! Developers take shortcuts. Thats that! I love my 2 PS3's, I hate MS with a passion, but seeing multi-billion dollar teams cutting corners like this is disheartening.

[The real killer]

The link provide no evidence.

[The_Zeitgeist]

There is so much more to it than just saying they are cutting corners. There are different aspects to consider. There are literally hundreds of scenarios that could have happened during the development to cause Rockstar to drop the resolution slightly.

[Official General]

Give me a link to an official statement from Rockstar that says the PS3 version of Red Dead is sub-HD at 640p. If you can find it, I have no argument, I've lost. Without it - well, I'm still not believing anything else and I dont care what anyone says. I've just said in my earlier post already I'm not gonna believe those nobodies on NeoGaf, I wanna hear it from the horse's mouth, the people who actually made the game. I'm sure they would know best. Because as far as I can see, the PS3 version looks brilliant, minus a few very minor bugs - I would'nt lie about this, I'd only be fooling myself and no one else.

EDIT: OK guys, you wanna slate me. But look at it from my view. I have not seen any bad review or report of the PS3 version from any major online gaming website. I've now seen the PS3 version with won eyes and honestly it looks amazing like I've already said. The only thing left that can still prove me are wrong are these sub-HD rumours being true. And yet, I still have not seen an official statement from Rockstar saying it's sub-HD, 640p. Thats only thing left that I can believe if I see it and you guys cannot provide that kind of evidence for me. What do you expect me to believe? What do you expect me to say? Come on, be reasonable! It's not my fault you guys cannot provide concrete evidence. Don't blame me man.

[SpinalRemains138]

How does the above get disagrees?

Whoever disagreed with the above statement (Silent Shark's)is indeed a mindless, settling for mediocrity, drooling retard.

[theonlylolking]

Rockstar I dont think said that it was in Sub HD but people bought the game and found it out.

[IHateYouFanboys]

Rockstar have never come out and said that Red Dead Redemption IS natively 720p on the PS3, have they? just because they havent confirmed that it is 640p it doesnt mean that it isnt.

pixel counting is not 'guessing', its an exact measurement.

it doesnt matter what it says on the back of the box - or do you believe that every single 360 game is native 1080p? cause they all say 1080p on the back of the box.

[kneon]

I've been playing the PS3 version on my 46" and I've also seen the Xbox version on a 46" and the Xbox version does look better. It's a bit crisper but also there are less aliasing issues.

Still it looks ok, but it's not graphically amazing on either system.

[NeutralGamer]

SO Final Fantasy 13 Xbox 360 was HD until we got the real evidence? What about Splinter Cell? LOL! You're blind Official General and can't seem to admit that its sub-hd -.-

Its okay dude... Sub HD doesent mean its a shit game....

BTW 720p on the back of the box just means it supports upscaling... Not the native...

[cjg23]

Not all displays are created equal. Buy a good brand tv and you will be fine,don't be a cheap bastard.

[The_Zeitgeist]

I bought a Sayno 32 inch 720p a year ago for 500 and have had no problems and I love the picture. The color's are bright the sound is good. Cheap can be good. Don't listen to cjg23.

[qwertyuiopasdfghjkl]

For soft, sub HD... Full-HD is awesome. It removes jaggies, and has ingredients to resolution-ize. WOW...

Seriously, anyone who's played COD4 and up on something other than a console KNOWS the difference. As a realist. I put 2 and 2 together... If developers behind 1st party PS3 and 360 titles can pull off ATLEAST 1280x720... Why is the multi-billion dollar Infinity Ward team releasing Modern Warfare 2 at 1024x600...

That means your seeing only 66% of the detail that COULD be seen.

Just to put it into perspective... the jump from 1080p to 720p is about a 44% loss in detail.

[theonlylolking]

Heck yes it matters. Just compare a 1080p game like killzone 2 and a sub-HD game on PS3 like Red Dead Redemtion.

[qwertyuiopasdfghjkl]

Its 1280x720p w/ QAA in normal 720p output

when set to 1080p output "only" in the PS3 output settings, it changes to a weird anamorphic resolution BELOW 1280x720p

@Below: Seriously dude... what else do you believe, its 1080p AND 60fps? You sir are wrong, and redoubtably gullible.

[theonlylolking]

Wrong GG already said the game native is 1080p.

[waterboy]

cant think of any others on any other platforms like that

[waterboy]

me and gave me extra dissagrees, oh well i know im right any way

[kneon]

First off I love KZ2, but it is not in 1080p. It says right on the box, 720p and 1080i. If it supported 1080p don't you think it would say so on the box?

[IHateYouFanboys]

i couldnt give 2 $hits what resolution a game is in.

i grew up playing the atari, commodore 64, DOS games, etc.........so you wont find me whinging about a game being less than 720p when i had the time of my life playing monochrome games in like 300x200 resolution.

the only people that resolution matters to are the people who want to find a reason to bag out the game and the console that the game is on. thats it, noone else. for all the PS3 fanboys that want reasons to make fun of the PS3 and to say its rubbish, alan wake being found to be 540p was like all their christmas' had come at once. this was *obviously* proof that the 360 was less powerful than the PS3.

then the fact that Red Dead Redemption is less than 720p for the PS3 comes along, and all of a sudden its the 360 fanboys turn to cry 'the PS3 isnt powerful enough'.

the difference between the 2 cases - and let me stress the fact that NEITHER console is noticably more/less powerful than the other - is that alan wake being in sub-hd doesnt really hold much weight for PS3 fanboys because even though its in 540p, thats 540p more than it is in on the PS3. can they know for sure that if alan wake was on the PS3 it would be in 720p? no.

red dead on the other hand, well its in 720p on the 360 and its not on the PS3, so even though its stupid to argue, the argument that the 360 is therefore more powerful than the PS3 at least has a somewhat small leg to stand on. the games on both consoles, and it obviously looks better on the 360.

quite frankly, as long as a game is FUN i dont care what resolution its in, what anti-aliasing it has, how many polygons in its main characters, or how many dynamic light sources there are making shadows. i play games because i love playing games, not so i can brag about how much better a game is than another. i buy every console that comes out just so if theres a game i want to play, i can play it - and the game that ive probably sunk the most hours into this generation, with all the whiz bang graphics and resolutions out there, is Geometry Wars Retro Evolved on XBLA. why? because its fun.

the only people that care about resolutions are fanboys.

[Chug]

Only if you're on N4G.

[Dsnyder]

This^

[washingmachine]

well if it doesnt then you better change the hd logo on the back of the game lol

[Thudd]

It only matters if it's the 360 version. If it's the PS3 sub-hd is just fine.

[Silly gameAr]

You guys are still crying about this crap, huh? Hope you don't cry yourselves to sleep at night over fanboys because they seems to be on your minds 24/7.

It's really unhealthy.

[sandip787]

but it seems sub hd games matter for one console and not the other. Which is of course stupid. Alan Wake was ridiculed for being 'sub HD', but now RDR has turned out to be the same for PS3. Dont get me wrong im a PS fan, but id feel embarrassed if i was one of those making such a big deal out of it

[iamnsuperman]

the game is plagued with glitches. The Sub HD the game ran at I didnt notice very much but the glitches sooooooooo many

[Dsnyder]

This game is pretty much identical on both systems. This whole graphics war is pretty pointless because ps3 and 360 have similar enought hardware that you dont see a huge difference between muliplat games. Its not like how it was last gen where every Xbox game looked better than a ps2 game and im not going to go out of my way to count pixels and compare minimal color pallet differences to say which version is the winner. Get it on either console and you will be happy.

[George Sears]

For me, not really but taking Red Dead Redemption to account I do dislike shoddy ports all together. The PS3 version isn't bad at all but miniscule things like lesser grass (details) compared to the 360 does affect me personally.

[Demonxx]

why this issue has came to the roof suddenly ? is that because the version of RDR on PS3 sub-HD !! why there is no one spoke on HALO series sub-HD on X360 , much much hate for success of PS3 720p EXCLUSIVE games.

[Stempel]

lol, xbots are butthurt bewcuzx their game isnt complete

[Jack Klugman]

isn't complete? you mean like not complete resolution? like yet another inferior mulitplatform like Red Dead Redemption on the PS3?

LMAO yeah isnt complete..

ps3 bronzers suddenly want to dismiss sub-hd after thrashing AW..and will be right back at it the next sub-hd game. i guess you could always follow the delusional bunch in here pretending there is hardly any difference at all between the 2 versions.

now lemme get back to my superior red dead on the 360.

[Eamon]

It matters to fanboys.

[MR LOOKINGBILL]

i totally agree.

[Eamon]

But 3 people don't =)

[Allowen]

Sub hd matters but it is not a huge downgrade since the normal game is 720p and it went to 644p .

What was funny is that xbox360 fanboys and 99% of the reviews did not mention any thing about Final Fantasy XIII on the Xbox VS Ps3.
THAT was a huge difference 540p/540 VS 720p/ 1080p.

[jack who]

they didnt mention but the fanboys did...just like they didnt mention about GTA4 on the ps3 been sub hd

[Demons Souls]

Not for a sandbox game. Maybe to adventure games or RPGs that try to be a graphical showcase. Still, the PS3 version of RDR is more HD than Alan Wake and Alan Wake is an exclusive. That's pretty sad especially seeing as how it was hyped up (but I guess that's before it became exclusive, got gimped, and had sandbox elements removed from it).

[NeutralGamer]

LOL now ur trying to downplay AW because you got a Sub-HD game?
Come On we are all gamers man... Resolution doesent matter...

Oh and RDR have a far inferior framerate than AW... Dont use the "Open World" argument...

What about Just Cause? It is as Open World as it gets and looks 100 times better than RDR both on 360 AND Ps3!

[iliimaster]

i got a 52 inch samsung LCD 120Hrtz Refreshrate* thats what counts boys 1080p TV and this game looks beautiful on it... imagine if they went non sub HD?? how many discs xbox would have been? keep in mind this TV has seen Killzone 2, Resistance 2, Uncharted 1 and 2, sub hd or not this game looks and plays good so it does not matter it only matters to XBOYS because they have NO GAMES coming out for awhile and they need to grab at anything to try and stay busy whats after halo reach and all the DLC they plan on rolling out? and after gears of war 3 comes out with all their planned DLC aswell? I see nothing i see people paying good money to play the same old games online over and over and over again...

[jack who]

when ff whatever was sub hd on 360 the internet imploded now that its ps3 with the sub hd it doesnt matter uh?

[Pootangpie]

remember not all tv's support the so called resoultion same with PC monitors a game can still look like **** running in 1080P or 2054x1540 and still look like **** if all the settings quality are on the lowest same applys to consoles take out some nice shaders or lighting and what not and you still have a shitty looking game MGS4 is a good example runs at 1080P looks like ****

[XactGamer]

No the game matters, but it is funny watching people being hypocrites changing their tune from game to game.

[Darkfiber]

Um, no, it doesn't matter. It has absolutely no affect on the gameplay or story whatsoever. If you are a stupid ignorant elitist who refuses to play a game because it's "sub-HD" then it's your own problem. No one is losing out but you. Get over yourself.

The game is fine, and the textures are good enough that you don't even notice. I doubt anyone would have noticed or cared if no one brought it up in the first place. Millions of people would be playing it without even realizing it. The second someone complains, suddenly everyone is saying it's unacceptable when they wouldn't have even noticed or cared if they didn't know in the first place. Ignorance is bliss, so stop reading every single stupid bit of "news" posted on N4G and you'll probably get more enjoyment out of your games.

[P_Bomb]

I've been playing sub-HD games for almost 20 years! Hmph, kids these days. :p

[NeutralGamer]

I totally agree... Kids these days....

Want everything in HD, Blue Ray, and 720p here and 1080p there...

Back in my days we watched VHS Casettes!

[Rageanitus]

when you have an HD-tv it just does not look sharp when the game is some obscure resolution below 720p...

Having said that I find that xbox fanboys tend to be much less critical when a game on their system is sub hd... yet bash the ps3 games for having sub hd...

Sorry to say this but if a game is sub hd it is quite unacceptable we need games this gen to be at least 720p

[mcgrawgamer]

"Having said that I find that xbox fanboys tend to be much less critical when a game on their system is sub hd... yet bash the ps3 games for having sub hd..."

Now you and I both know as does everyone else. That statement goes both ways no if, and or but about it. What I've always found funny is how 720p is the defacto standard for HD. I mean just a few short years ago people most people were gaming in 480i. Think about it people. Most games less than 10 years ago were being played in 480i / Sub HD on consoles. And they looked good. I've seen Alan Wake the game looks damn good. I've seen RDR on the ps3. The game looks damn good. This generation; this argument has been about nothing but "mine is bigger/better than yours" and for what? Maybe I'm wrong but I remember when games looked like this:

.|.

[Rageanitus]

there are so many tv's out there that are not being taken advantage of even the simplest of all hd resolutions 720p/1080i.

Lets see... cable tv can only do 1080i.

and console games are having a very hard time even getting most of their games at 720p.... Seems like PC games are the only ones that can really take advantage of the 1080p tv's out there and blu-ray movies... its kindov sad that both sony and ms front made it seem like most of their future games are going to use true hd resolutions.

If it truly did not matter then why would games advertise the resolution on the back of the box... .cuz its information that consumers want .

[blakstarz]

hmmm...should it matter? Yes and No....No because the games that are made like this are/is passable enough to look good, but is passing just enough? That's like saying you planed on doing a A+ job, but you will settle for a C+ or B- job.
Yes because if you are not going to take full advantage of the console (whether it be 360 or PS3) then why bother at all? People are not paying all this money on HDTV's for nothing. Either make "next-gen" game or don't....stuff like this make you wonder are some devs really ready for "next-gen" Hi-Def gaming demands. Or they don't have the resources or skill to make a game run at a certain level, or just dumb down the graphics on the next console to cut corners and save time.....I dunno, who's to say. But this question can go either way...but in the long run who is really getting the short end of the stick? The consumer?

[tunaks1]

play the Fing game and stfu,
news flash everyone hardly any of your games run at 1080p if your playing on a console
why are gamers so Fup this gen?

[gamingisnotacrime]

is the reason for buying a pricey TV, HDMI upgrade in later 360 skus, the rise in cost for game development is blamed to HD upgrade, PS3 touts as a high definition console, 360 used to have a 720p requirement, games like Uncharted 2 and GoW3 blow us away.
DONT COME HERE AND SAY RESOLUTION IS INSIGNIFICANT!!!!
Is the main reason we have this HD Gen right now, it has been the selling point since the very begining. Play a sub hd game on a 46in TV or bigger and then tell me it does not matter, IT MATTERS, and a lot!
Just because MS decided to start launching sub hd games and developers like SE are forced to lower the resoluton for the 360 does not mean now HD is a thing of the past. It will be the gamers who lose when developers start back pedaling instead of pushing forward. Resolution does not make or break a game, but it matters big time

Edit
true, component is capable of HD resolution, but it is a known fact that HDMI provides a better image than component. As HDMI being the standard connection these days,i think a tv is must likely to have component connection than HDMI, but both are easily found in lots of tvs

[IHateYouFanboys]

HD is not the reason for the HDMI update to the 360. i was playing my launch 360 in 1080p (well if i wanted to, although i ran it in 720p) via Component long before HDMI was on 360s.

HDMI was added because thats the standard connection these days - no other reason.

[ikral]

Shadow of the Colossuss really had bad framerate. I enjoyed it anyway.

[XDF]

Guess what, I am playing the GOTY, and it is only 480P. Hint, it is not on PS3 or X360.

Sure graphics is cool and I will get the best port like FF13 and RDR for the platform it was made for. But Ratchet and Banjo has nothing on Mario Galaxy 2 even though they look better and has higher resolution.

Of course this is N4G so it is all KZ3, KZ3, KZ3 and its graphics supremacy until it releases next year. Facepalm.

[Colonel-Killzone]

Your whole post is a opinion nothing is a fact in that statement.

[Colonel-Killzone]

SubHd only matters for the sake of trolling each other. It matters simply because of how it look on my tv got a 45 inch which is big enough for me to see the difference and the issues. Plus I wear glasses so I will def see it clearly.

[LiquifiedArt]

Yes it matters. I'm a sony diehard, but ofcourse it matters. Who doesn't want a more crisp viewing experience?

[Amiroo]

if it comes to FF XIII it matters but in Red dead it dosen't matters ?

[hi2]

ratchet and clank is sub-hd?people hyping out its 'pixar quality' graphics at about 600p,tch-tch

[The_Extractor]

It won't matter enough to stop me from buying it, but I'll be in no rush. Demon's Souls comes out in the UK soon! So I gotta prioritize. :)

[xg-ei8ht]

agree and disagree with most comments tbh.

It's a tough one.

Of course people with HD sets want at the least 720p. that is understandable.

Does it make the game more fun, no. Does it f-up the game. No.

I also understand where you coming from lowcarb.

Size of map etc, draw distance - textures.

I don't think they culled enough before sending to RSX. Maybe i'm wrong.

But look at RDR Properly, Character wise, not exactly great looking are they when compared to UC2 etc.

Other then hills and foliage, it's baron at times and not really drawing much at all. Other places have alot more going on.

Fact of the matter is this. plain and simple.

The RDR engine was written in 2005 by a small team and is a multiplat engine.

And as everyone knows, you have to put in the time for the PS3 engine.

Nobody knows how fast the physics engine, bullet runs on 360 or PS3.

Like now, Havok runs very fast on PS3, but at first it did not.

[HurtfulTimez]

yes it does i want sharp clear images not blurry jagged images - simple enough

[Kahvipannu]

I remember the drum Sony kept pounding before PS3.

On topic;
Seriously, no-one would care if there wasn't these pixel counting comparisons, so no, it doesn't matter. As long as the game is good, and looks good.

[MeatAbstract]

I'm playing RDR on my PS3 and Alan Wake on my 360 and I really don't see what the big deal is. Doesn't take anything away from the game and they both look great to me.

[ian72]

All games nowadays should be minimum 720p. But I don't mind if its a little less as long as the game looks good. I realise developers have to give and take to get the best out of their games.
RDR is a good game and looks quite nice, but IMO Just Cause 2 looks better graphically. RDR has better physics though.
I'm not knocking RDR as a game (so far it is brilliant), the graphics though should have been better, that and the few bugs are the only things wrong with the game. I have the PS3 version.

[Rowsdower]

that may help some of learn more about yourselves:

http://www.tuckerhiggins.co...

[tenacious_b]

I don't know what all of you are complaining about. I'm playing RDR on a 57" 1080p TV along with games like Uncharted, GoW3 and FF13. Honestly, I think RDR looks really damn good, sure it's not quite as good as those games but If I can look at it without comparing and know that it's a damn fine looking game then I'm not going to complain. It's light years better than GTA4's blurry mess of a game. It's a much better game overall as well. My faith in Rockstar has been restored. The only valid complain I have with the game is that I've been having some frequent freezing issues. It could just be my ps3 though but other games don't freeze that much. Regardless, It's a great looking game and while you little teenagers are nitpicking at the smallest details, I remember a time when games were based on quality, not graphics, so stop with your douchebaggery and go play.

[mittwaffen]

Half the people in here bitch about low res, and now say it doesnt matter?

Resolution matters alot; I like to see everything I look at in the distance with 0 jaggies on PC. Consoles, not as much since 720 or under is still low resolution to me im use to it.

[devilhunterx]

How come major XB2 exclusives are sub-HD?

[Rowsdower]

finally someone with the balls to speak the truth. How come they are sub-HD, no major game on the PS3 is sub-HD. Oh wait thats wrong, how about:

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriot = 1024x768 (2xAA, temporal)

You know something I dont care about this issue at all. I game on both the PS3 and 360, and I realy enjoy what both offer.

Its mindless repetitive statements like yours that clog N4G and hold it back from being a great place to discuss gaming.

So why does sub-HD matter?

It matters because without it people like you would have nothing to talk about.

[McPoopin]

Give this guy a good shock treatment; I think its the only cure for his stupidity.

And remove his balls so he cant reproduce.

[MysticStrummer]

If it happens to the person's preferred console, then it doesn't matter so much. 360 fans can look in the mirror on this subject just like PS3 fans can. To me, any multi-plat that looks slightly worse on the PS3 is not that surprising at this point. It doesn't mean the 360 is better. It means that there is no incentive for 3rd party developers to push the PS3's visuals past the 360's. Third place out of three has that effect. The internet is an odd place anyway. I played the PS3 version of GTA4 and thought it looked amazing. A friend who at the time had a 360 came over, saw me playing, and went on about how much better my version looked. Now I read that the PS3 GTA4 was inferior. Who knew that actually LOOKING at a game in motion was not a good way to judge it's looks? Clearly it's better to count pixels than to look at the whole picture. It's about the game, people.

[mittwaffen]

dont be a douche bag fanboy.

[ManiacMansion]

MGS4 is also sub HD but does anybody cared? no

But if a 360 game is in sub HD that the 360 is "last-gen, DVD9 and so on"

PS3 fanboys are getting me tired.

If GT5 will also look better on the 360 THEN PS3 fanboys will also say that the game got gimped because of 360 HARDWARE, LOL.

Gta4 was also sub HD + 25 FPS on the pS3 but the fanboys said that the 360 hardware gimped their version down, lol.

[yewles1]

"MGS4 is also sub HD but does anybody cared? no"

Hold it right there. Considering that MGS4 is VGA/XGA resolution with constant installing of chapters, it's pretty much a fact that it's quite a technological mess compared to U2 and GoW3.

[AngryTypingGuy]

I can't wait for the day when all systems are powerful enough to let the graphics look exactly how the creator imagines them, which in most cases will look like real life. Then and only then will the focus get back to game play and storytelling, what games should be about. No more obsessing over whether a game's resolution is in native HD or upscaled to HD.

[Jason143]

I like pancakes. Who writes this shit? I want monster hunter news not toilet paper.

[Tzuno]

Does sub-HD resolution matter? Says a PS3 fanboy just to be in peace with PS3 version of RDR but the truth is that "HELL YEAH" it matter AND on Xbox 360 looks better than PS3 Period Mwuahahahahhhhhh.

[fullmetal297]

This article says a lower resolution gives developers the opportunity to add post-processing effects and sharper textures but this isn't the case with RDR. The game sacrifices resolution for lower performance. The PS3 version of RDR has blurry textures and unstable framerate that dips to 20 at times all while in 640p.

The PS3 version could look on par with the 360 if Rockstar took the time and effort to optimize the engine for the PS3. The game obviously runs on just the RSX and the PPE core. Migrate some of workload from the GPU to one the SPEs.

[jalen247]

Sub HD matters. Anyone that says different is making excuses.

Developers can work magic on the inferior sub HD versions but they can also work magic on the HD versions.

The PS3 and 360 are supposed to be HD consoles...right.../s