Alan Wake: the sub-HD debate

By Richard Leadbetter Published 20 April, 2010

Remedy vs. the pixel counters.

Remedy has responded to online claims that upcoming Xbox 360 exclusive Alan Wake runs with a sub-HD resolution, releasing a statement saying that "modern renderers don't work by rendering everything to a certain final on-screen resolution".

Despite a review version of Alan Wake being sent out by Microsoft to the games media with a strict embargo that expires in early May, some websites have run videos and taken screenshots from which pixel counters reckon that the game's native resolution is 960x540. This appears to be a somewhat different state of affairs when compared with early Wake footage we took a look at back in August last year, which was definitely a native 720p.

Initial comments from Remedy expressed dissatisfaction with unauthorised movies, which it said were captured at 960x540, suggesting that they made the game look worse than it actually is. However, it's clear that the resolution analysis was actually performed on shots from German website videogameszone.de and the screens themselves were clearly taken at 720p settings. These shots have now been removed.

Posting on the Alan Wake community forums, Remedy's Markus Maki says that today's renderers use "a combination of techniques and buffers to compose the final detail-rich frames, optimising to improve the visual experience and game performance. Alan Wake's renderer on the Xbox360 uses about 50 different intermediate render targets in different resolutions, colour depths and anti-alias settings for different purposes."

Maki points out that the component parts of the image, including "cascaded shadow maps from sun and moon, shadow maps from flashlights, flares and street lights, z-prepass, tiled color buffers, light buffers for deferred rendering, vector blur, screen-space ambient occlusion, auto-exposure, HUD, video buffers" are all individual elements with their own individual resolutions which are then combined into one 720p image.

So, who is right - Remedy or the pixel counters? Perhaps the most crucial thing is that there is nothing in Maki's carefully worded statement that is at odds with what the pixel counters are saying. Native resolution of the actual framebuffer is never mentioned. That metric is indeed just one element in overall image quality, but it is also one of the most important. Remedy's argument is very similar to the one put forward by Bungie in the wake of Halo 3 being revealed as running at 640p. The bottom line there is that there's little doubt that the Master Chief epic is sub-HD, and would look significantly improved running at native 720p - indeed, the team's own shots confirm that.

Maki is quite right to point out that individual elements of the image operate at their own individual resolutions, but in most cases the opaque geometry usually operates at 720p. Killzone 2 has a 640x360-sized buffer for particles. Conversely, some of the textures on Kratos in God of War III are 2048x2048 in size, but both games are obviously 720p: no-one claims that these games are 360p or 2048p.

Moving on from that, when we select custom resolutions in PC titles, opaque geometry is the key metric being used to define the size of the framebuffer. It's the amount of pixels used to create the image: higher-resolution shadowmaps or textures can't change that, although they do of course play their own part in overall image quality. Regardless, it's also the case that going lower than 720p usually results in scaling artifacts (most noticeable on high detail and edges) and a blurrier image overall.

While the size of the framebuffer is pretty crucial, it is fair to say that there are a host of other factors that come into play - and this is the point that Remedy is putting across. In Tekken 6 on Xbox 360, players actually have the chance to play the game at sub-HD resolutions with motion blur enabled, or else at 1365x768, scaled down to 720p (with the blur removed).

tekken1
tekken2

1024x576 up against 1365x768 in Tekken 6. Despite the high-contrast image, aliasing artifacts are not that different between the two shots and textures actually look sharper in the sub-HD interation.

In this case, Namco is using the additional power available with the lower resolution not just to calculate the extremely realistic per-object motion blur. It is also implementing more texture-filtering. Amazingly, despite the huge resolution gulf, Tekken 6 is resolving noticeably more detail running at its 1024x576 default.

Of course, it can also be argued that if Tekken 6 used the same quality of filtering at native 720p, it would offer the best of both worlds and would look better still, but working with consoles requires an acceptance of the reality that there is a finite level of resources available.

If, as the pixel counters say, Alan Wake is running at 960x540 with 4x multisampling anti-aliasing, we do have an existing example of how this looks. Sony's Siren Blood Curse remake on PS3 runs with exactly the same framebuffer set-up. It's another example of how overall image quality still looks very good, and it's pretty impressive just how much the 4xMSAA contributes to reducing the scope of the edge-aliasing. Look beyond the over-bearing grain filter and edge aliasing is virtually non-existent.

siren1
siren2

Siren runs at 960x540, 4xMSAA and possesses a distinct visual set-up - edge aliasing is extremely difficult to locate throughout the game.

In short then, while native resolution is a defining factor, it is not the be-all and end-all of image quality. Where we have cross-format games and a direct comparison, usually the extra resolution we get from native 720p does make a difference. In the case of Alan Wake, there will be no such comparison, and bearing in mind the extended development time, you would hope that we would see something of the "Tekken effect", whereby any shortcoming in resolution there would be mitigated by processing being carried out elsewhere.

Look out for Digital Foundry's analysis of Alan Wake at review time.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (141) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • jag10 #1 2 years ago

    Smoke and mirrors. must of had a little chat with bungie.

  • Dr.Frappers #2 2 years ago

    I don't care - i just want this to have a bloody good compelling story and look pretty -and i'm happy.

  • M4RV #3 2 years ago

    All this time on the oven and they can't even make it a fully fledged HD game...?! Gameplay is the cornerstone, but still, for us gamers, is 720p@30fps that much to expect...?! :\

  • Zappa #4 2 years ago

    Alan Fake!!

  • speedjack #5 2 years ago

    I can't think of a single game type where a sub HD resolution would adversely effect the gaming experience...

    Decent framerate is far more important. (E.G. MW2, SF4).

  • M4RV #6 2 years ago

    @speedjack:

    Last time I checked, SFIV runs at full 720p on the 360; Can't remember about the PS3 though...

  • Deckard1 #7 2 years ago

    who gives a fuck. I mean really, who gives a fuck. The game looks stunning - who cares how many pixels its got.

  • cianchristopher #8 2 years ago

    960x540?

    Really?

    Stunning, you say. It looks "stunning", does it? A resolution that was passé in 1998, looks "stunning"!

    Okay, then. Some people are just easily pleased, I guess. Here is a ball of yarn, perhaps you'd like to play with it.

  • Spekingur #9 2 years ago

    Dude, in 1998 Carmageddon 2 was released. On PC and consoles. And on consoles at that time no one cared about resolutions. Only the PC crowd did. So seriously, don't go there. To the year that is. You are going to be horrified by what you find compared to now. Gaming-wise.

  • andywilkie35 #10 2 years ago

    Didn't they say that Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time was sub-HD? Yet it's still one of the best looking games this generation? Alan Wake looks marvellous from the videos so this sounds like a fuss over nothing.

    Basically I don't give a rat's ass, as long as it plays well then surely that's all anyone should care about.

  • Widge #11 2 years ago

    Yep, I think both the R&C games are sub-HD

  • Widge #12 2 years ago

    I don't think Remedy have done themselves any favours with releasing shots like:

    [link url=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4525496756_74ea8ef468_o.jpg
    ]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4525...[/link]

    and then this:

    [link url=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4528213062_65eb316792_o.jpg
    ]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4528...[/link]

    surfacing.

    You've got to be careful when selling your product as a graphical benchmark.

  • M4RV #13 2 years ago

    ^ ^ ^ ^

    Yet, concerning the R&C series, there has been an effort to have the games running at 60fps... Most of the time.

  • Geordiemp #14 2 years ago

    I think the 'news worthiness' is the perception that as its been in development since 2005 (or earlier) allot of onlookers would have thought that a new cutting engine would come with the game.

    Also it has ben built up by the press as the next visual tour de force, maybe unfairly, so they can then knock it back down with articles like this.

    Agree with everyone else, as long as its a good game with a long and deep single player (nice for a change from all the 4 hour stuff we seem to get)

  • Der_tolle_Emil #15 2 years ago

    The resolution really doesn't matter all that much. High resolutions look nice if the display's native resolution is exactly the same. However, how many people actually have TVs at home that do exactly 720p? Most of the TVs have a native resolution of 1366x768 or 1920x1080; Unless you are playing on a monitor with a native 720p resolution the lower resolution doesn't change all that much. With proper scaling on the TV's part the quality will be just fine. Noone is going to care.

  • Geordiemp #16 2 years ago

    If you think of how a digital TV 'freeview' picture looks oin the screen, its better than any game, and yet its only SD, but that SD has massive texture detail......

  • Widge #17 2 years ago

    Ah yes, I forgot that about R&C, there was that entire article on how they were dropping 60fps to concentrate on more graphical fidelity.

  • cianchristopher #18 2 years ago

    A resolution that low is only acceptable when a game runs at 60fps (or some similar reason for such a low resoution)...

    Bungie (just about) got away with 1152x640 @ 30fps for Halo 3, but that's only a little lower than the promised "minimum of 720p" this gen.
    Ninja Gaiden II was 1120x585 @ 60fps. Call of Duty 4 (and WaW and MW2) was 1024x600 @ 60fps.

    But 960x540? At 30fps? That's shit! Really, that's bad! That's "Ghostbusters on the PS3" bad....

    Not only that, but Alan Wake is strongly rumoured to feature some extensive screen tearing...
    Edited by cianchristopher at 20/04/10 @ 11:31

  • Bigglesworth #19 2 years ago

    Ouch. Butthurt.
    /flippency

    Seriously though, more proof - if more were needed - that there is far more to making a good looking game than so-called 'pixel-counting' could ever give credit for.

    Pixel-counting: just say no, kids.
    Edited by Bigglesworth at 20/04/10 @ 11:34

  • FireMonkey #20 2 years ago

    Does it look good? Yes! Then who gives a flying f**k?

    Stupid pixel counters.

  • sneetch #21 2 years ago

    @speedjack
    I can't think of a single game type where a sub HD resolution would adversely effect the gaming experience...

    Decent framerate is far more important. (E.G. MW2, SF4).

    I dunno, for the most part I think you're right but in FPS games I think it matters: in BFBC2 high resolution means you're able to identify that that's an enemy helmet rather than a piece of debris at range.

  • Beano #22 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher : I agree completely. I'm amazed people accept this.

  • des #23 2 years ago

    Pixel counters are garbage,always have been,always will be...just an ammo for trolls,nothing good will come from them

    Good thing if you want to troll some game,hard number is good..lol

  • GamesConnoisseur #24 2 years ago

    Sub HD seems very dissappointing for gamers expecting HD Ready Games for HD gen consoles.

    However, that is not a full story in itself, as recall Rockstar CEO who claims he preferred PS3 GTAIV looks over X360, even though in actuality PS3's renders at lower resolution than X360.

    So when resolution are appropiately used in conjuction with suitable effects its can look better than higher resolution without effects.

    Sure I ll hope that next gen consoles would be far able to keep to HD res with 60 fps at all times as a minimum, but the truth is current HD gens inc PS3 and X360 couldnt do that with certain level of processings being reached.

  • madjim #25 2 years ago

    Sub-HD or FullHD, I buy anyway.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #26 2 years ago

    So when resolution are appropiately used in conjuction with suitable effects its can look better than higher resolution without effects.

    That's the point that needs to be made. Who cares about 720p when there's not enough processing power left to apply all the filters that are needed to give the game the visuals it was intended to have? What point is there in having a higher resolution overall plus 2048x2048 textures when there isn't enough GPU power there to apply anisotropic filtering? You lose significantly more details if you artificially try to keep the resolution higher. Higher resolution does not automatically mean more detail.

  • Widge #27 2 years ago

    Has to be said, I really liked the 12 mins video, you can’t tell fidelity from something like that but I really liked the atmosphere it did with all the intense wind and darkness. More gloomy foggy games, in fact just games with fog please. I always loved it best when GTA3 sprung some fog on me.

  • jellyhead #28 2 years ago

    Is this why the PC version was canned? Because the higher res and gfx power would make the console versions look shonky as well as take away sales from the xbox?

  • muscleblade #29 2 years ago

    "Yep, I think both the R&C games are sub-HD"

    Most PS3 games are sub HD actually. Its true.

  • Widge #30 2 years ago

    oh some FOG HATERS on here I see

  • alimokrane #31 2 years ago

    Arent we sick of these debates already? This console is more powerful than this one... and this and that ... and shit and even more shit... give it a rest already, those fanboys should just go and buy the two consoles and leave us alone already....

  • Lawrens #32 2 years ago

    I don't see what's the big deal with pixels counting, it is obvious the new shots are more blurry and there is something wrong with them, it isn't just for the numbers it is to give an answer to why the screenshots looks off and why it is worse than the 720p images we've been seeing, people actually looking for Remedy's confirmation and official words on the matter earlier and calling the shots fake obviously also saw the differences, why else would you call it fake if you don't think it looks horrible?

    The game will play and look fine, but it won't look like those 720p PR shots, nor does it have the exact high details from those shots. Every game this gen has its flaws, be it jaggies, screen tearing, slowdowns, shitty animations, ugly textures, bad draw distance, and people are going to point them out. DEAL WITH IT.

    If it's not for the butt hurt defensive people this debate wouldn't have lasted that long. ICO on the ps2 ran at a lower resolution than normal ps2 games, no one gave a fuck back then, now I bet everyone would make a big deal out of it and there would be butt hurt fanboys trying to defend it if team ico makes a sub HD game.

    There are legitimate people who are disappointed with sub HD games, because we've all been seeing high resolution screenshots and the final game WON'T look like that, it is that simple, I don't even game on pc but I'm pretty sure it's a slap in the face for pc gamers who could've played this game at a higher resolution but resort to buying a 360 because it's canceled on PC.

  • VandelayIndustries #33 2 years ago

    So it's taken Remedy 5 - 6 years to produce a 360 exclusive to the technical standard of a half arsed PS3 port?

    I'll wait for the reviews of course but this is pretty disappointing.

  • FogHeart #34 2 years ago

    oh some FOG HATERS on here I see

    Huh?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Oh.

  • Gearskin #35 2 years ago

    Looks fantastic in the videos released thus far, E3 demo included.

  • flanker22 #36 2 years ago

    no matter the console, if you're pushing 4xMSAA you're going to be running sub HD. otherwise they would have done 1280x720 frame buffer with edge blur.

  • sneetch #37 2 years ago

    @jellyhead
    Is this why the PC version was canned? Because the higher res and gfx power would make the console versions look shonky as well as take away sales from the xbox?

    I'd say the PC version will still come out in about 6 months, they won't announce it until about three months after the 360 launch, at that stage they won't lose all that many Xbox sales. That's what I'm hoping for and what I'm saving my cash for.

  • Number1Laing #38 2 years ago

    The real issue is that it's time for some new hardware! The only reason Remedy has to drop the resolution so low is because the 360 cannot handle this game at "full" 720p. The 360 is five year old 3D hardware, that is ancient in computing terms, asking it to render a modern game is asking for trouble. Even MS knows this, it's why they loosened the resolution and AA standards last year.

    Even a moderately decent PC would be able to run this game at 1080p no problem. I realize a new generation of hardware comes with its own vast set of problems, but this sort of thing is not going away. There will be more and more games going lower and lower as the years go on.

    But of course, MS and Sony in their infinite wisdom have determined people don't care about that anymore.

  • VandelayIndustries #39 2 years ago

    Steady farticus, no need to get nasty. I'm just somewhat bewildered by this news (along with the apparent screen tear). All this time taken on a platform exclusive - as I say, I find it disappointing.

  • Diomedes #40 2 years ago

    Smoke and mirrors....who cares if the filters and HUD framebuffer is 720p?The framebuffer that defines the resolution is the opaque geometry one ....and if that one is 540p the game is native 540p for sure.

  • M4RV #41 2 years ago

    @Number1Laing:

    Thus far, I fail to see what's so special about this game, at least visually, that could possibly compromise a 720p resolution... Also, have you played any console games this generation by any chance...?! I mean the ones who are visually astonishing, such as Uncharted 2, Gears of War and that sort of thing...?! Just curious really, since your comment by itself is a major paradox.

  • TonyHarrison #42 2 years ago

    The most successful 'HD' game of this generation is MW2 (as much as I don't like it). It is also 'sub-HD'. Clearly these things do not matter as much as some would have you believe.

  • mashk #43 2 years ago

    Preview from Gamersyde
    "No more suspense, Alan Wake astonished us from its production to the atmosphere that's been created, but above and beyond all, its technical mastery. Remedy used to be known for its top-notch rendering engines, and they prove again they are worthy of their fame. To be clear, none of the existing Xbox 360 games even compares to it, and even on PS3, which have more real exclusive titles, it's hard to find an equivalent. Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Crysis, these are the few games which can compete with it. Whether it's the real-time projected shadows produced by the essential flashlight, the total absence of aliasing, the breathtaking realistic lighting effects, the huge size of certain levels, SSAO, the atmospheric effects, the humongous size of some moving objects, the vegetation which interacts with characters and wind, or the largely satisfying framerate and many other physical and graphical effects, Alan Wake never ceases to amaze you with relative ease."

    Edited by mashk at 20/04/10 @ 12:49

  • Zappa #44 2 years ago

    blim blim is a xbot or at least clearly 360 side biased
    Edited by Zappa at 20/04/10 @ 12:53

  • muscleblade #45 2 years ago

    Alan Wake will probably take first place for highest scoring exclusive and dethrone ME2.'

    I hope it will dethrone GTAIV as highest scoring game this gen. 98% is hard to beat though.
    Edited by muscleblade at 20/04/10 @ 12:59

  • Rubarack #46 2 years ago

    Even 480p isn't so bad if you get sufficient filters going, but if there wasn't a clear difference they wouldn't be releasing all their promo material at 1080p. By the sounds of it they aren't going to go so far as Halo 3 and release it with absolutely no anti aliasing, that's really when low resolutions start to get in the way.

  • beastmaster #47 2 years ago

    "So it's taken Remedy 5 - 6 years to produce a 360 exclusive to the technical standard of a half arsed PS3 port?"

    Let's see. I guess some of that time was spent also on developing plot, character, atmosphere, design of the location, control method, synching voice acting properly and the like.

    Scarabaeus on the C64 has got more atmosphere than some of the games today. Probably.

    This better get a 10 ;-)

  • makeamazing #48 2 years ago

    As long as it looks respectable, the key things for a game imho are game play, single player experience (unfortunately lacking in many games these days), performance and how long it takes to play.

    Recently ive been playing GTA IV and Fallout, and they are not great lookers to be honest, but great games. From what ive seen (and remember none of us have seen the final game), Alan Wake looks pretty nice... so its all about the game/tearing etc... thats key.

  • Widge #49 2 years ago

    Someone once commented when Haze came out that they wouldn't mind seeing a purely SD game but using the headroom gained in resolution to really push it out in other areas. If the drop in resolution lets you really push it out elsewhere then the game is the winner in all of that. The problem with the big exclusives are that they are used as the standard bearer for what is the most powerful console. No point in being technically amazing if the game itself is bland and boringcrysis, biggest questions will be answered when the reviews pop up which quite rightly steer away from technical analysis (bar ridiculous game breaking faults).

  • patchbox360 #50 2 years ago

    can't wait till killzone 3 unleashes the pain

  • Beano #51 2 years ago

    Hopefully there will be a demo so we can judge how bad this actually is before buying.

  • RodHull #52 2 years ago

    I've now cancelled my order just in case it is sub-HD. When will this treachery end???!!!!%$^££

  • Geordiemp #53 2 years ago

    Good post MashK,

    Its the press and preview hype that make this a story. Read your preview write up explains why this is a story.

    Maybe its just the mystery surrounding wake, its being going on for years.....Just wait till wake was many a comment when users commented on Uncharted 2 outstanding graphics....

    Next up Crysis 2 as the next second coming........

  • darleysam #54 2 years ago

    Oh daisies, I am not getting my RDA of pixels! I shall just have to cancel my pre-order and probably firebomb Remedy's headquarters for this outrageous deception.

  • muscleblade #55 2 years ago

    @patchbox360

    Yeah. Killzone 2 was a painful affair indeed.

  • cianchristopher #56 2 years ago

    This resolution is the lowest yet for an Xbox 360 game (or PS3, for that matter)...

    In 2010, the game with the lowest resolution is being released, and it's a high-profile, AAA game to boot...

    So, are we going backwards this gen or something? In 2006/2007 games ran at 1280x720. In 2010 games run at 960x540 (Alan Wake) or 1024x576 (Splinter Cell Conviction) while remaining at 30fps. With an extra large helping of screen tearing, for your pleasure...

    Aren't console games supposed to get better throughout the generation?

    Oh, and don't ever expect this to come out on PC. Microsoft Game Studios haven't released anything on the PC since 2007.

  • GreyBeard #57 2 years ago

    So, who is right - Remedy or the pixel counters?

    This is, I assume, a rhetorical question. Because it really should be.
    Edited by GreyBeard at 20/04/10 @ 13:54

  • jambo74 #58 2 years ago

    I predict an 8, I predict an 8.....

  • darleysam #59 2 years ago

    ciancristopher, so you determine the quality of a game by the number of pixels it's rendering?

    I'm going to put this bluntly, are you terminally stupid? I mean that literally, are you incompetent to a degree that could actually be detrimental to your health and that of those around you?

  • Beano #60 2 years ago

    When will the review embargo be lifted?

  • jag10 #61 2 years ago

    it seems like this game would go perfect with Playstation Move.

  • VibratingDonkey #62 2 years ago

    Finally I actually understand what all this business means. I trust Remedy knows better than anyone else what the best solution for the hardware and their engine is. Disappointing that this compromise had to be made, but I think I'll live.

  • FireMonkey #63 2 years ago

    For all the pixel counters out there, I have a great game idea for you:
    Noughts and Crosses 1080p at 60fps and no screen tear what so ever!

    Come on that must be the best game idea ever! :p

    [Just to make it clear, that was sarcasm]

    Edited by FireMonkey at 20/04/10 @ 14:34

  • FuzzyDuck #64 2 years ago

    If the image that ends up on your screen looks good, who cares?! If it plays good, who cares times two?! I can't help myself from looking at DF articles as they're interesting, but at the end of the day i just enjoy playng games.

    Was playing GTA IV on the PS3 for 90+ hours ruined by its sub HD res? Nope. When i get around to picking up a 360 for the likes of AW it won't bother me then either.
    Edited by FuzzyDuck at 20/04/10 @ 14:53

  • jellyhead #65 2 years ago

    I bet Ubisoft could get 'noughts and crosses' to tear at any resolution and any fps. :)

  • Dizzy #66 2 years ago

    The NeoGaf thread is already a trainwreck... good to see this one still friendly.

  • Crunchers #67 2 years ago

    I have never understood the need for counting pixels. If it plays well enough, it's all good.

    But judging from the video footage I've seen, ol' Alan don't half run funny.

  • BillyBrush #68 2 years ago

    So...If Red Dead Redemption, on the Rage engine, (i assume it is) comes out, looks a bit fugly but in 720p, that's better than Alan Wake having more detail and effects actually happening, but in a lower res?? The overall look of this...seems rather good to me.

    It all boils down to one thing. It's a 360 exclusive game. Because Red Dead Running on the Rage engine does actually look fugly around every single edge going, but we can appreciate that it looks a really great game regardless....But this one...any flaws and the SDF are all over it like a rash. This will continue regardless of review scores, regardless of what it's actually like. See Metacritic, the game is over a month away yet it already has 56 user ratings averaging 1.9 metascore.

    So, all you can do with exclusive games is look at a few videos and screens, and make up your own mind.

  • Stuz359 #69 2 years ago

    You guys do realise that the game of the year is going to be released in 480p don't you? Of course I speak about the mighty SMG 2.

    Seriously, though, it's pretty pathetic that people are crying foul over this. I mean, can anyone actually tell if it's sub-HD when playing the thing? No. Thought so. Get over it.

  • TheApologist #70 2 years ago

    Shame this isn't coming out on PC then we would get to see what it looked like running on decent hardware.

    Not encouraging that we aren't going to see a new generation of consoles for a long time when this kind of thing keeps happening years after developers have started working on this hardware.

  • lagoonalight #71 2 years ago

    I find it funny we now think it is acceptable and even 'better' to run in sub hd for more effects. LOFL! Good god HD is 1080p in my eyes nothing less.

  • FireMonkey #72 2 years ago

    @BillyBrush - "See Metacritic, the game is over a month away yet it already has 56 user ratings averaging 1.9 metascore."

    Wow! Some people are pretty pathetic aren't they?

  • mashk #73 2 years ago

    To all those moaning about resolution, get out a Pixar DVD, something like The Incredibles. Watch it on a SDTV. Are there any games which visually match it? No. Yet it's in SD.
    Other things are far more important when it comes to judging how good a games graphics are. Stuff like art direction, effects, animation, quality of models etc

  • ronuds #74 2 years ago

    Gamers really have become a pathetic bunch, haven't they? I used to play games where the character was a single square and I still managed to have fun.

    I wonder if people really care or if it's just a way for the "other team" to say, "na, na, na, na, na, naaaaa - your game runs in subHD!" as if it's supposed to matter? I guess if it runs in subHD the thinking is that it simply can't look good? Well, we've already had plenty of games this gen which would say otherwise, so I'm not sure what the point of continuously arguing about it is anymore.

  • kenshiropkt #75 2 years ago

    so... alan wake will be subhd, now eurogamer says it doesn't need 720p to look good, how convenient

  • darleysam #76 2 years ago

    He's right, I saw Leadbetter taking a bag of money from none other than J Allard.

    Or it might've been Jason Bradbury, they both look the same from behind.

  • Yossarian #77 2 years ago

    For those who are curious, here's a list of PS3 games and their native resolution.

    High-profile titles running in "sub-HD" include Grand Theft Auto IV, the original Bioshock, and all of the Call of Duty games.

  • tiny_Eggy #78 2 years ago

    Anyone remember the DirectX 10 demo of Alan Wake. LOL

  • Spydy #79 2 years ago

    Considering this is a flagship title, you would expect true 720p output. Just another example of MS standards beginning to slip. I want it all in 720p. HALO, Splinter Cell, Alan Wake. It's why I bought a fucking HDTV with all the trimmings.

  • Distributor #80 2 years ago

    *sarcasm on*
    No way i will be buying this game if the image quality is going be sub-hd.
    As it is no way story and atmosphere driven, i will leave it on the shelves until it is in the discount bin.
    At least my life is still full-HD. Only wish my girlfriend was HD aswell and antialiased.
    *sarcasm off*

  • Geordiemp #81 2 years ago

    ^^

    Native 906 x 704 and 60 FPS with 2 x AA reconstructed to 720P

    A few comments about Ratchet CIT, a great game in hard mode, one of my favs last year and really
    good graphics for 60 FPS and large maps. If only more games could be this good, very under rated

    Whats that got to do with the engine used for Alan Wake ?
    Edited by Geordiemp at 20/04/10 @ 17:28

  • cianchristopher #82 2 years ago

    Pixel counters or not, this is a ridiculously low resolution...

    And it has nothing to do with fanboyism - I couldn't care less if the game was being released on everything including the DS and the PS2...

    The fact is, that 960x540 is missing almost half the detail and clarity of 1280x720 (aka 720p, the lowest HD resolution)...

    It's like people saying "I don't see the point of blu-rays, upscaled dvds look just as good to me"...

    This game has all the hallmarks of aging technology, due to its protracted development schedule. It's like STALKER on the PC (when that came out 5 years after it was unveiled), half the time the game looks amazing, and half the time it looks like a game from 10 years ago...

  • uzivatel #83 2 years ago

    @mashk: Those poor guys at gamersyde probably did not know the game is sub-HD. I am sure they would hate it otherwise.

  • ronuds #84 2 years ago

    Is cianchristopher for real?

    Get over it, dude.
    Edited by ronuds at 20/04/10 @ 18:02

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #85 2 years ago

    There really are a lot of wankers on this site sometimes.

    Art, Animation, Textures, Lighting/Shadows, Particle Effects, Framerate, Anti Aliasing are all more important than resolution all things being equal.

    It makes me laugh that you bought your consoles BECAUSE they were HD. Didn't you buy them to play next gen games? Most ARE next gen games regardless of some of them running lower than 720p.

    Grow up a bit, you're showing yourselves up.

  • TRUTH #86 2 years ago

    Just played Metro 2033 (I really enjoyed this more then I expected) - the graphics are some of the best I seen, esp some of small effects that appear (smoke from the gun, sharp textures (though sometimes not), effects of light and astonishing detail)...This is probably one of the most detailed games I've played on a console. I don't know if it's running at 720p or not, but it's the detail in the game by using the effects that really are a great graphical showcase.

    Played Rachet & Clank too, some great display of graphics that look sharp as any native 720p. Though the game is running at a lower resolution; it still looks better then most PS3 games - even now!. Again thanks to various effects to compaste resolution - not that anyone noticed it was running at a lower resolution (I certainly diidn't).
    Edited by TRUTH at 20/04/10 @ 18:12

  • mkreku #87 2 years ago

    I still want this.. for my PC.

  • MaoZedong #88 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:40:08 17-12-2011

  • sfp_noodle #89 2 years ago

    ive mentioned this quite a lot, but prince of persia is one of my fave games this gen, despite EGs 6/10, i thought it deserved an 8/10 minimum. but whilst playing it, i cudnt help but feel i was playing a game tht cud have easilly run on the PS2. thts not a criticism in any way, because the scenery and art direction was beautiful. the soundtrack was also sweeping and epic. im not sure if it was sub hd or not, but it was a beautiful beautiful game. so all u high horse HD wanker dudes, stfu, and judge a game by more than the small number of pixels ur brain recognises. the ONLY reason this game is getting hate is because its a console exclusive. grow up

  • DoctorFouad #90 2 years ago

    I think everyone has the right to say anything he wants and to think whatever the way he wants to and to do whatever he wants to do, with the condition of doing no harm to nobody. this is liberalism : respect of others.

    So please can we be liberal and respectful ? and respect those pixel counters ? they have all the right to count the pixels and they have all the right to think that more pixels are better and important to their gaming experience. So please do not treat them with words like : stupid...and shut the ****up and I dont know what...

    Edited by DoctorFouad at 20/04/10 @ 19:58

  • Retroid #91 2 years ago

    I actually really liked this gen's Prince of Persia too. It got unfairly maligned and it had a lot of character to it.

    The next-gen-ness was just prettiness.

  • Goodfella #92 2 years ago

    I'm looking forward to Alan Wake, the whole resolution issue isn't a big deal as long as the game actually looks good, but, it's quite ridiculous how this generation of so called HD consoles have so many games that don't display in high resolution and as this game has been in the works for so long I'm quite surprised.

  • makeamazing #93 2 years ago

    The problem with a long turn around time for a game is that peoples/games requirements change. When they started on the game, the game was set to a certain set of standards, as time goes on, peoples requirements change and other games come out that up the ante... said game is then tried to fit in with all these things that gamers say they cannot live without.

    I actually thing people should wait and see before slating the game, as i previously said both Fallout and GTA are not the prettiest of games, but they are great to play.

    One thing is certain though the long development of a game would certainly not help, certainly in the case of a game with a small team which i think alan wake has/had for trying to keep up with the changes in games/tech.

  • Badassbab #94 2 years ago

    I think Alan Wake will probably be running at sub HD resolution but its not the end of the world, still looks stunning and still looks better than a lot of HD games. I'm more concerned about the screen tearing which I hope will be non existant or minimal at the least.

  • El-Dev #95 2 years ago

    Once my exams end I'll still part with my £40 to play this, sub-HD and all.

  • Mr.Monkey #96 2 years ago

    If it has the same framebuffer settings as Siren:New Translation then it will look gorgeous on my set-up.
    Been waiting for Alan Wake for a few years now. Remember picking up a 360 mag (back when I used to buy mags!) at launch and it had a preview on the demo disc.

    Only cancelled my pre-order that I made back in 2007 (I think?) to pre-order the SE...
    Edited by Mr.Monkey at 20/04/10 @ 20:50

  • Machiavellian #97 2 years ago

    It sounds like this game has a dynamic resolution like Wipeout HD. It scales the resolution depending on the situation.

  • Machiavellian #98 2 years ago

    Thinking about it a little more, I wonder why more games do not use a dynamic resolution to maintain framerate. In the majority of situations, gamers probably would not even be able to notice and if it allows you to add more effects which enhances the PQ, then it sounds like a Win.

  • amiga_dude #99 2 years ago

    Me sits down with big grin on my face.

    Thats all got to say after yesterday!

    Well might just say...

    Upscale

  • onyxbox #100 2 years ago

    Let's not forget that Remedy have been spouting out crap about Heavy Rain mo-cap etc.

    ... then show some foggy, screen tearing footage of Alan Wake getting hit by a combine harvester and he doesn't even fall over :-/ and even the new footage shows some pretty stiff animation (look at the arms)... Looks ok but if you're going to slag off your competition you'd better have a game that can stack up.

    Just sayin'

  • Zaiz #101 2 years ago

    The only problem I have with the resolution change up is that they, uh, lied about the resolution. I couldn't care less about resolution provided they hadn't lied about it, and that's probably what has the pixel counters up in arms, since they hate bullshotting more than anything else.

  • dsmx #102 2 years ago

    Of course you could wait for the inevitable PC port and play it at any resolution you like.

  • Sunyavadin #103 2 years ago

    Given how many full HD games completely fail at BEING GOOD GAMES, they can make 'em in 320x240 for all I care so long as they're GOOD.
    Edited by Sunyavadin at 21/04/10 @ 01:02

  • TRUTH #104 2 years ago

    Both PS3, XB360 have had a more games at sub HD rather then full 720p and more rear 1080p. No one notice as the games can still look stunning at Sub HD such as Rachet & Clank etc. Also it all depends on the game itself eg: particle effects, size, detail, lighting...but all these can still look great even if in sub HD as most games are.

  • Postumo #105 2 years ago

    Shit Game then...

    No 720p no buy. After playing Mass Effect 2 and Metro 2033 at max, 1650x1080, i couldn't go back to the xbox360, it seems dated now! (just as dated as ps3 if you ask me).

  • gtcarro #106 2 years ago

    960x540 is a realy bad resolution.

    Almost is the resolution from Wii.

    Alan Wake graphics are the biggest disappointment of the year.

    Edited by gtcarro at 21/04/10 @ 11:23

  • FireMonkey #107 2 years ago

    @gtcarro - "Alan Wake graphics are the biggest disappointment of the year."

    No. People making comments like that are the biggest disappointment of the year.

  • gtcarro #108 2 years ago

    @FireMonkey

    For me Alan Wake graphics are the biggest disapointig of the year, because I was hoping, at least, a native resolution of 1280x720p@60fps like remedy promissed, and not just 960x540 with 60fps being a mirage.

    I actually like the pré-rendered videos of this game, but the graphic quality of the ingame is very behind of those pré-rendered videos.

    It is my opinion and I hope that you respect the opinion of other people.

  • FireMonkey #109 2 years ago

    @gtcarro - I respect your opinion, but just find it quite saddening that this is that much of a deal for you.
    Things change during development of games. They would have been aiming for 1280x720p@60fps and I'm sure they are fairly disappointed themselves that they have not managed to achieve it. They have not reduced it just for the sake of it, but have had to to allow them to make the final game itself better. Surely you should be happy that the game itself will be better because of the resolution drop?
    Edited by FireMonkey at 21/04/10 @ 12:36

  • Badassbab #110 2 years ago

    1280x720p @ 60fps with lots of advanced post processing effects, complicated geometry and hi res textures on current gen hardware? Your having a laugh gtcarro.

  • muscleblade #111 2 years ago

    @sfp_noodle and Retroid

    This review got it right imo.

    http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/934/9340...

  • FireMonkey #112 2 years ago

    Out of interest where / when did Remedy promise Alan Wake in 1280x720p@60fps or even just promised it in HD?

    EDIT: Not sure why I just got marked down. That was a serious question?
    Did they actually state that they would be running in HD at some point?
    If not, then why are people picking on this game when the vast majority of games have done the exact same thing?
    Edited by FireMonkey at 21/04/10 @ 13:04

  • Darren #113 2 years ago

    I don't have anything against sub-720p games so long as (a) they have decent anti-aliasing to compensate and; (b) they don't have screen tearing.

    That's why games like Oblivion and Call of Duty: MW never bothered me being sub-720p but games like Halo 3 and the new Splinter Cell game do, the latter having screen tearing despite the low resolution and the former being completely devoid of any AA making it look an absolute eye-sore at times. Last time I saw Alan Wake, it was looking a bit rough at 720p with lots of noticeable screen tearing so as long as this drop in resolution completely fixes that and the AA compensates for the reduced number of pixels then I'm absolutely fine with that.

    Would have liked a PC version instead though... :)
    Edited by Darren at 21/04/10 @ 14:40

  • Darren #114 2 years ago

    I'll be perfectly honest here and admit that I didn't know that Siren ran at 960x540 as, IMO, it looked very good. No doubt the fact that the game is dark helps a lot and I'm sure it will with Alan Wake too. Playing sub-720p games annoys a lot of people because, no doubt, many of them bought 768p and 1080p HDTVs for their games consoles on the promise of 720p and 1080p games.

    Sadly, the Xbox 360 and PS3 just do not have the hardware to run all their games at 720p with highly detailed graphics and 60 fps so developers have had to be more creative with making the most of the limited resources available whilst still pushing the games technically (SSAO, HDR, deferred lighting, etc., etc.). If sub-720p gaming annoys people then they should consider buying a mid-range PC which can easily handle 1280x720 in all games, many at 60 fps too.

  • intpleeus #115 2 years ago

    Does anyone remember the Playstation, Nintendo 64, Saturn, Dreamcast, Playstation 2, Gamecube, or Xbox? I enjoyed many games on these machines and none of them were running at 640p. Do you remember the vaseline lens effect on the Nintendo 64, and did it ruin Goldeneye or Ocarina of Time? Since when did an arbitrary line demarcating sub-HD from HD become so important? Whoever chose 720p as the dividing line has a lot to answer for.

    All I ever expected of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 is a higher resolution than their predecessors, and that's exactly what I got. The specific resolution is a trade-off that developers make among a host of other qualities, e.g. framerate, anti-aliasing, shaders, etc. Depending the on the particular game, different trade-offs are appropriate.
    Edited by intpleeus at 21/04/10 @ 18:04

  • malmer #116 2 years ago

    I've said it before. I'm saying it again:

    Anti aliasing is way more important than resolution. Especially with things that are moving. Aliasing effects stand out a lot, but lower resolution will turn to superresolution once it is moving, so it is not that bad. Bad aliasing gets worse in movement.

    Example: Wall-E on DVD (720x576) looks better upscaled than any game in 1080p.And it's not just because they have global illumination and all that. It is the anti-aliasing. If they had rendered it with all bells and whistles but had turned of anti-aliasing then Wall-E would look really bad.

  • septimus #117 2 years ago

    Doesn't matter... still buying it.

    If this was on the PS3 of course, it would be shite and DF would happily point out their disappointment.

  • El-Dev #118 2 years ago

    "If this was on the PS3 of course"

    This comments thread would have about 600 posts about how resolution is the most important thing in games.

  • ronuds #119 2 years ago

    Ummm... lots of PS3 games are subHD and I've never even heard them mentioned before this whole thing came about.

  • El-Dev #120 2 years ago

    "Ummm... lots of PS3 games are subHD and I've never even heard them mentioned before this whole thing came about."

    Probably true, but PS3 exclusives generate more comments than any other comments sections, on here especially, and are usually full of all sorts of rubbish.

  • Widge #121 2 years ago

    A big deal is being made out of this because if you start sifting through the Face Off threads there is HUGE emphasis on exactly this kind of thing, with any dip in resolution being tagged with statements such as "vastly inferior", demands for marks off etc. So there you go, there is the mentality for you with the technical obsession of today.

    So perhaps now is the time to stop giving a shit and focus on the games themselves, too much emphasis on the best graphics = the most powerful console = the best console. If we keep thinking like that, we'll get technically wonderful things like Crysis keep appearing that actually have about as fascinating as Beigewatch 2011.

  • Goodfella #122 2 years ago

    @El Dev

    Absolutely, I can just imagine what a train wreck this thread would be if Alan Wake was a PS3 exclusive, I suspect resolution would matter very much indeed accompanied by lots of PS3LOL comments.

  • FireMonkey #123 2 years ago

    @Widge - But that's with a face off. The 2 consoles are so similar that if one can run at a good resolution then the other should be able to as well. If it isn't then that indicates a poor development of the lower resolution version of the game.

    This game is only on 360 though, so there is not that issue. If it were on the PS3 it would also be in the same resolution and so wouldn't be marked as "vastly inferior".

    The whole point of the face-offs is to help people who have neither console (or both) to see the differences between the games and decide which console (or version of the game) they should purchase. If you just have one console and don't plan on getting another, then the articles are pretty much pointless to you but they are not pointless to everyone and hence the reason they exist.

  • neems #124 2 years ago

    If one screen shows 940 x 560 (or whatever) and another shows 1280 x 720, that does not sound like dynamic resolution switching as it is traditiionally used. WipeOut HD for example starts at 1920 x 1080, but when the engine comes under excessive load it lowers the horizontal resolution several times over a number of frames, and then back up again, while keeping the vertical resolution at a constant 1080. That's why you never really notice it.

    It sounds like maybe the day and night levels in Alan Wake are entirely seperate, and simply render at different resolutions, which would probably make sense with a light / shadow intensive game engine.

  • Collymilad #125 2 years ago

    The fact that people have to count pixels to actually tell this stuff sums it all up as far as I'm concerned.

    The thing that matters is the end result.

    As another guy said, you PS3 fanboys are transparent. You just look idiotic, give it up.

    It makes me laugh, remember last gen? What happened to having the best graphics not mattering? Hmmm, funny that one, eh?
    Edited by Collymilad at 22/04/10 @ 13:02

  • azix2 #126 2 years ago

    "The game is going to cheat so badly it wont be funny. There is a hell of a lot you can hide in that darkness but in the end it will be fitting for the game and the graphics will be good."

    "The 720p image is pretty damn blurry"

    "PS3 exclusives rarely run below HD. If the game really is subHD it would be the fault of the eDRAM but at the same time the eDRAM will allow the 4xaa and all the effects they want on the screen to be included well. Meh Lets just stick to "subHD sucks" :p"

    you guys hide user comments without telling them. That is pretty bad, especially considering your rating system is completely retarded with all the fanboys and half-wits who can't stand anyone elses opinions.

    Also, if you are here saying pixel counting is pointless and you don't care about resolution, you really should not be here. THAT is trolling unless u have no idea why DF is here and why the articles are posted. Read reviews/previews if you care about the other stuff
    Edited by azix2 at 22/04/10 @ 14:55

  • Loghorn #127 2 years ago

    @Number1Laing:

    If the 360 is ancient, so is the PS3. Plus there was really no "rule" about graphics in 720p being mandatory for all games on the 360, especially when there was already Sub-HD games like Halo 3 from the Get-Go, as well as in between from that so-called "rule." Not to mention that there are still games being put out on 720p such as Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect 2, & Bayonetta afterwards, as well as AA.

    PS3 fanboys needs to just shut up.

  • BuckEntropy #128 2 years ago

    Even I was vaguely looking forward to this game as something that might stack up (more) directly against Uncharted 2 / GoW3, and in that regard this whole farce has probably already been invaluable for the Sony faithful. I'm sure they'll never let AW live this down no matter how great it is... hehe

    It will be a real shame if one obscure and arbitrary technical issue overshadows the game itself though, since the technical priorities of the AW are quite unprecedented overall. If anything it indicates to me that Remedy has their priorities straight, making the choices they need to to deliver the game they want.

  • Widge #129 2 years ago

    It'll still be better than Haze

  • Xbotgamer #130 2 years ago

    @KingAntoine said:
    "You must be new to Eurogamer. It will get 10/10. mark my words ;) "

    I totally agree with you. Everybody knows that in Eurogamer (like Digital Foundry) is normal give huge scores to Xbox360 "exclusives"… even if they are bad games, or have poor tech specs or poor resolutions (like 960x540).

    The only thing that makes me confused in this story, is the name of this site, because if we take into account that the xbox 360 has been losing more and more strength in Europe, and if we consider, the only European market where the 360 still has some strength is the UK, it is very funny that the name of this site remains “EURO”gamer.

    Maybe it's time to rename this site to UKgamer, but if people from UK loves so much the American products, maybe they dont bother to pass the name to USgamer.

    Do not get me wrong. This was only a statement of a fact… nothing more.

  • neems #131 2 years ago

    Sounds more like opinion to me. I wasn't aware that low resolution should lead to point deductions.

  • Dismiss #132 2 years ago

    Someone in this thread mentioned Scarabaeus by Ariolasoft! THAT'S worth commenting on.

  • crazy_jb #133 2 years ago

    Ich bin schon sehr gespannt auf euere Analyse von Alan Wake.

  • muscleblade #134 2 years ago

    Look at the sad PS3 fanboys rating the game down before its out. You dont see that to the same degree on games like God of war 3 and KZ2. I think PS3 owners really feel the need to do this as they clearly know that they bought the console with less exciting exclusives at the same time as the multiplatform versions is lacking. Come on you can sell your PS3 and buy a 360 you know. Wont cost you too much.


    http://www.metacritic.com/games/platform...

  • Xbotgamer #135 2 years ago

    @muscleblade
    “… they clearly know that they bought the console with less exciting exclusives…”


    Are you serious??
    What about this exclusives:

    >Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune
    >Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
    >Metal Gear Solid 4
    >Killzone 2
    >Resistance: Fall of Man
    >Resistance 2
    >Warhawk
    >M.A.G. - Massive Action Game [256 players online]
    >LitleBIGPlanet
    >Heavenly Sword
    >Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
    >Ratchet & Clank Future: Quest for Booty
    >Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time
    >Demon's Souls
    >Yakuza 3
    >inFamous
    >Heavy Rain
    >God of War 3
    >MBL 10: The Show
    >Time Crisis 4 [includes 'Guncon3']
    >Wipeout HD
    >Wipeout HD Fury
    >Formula 1 – Championship Edition
    >Supercar Challenge
    >MotorStorm 1
    >MotorStorm 2
    >>Gran Turismo 5
    >>The Last Guardian

    "less exciting exclusives" you said??
    Are you sure??
    And I only gave you 10 percent of the PS3 Exclusives list.

  • vizzini #136 2 years ago

    This console generation has been really trying for both next gen systems (360/PS3); they may have more than 5 or 10 times the processing power of their previous generation systems, but doing a final image of 720p requires a minimum of 4 times the pixel fill-rate of 480p; excluding all the fill-rate intensive extra FX; like real-time shadow mapping or reflection, to name just two of them.

    I'm actually surprised the game is capable of such good resolutions, if they have indeed implemented cascaded shadow maps. It is extremely difficult to generate robust real-time shadows in out door scenes for this generation, without heavily confining the camera's freedom. Metal gear 4's engine is still quite spectacular on these grounds alone, even if the single player game isn't at MG3's level.

    Provided a game was fun/compelling, I'd happily take a game at 320x240 resolution in this generation; provided it used highly tessellated geometry with ray-tracing.

    The next generation will likely be the first generation to become practical for real-time ray-tracing at 480p/720p; so provided AW doesn't fail like Outcast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_%28... did for playability, there is no reason why lower pixel counts == a bad game. If the game does get marked down in the review, hopefully it won't be for this reason.

    Edited by vizzini at 30/04/10 @ 09:14

  • The-Jack-Burton #137 2 years ago

    It could even be debated whether or not the 360 is a true HD console. Sure, it's capable of HD graphics but if you want to develop a game that has any kind of content, it has to run sub-HD.

  • BuckEntropy #138 2 years ago

    I know right? Like that RE5 crap... sure it's full res and pushing 4x MSAA most of the time... but just no "content" there.

  • Xbotgamer #139 2 years ago

    Alan Wake Review - 7 / 10

    7 is not a bad score

  • d00dl #140 2 years ago

    Sorry I realised that was a massive waffle! In summary my point is:

    I can't see how xbox or ps3 fans can claim one is better than the other for graphics. They seem to be about the same. I think it really comes down to art direction. Visually a lot of the games this gen have not lived up to the hype. HD or not they really should focus on making innovative or interesting games like Alan Wake, Mass Effect, Yakuza, Demon's Souls etc. rather than all this graphics willy waving!

    Original aimless post below, but if someone can answer my GT5: P question I'd be grateful!
    ------------

    Have just acquired a PS3 to play blu ray and exclusives after reading how games like KillZone 2, God of War 3, Uncharted 2 are truly amazing. I got hold of a few games including Killzone 2. Now I must say that while the first level felt epic (as far as I've gotten), it was visually underwhelming and I felt a bit cheated, though I did only pay £8 for it. Pop in was a problem, textures were not good, particles not so good, shadows not so good and the physics is a con! How can I use a gun emplacement to ignite and bring down a building but can't use an rpg to blow up some sandbags!!! It's also blurry and when I melee an enemy it doesn't seem weighty. A lot of the Sony exclusives have incredible art direction (apart from KZ2). I saw Siren: Blood Curse in computer exchange for £12 and will probably pick that up as it looks really good.

    I think this whole visual debate is a moot point for me so far. I'm going down to Game and picking up God of War 3 (£25!) and Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 (£15!). I think that decent gameplay wins out over graphics every time, although graphics can help sometimes such as Monster Hunter Tri (I love it!). Might Pick up GT5: Prologue so I can compare to PGR4 and Forza 3. Is GT5 going to really have proper physics? Does Prologue and is it worth £15?

    Edited by d00dl at 07/05/10 @ 11:50

  • mgillespie #141 2 years ago

    Anyone notice a pattern?

    PS3 Sub-HD game: Eurogamer rant about how shocking it is.
    Xbotch Sub-HD game: Eurogamer make excuses.

    I'm pretty sure Microsoft were on the phone to Eurogamer this morning, asking them to publish this article/PR.