Indeed, the big shame will be that console gamers won't know what they're missing out on, power-wise. A few observations I've made after watching the trailer (at 720p resolution, of course) closely:
■It appears the 360 version doesn't do it at 1280x720, but upscales from something slightly lower. I notice a lot of "off-center pixels" along it, suggesting that it's upscaled & filtered. This is very common for top-shelf 360 titles (see my below in my response to stevo777)
■It appears that the AA might be cut down to 2x rather than 4x. Some 360 games have reduced AA, others don't. As with the resolution, over-heavy use of motion-blur and, of course, video artifacting can make it difficult to discern at times. It's only glaring in the intro part with the transport jet; the wing edges, and ESPECIALLY part of the vertical stabilizer (tail) have serious jaggies, that suggest possibly even no AA. (but of course, that was before the "all footage..." watermark started showing up, so it could just be the PS3 version)
■Polygon counts appear to more match Far Cry rather than Crysis. In fact, overall, the detail levels seem more comparable to the 2004 predecessor than anything, just with some more modern bump-mapping techniques thrown onto the rocks, plus HDR.
■As others have mentioned, there's a LOT of emphasis on the explosions... Which makes it hard to really determine a lot. It does make me wonder if they're trying to hide things. It's clear to a trained eye that this is no match for what a PC could do, it DOES look great for a console game. Also, comparing for PC hardware in 2006 isn't 100% fair, since the game ITSELF needed optimization, that first showed up in Warhead; and taking that into account, yes, this does look similar (though slightly better) than what one would expect from a 7600GT or so playing Warhead on comparable settings.
[citation][nom]stevo777[/nom]Yeah, but what is the max resolution of the ports. Obviously, 2560x1200 isn't feasible, so, there has to be a hit in that sense.[/citation]
Well, it's also an open question; the PS3 version will likely run 1280x720, the same as almost all major games. (only sports titles are natively 1080i/p) Part of that is that because its G71-based GPU can't do HDR+AA, it's not spending any resources on AA. (the only top-shelf exception was FF XIII, where they took AA, but ditched HDR)
Usually, the flip side is that the Xbox 360 version will have HDR+AA, but run at a sub-720p resolution as a result; IIRC the three Halo games so far (3, ODST, and Reach) all went at 1138x640, while things like Fallout 3 and New Vegas were a mere 1024x576.
[citation][nom]helmto108[/nom]You may be the only person who doesn't realise you have no idea what you're talking about. They've already made a "gaming" OS, it's called a console.[/citation]
More specifically, consoles have been using OSes since around the 6th Generation; while the GameCube and PS2, as I understand, still booted from a BIOS (as did earlier disc-based systems along with the N64) the Dreamcast and Xbox both uses Windows-derived OSes that were essentially stored as firmware. And for the current, 7th generation, all three major systems very distinctly have their OSes visible.
A truly "game program only" machine was only something seen back in the 4th generation, with the likes of the SNES and Genesis. Coincidentally, those were the last generation of consoles that could actually execute code directly off of the game media. (all later machines could only execute game programs loaded into the RAM) Later machines initialized the BIOS, which then brought in instructions to load game data from the disc. (or cart, in the N64's case)
[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]hey guys..just so you know..the YOUTUBE VIDEO is 720P. This does not mean the xbox isn't running it under 1080P.[/citation]
Because the video can clearly show pixels/jaggies at many points? (see my comment above about the plane shot) If anything, it suggests the 360 is running it at LESS than 720p, which is pretty common for "top-shelf" games like the FPS selection.
The only games that do 1080p on consoles are team-sports games like Madden, NBA, etc., because the "environment" of the game is so sparse and consistent enough, (the stadium suddenly isn't going to fall away to reveal something vastly-more detailed, versus a shooter where you could emerge from a tunnel to a big battlefield outside) that they know the framerate won't drop to a crawl.
It's a mistake to believe that just because the 360 SUPPORTS 1080p, it actually does even many of its games that way; that's the very sort of naiveté about assuming that consoles are "magical black boxes that always max out" that 11796pcs was alluding to. The consoles are, in fact, very limited. The Nintendo64 had full HDTV support for at LEAST 720p, yet to the best of my knowledge no 720p games for it were ever made. (and in fact, most didn't even really do 480p)
)
/www.videogamer.com/ps3/pes7/features/article/top_10_worst_ps3_ports.html
Facebook
Twitter