Console Post of the Week: the Art of the Redirect
The most interesting story of the week, although certainly not the most important, is that a member of the Beyond3D forum (Quaz51) has clearly shown that Halo 3 is not being rendered at HD resolutions.The resolution is actually 1152x640, and in case you're wondering, the lowest resolution officially recognized as high-definition is 1280x720 (also known as 720p). If you're curious, the thread is here (the link is to page 9 of the thread, where posts from the last few days start).
What's so interesting about this, though, is not this information, although clearly, it's embarrassing to both Bungie and Microsoft. Microsoft, remember, touted the 360 as the "first HD console" and promised that all games would be in HD (720p at a minimum).
Now if you want to parse what Microsoft said, you could argue that Microsoft meant "support" at HD resolutions, not "rendering" at HD resolutions.
That's a big difference, too.
If a game just "supports" HD, that could certainly be interpreted to mean output resolution, not rendered resolution. In other words, a game at any resolution could be upscaled by the 360s video scaler to 1280x720 and it's "supported" in HD.
True HD, though, would require rendering at an HD resolution.
This isn't the only 360 game (and there are PS3 games in this category as well) that renders at below HD resolutions (for a list of games that have been tested, see post #454 in this thread at Beyond3D), and shouldn't we be told about this? If a game is being upscaled just to support 720p, I think that's something I should be told as a consumer.
Here's how Bungie responded:
You Owe me 80p!
One item making the interwebs rounds this week was the scandalous revelation that Halo 3 runs at “640p” which isn’t even technically a resolution. However, the interweb detectives did notice that Halo 3’s vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is indeed 640 pixels. So what gives? Did we short change you 80 pixels?
Naturally it’s more complicated than that. In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see – lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible – so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image.
This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately “real” feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels. Making this decision simpler still is the fact that the 360 scales the “almost-720p” image effortlessly all the way up to 1080p if you so desire.
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven’t mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings.
That is a classic bit of dickery.
First, you make a series of ad hominem attacks:
"interweb detectives"
"tinfoil hats"
"new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings"
I think it's very poor form for grown-ups to throw out insults like they're seventh graders.
Then, you obfuscate.
Naturally it’s more complicated than that. In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels.
Um, no, you can't argue that. That's a totally ridiculous argument. Those two frame buffers may improve the quality of the rendered image, but they do not improve the resolution.
Then, finally, an admission to being busted:
This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately “real” feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels. Making this decision simpler still is the fact that the 360 scales the “almost-720p” image effortlessly all the way up to 1080p if you so desire.
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference.
You know, I didn't see "almost 720p" listed a resolution on the game box. What gives?
So this is Microsoft's flagship game for their console, the most highly-promoted game in history, and it isn't even rendered in HD.
I don't know about you, but that seems kind of embarrassing to me.
And again, and we've seen this happen countless numbers of times, a company has an issue worse by how they responded. The game isn't rendered in HD and it's upscaled. That has nothing to do with tinfoil hats and toenail clippings.
There would be an easy, easy way for Bungie to salvage this moment. They issue a short statement apologizing for being "interweb assholes," and they say they're going to send Quaz51 a limited edition Halo console. Maybe a few Bungie guys could even sign it. So you take a situation where you've embarrassed yourself and you turn it into a public relations opportunity.
That's how you manage public relations.
And since that ran so long, and since most of the rest of the console news this week isn't terribly compelling, let me just tack on two very short notes.
One, it appears that 65nm CPU's are now appearing on at least a few of the limited edition Halo consoles. No word on noise or heat differences between units using the new CPU and the old 90nm units, but hopefully someone will do that comparison soon.
Second, I realized that Kaz Harai left open the possiblity of a 40GB PS3 unit coming this fall. Originally (along with everyone else), I thought he hadn't, but what he said was that there would be no "pricing action" this year.
Again, parsing here, but a "pricing action" does not necessarily refer to a new model of PS3, just the prices on existing models of the PS3. So if they do introduce a 40GB, I believe that's how they'll claim the statement at TGS was technically truthful.
<< Home