Ben-DutkaIt's no secret that high-definition remakes for the PlayStation 3 have turned out well. Shadow of the Colossus is only one example of a PS2 classic receiving an HD overhaul (it was bundled with the HD version of ICO ), and the selection has grown considerably.
And you know, even Microsoft has to admit that Sony has done a good job "selling those games again." After all, that's what they're doing, right? They're taking existing games – existing old games – and turning them into new titles with fresh glossy veneers. Microsoft hasn't followed suit (although some will argue that it's simply because the 360 isn't a true HD machine), even if Halo fans wanted touched-up entries. Microsoft Studios corporate vice president Phil Spencer told Game Informer (as reported at GameZone ):
"Sony's done a great job with looking at their back catalogue and selling those games again."
It isn't often you hear Microsoft paying Sony any sort of compliment, so we figured this was newsworthy and in a way, special. It's actually one element of this generation that often goes overlooked: the high-def remakes of PS2 classics for the PS3. We keep hoping for certain PS1 classics to receive the same treatment, but various developers have explained why this would be extremely difficult. So…no FFVII. Duh.
Well, once Microsoft is once again a software only developer there will be even more praise thrown at Sony! 🙂
Microsoft will never abandon the console market. They want control of people's living rooms. That's the main reason they entered the console war in the first place. I would be thrilled if they did but it's just not going to happen.
I think both companies have done some things right this gen. Sony deserves praise for their software and MS deserves praise for starting this online craze on the consoles with XBOX LIVE. No doubt online play has propelled the gaming industry to unseen heights this gen. LIVE has been a big part of that.
sounds like an underhanded sort of compliment to me
But a misguided one since articles all over the net have headings of "Microsoft compliments Sony's HD remakes!"
Since most people don't actually read articles, most people see that they compliment Sony, but can't do a Halo remake. lol
Definitely a Microsoft misstep.
Well, Microsoft has never been one to innovate. They just copy a winning formula and market the shit out of it to sell more than the company they copied from.
I expect no less from their future HD remakes.
Would somebody please explain to me why the 360 is not a true HD machine? Is that implying the PS3 is? Both machines have all kinds of sub HD games floating around on them and there have even been several PS3 multiplats that are rendered at lower resolutions than their 360 counterparts. GTA4, Red Ded Revolver, and Crysis 2 come to mind.
The 360 is capable of the same resolutions as the PS3 as far as I know but maybe I'm technically wrong in some way. Now, I have heard the argument that this is not a true HD gaming generation before in regards to both the PS3 and 360. It's usually an argument I have heard from PC elitist but I have never heard the 360 singled out.
I am not sure either. I do know there are older 360s floating around that do not have HDMI. They only use composite cables. Which is not HD. But the 360 HDMI models are HD. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks
u can forget that arguement that u heard from what a PC elitist said, PC is not a console game system. 360 is/was holding back what the PS3 is able to achieve with alot of games that should been alot better on the PS3.
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 1/24/2012 11:05:48 AM
It's not true HD because only Blu-Ray is true high-definition. DVDs, no matter how you hook them up, regardless of hardware and cables, can never be full high-definition. HD-DVD was high-def, but those are dead.
Some can't tell a big difference between DVD hooked up with HDMI and Blu-Ray, but the difference is there. The 360 can play digital stuff in HD because it doesn't rely on the sub-HD DVD format, but that's it.
But quick Excelsior, find some other way to disparage the PS3. Can't go a week without doing it, so you know…don't stop now. 'rolling eyes'
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 1/24/2012 11:05:39 AM
"Technically" crusader forever, the old Xbox 360 used component cables to output HD resolution, which is not nearly as sweet as HDMI but still did the job. As to the whole 360 not being a true HD machine that might be because no one considers the use of DVDs as storage medium to be HD. Or, because most if not all 360 games are rendered at sub HD resolution.
@ben
I was asking an honest question. No need to be such a smart a$$. Notice how the other posters responded in a smart way and mature way without being snide and abrasive. Grow up. Roll eyes…
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 1/24/2012 11:12:31 AM
360 uses compressed video and audio. and video is enlarged into 720p or 1080p with a lot of games. the uncompressed video and audio produces higher quality thus allowing full HD.
i may be wrong but i have heard and seen that the base resolution is often 576p. including FF13 on 360, and video is enlarged losing quality even through HDMI.
Thats true Ben, but they're bot gaming consoles first and then BD/DVD player next. So the whole thing about the 360 not being a "true HD" console is debatable.
Thanks Ben! After reading your comments I slapped myself upside the head! DUHHH! Thanks for the info.
Okay I get Blu ray argument vs DVD as movie player. I just don't see how that applies to the gaming realm if both machines can render games at the same resolutions which as far as I know they can.
Quick, Ben!! Find a way to get one of your snide digs again!!! Rolls eyes again.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 1/24/2012 11:25:28 AM
To clear up y'all's full hd debate thing here, just watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MakQpMSKP7I&feature=relmfu
What he did(for test 2) was create a .jpeg image file of a 1920×1080 checkerboard with each pixel being black and then white accordingly, so it's one white pixel followed by one black pixel followed by one white pixel.
Now if the system can display true full hd it would display the image as is, one black, one white, etc.
The conditions he used in the test were standard, all the same, HDMI cables, same tv.
For the test he used a black xbox 360 elite and a phat ps3.
Now the ps3 showed the checkerboard as is, one pixel white, followed by one pixel black, followed by one pixel white, all over the 1920×1080 display.
When he showed the xbox 360 displaying the file it wasn't an image displaying pixels alternating black and white, it was four white pixels, surrounded on each side by grey pixels, leading to black pixels next to the grey pixels.
The conclusion which one can draw out of this test is that the xbox 360 cannot display a true full hd image, meaning the claims of native 1080p are actually upscaled images, close to full hd, but still, no cake 😛
@Ben Dukta, What you described applies to movies, not games…
The 360 is capable of the same in-game resolution as the PS3.
One would remember that games on PC are still being printed on DVDs, and the end results are games running at higher resolution than on the HD consoles… ¬_¬
So there you have it. 360's DVDs are capable of handling games at a resolution as high as the PS3s. And in fact, most multi-platform games are running at higher resolution on the PS3, sadly.
Fifa Street 3 and Sacred 2 Fallen Angel are 2 games on the 360 that disprove your belief.
Last edited by Hynad on 1/24/2012 12:42:38 PM
@hynad
Except the PC doesn't read directly from the disc like the Xbox360 does. The files are on the DVD disc, then unpacked and installed to the PC's HDD. I believe the files are compressed on the DVD disc and uncompressed by the PC during installation. The Xbox360 wouldn't have this luxury because of lack of HDD in some Xbox models.
I'm by no means an expert on the subject. But this is how I understand the process to be different from Xbox consoles and PCs.
Last edited by Evil Incarnate on 1/24/2012 2:11:39 PM
Hynad: It's not all about resolution. It doesn't begin and end there. It's how the data was first constructed and how it's delivered.
DVD is not high-definition. If you're using a DVD, you're not viewing high-definition. Period.
Excelsior: Still waiting on the day when ANYTHING positive about the PS3 comes out of your mouth.
@Ben ,
I'm sorry Ben, but I must correct you here. What you're saying would apply to movies.
It being true HD or not has nothing to do with the storage in which the data is stored in.
What you're suggesting implies that digital versions of retail games are also not true HD.
HD is about resolution. The storage in which everything is stored in takes no part in the actual execution of a game. When you're playing the game, everything is loaded into memory and that's where the magic happens.
Blu-Ray is clearly superior to DVDs in storage capacity and transfer speed, but that's it.
@Wolfsinner
As Sogi_Otsa elaborated, although DVD-9 is HD capable, due to it's capacity (8.54 GB, and only 6.5 if we subtract data required for copy-right protection encryption code), texture and sound/music data often has to be compressed, resulting in loss of data.
Moreover, regardless of the storage media, as FullmetalX10 mentioned, the 360 upscales images, so even a true 1080p signal will get distorted as he proved with the footage of the 1080p tile image.
@Shams
Compression resulting in loss of data is a consequence of storage capacity. You could still spread everything out on multiple discs (as it happens) and still get everything equally detailed on the platform, without loss of data.
My argument never said that compression does not happen, I was merely stating that it does not happen because "DVDs can't take it". It just happens because developers would rather keep everything neatly packed in a single disc.
The physical storage used has no impact whatsoever in the final quality of the product because it simply serves as a container of digital data.
Finally, I was addressing Ben's comments regarding Blu-Ray vs. DVD. Whether the 360 upscales or not has nothing to do with it.
Even if the you have multiple discs, as shown by FFxiii (3 discs) and Castlevania Lords of Shadow (2 discs) on the 360, data must be compressed, and textures, FMV, and sound end up losing quality.
But, yes, as FullmetalX10 mentioned, if we ignore capacity and compression issues of storage media, even then, the upscaling chip distorts 1080p signal like the 1080p tile image sample.
@Shams
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about physically storing the data. You seem to be talking about the 360's power to actually render that data.
It does not matter whether it's Blu-Ray or DVD, you can put everything you put into a Blu-Ray in multiple DVDs. Without compression. That's what I'm saying.
They merely serve as digital containers..
@Shams
It is not false.
The reason why you install data to the hard drive is to increase loading speed. That's what loading screens are for, to load large chunks of data from the hard drive to memory.
I can assure you that everything a game immediately works with is located in memory. You never work with the Hard Drive directly, even less with the Blu-Ray disc (which is slower than a HDD). There are algorithms that work with caching, pipelining and several layers of virtual memory to ensure that everything is loaded almost flawlessly.
EDIT: A shame you deleted your comment.
Last edited by wolfsinner on 1/24/2012 5:44:48 PM
@Wolfsinner
I agree with you that DVD-9 isn't an absolute deal breaker. For example, in some cases, it actually is a benefit, as it has a higher disc read speed than Bluray reader in the ps3.
But to give you an idea why it hurts more than it helps, is let say, you spread a game over 3 discs or more, like in FFxiii. This still is an issue, because in order to have an open world, or a large one, it must redundantly run off each disc, or be installed, or require disc swapping every time you wish to navigate to an area not on the current disc. This leaves even less room for data. In other word, 12 GB split over 3 discs won't equal 4GB each. It may equal 5GB, 6GB, or even more.
In the case of installing game data entirely to an HD, which eliminates the overhead of disc storage media with exception of installation time, data must be decompressed. So these final digital files end up losing data.
Wolfsinner:
Consoles must run data off one of two places Disc Drive or Hard Drive. With 256MB to 512MB of Graphics and System RAM, no console runs a game entirely off of memory, when games are in the size of GB's.
@Shams
You seem to believe that data burned to a DVD must be compressed. That is not true.
At a "binary level", those files stay digitally intact. There doesn't have to be any type of data loss. Yes, it's a pain having it spread over multiple discs, but that is not my point. My point is that it is possible without compression.
Obviously, installing to the HDD will increase loading speeds and make it less of a pain.
And yes, data must be stored in some other, slower, media. It is called persistent media, rather than volatile media. I obviously am not saying that the whole game must be loaded into memory, either.
But games do not run off of this media. It is too slow for that.
As I mentioned in my post, there are techniques that ensure that the required data is always loaded into memory (from this slower media) when it's needed. I would advise you to read it again.
Well, we all know that SEGA was the first to have "High Definition" graphics. The Genesis said it right on the console =p
@Wolfsinner
All console games run off persistent media (disc or hard drive) streamed into RAM. This much we agree on. So there are two potential bottlenecks: reading from persistent Media to RAM, and reading from RAM. Furthermore, due to 360 sku's not having hdd (hard drive disc) as a requirement, this is yet another bottleneck.
While it is certainly true not all games require data compression, you'd be surprised how many do. Dead Space 1 & 2 for example, required data compression, and therefore, while the ps3 version offered 7.1 Dolby surround sound, the 360 version didn't.
While this doesn't say much about HD versus non HD debate, I suggest you play Uncharted 3 and Gears 3. Just check out the difference in quality of the FMV. There's a world of a difference. The reason is the Gears 3 cutscenes are compressed data, and so even though the signal maybe 720p or even upscaled at 1080p, it is clearly low res. And if you wish to see a proper multiplatform comparison, check out the aforementioned titles FFxiii, or Castelvania Lords of Shadow.
My point is that while having DVD-9 is certainly not a deal breaker for supporting HD signal, it definitely is bottleneck, especially when one considers the limit on the number of discs (2 or 3) when they become cost prohibitive owing to MS fees on the publisher, and the complexity of spreading data for redundancy across multiple discs, whether that data is compressed or not.
@Shams
They do not "run off persistent media". Their data is stored in persistent media. There is a big difference. The game data stored in a HDD or disc is worthless. It does nothing until it is loaded into memory.
That's the only real difference in performance between a DVD and a Blu-Ray.. How fast it transfers data to virtual memory.
The bottlenecks you are talking about (which are present in every computing system) have complex optimizations which I previously lightly mentioned and you apparently seem to ignore. You can trust me, it is what I do for a living.
But seriously, why even mention that? It has nothing to do in particular to DVDs..
The fact that HDDs aren't a requirement for the 360 is indeed limiting, but it is still not pertinent to my original discussion. The same goes for the rest of your post.
I'm not even sure if you know what my original argument was.
Woah! So many misconceptions!
fact is 360 is an HD machine in every definition but ps3 is better at it in every way I can think of
Wolfsinner:
My last paragraph summarized my point. DVD-9 is a bottleneck in HD console gaming (Not so much in PC gaming, as game data is entirely installed to HDD). This is why even Nintendo will offer bluray next gen, and very likely MS will (or come out with another proprietary HD disc format with larger capacity than DVD-9).
And your point, please correct me if I'm mistaken, was that it does not matter if ROM format is DVD-9 or Bluray. My counter to that is yes it does matter, and the next gen's chosen formats will prove that to you, if my imperfectly worded technical explanations haven't.
@Shams
My original point was that Blu-Ray does not determine whether something is HD or not. It is simply a data container and, like Blu-Ray, DVDs require no compression whatsoever.
And well, it seems like there's no point in continuing with this argument. You seem to be pretty stubborn while you seem to lack the knowledge to actually argue over technical things.
Have fun buddy.
lol
HD is not defined exclusively by the resolution output.
How many games are made and compressed to a 720p or even lower 400-something p only to be rescaled and unpacked by the system's computing power to be scaled up to 720 or 1080?
Just because it is scaled up to 720 or 1080 doesn't make it HD. What about frame rate? What about the Hz? There is so much to be considered beyond the resolution.
DVD's cannot produce true HD. They can store compressed data that can be rescaled, but it cannot produce pure, unadulterated HD. That one singular hardware component makes it impossible. Technically, downloadable titles could produce HD quality on XBOX360, but how many can do that?!?!
The article isn't 100% correct in that downloadable titles could technically be true HD, but it isn't very wrong either.
The biggest problem, of course, is that the objective definitions of HD are full of grey areas. But it cannot be argued at ALL that the PS3 is far more capable of HD than the 360. By that, I mean, the PS3 has far more opportunity to provide a better HD experience. 360 has to crimp and compress and unpackage, etc. etc. It's actually pretty sloppy.
Imagine… if they had just accepted BluRay….
@Wolfsinner
Unfortunately, there is some truth to what others say. It's true a DVD could potentially offer an HD experience… but it would have to be very short and non-diverse to house it all. Nearly all 360 games contain 1080 or 720p games compressed to the 720 or 400-something resolution to be stretched back out later on. It works, for the most part, but it limits the ability for detail.
A poorly detailed game in 1080p, for example, doesn't necessarily mean an HD experience. The processing speed required to unpack and re-imagine the 1080p quality, reduces the processing power that could be spent in other places. As a result, although technically the 360 can do "HD" (a grey area), it cannot have the same potential as the PS3… not without superior specs.
The lack of an blu-ray drive definitely limits the 360's capabilities. It acts as a sort of funnel that sort of means… you can only go as fast as your slowest (most narrow) point.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/25/2012 1:21:05 PM
@Underdog15
HD is defined exclusively by the resolution output. Period.
What makes something HD is the number of outputted vertical lines.
Whether software uses techniques to upscale resolution to a "HD one" has no weight whatsoever in its actual definition. Obviously, upscaled video should not be considered HD because in its raw form it is (usually) 480p, which would fall under the SD category.
In HD there are also scanning techniques to be taken into account, but these are resolution-independent and are implemented in hardware. Same goes for the Hz (fps).
And about the DVD story, I won't be repeating myself again, but you're wrong in most of what you said.
So, taking into consideration what many people have said here, we all agree that the PS3 isn't much better than the 360 to create "true" HD games.
After all, even GT5 relies on pixelated (as in: sub HD) shadows and other alpha effects… *rolleyes*
Last edited by Hynad on 1/25/2012 7:13:28 PM
everyone's just gotta stop arguing with wolfsinner, he obviously knows what he's talking about. he says it all like an instruction manual, that's convincing enough to me =p
@hynad
Correct if we're talking about 720p.
The 360 can not produce native 1080p video. All it can do is upscale from native 720p to 1080p.
The PS3 can, in fact, produce native 1080p.
@Temjin001
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but..
As a part of my Master's scholarship, I teach CS.
I'm used to talking like an instruction manual. 😛
Last edited by wolfsinner on 1/25/2012 9:37:26 PM
@wolfsinner
I know about videos.
In game though, there are games (on disc) that are native 1080p on the 360. I mentioned Fifa Street 3 and Sacred 2 Fallen Angel already.
@hynad
They are not native 1080p. It is not possible with the 360.
They are upscaled to 1080p.
@wolfsinner
Well, sources say you are wrong.
Last edited by Hynad on 1/26/2012 12:15:49 AM
My apologies, my =p is usaully an indicator of sarcasm, the scope of it was narrowed strictly to the instruction manual. And so while I did certainly imply a level of sarcasm, I do most certainly respect your input on this topic. As a student of CS myself, a junior, the venacular and terms being used by yourself were certainly ringing true with me.
@wolfsinner
I know exactly what you mean. I've run across people who don't really understand HD(visuals) and that it's referring to resolution, and has nothing to do with the media data is stored on. They just can't get it.
If it was configured to work in such a way, the same exact HD footage(and sound) could be played on a PS3 from a DVD as it does a Blu-Ray disc, and look identical. The only problem is, you wouldn't be able to fit a whole movie on the DVD, just not enough space.
It's the same with games, those are both just storage media. With Blu-Ray being the larger in capacity. The actual resolution the console puts out is a result of the console and data, not the storage media. Though how much you can fit on that media depends the capacity of that media. That's where Blu-Ray currently wins.
Last edited by FoReVeR_0515 on 1/26/2012 8:46:43 AM
@hynad
Please point me to credible and non-biased sources that contradict my statement. I'm sure you'll find none.
I will also gladly explain to you why it is so, but not through here. We've gone too off-topic.
@Temjin
I see. 🙂
@Gamer_Josh
Good post. That is indeed what I mean.
Last edited by wolfsinner on 1/26/2012 4:09:27 PM
Good grief. I asked an honest question about HD gaming and I was accused of somehow "disparging" the PS3. Wow, is all I can say about.
Let me rephrase my question. Aren't both the 360 and PS3 capable of the same resolutions as gaming machines? No, I'm not trying to "disparage" the PS3 by asking that. I honestly don't know the answer in technical terms in regards to gaming. I was always told both machines were capable of the same resolutions when it comes to games but I admit I might be wrong in a technical way I'm unaware of. Now. I'm strictly speaking of both devices as gaming machines which is their primary purpose. I'm not talking about them as movie players.
In a reply to your previous comment I posted a link and an explanation between the full hd debates between the ps3 and 360, though it is now pending approval (because of the link of course), so look back at that in sometime for your answer.
I look forward to reading it. The whole movie player argument is weak in my view but I am open to debates when it comes to gaming. Thank you for responding in a mature way which is something the administrator of this site seems incaple of recently when it comes to me. Rolls eyes third time…
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 1/24/2012 12:15:12 PM