PGR3 not truly high-definition, if in-game screenshots are to be believed

by Ben Striegel { Nov 13th 2005 at 7:20PM }

This is the HD Era. At least, that's what the fellows over at Microsoft would like you to believe. As a matter of fact, they've even gone so far as to dictate that every game for the Xbox 360 must support high-def resolutions up to 720p and 1080i. But according to a forum poster at BizzareOnline.net, this policy may not be as ironclad as previously suspected:

"I have a review build of PGR3 and every time we capture a screenshot (which takes directly from the graphics buffer inside the machine) it punts out at 1024x600. This is unlike any of the other Xbox 360 games we have so far screegrabbed, which have all given screenshots of 1280x720."

It's important to note that the source, going by the name of MoonFace, states that menu screens output at a full 1280x720, while only in-game racing shots are subject to the decreased resolution. For your own personal scrutiny, take a look at the screenshot provided by MoonFace and judge the accuracy of his claims for yourself.

Whether or not PGR3 runs natively at 720p, it hasn't stopped many from labeling it as the most visually impressive game in the Xbox 360's launch window. When it comes down to it, what's more important? A high-definition resolution, proper antialiasing, or a solid 30 fps? And, more importantly, what would it say for Microsoft's HD Era if the best-looking launch title on the Xbox 360 wasn't even truly high-def?

[Via Slashdot]

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Randy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Sounds sorta bogus to me. Who cares?

Zachary @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

The Headline might as well have read:
Attention! Attention! Calling all Sony fanboys!

Hunta @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

I don't think gamers should be annoyed, but maybe the other development houses should be annoyed if they've been forced to decrease frame-rates to make 720p.

At the end of the day, as long as it plays well and looks great, who cares?

I can't wait to see how many titles use 1080p for realtime gfx on the PS3... probably just bust-a-move extreeeme (or whatever the obligatory B-a-M game will be called).

OTAM @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

"When it comes down to it, what�s more important? A high-definition resolution, proper antialiasing, or a solid 30 fps?"

None of them considering the everyday gamer has no idea what any of them are. The gameplay is the most important.

Neil Christie @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

This is indeed true. From what I played of PGR3 at the Xbox 360 UK Tour, I got the distinct impression that things weren't crisp when the game loaded up.

The menus themselves were super crisp on the Samsung monitors they had - a rival to the PSP version of ridge racer. However, once the game actually loaded the text on the HUD appeared blurry, almost as if it had been stretched, and now we know it's because of this 600p upscaling to 720p.

vrf @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Realistic light effects and physics engines make a game "prettier" in my book. I'd much rather have a physically convincing reality shown at a slightly lower resolution over the same-old graphics we've been seeing, but sharper.

One funny thing is that HD resolution won't really matter if the designers aren't using high-res textures on every model. And the RAM limitations mean that they'll still use lower-res textures on some models. All the increased resolution will do is make those shortcuts more apparent.

theburn16 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

what a joke, if this was sony you guys would be ripping them. instead its microsoft so you're like "who cares?". i personally dont care if the games are in HD or not, because i dont have an hdtv. its just funny how #2 mentions the title is calling out for sony fanboys, yet this site always has posts about some rumor that some guy heard from another guy about how the launch of the ps3 wont be next year or some other BS. so give me a break, it goes both ways and chill out with the fanboy crap

Nick Spacek @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

It's been said before, but what's up with 30fps? Go for 60fps guys! Man!

ZildjianKX @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

This is dissapointing to say the least... a first gen game is already breaking the 720p standard.

The game should have been delayed until they were able to bump up the resolution.

It is a big deal, you are missing 33% of the pixels in every frame. Plus I don't want to see a stretched image on my HDTV, it loses the crispness.

SilverWA @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Review builds are not necessarily the final builds you guys know right? For all we know, the final build is 720p.

And until Bizarre has a chance to respond, I'm not going to think one way or the other.

TME @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Can anyone tell the difference once it is on a TV screen? People are way too concerned about graphics, I'm not saying we should go back a generation or not make improvements, but when people get caught up on numbers and stop caring about the games themselves we have a real problem.

Sceptre @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Meh, honestly watching videos the game doesn't look as good as the screenshots anyway. Another driving game with no damage model and terrible collision physics. Yay.

Paul Atreides @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Anyway, who cares? It's PGR2 with better graphics, so what? How is that a big deal?

PGR2...I got bored after 2 races...I guess I don't like driving games.

fat_bunnies @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

"or a solid 30 fps"

isn't the next gen, i wanna see 60 fps god damn it!!!!

JRM @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

the xbox360 was supposed to be all about graphics and polygons. If they can't live up to their #1 selling point, what the heck can they live up to?

choosejiff @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Here's how it works:
First:
Joystiq posts something to try to excite (read piss off) one camp or the other in hopes for massive forum participation.

Assuming the "news" is negative towards xbox, Xbox bitches will say, "who cares!?" and PS bitches will say, "HA HA your systems sucks."

If the "news" is negative towards PS, the same thing in reverse.

If the "news" is negative toward Nintendo, everyone on the planet will jump in and bash Nintendo.

There. No need to read the forums anymore.

Bender @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Screw 30 fps! 30 is not enough for a high-speed racing game. A rock solid 60 is what i expect from ALL next gen racers.

phez @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

I don't believe many of us would question the graphics of PGR3...

It is a case of lying to 'loyal' customers however. Simply put, 1280x720 rendered with 2xAA. Thats what it was. Thats what everyone knows. Anything less, and, well... ;|

Matt @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

""or a solid 30 fps"

isn't the next gen, i wanna see 60 fps god damn it!!!!"
You can't tell the difference.

funkonaut @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Matt, you might not be able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, but the normal human eye sees at over 200 fps. So you're either partially blind or your brain isn't smart enough to keep up with what you're seeing. :-)

Project Gotham Racing 3 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Exactly... who cares. As long as it plays / looks good.

EatingPie @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Menus are "full 1024x720"?

Um. This *still* isn't HD. 1280x720 is the 720p resolution. This is opposed to 1920x1080 for the 1080i format.

And on games in 1080p, don't count on that. The Xbox 360 has NO WAY to output 1080p .. though if it's like the current Xbox they could provide that capability in the future.

And, finally, don't count on display 60fps. TVs display at 30fps. I've heard it claimed that 720p is a 60fps format for TV displays, but I have not been able to verify this. (Because TVs run at 60hz, 60fps is the max display rate for progressive formats, but 480p works by running at 30fps and doubling every frame).

-Pie

hdman @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Aside from the (bogus) argument that 30 fps might be OK for next gen, even 720p is lame. *True* HDTV is 1920x1080.

And no, I don't care what FOX decides to broadcast their sports in, it's not the "finest standard". Next-gen DVD's (either one) will be 1080p, just like PS3.

And for the argument that "there's no TV's", actually yes, there is one that accepts a *native* 1080p made by HP, and there will be more next year, and in a few years it will be quite standard.

So the 360 has no 1080p, no next-gen drive, no 60fps, and now supposedly the 360 can't even meet it's own puny 720p standard rez? Count me out.

Master misChief @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

To Ben Striegel and Joystiq team:

You guys need to make it clear that the reported screenshots were captured by using a third-party software using what could be unofficial means of extracting screenshots. I believe it is your responsibility to make this fact clear, as the 3rd party software might be the cause of this anomaly.

This is what the whistle-blower poster 'Moonface' posted on BizarreOnline.net forums explaining how he got the screenshots in from the Xbox360 to his PC, and I quote from
http://bizarreonline.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=157920#157920

----------------------------------------------------------------------
miketuck3r wrote:
So the guy who caused all this sh*t said the he used photomode??????? so its all BS??

Moonface replied:
I didn't use photo mode.

I used a piece of software that can dump a screenshot to a PC at any point in the game. On monday I'll punt up a screenshot of one of the menus if you need me to prove that I can do this.

Oh and about the frame rate thing - it is definitely thirty frames. And it doesn't matter at all because it still runs smooth, never dips below thirty frames and is probably the best looking game I've ever seen in my life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope Joystiq is responsible enough to cover all bases regarding possible mistakes on part of the whistle-blower. The amount of damage this 'news' could do to Microsoft's reputation is huge.

Master misChief @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

To #21 (EatingPie):

[quote]Menus are "full 1024x720"?

Um. This *still* isn't HD. 1280x720 is the 720p resolution. This is opposed to 1920x1080 for the 1080i format.[/quote]

Perhaps you should realize that the HDTV standard mandates only apply to the number of horizontal lines - and there is no fixed standard for the vertical resolution. This has been done to accomodate the TV manufacturers' inability to produce affordable displays with native resolutions to display 1280x720p and 1920x1080i. 1024x720 is still a valid HD resolution.

Rjcc @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

"I'm not getting all of the pixels I paid for"? I didn't know I was buying games on a per-pixel basis, nor did I say oh, if it's 720p, I'm checking the frame buffer to see what resolution it runs. As far as the frame rate question, thats definitely number-whoring to a point, if it seems choppy to you, don't buy it, if you believe it doesn't look choppy at 30 fps and that the visual effects do make it appear far smoother than your eye can percieve, then thats good too.

I have my own question about the source, if he has a review copy of the game, what I'm guessing is a 360 dev kit, then who is he, a reviewer? if he is, why wouldn't he put that info in his own review instead of on bizarre's message boards? it seems odd.

I'll make my judgement when I see the game in person, if it looks low res and blurry, it won't be bought, if it looks visually stunning and head and shoulders above everything that has been released before, then I will have 0 complaints.

striegs @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

"...menu screens output at a full 1024x720..."

Whoa, totally got my resolutions mixed up there. That should say 1280x720. Thanks for pointing that out, EatingPie. The logic in Master misChief's latter post is correct, but I'll add a link to where the source makes the comments in any case.

As for your first concern, Master misChief, we can't rule out that a software anomaly is to blame for the resolution discrepancy, but as MoonFace makes mention of in the quote above, he's supposedly used the same process on other Xbox 360 games without experiencing any downsizing of resolution whatsoever. And seeing as how game reviewers have been using these kinds of tools for years, it isn't likely that the screen capture utility is to blame. It is possible that the utility could upscale or downscale images captured from the GPU, but they would be consistently scaled, rather than at certain points of selective games.

Captain Bridger @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

I think GT4 looks as good, if not better.
You can buy GT4, a PS2, a DS, MarioKart, and more for less than a 360.

I think the PS2, Xbox, and GameCube gen will be the last generation of videogames worth living in. Sad, it is not all about money making, not fun new games. The industry has turned into Hollywood.

At least I have Nintendo, kinda.

Memmo @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Wow, a pre-release demo. Yeah, that's not subject to change. We all know it's like demo straight to production as is. Always.

Rocketboy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

# 3 - Hunta... Wow, a Bust A Move reference to try to bust on sony? Are you talking about the game also know as Puzzle Bobble,which comes out every once and a while with very low sales, or the dancing game that never made it to the PS2? Either way, they are both 3rd party games, and very small blips in the Sony library. If you're going to get all fanboyish, please, try to at least be relevant in your stupidity.

shoobot @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

@Funkonaut.

"Matt, you might not be able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, but the normal human eye sees at over 200 fps."

Sorry dude, you're an idiot.
The human eye can NOT see 200 FPS. The human eye can not even see 60 FPS. If it could we would all see the light bulbs in our house as blinking instead of solid. Thats because our homes have AC (alternating current) power. That means it alternates between on and off. The light bulbs in your house (and mine ane everyones) go on and off 60 times per second. But because of "visual image retention" we can't see it. If it flashed at 30 times a second you might see it. If you dont believe me, take a science class sometime and quit posting BULLSH(&*.

Thanks.

testy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Yep, The human eye sees at about 30 FPS.

http://nths.newtrier.k12.il.us/academics/math/Connections/perception/RETENT.htm

Matt @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Thanks Shoobot for backing me up. It is pretty ridiculous what people think they know.

Anyhow, I have to call BS. This guy is random joe blow, who could have pulled these things from wherever. How did he get an early build? How is he using software to get an image from the 360? Does he have a dev kit and the source? None of this groks right.

ZildjianKX @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

I think it's legit... anyone with a review build or even a beta with a dev kit can dump an image from the frame buffer, just like they could on the original Xbox (hell, I've done it)... and the frame buffer does not lie as resolution goes.

Upsampling games has happened in the past on some systems, such as the PS2. I'd bet money that he's telling the truth and we'll never get an official response regarding this.

ill trooper @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

You need to do some research and stop posting bullshit yourself.

***Lightbulbs going on and off 60 times a second?

Stop right now, you are hurting yourself. Your rights to call someone an 'IDIOT' over the internet have been revoked.

Get back to science class. You are talking about the frequency of the CURRENT that runs it, not the analog piece of WIRE in the LIGHT BULB that can take the AC CURRENT and heat an element of wire to glow to a point where it can glow long enough to make it to the next pulse of AC electricity. There is NO flicker from a lightbulb, unless maybe your house has those novelty ones that look like candles, which do flicker, but only about 2-3 times a second.

By your twisted logic, which is WRONG I'll say again, nothing powered by electricity would ever be able to run at anything over '30 fps.' Explain saw blades, then? Far faster than that. Drills, phones operating at 900MHz.

Go talk to your science teacher, get some facts, and come back with some info to prove wrong if you like. Provide some links too.

Meanwhile:

You are WRONG about NOT being able to detect over 30 frames per second. The human eye can detect more than 30 fps, and if you have ever seen an IMAX HD movie, which is running at 48 FPS, you would know it is distinctly different from NTSC signals running at 30fps. It is more fluid.

If life were moving at 30 fps, you would not be able to tell the difference between TV and real life.

The human eye/brain combo does not work on direct 'frames per second.'

And your friend posting a high school science link? Let's at LEAST go with Wikipedia, see the part about "Framerates in Video Games":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frames_per_second

BUT back on topic, most of us by now have now played PGR3 at some kiosk or something and I have to say, hate all you want on me, I was a bit underwhelmed, whether it's a true HD res or not - it looked jaggy and lacked anti-aliasing in my opinion. Interestingly enough, the frame rate looked fine but the graphics looked 'pretty good,' but not 'LIFE-CHANGING HD realism' to me.

I still have PGR3 on pre-order, I'm still buying it, but I'm also looking forward to the 360's games getting more techically advanced in the next year.

mirobin @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

I'm calling BS on the poster's numbers, because they don't add up. Even more so because his numbers would look right if the poster hadn't rounded off the aspect ratio of a 720p screen to the first decimal.

The aspect ratio of the image sizes he mentions do not scale evenly to 720p. The width scaled to 720 lines would be 1228.8 pixels, meaning you'd have a 26 pixel border on sides of the image. If you used a 34" tv, that means you'd have a half inch border on each side of the screen.

If the menus were only 1024x720 pixels wide (as the 'poster' claims), there would be 3" border on each side of the image.

If anyone looks at the screen grabs posted on a real game site (ign/gamespot/teamxbox/whatever), you'll observe a few things.

1) The resolution of the shot is 720p
2) The line edges are too sharp for a 1024x600 image scaled to 1280x720

You'll also notice that on none of the camcorder vids of PGR3 demonstrate any sort of border on the displayed image, neither in the menus or the game screens.

Skribble @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Mirobin, go ahead and check out IGN's media page for PGR3:

http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/741/741362/imgs_1.html

Even if any of those shots were taken by IGN themselves in-game, none of them depict in-game racing sequences. As for movies, two are advertisements are two are trailers. Hardly representative of actual gameplay.

According to IGN, the game's slated to come out tomorrow. So where's IGN's pre-release copy? Why haven't we seen any pics or footage of actual people racing? Hey Bizarre, WHERE'S THE BEEF???

baddassng @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

stop bitching and read this for the answer to your sight/fps arguement

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html

Master misChief @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

#36 (Mirobin):

[quote]Why haven't we seen any pics or footage of actual people racing? Hey Bizarre, WHERE'S THE BEEF???[/quote]

Were you living under a rock over the past one month? If you care to search on this very website, or on Bizarre's forums, you would see links posted to nearly 50 videos shot by real gamers using their camcorders while playing this game at events like TGS, X05 and various press events and gamer try-outs held in major cities in the UK, Europe, and in San Franciso and New York in the US. I myself have 50+ user shot videos of real people playing this game at these events.

Where's the beef? You'd find it if you made an effort.

Master misChief @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Damn, my last post was pointed at Skribble in post #36. Not Mirobin..

acm2000 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Sceptre "Meh, honestly watching videos the game doesn't look as good as the screenshots anyway. Another driving game with no damage model and terrible collision physics. Yay."

ugh, the game has full damage models (albeit hardier cars to prevent morons like yourself breaking the car at the first corner) and the collision physics are fine.

as for this resolution argument, stop being so damn anal, firstly all the launch titles have been rushed through to get to launch, even the console itself has, they could of hit 60fps/720p given the time needed but MS has wisely choosen to get the damn thing out as early as possible ahead of the PS3, secondly, what the hell kind of resolution is "1024x600" anyway, non standard bizarr-o-vision, at the end of the day, most users of the x360 won't even use HD for a few years, cause outside of america, europe especially, HD tv's aren't very common.

i swear the only time idiots decide to type on their keyboards is to post on forums and comments on websites, cause thats what they are always full of.

mirobin @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Skribble, if the math doesn't prove it to you, look at the "CO" in COMBO in the "screenshot". Note how they blend together. You can see several image artifacts that are likely the result of some cheap ass imaging software shrinking the image (the easiest ones to spot are around the text and other high contrast areas).

You don't even see those kind of artifacts from crappy screencaps at even lower resolutions.

For example: http://images.xboxyde.com/gallery/public/2053/726_0006.jpg

That would also be a good site to start looking at videos of the game that you claim don't exist.

Martez @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Eh. The game still looks great, and I don't have an HDTV so I don't reaaaallly care.

If it's true, it is kind of funny. That's about it, though.

Gamas @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

You can't tell me that this game has anything approaching real collision physics... I just watched the 4 'gameplay' videos -- there are points where the car's speeding along, rams into a stone pillar and what happens? Nothing! It just stops, not a scratch on it, and then the driver reverses and keeps going.
It's a pretty shallow simulation, which is fine for a fun driving game, but don't argue that this has decent collision physics.

And after seeing it running at Walmart.. honestly it's not much better than the Xbox1 version.

shoobot @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

@Ill Trooper.

You may want to join your buddy funkonaut and sign up for the remedial science class because you too sir are an idiot.

"You are WRONG about NOT being able to detect over 30 frames per second. "

I never said you can't detect 30 FPS, I said you cant see 200. Maybe before you take a science class you should learn to read.

Are you saying that the human eye can see 200 FPS? Because you are defending an idiot who made that claim. The wiki link you posted actually supports what I said by the way.

And I quote: "Even with expensive monitors that can reach even higher frequencies, the effect is somewhat lost as the human eye has difficulty in perceiving differences in frame rates above around 50-60 fps.?

Thanks for proving me right and you wrong.

Twisted logic? Oh, you mean fact? Yes lightbulbs do flash. Incandescent bulbs retain a portion of the glow during the "out" phase but not all of it. If you could see 60 FPS, you could see this. We tested this with a high speed camera in my physics class and there was a noticible dimming in the element. Its far more apparent in florescent bulbs as the the retained glow of the gases is much shorter than that of the element in a standard bulb. This is FACT. I have seen it myself. So go screw yourself.

And even though you are an idiot, I will help you out:

"' Explain saw blades, then? Far faster than that. Drills, phones operating at 900MHz."

First, saw blades are simple, as electric motors are based on AC. They work like spinning a merri-go-round with your hand. Each time you grab a bar and push faster. Thats why they are rotary so they take advantage of momentum. If you want proof, turn off your saw and watch it keep spinning even after the power is off.

As for the phone and 900mhz, the fact that you use this as an example is where you really proved you dont know anything. Any electonic device that can't tolerate the on/off cycle of AC curent will have a DC power converter as part of the power supply. cordless phones for example all have a small power "brick" on the cord. This converts AC to DC power. The same thing in your computer. I thought everyone knew this. I guess not.

Master misChief @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

Gamas,

PGR3 was never intended to be a full-blown simulation like GT-R or Gran Prix Legends on the PC. There are currently NO (as in NONE) racing games on any console that has true damage/collision modeling (TOCA Race Driver and Forza are mere approximations).

PGR3's damage modeling is purely cosmetic, and it doesn't pretend to be otherwise. But PGR3 is not a bumpercarfest like Gran Turismo or Ridge Racer or many other racing games. PGR3 penalizes the player by docking the accumulated Kudos, and also slowing down the driver for 2 seconds (an improvement from PGR2). PGR3 rewards skillful driving as well as showmanship, and that is what sets this game apart from the Fast and Furious wannabes (read NFSU and NFSMW).

And if you are basing your opinions on a Walmart's display, you are wrong. I have been to two Walmarts, and the display wasn't even set to widescreen 720p. The games were playing in letterboxed mode, implying that the displays were not set up properly.

nk @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

rofl

Let's try a little experiment.

Set your monitor to the highest refresh rate that it supports. For me, this happens to be 85hz but for you that might be higher.

Move a pen or something from left to right in front of your monitor, as quickly as you can. Now do the same, but away from your monitor. See the difference?

No, you don't see a smooth movement in front of the minotor, you see the pen jump in increments, even if your monitor is set to something insane like 200hz.

Yes, the human eye doesn't exactly have a high "refresh rate", but each and every detail still gets imprinted on every "frame" that you perceive, like when you leave the shutter of a photocamera open for a while.

And that is why 60 FPS looks smoother than 30 FPS. And that is why movies can get away with a lower amount of frames every second because they have real motion blur (not that fake shit we see in many current gen games) which hides the stuttering. Yes, higher refresh rates do matter, but only if the game in question actually runs at a higher internal framerate.

Erin @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

I'm pretty disappointed actually, if the rumor is true. All we've been hearing from XBox is HD this, and HD that and they've been really pushing it as a key selling point. While the downgraded graphics don't bother me per se, it would have been nice if the next gen games were truly next gen, as promised.

Ripsnort @ Dec 18th 2005 10:05PM

"Move a pen or something from left to right in front of your monitor, as quickly as you can. Now do the same, but away from your monitor. See the difference?"

Ummm. No.

I see a smooth blur either way.

This must be the worst version of Proof I've ever heard.