Bungie: Halo 3 resolution cut for HDR lighting

by Jason Dobson { Oct 1st 2007 at 2:52PM }

Following last week's debacle over Halo 3's apparent resolution deficiency, the folks at Bungie have come out pleading their case, stating that the game's visual acuity was given a back seat to HDR, or "High Dynamic Range" lighting, which allows for a broad range of exposures, making possible much greater extremes of light and dark.

So make up your mind. Do you want things crisp or do you want them to glow, because apparently you can't have it both ways. Bungie explains its decision in the following excerpt:

"In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see – lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible – so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image."

You hear that? You owe them -- not the other way around. While we agree that Halo 3 is not the graphics showpiece many hoped or expected it to be, we still say that all this fuss over "80p" of resolution is at best splitting hairs and at worst just ridiculous.

Tags: 640p, bungie, halo-3, halo3, hd, hdr, resolution

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

upz @ Oct 1st 2007 2:57PM

We sure love our HDR lighting this generation.

Zertoss @ Oct 1st 2007 3:06PM

Well, it is awfully pretty. It's much more pleasing to the eyes than the obsession with lens flare a couple of generations back.

KiraXD @ Oct 1st 2007 3:22PM

except that its almost always overused in a very "N33DZ MOAR HDR LITEINGZ!!" Im not saying its not cool, and it is indeed better (in most cases) than a simple "Lens-Flare" but when your screen is constantly changing lighting conditions so much you think its your HDTV is about to 'splode... it gets quite annoying.

(my biggest complaint with it is when it darkens the screen, but brightens the light source... [GRAW does this alot) makes it hard to see sometimes.

And the fact that i havent seen a Single person in Real-Life who's face "Glows" brightly when i look at them kinda makes me wonder why they do in all these games.

Zertoss @ Oct 1st 2007 3:26PM

HDR must be some form of radiation, because too much of it makes things glow that really shouldn't be glowing.

I think Halo 3 found a good balance.

Marty @ Oct 1st 2007 3:28PM

That's the whole point of HDR... to simulate how your eyes would react to the lighting in a scene.

KiraXD @ Oct 1st 2007 3:29PM

@zertos iono is that screenshot from H3? that guy on the end on the right looks pretty radioactive to me... must be the D.U. Bullets they use?

^_~

Zertoss @ Oct 1st 2007 3:38PM

Haha I haven't seen anything that bad in-game during my time with Halo 3, but I also haven't made it to that particular scene yet.

It almost looks like the guy on the right is reacting to another light source, like "DAMN! We have enough to worry about with all this HDR abuse! Now you're using flares on your camera to take screenshots?!"

KiraXD @ Oct 1st 2007 3:41PM

yeah i know HDR is supposed to simulate that... but the problem is that naturally our eyes adjust... HDR lighting cant compensate for that... so mostly it gets annoying... mostly its used incorrectly anyways.

KiraXD @ Oct 1st 2007 3:45PM

doh.. that was for Marty. :/

SoulBlade @ Oct 1st 2007 2:58PM

using two frame buffers does not mean 2x vertical resolution... if Bungie brought that argument up to anybody technical, they'd admit it's a bit of a stretch.

i'd pick lighting, but i think the real reason they did this was so they wouldn't overload the 360 GPU and cause some badness.

i think it's good that they responded to it though.

Marty @ Oct 1st 2007 3:30PM

The only "badness" that would result is a lower framerate. You can't break the internals of the 360 (or PS3, or any computer) by simply adding more complexity to the scene to be rendered. You just push the framerate down as it takes longer to render each frame.

SoulBlade @ Oct 1st 2007 10:04PM

The badness I was referring to was overheating and RRoD ;)

snupher @ Oct 1st 2007 2:58PM

I couldn't agree more, even though it isn't a power house in the graphical department, it is an above average looking game and the best looking in the Halo series.

I think people are just trying to find things wrong with Halo 3. Of course, if you think about it, haters and/or the antagonists having to resort to no female leads and 80 pixels is not too bad for fans.

KiraXD @ Oct 1st 2007 3:27PM

its probably the children who have to counter react to people who look for bad things with anything PS3 related... both sides need to stop nitpicking things just for arguments sake.

vidGuy @ Oct 1st 2007 3:00PM

It's not a big deal to me, I'm still enjoying the hell out of it. But I'm also thoroughly enjoying the fact that the biggest game on the 360 (probably for its whole life) isn't pushing true HD resolution.

Marty @ Oct 1st 2007 3:32PM

Er... why? What difference does it make if the biggest game on a console is 1080p or running in a 320x240 box on the screen, so long as it's a fun game and sells well?

vidGuy @ Oct 1st 2007 5:38PM

I agree with that sentiment, it's just funny to me that MS's game-of-the-console doesn't run in HD when they've been saying HD is a must for this generation for years now.

Slaziman @ Oct 2nd 2007 9:15AM

If you go by set standards, Halo 3 isn't HD, but if you go by common sense, 640p is already pretty much HD

chukz @ Oct 1st 2007 3:04PM

So if Xbox360 can't do a game in full resolution due to lighting, it's OK because it's only 80p difference. When Sony can only run a game at 30FPS it's OK because developers are having a hard time understanding the hardware. When Nintendo can't do a game in HD because of the hardware, it's killing hardcore gaming and transforming videogames to casualness (or whatever the latest buzzword is).

I don't understand how XBox and PS3 can get away with not delivering what they promised to deliver (true high def gaming) while the Wii gets scolded for delivering what they can deliver with their hardware. (at best enhanced definition).

I hate to sound like a Wii fanboy, but I just find it funny that if the same thing were to happen on the Wii, it would be ridiculed. Anyone else notice this, or am I going crazy?

Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:11PM

Your totally ignoring the gap though. Halo 3 may not be pushing a true HD resolution, but it's still far above what the Wii does. Halo 3 actually looks like a 360 game whereas most of the Wii games still look like Cube games. I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment that the Wii is ruining gaming or anything, but your argument is pretty weak.

Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:15PM

* "You're"

(before I'm corrected by mr nimblewick)

upz @ Oct 1st 2007 3:18PM

You don't read much Joystiq do you? (Probably a good thing.) We beat each other up for pretty much everything here. PS3 Madden at 30FPS is not okay, Halo 3 at sub-HD resolution is not okay. RRoD is not okay, reintroduced rumble is not okay. Take a look at the posts that generate 100+ comments. We don't let a thing slide. The fact that you think only the Wii gets ragged on shows that, yes, you probably are a Wii fanboy.

Crono (NDF - French Taunting from Holy Grail Ring) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:19PM

Thats irrelevant to the argument, vid. What he's saying is that when the 360 underperforms relative to its hardware and the PS3 underperforms relative to its hardware, they don't get ragged on near as much as Wii does for doing exactly what they said it was going to do.

Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:22PM

@ Crono

You would have a point if he hadn't included that last paragraph where he addressed the issue of people claiming the Wii is ruining hardcore gaming by making a severely underpowered system compared to the others. That's the point I was addressing. It's the huge graphical gap between the 360/PS3 games and the Wii that upsets a lot of gamers... the gap between Halo 3 and other 360/PS3 games is slight to none.

Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:24PM

Ooops... I didn't mean "last paragraph", I meant "last part of the 1st paragraph".

GRANTED @ Oct 1st 2007 3:34PM

30fps at HD resolution is still HD resolution.
640p is still hella better than 480p.

i dont want to play games where the characters are still spherical and polygonal in shape. even a graphically average game like skate looks miles better than mp3.

hey man, if you dont care about graphics, fine. be happy with the wii. i care about graphics so i'll stick to HD.

fanboy plug: i think warhawk looks crisper than halo3 (and multiplayer is never laggy 16v16 =P), and it might have something to do with the res difference, but both look awesome to me (halo3 has bad graphics? come on...)

Dave @ Oct 1st 2007 4:31PM

This happens with the PS3 as well. For example, The Darkness runs at 960x540 and Tony Hawk's Proving Ground is only 600p.

squeevi @ Oct 2nd 2007 3:04AM

@ upz
I don't think a truer statment has been said. LOL!

Slaziman @ Oct 2nd 2007 9:24AM

The bad graphics isn't the Wii's only fault, it's the imprecise accelerometers, the lack of good games, the lack of a good online system, the lack of a lot of modern features on the PS3 and 360.

Also the fact that Nintendo has changed focus and let the core gamers take the back seat. Seriously, graphics are just one of the many issues I have with the Wii.

Sturat @ Oct 1st 2007 3:04PM

It would be splitting hairs if it was just slightly lower resolution and there were screens that could clearly display 640p. The reason this is a problem is you're forced to upscale and blur the game, which is annoyingly common on Xbox 360 and PS3.

Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:13PM

Common? Maybe on the arcade ports in XBLA, but I don't have any blurring issues with my 360 or PS3 games running on a 1080p TV. The Wii OTOH...

mr nimblewick (SegaDF - Jogurt Ring) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:26PM

I know what you mean. My Wii looks so bad, even on my SDtv, I've taken to taping a picture of Tammy Faye Messner on the screen while I play just to have something relatively pretty to look at.

rockintom @ Oct 1st 2007 3:05PM

Bah. The resolution looks fine, and the HDR looks *amazing*. Also love how they don't force it into letterbox on a 4:3 tv, unlike pretty much every other 360 game. Hooray!

kornchild2002 @ Oct 1st 2007 3:07PM

I could really care less, I doubt anyone would notice 80 pixels if they put two versions of the game right next to each other. The people who found this out literally had no time on their hands. Seriously, those people were so desperate to find something wrong with the game that they sat their and counted pixels. I am not saying Halo 3 is perfect but they seriously need to get laid instead of spending time counting pixels.

I do feel a little cheated though as the back of the box states 720p and 1080p. I thought the game was mastered in 1080p, isn't that the point of putting those resolutions on the back of the box? Otherwise all Xbox 360 games could put 1080p as the Xbox 360 has the ability to upscale everything to 1080p. Not that I would notice a difference but it seems like false advertisement to list a resolution that the game was supposedly mastered in then come out and say that they used a smaller resolution.

At least Bungie came out and told the truth, I wonder when they were going to tell us though if those nerds hadn't counted their pixels. Either way it is not going to stop me from enjoying the game.

mr nimblewick (SegaDF - Jogurt Ring) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:11PM

"couldn't care less" and "too much time on their hands."

Sorry, had to fix that.

upz @ Oct 1st 2007 3:26PM

Technically, "could care less" is the correct colloquial expression. Whether "could" or "couldn't" is the proper usage depends on whether you're more concerned with making literal sense or colloquial sense.

I'm so smart.

mr nimblewick (SegaDF - Jogurt Ring) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:30PM

If by "colloquial" you mean lazy and nonsensical American version, you're correct.

Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:32PM

@upz

Actually, mr nimblewick is correct. The correct saying is "couldn't".

Kristof @ Oct 1st 2007 3:33PM

Anyone find it ironic some grammar nazi fixes "too much time on their hands"?

mr nimblewick (SegaDF - Jogurt Ring) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:38PM

"Anyone find it ironic some grammar nazi fixes "too much time on their hands"?"

What can I say? I literally have no time on my hands.

Metro Mapper @ Oct 1st 2007 4:16PM

Actually, either is correct usage. It depends on if you want your statement to be serious (couldn't) or sarcastic (could).

mr nimblewick (SegaDF - Jogurt Ring) @ Oct 1st 2007 4:22PM

Actually, the sarcasm explanation was added after the term was coined. It came about through the simple process of dropping complication from language. People don't like that as a justification, though (since it makes no sense), so it suddenly became "sarcasm."

upz @ Oct 1st 2007 4:57PM

What about when people use "literally" when they mean "figuratively?" That one gets to me. That's what nimblewick was referencing in his "literally no time" comment, right? Or am I reading too much into grammar police subtext?

"I was so excited when I opened Halo 3, I literally had a heart attack!"

Crono (NDF - French Taunting from Holy Grail Ring) @ Oct 1st 2007 3:11PM

Not a big deal. If the lower resolution is impacting your enjoyment of the game, don't buy it or return it if you already have bought it, or sell it on schme-bay.

Konny @ Oct 1st 2007 3:17PM

Its not a big deal because this board is populated with xBots.. if KillZone2 did this, you can bet your life that the xbots would be out in droves declaring Sony lairs, etc...

Anyways, HDR + 720p = RRoD .. simple as that.

Marty @ Oct 1st 2007 3:26PM

It's not really "simple as that," but I doubt you'd understand or appreciate the complexities.

Crono (NDF - French Taunting from Holy Grail Ring) @ Oct 1st 2007 4:02PM

Can I assume "declaring Sony lairs" is a freudian slip? Because its really damn funny.

Jake @ Oct 1st 2007 4:12PM

The Darkness ran at 1024x576 on PS3 and runs at 720p on the 360. I don't recall as big of a deal being made of it by xbots. Post #454 of the following link contains a list of other shockingly horrific ass rapings(sarcasm) that devs have laid on us gamers this gen.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=43330&page=19

This just isn't a big deal at all. Bungie made a design decision and we can only speculate whether or not the game would have looked better at 720p without dual HDR buffering.