Despite the fact we'd love to see every game rendered in true high definition, there are reasons why some developers choose a lower resolution. …well, we assume there are good reasons, at any rate.
Take Infinity Ward, for instance: according to GameZine , Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will boast a resolution of 600p, which is equivalent to 1024 x 600 pixels, and this has been confirmed by the Beyond3D technical forums. For the record, the first Modern Warfare was also shown in 600p, and everyone is asking the same question: is this a significantly negative point of interest? Wouldn't it be fair to assume that a sequel two years later, especially in this HD-crazy generation, might use a higher resolution? Perhaps it's important to note that the game should run at a silky smooth 60 frames per second – just like the original – and I don't recall critics or gamers having a problem with the visuals. And based on what we've seen thus far of Modern Warfare 2 , it should be another graphically stunning title, so maybe we don't necessarily need something higher than 600p. Maybe it's better to keep a slightly lower resolution and avoid the slower 30fps; some of the more visually advanced titles won't run faster than 30.
So what say you? Should Infinity Ward have tried for a higher resolution? Do you think they could've kept 60fps with more pixels flying around the screen? It's your chance to show off your technical knowledge…
Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2