Call of Duty 4 not HD: only 600p, claim pixel counters [update]
by Ross Miller 
{ Nov 22nd 2007 at 9:01AM }
The Beyond 3D posters have proven their dedication to pixel counting before with Halo 3, but since we haven't counted ourselves or seen the visual proof prevalent during Halo-gate, we're welcome to be proven wrong.
Update: The tryptophan is starting to affect our ability to calculate. The difference between 600p and 720p (1280x720 = 921,600) is 307,200 pixels - which happens to be the exact number of pixels contained within 640x480 resolution.
[Via X3F]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Chris @ Jan 28th 2008 11:10PM
Consoles SUCK!!!!! PC's RULE and always will!
Damian @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:07AM
I think you mean 120 lines of resolution that have gone AWOL, it's actually 307'200 pixels.
Damian @ Nov 22nd 2007 10:44AM
For anyone whose interested, 307'200 = 640*480
So we're losing 1 whole standard definition worth of pixels here... exciting stuff ¬_¬'
Draco @ Nov 22nd 2007 2:45PM
Also known as 1 Wii screen size.
Cyro @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:06AM
Who cares?? The Game Looks Great!
Ryan Smith @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:56AM
That's exactly right. Games like this just continue to prove something that people into home theater have known all along. Resolution means little to nothing. A 720p image can look far far better than a 1080p image, if the 720p image has better contrast ratio, etc. The whole 1080p thing is just marketing, remember Sony's main focus is selling TV's at as high a price as possible. I have a 720p Optoma home projector setup and anyone with a small, cheap 1080p display would be blown away. Remember, resolution importance is just marketing, it doesn't really matter.
dan stabbingworth @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:58AM
I think it would be nice if they would stop marking 1080p on the back of the boxes if it's not really running at 1080p and only being upconverted. I mean, it's not a big deal, but it is very deceptive.
Yubastard @ Nov 22nd 2007 10:31AM
ok, but, would it look any better if it was in native 1080p?
yes, I think it would, actually... so, it's not a lost cause, yet.
HD is here for a reason. Of course, it doesn't matter if it's HD or not if, when making the game, textures don't have a higher resolution.
rockintom @ Nov 22nd 2007 11:05AM
...Er, actually, resolution does matter. 120 pixels for something like a game isn't going to make a huge difference, but for something like a computer, I would a thousand times sooner run my desktop at 1600x1050 than 1440x900.
arktisk @ Nov 22nd 2007 11:29AM
ryan smith, are you retarded or something? contrast ratio is very important, but resolution is just as important. wether you personally can tell a difference or not is one thing, but the fact is the higher the resolution, the more of the actual picture you are seeing. plain and simple.
AirIntake @ Nov 22nd 2007 1:22PM
@arktisk
Higher resolution does means more fine detail. It doesn't necessarily mean better graphics though. Many old computer games are capable of running in insanely high resolutions. I've personally run Jedi Knight 1 at 1600x1200 years ago, and while you couldn't see individual pixels, it still looked like crap. It's always a balance between resolution and special effects. They could easily run CoD4 in 1080p, but it would probably not be worth it if they have to sacrifice lighting and distortion effects, etc. Graphics are about the total package, not pure pixels.
LaughingTarget @ Nov 22nd 2007 1:24PM
High resolution is not terribly important. High res rendering would require a reduction in other effects. Look at Gears of War for example. It has models of lower complexity than Xbox games and runs at 720p but looks phenominal. Past 1024x768, you're effectively picking between two different modes of FSAA. Effects and shaders are far more important than resolution. COD4 looks better than many full HD titles, proof is in the pudding.
Necki @ Nov 22nd 2007 4:09PM
As for the battle of better resolution makes better grpahics answer this...
how good were the graphics in the HD episode of South Park on XBL.
Point made.
Ryan Smith @ Nov 22nd 2007 4:05PM
"ryan smith, are you retarded or something? contrast ratio is very important, but resolution is just as important"
No, I just know a lot more about home theater than you do. You need to check out Engadget HD or AVSForums and get a bit more educated. Ask any expert on the subject and they will tell you that resolution is not nearly as important as other factors, in fact they usually list it last in importance. Of course it can make a difference, everything else being equal. A 1080p image everything exactly the same will look better than 720p. But that is NEVER the case. You always sacrifice something for higher resolution, it could be in the quality of your display, or the detail and framerate in game. In fact if you listen to Engadget HD podcast they almost always recommend a 720p plasma above other display technologies, resolution just isn't that important, your falling for marketing not fact.
Evan @ Nov 22nd 2007 4:17PM
Exactly, people need to find something to do other than counting pixels. I'd rather play the game.
I hope they realize no one cares, the game looks fantastic.
Ironhide @ Nov 22nd 2007 5:48PM
Ryan Smith, you got the gist of it. I sell these things for Best Buy (previously commissioned sales at other places too) and have long extolled the virtues of a good 720p signal vs a 1080p signal that looks like crap. I've seen 720p plasmas look better than full on 1080p lcd screens.
But basically, who the fuck cares about whether it's 720p vs 600p? Perhaps 600p is the true sweet spot for hd gaming? COD4 looks damn fine as is, and indeed among some of the best graphics I've seen on 360 and ps3 all around. Whaa! Whaa! I don't see all 720p! My life is over! I'd sooner take a better looking environment well lit with excellent shaders than have everything uber sharp with jitters and poor lighting. COD4 and Halo 3 both have some of the best lighting I've seen on a console so far. Maybe Mass Effect and Uncharted edge them out a bit, but that being said, there is nothing wrong with 600p if it's done well and fortunately it's done VERY well.
umm....hello??? @ Nov 23rd 2007 3:58AM
On the videogame box it only states that the game SUPPORTS 720P, 1080i, 1080P HighDef resolution outputs. IT DOES NOT FUCKING STATE THAT THAT IS THE RESOLUTION IT RUNS AT. so therefore there is no false advertising, just people who lack reading comprehension.
JJ Rooster @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:07AM
If true, and applies to both 360 and PS3, hopefully that will end any pathetic boasting or ridicule about the issue. 720p, 640p, 1080p... who gives a shit? As long as it looks good to you on the screen, enjoy the game!
mr nimblewick (SegaDF - Jogurt Ring) @ Nov 22nd 2007 10:37AM
Can I add 480i to that as well? I don't really care for the difference in any of them.
GRANTED @ Nov 22nd 2007 11:09AM
i only notice a difference when watching tv. when playing a video game, there is too much information to process to pay attention to graphics--unless it's in a cinematic, well blah blah who cares. anyway, cod4 is awesome i'm going to go play it.
severian00 @ Nov 22nd 2007 11:10AM
How pathetic do you have to be to count pixels. I understood with Halo 3, because every non-xbox fanboy was trying to find any reason to complain about it. This is just rediculous, the game looks awesome in 1080p on my 60", whether it is upcomverted by the 360 or not. Go get a life guys
just.Rob @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:09AM
please let me be the first to say:
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT THE EFF UP... Do these schmucks actually play the games or just sit around wondering how they can incite a riot of fanboys.
Obie @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:12AM
These damn pixel counters need to get a life.
I am enjoying the hell out of the game, gameplay, grafix and all, and not for one second did I wonder at what resolution the game is running.
DogCity @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:19AM
Actually, most HD LCD's are built to look best at the standard resolutions. Because of the nature of liquid crystal display technology, images at anything other than these optimized resolutions tend to look quite shitty.
I could have told you COD 4 wasn't running at a HD standard without bothering with the pixel counting. It looks SHIT on my monitor.
Damian @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:23AM
Really? The 360 should be upscaling and outputting at 720p if it's behaving properly, your monitor shouldn't be doing the upscaling for the game.
J.Goodwin @ Nov 22nd 2007 12:17PM
Ever hear of a native resolution?
Most LCD HDTVs that are marketed as 720p displays have a native resolution that's 1360ish by 768 pixels. The 360 has an output resolution that's 1360x768. You're going to set the appropriate output resolution and the system has a scaler that doesn't suck like the one in your television to ensure that the image that's sent to your television looks great whether it's fucking 240p or whether it's 1080p.
That's what it is there for. My turkey's in the oven, I'm going back to sleep.
Jojo @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:20AM
Is there anything less in important in this world, or even in the world of video games as the number of dots on the screen or not on the screen. It looks good or doesn't look good.
Geist @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:23AM
Well obviously this means its a terrible game and not worth buying, playing, or stocking. Obviously.
mat parker @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:24AM
Who gives a fuck? Get a life you boring anal Bastards
Geist @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:26AM
Dunno what you're talking about. Looks great running on my PC. I'd say about 1620 x 1080 lines of great.
Chris @ Nov 22nd 2007 12:39PM
Exactly, get it for PC and you won't have to worry about it. 1920x1200 + 4x AA=Way better looking than either console!
iofthestorm @ Nov 22nd 2007 3:27PM
Yeah, for all their blustering about how this gen of consoles can rival PCs in graphics, they are already behind what a modest gaming rig can do. Of course, it doesn't matter as much on a TV since you aren't up close anyway.
todd @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:28AM
Imagine what a game could look like in HD.
Shagittarius @ Nov 24th 2007 12:13PM
Totally agree, the game looks fine the way it is but imagine what it would look like in actual 1080p.
If everything is made for a default resolution of 1080 it would blow the socks off the 600 version.
WedgeTalon @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:29AM
Ok, for those who don't "get" why this is a big deal:
Microsoft and ESPECIALLY Sony have made a huge stink about ZOMG HD VIDEO GAMEZZ!!! IT EEZ NOT GEWD UNLEZ IT EEZ HD!!1oneone
Now we are catching them with their proverbial pants around their ankles.
Cyro @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:32AM
So what are you saying? That COD4 does not look better than a PS2 or Xbox 1 game?
ELUNO @ Nov 22nd 2007 10:46AM
He is saying that according to Microsoft and Sony, It should look better than that.
J.Goodwin @ Nov 22nd 2007 12:19PM
No, we're catching you with your cocks out pissing by the side of the information super highway.
Get a life or find a bathroom.
Jeff @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:39AM
I hate to say it, but I don't think this gen is really capable of HD + amazing visuals. As long as there's an effort, and it looks like it's HD, then it's good enough.
Cyro @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:41AM
Gears of War. HD.
Slaziman @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:45AM
Obviously they weighed down the improvement in graphics vs the decrease of resolution (all while keeping a good frame rate), and concluded it was worth it. Hell, I don't think many people could tell the difference in resolution anyway, while the improvements added because of this drop are more likely to show.
n2 @ Nov 22nd 2007 10:02AM
So no one was able to tell unless they count pixels.
As far as number of pixels on screen, I really don't care. I thought it stupid the first time they did this, now I know these people really don't have a life.
What I suspect it that they were hoping to find a pixel difference between the 360 and PS3 version, but didn't find any, further showing that the graphics between the systems are indentical with minor differences.
Hopefully they can now stop this madness and just enjoy the games.
eM @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:58AM
But, but "True HD"!
Another "120 pixels" and you'd be at last-gen/Wii resolution.
Seraphim @ Nov 22nd 2007 11:01AM
Please show me a Wii game that runs at 1024x480.
rockintom @ Nov 22nd 2007 11:12AM
Er... please show me *any* game that runs at 1024x480. That would be some insane letterboxing.
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:59AM
um first of all who cares?
second of all i have a standard tv and it looks great, but when i played it at my friend's house (who has a hdtv) the difference was amazing, so fuck these guys it just sounds like they have their own agenda.
Rob Accomando @ Nov 22nd 2007 10:06AM
Wow, someone actually takes time out to count pixels.
JJ Rooster @ Nov 22nd 2007 12:43PM
Just glanced at their thread. People are asking if anyone's counted Uncharted, Viva Pinata yet... Look, I know different strokes and all, but taking an interest in that is kind of shit is crazy. Are they even playing games, or just comparing pixels and not having sex?
Christian @ Nov 22nd 2007 10:07AM
It is a bit worrying though that both Microsoft and Sony are letting the game developers get away with mislabeling their games. Both companies claim to check and certify all games sold for their console. So while listing all the weird resolutions actually used would probably cause even more consumer confusion we now have a situation where 720p, 1080i and 1080p ends up as close to meaningless or just meaning 'plays on a TV supporting 1080p'.
Jacob @ Nov 22nd 2007 10:09AM
To be honest guys, I think you're over-reacting. If a developer or company claims a game is going to be in HD, and are lying, they deserve to be called on it. Close attention keeps developers honest. Even if its in areas that seem small or relatively unimportant. Scrutiny in this business isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Naturally, of course, this takes little away from the game itself. If its awesome, its awesome. Regardless of how many lines there are displaying the visuals.