Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

47 comments

  • FriendlyFire - July 20, 2010 3:26 p.m.

    The comparison is a little skewed because there aren't just two factors. Do I want 1080p? Yes. Do I prefer 1080p if it means the game must seriously cut down on other parts of the equation? No. The best example I can give is Wipeout HD. A lavishly beautiful game, rendered in full 1080p at 60 frames a second. The resolution combined with the framerate make for a really crisp and fluid experience, but in the hypothetical case that 1080p would've required blurrier textures, I would have gladly taken 720p. The point is that if you can have 1080p without sacrificing on the rest of the graphics, then obviously take 1080p, but if the cost is too high I'd rather have a smaller resolution. Uncharted 2's amazing textures, models and details more than made up for its lower resolution. Post-processing filters also often help diminishing the impact of a lower resolution. 3D obviously requires more rendering power and thus it is normal that it will need to cut somewhere; resolution is the easiest way around that. Plus, the simple addition of 3D throws all benchmarks off because 3D can't be directly compared to 2D. At the same time, those who call 1080p and 720p marketing terms don't know what they're talking about. Blu-ray movies are insanely crisper in 1080p than in 720p, any good 1080p TV will show that. And no, 1080i is not equivalent. By interlacing the images, you get the impression of a higher resolution at the cost of a lower precision and crispness, but it still is around 720p level or less in some instances. The effect of 1080i is also very dependent on your eyes' perception.
  • JADENkOTOR - July 20, 2010 3:08 p.m.

    @BigCNuggit: Yeah I definitely learned more from your comments than anything in the article, so thats nice. As far as the article goes I would like 3D but I will never realistically get 3D so bring on the high def bitches
  • kompressorlogik - July 20, 2010 2:56 p.m.

    First off, thanks to BigCNuggit for setting the comments straight on the definitions of interlaced and progressive scanning, and you're almost certainly correct about running 3D in 720 because doing so in 1080 would potentially crush the processing power. From my own experience, gaming on a decently sized TV from about 8 feet away, any game content in 720p still looks spectacular. Besides, given a certain screen size and viewing distance, the human eye can't resolve the difference between 720 and 1080 past a certain point. I just finished Dirt 2 and was plenty impressed with the visuals. That said, I did just start Final Fantasy XIII and the visuals there do look particularly stunning. However, knowing that something can look as good as FF doesn't detract from a slightly lesser graphical experience in 720. Lastly, @Gorillaman23: You said "Labels. That's all 1080p and 720p are." You could not be more wrong. 1080 and 720 aren't just labels. I and P aren't either. They are standards of visual presentation. I'm not going to bag on you because you enjoy your standard-def Nintendo gaming, but it's folly to pretend the Wii is anywhere near the capability of the PS3 or 360, and to try to knock the new standard (broadcast, gaming, etc.) for hi-def video because you think Wii graphics are good enough is preposterous. P.S. I would much rather have everything I play be in 1080p than in 3D.
  • flare149 - July 20, 2010 2:45 p.m.

    I like to have my system set at 1080p or 1080i because the menu looks amazingly clearer, but as long as the game is clearly HD and there aren't a bunch of jaggies it's not a big deal. It's different with a movie or something because it's not programmed to look slick at all levels, but developers have to make their games smooth on all systems so once it goes into HD for games it's pretty clear anyway. Gotta admit though, when a really big title comes out in 1080p it's awesome!
  • theemporer - July 20, 2010 12:55 p.m.

    I wouldn't say that 1080p is important, but after I got my HDTV, my wii is possibly the worst thing ever, so 720p is.
  • HotCyder - July 20, 2010 12:44 p.m.

    As long as it still looks good, then no problems here. Anyways, bigger numbers are always around the corner.
  • Cyberninja - July 20, 2010 12:08 p.m.

    i dont care about grapics i would play a nes game before i would play some crap game thats good looking
  • RandyTandy - July 20, 2010 12:05 p.m.

    Is Uncharted 2 really not in 1080p? It still looked so good anyway. I guess this means no, I don't care.
  • Gahmah - July 20, 2010 12:01 p.m.

    I think the depth will be much more noticed than higher res textures.
  • Gorillaman23 - July 20, 2010 11:44 a.m.

    Labels. That's all 1080p and 720p are. I'm mostly a Nintendo gamer, so I wouldn't so much about PS3 games, but some Wii games have amazing graphics even if they technically aren't in 1080p. It's just a label. It feels good to know that once 3D becomes standard PS3 fanboys can stop bragging about "OMG HI-DEF GRAPHICS LOLOL UR CONSOLE IS SHIT LOLOL".
  • Metroidhunter32 - July 20, 2010 11:37 a.m.

    As a wii owner, I really don't care.
  • CH3BURASHKA - July 20, 2010 11:37 a.m.

    Obviously, 1080p does not a great game make. I understand the appeal and such, but honestly, if you found the "lower resolution" in Uncharted 2 or God of War 3 you can go fuck thyself. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that those people can be classified as "resolution fanboys" (or something else clever) because they express all the aspects of a fanboy, except in an arena few people really care to battle in.
  • JohnnyMaverik - July 20, 2010 11:27 a.m.

    If it's 720p and it looks beautiful who can really argue with that. While I feel it's fair to expect pleasing graphics on third person shooters, FPS' and action adventure games, whether the developers achieve that at 720p or 1080p is fairly immaterial, since w/e works best for them will ultimately work best for us. If anything I think we should be extremely pleased graphical quality as seen in Uncharted 2, God Of War III and Heavy Rain, which are all fairly stunning looking games, can be done so at 720p, rather than being completely anal and demanding 1080p w/e the consequences. That'd put far too much strain on even the big developers, stifle the attention and polish they can put into other areas of the game, and for what? Minutely better looking textures at best.
  • jimsmells - July 20, 2010 11:13 a.m.

    Actually you can get a 3d tv for £860 off amazon. I only have a tv that supports 1080i so most of my games run in 720p and it doesn't bother me at all.
  • cj12297 - July 20, 2010 11:01 a.m.

    modern warfare 2 is 1080p
  • drewbian - July 20, 2010 10:33 a.m.

    my tv only runs 720p and when my mate plays 1080p on his tv i noticed a difference but it wasnt so bad as to make me wana die and throw away my 32inch. regardless of whather or not a game runs 1080p or not, no way in fuck am i ever buying a fuckin shitty 3D piece of shit game 3d can go eat ass and die its gona be the biggest waste of money ever gahhhhh, my recaptcha sums it up haha awesome. prospect annoyance
  • BigCNuggit - July 20, 2010 10:27 a.m.

    One last "lesson" lol, the only difference between "p" and "i" is the way the frames are displayed. A simplified explanation is that in order to conserve bandwidth, "i"nterlaced frames will render every other line of image, then pass back through and render the other half of every other lines. It does it fast enough that you can't tell unless compared directly to a source that is -> "p"rogressive frames will render the entire image as a whole on the first pass through. I'm sure there's more technicality to it but that's just the way I understand it so my head doesn't hurt. Essentially the number is the important part since it's the straight up resolution. The letters are just for representing how it's displayed. Sorry for going ballistic, but it was my area of knowledge being questioned :D Sorry everybody for going ballistic but
  • Craza - July 20, 2010 10:19 a.m.

    Doesn't make a difference to me. I don't have a TV that supports 1080p, just 1080i. I actually play most of my games on an old tube TV, and I'm still floored by the visuals in a lot of games.
  • BigCNuggit - July 20, 2010 10:18 a.m.

    3D tvs will be massively overpriced until they make back their R&D costs. They also have to run the games at 720p because the 3D technology will essentially be rendering every frame of gameplay twice so it will essentially take twice the power to run something in 3D as compared to something not in 3D. Doing this at 1080p would crush either console's framerate. Basically to get different (3D) graphics, you have to sacrifice standard (resolution) graphics. I would prefer going higher res for an insanely crisp image as compared to 3D, which is just awkward and more of a spectacle than anything to use for every viewing/gaming situation. Avatar is cool and all on an engulfing imax screen, but who really wants to sit there with glasses on in one position at home. Even if they get non glasses 3D tech on televisions, it'll still be wonky since you will either be looking "into" the tv like it's a box (weird) or have stuff float around the air in front of you (creepy). Why did I type all this? Oh ya, all nighter for work.... Also, I'm sure many 720p games might run anti-aliasing for jagged edge removal more so than 1080p games would in order to make the image comparable.
  • Tronto13 - July 20, 2010 10:07 a.m.

    @EdDeRs1 you dont have to be stupidly rich to buy a 1080p TV. You can get them now for around the £3-400 mark at 32inch size. which isnt bad. 3D like @banjokazoozie said is the real rip off with sets in the £2-3,000 mark.

Showing 21-40 of 47 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.