More pixel counting: Haze runs at 576p

by Andrew Yoon { May 19th 2008 at 12:00PM }

It appears that many games this generation aren't meeting the 1080p HD standard that Sony set on PS3. Heck, many games aren't meeting the standard 720p HD resolution, either. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV runs at 640p on PS3. While these kind of shortcomings don't impact the overall visual fidelity, many gamers are still up in arms about these missing pixels.

Haze is the next game to fall under the careful watch of videophiles. The recently released demo, when scrutinized, is shown to be running at 576p. Free Radical's Derek Littlewood confirmed to Ripten that the final game also runs in a lower resolution. "That's where we ended up with for Haze ... but I don't understand why people care whether there's 20 pixels, 50 pixels, or 100 pixels more."

Other games, like Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3 on Xbox 360, have used lower resolutions to improve overall visual effects. It should be up to every gamer to decide, with their own eyes, whether or not the lowered resolution has created a diminished visual experience for Haze.

[Via Digg]

Tags: 576p, haze, pixel, pixels, resolution

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

evilfoxhound @ May 19th 2008 12:06PM

I'd take a lower res over choppy framerate any day.

Lars @ May 20th 2008 11:11AM

I would too, but I'd rather have both.

It's fairly noticeable to me when a game isn't running at a high resolution. It's not a huge deal, but it does bug me a little.

Brodie-san @ May 19th 2008 12:08PM

I'm not a pixel-junkie and I'm open to be corrected by someone who is well versed in the "visual arts" but, from what I can see, just having MORE pixels does not mean it's automatically going to look better.

It appears in GTAIV for example that reducing the pixels and increasing certain effects actually improves the quality of the image.

It's like the developers were faced with the dilemma: "Ok, we can reduce the pixels and increase the effects and not only does it look better but we experience a reduction in pop-up. Or ... we can keep it at 1080 like everyone is expecting and it looks like garbage."

As I say - I'm no expert but in this case maybe less can mean more?

ghost reveries @ May 19th 2008 4:52PM

Alrightie then, how bout you trade me your 1600x1200 monitor for this shiny 640x480 beastie circa 1989 .. after all, the 640x480 supports 120hz refresh rates =D, more FPS!

Volomon @ May 19th 2008 5:04PM

"Alrightie then, how bout you trade me your 1600x1200 monitor for this shiny 640x480 beastie circa 1989 .. after all, the 640x480 supports 120hz refresh rates =D, more FPS!"

Thats a dumb analogy, and goes to show you missed the point. There is more to visuals than the resolution, and refresh rates don't equal FPS.

The difference is more like we can display a black and white tv show with no special effects in it at 1080p or we can do full color with Light and Magic effects at below 720p.

theberlindoctor @ May 19th 2008 5:08PM

wow, way to miss a joke..

Popfrogs @ May 19th 2008 12:08PM

Stolen from the Ripten forum:

Full 720p - 1280×720 = 921,600 pixels
Some Sub-HD games:

Lair - 800×1080 = 864,000 pixels
MGS4 - 1024×768 = 786,432 pixels
Metal Gear Online - 1024×768 = 786,432 pixels
GTA4 (PS3) - 1152×640 = 737,280 pixels
Halo3 - 1152×640 = 737,280 pixels
Dark Sector (PS3) - 1152×640 = 737,280 pixels
Call of Duty 4 (PS3 , X360) - 1024×600 = 614,400 pixels
Haze (PS3) - 1024×576 = 589,824 pixels

Most people look to COD4 as the touchstone for graphics especially when it comes to FPS games. To see it running in such a low resolution with a relatively low pixel count really says alot.

Seeing this chart, you should realize that games can look great without a huge pixel count. Sure, it's preferable to have high resolution, but like the first poster up there, I'd rather have a solid framerate any day.

Pete @ May 19th 2008 1:45PM

COD4 ran at 1024x600 in order to run at 60fps.

Haze only runs at 30fps, and it runs at a lower resolution than COD4 does. And the graphics in the game aren't all that great. And the jaggies from that low resolution really stick out like a sore thumb in Haze.

I understand tradeoffs. I think that the COD4 tradeoff was a good one. 60fps in that game is awesome! I don't understand what Haze got in return for running at such a low resolution.

Just for a point of reference, the Wii runs at 576p in PAL territories.

BananaBoat @ May 19th 2008 2:01PM

It's a bit of a joke that the developer wonders why gamers care if there are "20, 50, or 100 pixels more" when in reality, we are talking in the neighborhood of 400-500 THOUSAND pixels less than the 720p standard. It doesn't take a videophile to notice a loss of 400,000+ pixels. Lower resolutions generally mean more jaggies, a less sharp image, etc. Call of Duty 4 is really the only FPS I can think of that looks absolutely stunning at 640p, though I'm sure MGS4 is going to look amazing as well (though according to that list, it's roughly 200 thousand more pixels than haze).

At the end of the day, pixels don't matter as much as gameplay, and from what I've played in the Haze demo, I don't care about this game in the slightest. Certainly not a buy, though I could see myself renting it, and playing it the week before a certain Ninja game launches (which will be enjoyed for a week, before a certain stealth game launches).

The Sound @ May 19th 2008 9:17PM

Since when is MGS4 running at 1024×768? I know MGO is running near that, but have we got any confirmation? I thought it was running at least 720P native, which is 1200X720p ish.

Acme @ May 19th 2008 12:17PM

Ill take higher resolution with a smooth frame rate everyday.

john paul @ May 19th 2008 5:53PM

But this game has a low resolution with a low framerate.
I liked the demo, so we'll see.

HektikLyfe @ May 19th 2008 12:20PM

A higher resolution does not fix a bad, uninspired game.

In a generation full of more innovative 3D shooters, Haze does not interest me at all anyway. This is important because I am a big 3D shooter fan.

It just gets lost in the crowd.

James @ May 19th 2008 1:20PM

I agree. I played the demo. It's an uninspired shooter. I'll stick with Crysis on my PC, which I haven't finished, and GTA4 for right now. I'm going to save my money for GRiD and MGS4.

knightsray @ May 19th 2008 11:54PM

i totally agree with what you just said! haze honestly just looks like the ps3s version of halo...i mean does no one else notice the warthog??? i was really hyped for haze at first but now after seeing video and the demo it's like yea right i'm not wasting money on this thing lol! if they ever release crysis on consoles it'll totally blow away all these games and finally get the sales it deserves

dirtbag66 @ May 19th 2008 12:21PM

Is it just me, or does it seem like a good percentage of articles on this website are really negative? I mean, I get a lot of negativity on other sites *cough* G4 *cough* when it comes to the PS3, but why here? This site is called "PS3 Fanboy" and yet, you guys bash the PS3 almost as much as every other site!

I mean, the 360 Fanboy page rarely posts anything negative about their system. They even have a link called "Console Wars" in which 99% of the articles bash the PS3.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but it just seems like lately the articles on this site have been a downer in general.

Dan @ May 19th 2008 12:48PM

I get the point you trying to run across, but Andrew isn't even bashing on the game or system in this article. He even says clearly at the end that it should be up to the individual to decide whether the developers choice is right and if the game looks glorious despite the lower resolution.

Its their job more or less to report news that is happening in regards to the PS3, they can't help it if negative articles are put out. And even if they post it here I'm sure its not to diminish the actual value of the PS3, we get more articles of the good Sony is doing with the PS3 then what is bad. Sure the system has its fault but so does every other system out now, and I'll still choose my PS3 over the 360 or wii anyday.

Josh @ May 19th 2008 12:58PM

Every system has its own ups and downs and you would be ignorant to believe otherwise. Why should PS3Fanboy.com or Playstation 3 gamers in general lower their morals just to bash another console, what good can come from this? Just more ill advised childish name calling. From what I can tell Playstation 3 fans tend to be less abrasive to rival formats than the competition. I think partly the reason is that Playstation 3 fans are more cognitive to the problems that our system faces and can openly discuss them and we find no reason to because we are happy with the purchase we made which is in my perspective the best kind of "fanboy".

Nintendo is Fail @ May 19th 2008 1:08PM

Lmao Josh if you don't believe in sony fanboys then you obviously haven't been to sonydefenseforce.com or any other ps3-biased website

Kspraydad @ May 19th 2008 1:15PM

I think it is the lack of writers (hint Andrew!). There are only 3 writers plus Andrew afaik and Andrew is a Joystiq writer...his tone is 'different'.

Once the hiring is finished (hint Andrew!) there will be more focused writing from a purely PS perspective afaik.

*****

@Nintendo is Fail...

Not sure I understand your comment but you do know that the sonydefenseforce is a pro Wii60 website right?

At

Mike @ May 19th 2008 1:50PM

Because it's basically Joystiq editors pretending to be PS3 fanboys, inbetween their PS3 hate posts.

deaftly @ May 19th 2008 2:42PM

does the truth really hurt that much?

HektikLyfe @ May 19th 2008 12:25PM

A higher resolution CAN be a noticeable advantage if implemented correctly. It is ultimately up to the developer to choose what to sacrifice. Frame rate, graphic effects or resolution.

I for one like things to look sharp, therefore resolution DOES matter to me. BUT, I will not say that the same goes for everyone else. Some people like that sloppy burlap texture look GTAIV does so well. That just bugs me.

never$$hort @ May 19th 2008 12:32PM

If you are the type to notice these kinds of things...then you are also the type that has WAY too much time your hands to notice.

Framerate>Resolution

deaftly @ May 19th 2008 3:07PM

Don't forget

Good game (cod4) > Crap game (haze)

HektikLyfe @ May 19th 2008 12:33PM

I understand what you are coming from, but I think this website, as well as others are only reflecting the issues the readers care and post about.

I am a PS3 fan and I have the same issues these websites complain about.

The general consensus seems to be a negative feeling towards Sony and their latest console. Not to say they won't fix it with time. But as customers, we're not happy.

I hope Sony is listening.

never$$hort @ May 19th 2008 1:57PM

"The general consensus seems to be a negative feeling towards Sony and their latest console."

...And my general consensus is that most people are f***ing retards that just like to b**** and moan about companies like Sony who think outside the box and take a much more innovative approach to their consoles. People always hate the best, that is a fact.

never$$hort @ May 19th 2008 1:30PM

"The general consensus seems to be a negative feeling towards Sony and their latest console."

...And my general consensus is that most people are f***ing jokers that just like to b**** and moan about companies like Sony who think outside the box and take a much more innovative approach to their consoles. People always hate the best, that is a fact.

anthonyjh @ May 19th 2008 3:45PM

Nevershort, that was without a doubt the most fanboyish statement I have ever read. Have some dignity man.

never$$hort @ May 19th 2008 9:16PM

"Nevershort, that was without a doubt the most fanboyish statement I have ever read. Have some dignity man."

If that is the most fanboyish statement you have ever read than you my dear 360fanboy need to get out more and perhaps stick to your own 360fansite where fanboyism is worn like a badge of honor and makes my statement look fairly meaningless in comparison. Don't hate, embrace the PS3, you know you want too... haha

HektikLyfe @ May 19th 2008 12:39PM

"If you are the type to notice these kinds of things...then you are also the type that has WAY too much time your hands to notice."

Thats subjective. I think if it bothers you and you spent $600+ on a system and a game. You should be satisfied by whatever makes you happy.

I would gladly give up a 120 fps game for a slightly higher resolution. A good balance is important. But I can notice both. I won't get into the numbers but if it is noticeable then it isn't because I have too much time on my hands but because it is my hobby.

It's like watching movies. Certain movies sound better with surround sound because it really does change the experience. Some people don't mind simply stereo sound. My bare minimum is 5.1 do you know what I'm saying?

never$$hort @ May 19th 2008 1:35PM

yes I understand what you're saying... but that doesn't negate the fact that you either have too much time on your hands to notice these types of things or you have a severe case of OCD that involves gaming display resolution.

HektikLyfe @ May 19th 2008 4:54PM

So if we notice something you don't then there must be something wrong with everyone else but you right?

Seriously bro, I am NOT slamming Sony. I love my PS3. But I DO notice the resolution difference between 1080p and 480. And no it doesn't mean I have OCD or extra time on my hands. It takes less than a second while you are playing the game.

Why would you buy one if you can't tell the difference? Why get a Sony Bravia 40" 1080p HDTV and instead go standard def? Graphic effects and framerate are not affected by the resolution of your T.V. so why go with an HDTV that does not have anything to do with the effects a console can crank out?

Like I said before, I would take quality over resolution any day, but I can tell the difference between low res and high res games. You can too or you wouldn't have bought one of the most expensive HDTV's on the market.

never$$hort @ May 19th 2008 8:58PM

haha... just messing with ya man... good game!!

Vilmar @ May 19th 2008 12:45PM

So by the time games are made for the 1080p experience the PS4 is out?

HektikLyfe @ May 19th 2008 12:46PM

By that time Sony will be promoting the higher resolution REALLY TRUE FULL HD.

HektikLyfe @ May 19th 2008 12:46PM

The PS3 is GREAT hardware. The interface is very well done, customizable and fast! I would replace my 360 blade interface with the PS3 XMB any day. BUT...I am also unhappy that certain promises weren't kept.

I wouldn't go so far as to request a reimbursement. Since when don't advertisements oversell their products? "Make it yours." - Microsoft and don't forget the ability to sell customized in-game clothing and artwork on XBox Live that never saw the light of day.

Its the nature of the game.

The PS3 is a great piece of hardware. The masses will come with time. Just be patient. With the masses the software will follow.

Popfrogs @ May 19th 2008 12:55PM

Not only that but this is Free Radical's first run with the PS3. If Haze sells a few copies they might be convinced to optimize their engine and give us a full 720p game next time.

If Insomniac does this with Resistance2 it'd be inexcusable, but with the depth of their experience this early in the PS3's life, I seriously doubt that's even a possibility.

Steve Childs @ May 19th 2008 2:40PM

To a degree, you're right. The annoying thing is that the PS3 is touted as a High Definition console, when sometimes the games aren't strictly speaking 720p resolution, or the lower standard of HDTV.

Sure, they're higher than the standard PAL of 720 x 576 resolution, but only just, albeit progressive and not interlaced.

However, that said, as with the other posters, I'd take a stable framerate over true 1280x720 (720p) anyday, with a minimum frame rate of 60fps (or hz).

To me GTA IV is a example of this. In some ways I'd rather they dropped the resolution down a bit as on the PS3 (as with the 360 I gather), it does stuff from rather a lot of framerate dips, which given the amount of stuff going on, isn't much of a suprise really.

However, once the developers get to grips with the PS3, will see the resolutions creeping up as the get better at coding for it. We know the console has the power to do 1080p as games like GT5 demonstrate it (even if its not 'true' 1080P, but rather 1440x1080p).

But on a large TV, you can most definitely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p and standard def stuff, which Haze appears to be only just better than.

In some ways, the PS3 and 360 to a degree to suffer with being not quite powerful enough on the graphics side to cope with HD graphics at the moment, although it does differ from game to game.

i.e. games with a large draw distance will allways suffer the most because they push the drawing capabilities of the cards to the max, something like Silent Hill, or such like where the camera is always tight in on the action, with small draw distances will push the card in other directions, not draw distance. Generally the greater the draw distance, the more polygons - but not always, as smaller draw distances, if common throughout the game, can allow developers to use high res models and thus up the polygon count anyway.

Whoops, so much for this being a short post! But honestly, I get more pissed off when publishers claim a game is HD and put 720p,1080i & 1080p on a box, when the game isn't even meeting the lowest of those resolutions. GTAIV claims 1080p on the box, but mine outputs in 720p and the PS3 is set to 1080p.

The whole situation isn't PS3 specific, the 360 has its own fair share of HD resolution problems as well.

In a way, I hope the next generation of hardware is capable of producing full 1080p, otherwise don't bother! lol

But as time goes on, as I said above, developers will manage to squeeze more and more out of the 360 and PS3 and improve the performance, hopefully in a few years, all PS3 games will be the minimum of 1280x720.

The Sound @ May 19th 2008 10:50PM

Popfrogs:

Resistance 1 was already running at 720P anyway, and since they are using the same engine, it would shock me if it were anything below that.

ajiezer @ May 19th 2008 12:54PM

Well in this particular case it affects definitively, for example if you approach to the vegetation you can see how bad the leaves look, I hope the gameplay is terrific or I'll skip this one for sure

Kizzle @ May 19th 2008 12:59PM

This just in, Metal Gear Solid 4 to be in 315p.

redbrick @ May 19th 2008 1:04PM

I do care how many damn pixels are on the screen. Sony advertised that this new super duper console could do it so at the very least I should expect a basic HD. A game running at 630p vs 720p is very different side by side no argument about it. If a satisfactory basic 720p cannot be achieve, then don't tell / advertise it as next gen HD...cause it isn't. (I almost feel we should be compensated for the difference for their ridiculous false advertising.)

Popfrogs @ May 19th 2008 12:53PM

Like I said earlier, nobody noticed that COD4 is running at such a low resolution, and even if they did nobody cared. So, if it's done right (post processing filters etc.) the pixel count doesn't matter very much.

Personally I was shocked to learn that Lair has such a high pixel count.

redbrick @ May 19th 2008 1:11PM

There I disagree. It does matter, because Sony told me that this console could run games at least 720p..... I expect no less. (scaled to 720p is not 720p) Furthermore....its a damn shame that we let them get away with this BS! Sony needs to step up on this game or give us back the difference.

HektikLyfe @ May 19th 2008 1:15PM

What is "the difference?" How much in $? Let me know, I would be curious to find out.

Please take not that most of the highly rated games don't run at higher resolutions. GTAIV, Halo 3, COD4.

Lair however... and look at what happened to that steaming pile of dragon dropping.

I will take quality over pixel quantity any day.

redbrick @ May 19th 2008 1:33PM

The difference in terms of $$$ depends on your level of greed and I leave that to the attorneys. I'm all about being fair. To misrepresent something.....I demand my pound of flesh. Finally, let me ask you....how much are you truly willing to sacrifice? What if you're given a supposedly great game with great visuals running at 240 scaled to 1080? Would you take that? (never mind, I think I know your answer already.)

Popfrogs @ May 19th 2008 2:50PM

@redbrick: Give vitriol where it's due. It's not Sony's fault that lower-tier developers can't code a decent engine that runs in 720p. All the heavy hitters can. Why blame Sony for what's essentially a developer problem, and a third-party developer at that?

If this was an in-house, SCEE or SCEA game, yeah, you could throw rocks at Sony. But it's not. Sure, you can say the PS3 is complex, hard to understand, etc. but it's not 100% their fault that devs are struggling with it. Big devs like Insomniac and Incognito even give peer sessions to help strugglers get their heads around the PS3 architecture.

Also, if you're in your 20's or older, you should already know what happens with Sony's unique hardware as time goes by. Devs learn tricks, SDK's mature, etc. etc. In 5 years you'll probably be shocked to see a game that ISN'T 1080p without upscaling.

redbrick @ May 19th 2008 3:28PM

popfrogs : I understand your last comments, good counter points. However I think we can't let Sony off the hook so easily because ultimately they are owners of the console and you and I merely possess the rights to use it. I'm sure this means they have the ultimate say on what gets released on their console. So by this extension, they do bear the main responsibility. I can't really blame the developer's lack of skill / knowledge because that is also Sony's fault for not properly training the dev's to utilize this console's potential power. Secondly, it remains Sony's fault cause they are the ones selling us the HD capable games on this and finally not delivering. It's ALWAYS the bosses fault....but remember he makes the big decisions and gets paid the BIG BUCKS!!!!