Call of Duty 4 not HD: only 600p, claim pixel counters [update]

by Ross Miller on Nov 22nd 2007 9:01AM

The pixel counters strike again! Having already conquered Halo 3 by proving the flagship shooter was 80 pixels below HD (defined here as at least 1280x720), the Beyond 3D forum members are now claiming Call of Duty 4 is only 600p (1024x600 resolution = 614,400 pixels) for both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions - that's ~~120 pixels~~ 307,200 pixels that have gone AWOL.

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]

Source

Tags: 600p, call-of-duty, call-of-duty-4, cod4, hd, hi-def, infinity-ward, PS3, Xbox-360

Reader Comments (90)

What pisses me off about all this is that these companies are lying to us. saying something is what its not. if they say "high def resolutions supported" then they should be rendered that way, not just upscaled. I know no one cares that it's not high def, but doesn't anyone care that they are being misled.

1024 * 720 = 737,280
1024 * 600 = 614,400

737,280 - 614,400 = 122,880 pixels that don't have to be drawn into memory. And since people love going on about how important graphics are, it should be disappointing to see the graphics bar getting lower and lower.

It's 1280x720 so the real difference is:

1280x720 = 921,600
1024x600 = 614,400

307,200 pixels.

On the 360, the use of a 1024x600 resolution can be explained by being the optimal resolution to fully use the 10MB eDRAM without resorting to tiling.

What's the reason for its use on the PS3? Code reuse? I thought both were designed from the ground up for their specific platform!

I think it's more like Infinity Ward was caught with their proverbial pants around their ankles.

Sony and this 1080P Bull shit, is getting old. Looks like the old cell cpu is not up to the task. IF the PS3 was up to the task, then why wasent the PS3 at least 720/1081. I p/u the PS3 to have the most power full system. Well, looks like another long wait for some good games. Yes I have df.

It would be the GPU that's not up to the task, not the CPU so much.

You make it sound like the choices the developers made we due to limitations of Sony's hardware. Since you clearly know nothing and are just a stupid fanboy why don't you just grow up and stop being a loser. And if you claim to not be a fanboy, then you should think a bit more about what you're saying before you post. Here's something for you to think about: if cod4 maxed out any system's hardware, then cod5 won't look much better. Ever compared a 1st gen game to a 2nd, 3rd or a 4th gen game in the same series? That little thing in your head is called a brain, try using it.

Ok, everybody agrees that this doesnt matter because the game still looks and plays great. So why then, did it matter so much when it was said about halo 3, pgr3, and a handful of other 360 games. And I want the Sony fans to keep in mind that the 360 has a dedicated hadware scaler when they post a response.

Laterz, and HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

I'm laughing so hard right now. All the console fanboys who complained that Crysis wouldn't run on very high at 60FPS in insane resolutions on today's PCs are now claiming that 30FPS on medium settings and 1024*600 resolution is perfectly OK. Make up your minds already...

COD4 runs at 60fps.

Hilarious. At first it was "resolution matters" amongst the Wii haters, now it's "it doesn't matter".

Flip de flop de flipping around the place.

Well, even with the missing resolution, the game is WAY beyond what the Wii can produce. It may not be a true HD resolution, but it's much higher than Wii games. Then you have other factors like number of polys and various effects that these PS3 and 360 can produce that the Wii cannot. So, yeah, the Wii and its fanboys may as well stay out of this discussion.

I'm not sure how Microsoft and Sony are caught with their pants down. COD4 is a 3rd party title. I believe way back when somebody at MS said that there would be a trade off to get true 1080p out of a game. Everyone lambasted him when games started coming out in 1080p. I can tell you that no game that has come out in true 1080p has run at 60 fps and had an expansive area to explore. Those are the tradeoffs. The fact of the matter is that if it looks great and displays at 1080p on my tv, upconverted by the box, it is in HD.

"Real" gamers only play HD games.. People should get together have a bonfire and toss all thier copies of COD 4 in, then later burn an effigy of the wii.. That show em whos hardcore..

These guys really need to get a life

Want true HD? play on a PC

Most people play PC games and console games for very different reasons. I'd say the markets are as different as portables are from home consoles.

Want true driver problems? play on a PC (yea! I get to install beta drivers in order to stop Bioshock from locking up!)

I'll be honest with you, when I first got my XBOX 360 and hooked it up to my 576i (im Irish) TV, it looked FUCKING AWESOME

I dont see the big deal with HDTV, im happy with regular definition

But I guess thats just me

:)

I wouldn't say the issue has to do with not being HD, it has to do with people shrugging it off just because its Halo or Call of Duty, and then going right back to attacking the Wii for not being HD.

a reminder of what someone said above, even if it's not true HD it's still miles ahead of what the wii can produce

What the story doesn't mention is the game uses 2x Anti-Aliasing for nice smooth curves.. just like Halo 3 reduced it's resolution for more complex explosions and secondary effects.

OMG! Activision/Infinity Ward lied to meeeeeeeee! My PC can only run it in 800x600, not 1600x1200! That proves PC gaming is a sham! Oh, noes! It should say it on the box!

/rant

Gimme a break. Great graphics are a combination of a lot of things, including resolution, texture quality, lighting passes, anti-aliasing, and particle effects. What CoD4 might have lost by shaving a few pixels they made up for with a solid framerate, some of the most impressive smoke effects, and some great night filters. These pixel counters are just nitpicking, not "looking out for the gamer."

In other words, tell someone who cares, Beyond 3D.

You can't run Crysis on very high. Well at least from what I know. I have an 8800 GT overclocked and it runs everything perfect. and an AMD dual core 3.0 GHz. overclocked to 3.2GHz. Crysis still locks out very high setting. So either I need sli, Vista with direct X10 or a super computer.

As for these games not running in full HD. The same argument was brought up for Halo 3 and everyone agreed hat it still looked good.

you need vista

I dont care about this, it makes no difference to me.

It really is nit-picking, I mean COD4 is one amazing game. Sure they shouldn't mislead people I understand that, but at the end of the day the game it rocks, in a years times im sure you'll be thinkning back to it and remembering it was a great game, and not "hey you remeber that game with the missing 307k pixels".

+1 for the Jesse Custer avatar.

+1 for the +1 and the companion cube.

It is a big deal to me.

All of those different things that make up a good looking game are really down to preference. GRAW looked gorgeous when it came out, but the 360's multiplayer had Vsync turned off. Played an FPS without vsync? Hell.

That's why I usually prefer PC games, I can turn down things I don't want like HDR and stuff in favour of vsync and (since I got my big TV) resolution.

The ONLY reason I got the console version was because my PC is getting on in years and the PS3 version touted 1080p.

My PC can run it with a load of effects at 1024x600, why have I spent £15 more than I should have for a game that looks worse?

Because they lied to me.

It's just out of order, it DOESN'T do what it says on the tin, and those of you calling complainers nitpicking, even if I agreed about the resolution it's more than nitpicking when it costs the consumer more money.

Whaaaaa boo hoo for you...

Pusssssssaaaaaaay

But most PS3 fanboys would swear that it's 1080p. Sony doesn't have to push the issue. If there is, then fanboys claim it's crappy port and not the system. As far as HD with both systems, what good is it if the picture is lifeless. One of the biggest achievements to be had in gaming is making them indistinguishable from movies. You can do that at lower resolutions.

I AM SUDDENLY FILLED WITH RAGE AND HATE THIS GAME FOREVAR!

RAAARRRR!!!

I think we should all focus on whats important with this article, it's not about if this game is good or not, nor if its rocking your sexless life. Did they say it runs at 720p on the dustcover? Does the game have any indication that it's "HD"? If so, they lied, and thats what wrong. If not, then who cares.

You know, some of us have good monitors, and when the pixels are fucking giant sized, it looks like shit. Whats really important is running at your monitor's native resolution, whether it be 1080p, 720p, or 480i, because this produces the most comfortable viewing. Anyway, I still play CS 1.6 on 640x480, because its damn near cheating considering how the spray paterns are affected :D Oh, and if you want to start some shit about resolution in CS, I consider you take a look at all the pro players with rigs better than yours who still play on CRTs and 640.

Seriously, for the last fucking time....

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.

ps- Anybody count the pixels in Crysis yet?? I doubt THAT game runs at 1080P.

Of course Crysis runs at 1080p, hell, it runs at far higher resolutions. *Sigh* The first part of your comment shows some insight, and the PS, just shows you don't know how any of this works at all.

Right that's it, I'm turning off the internet forever.

I was actually kidding about the Crysis comment....should've made a joke about a PS3 game instead. sorry.

In response to the whole 1080p thing....I have a PC running Core 2 Duo @ 6600 (2.4ghz), 2 gigs ram, 8800 GT video card and i also have a Xbox 360 Elite hooked up via HDMI, both are hooked up to my Toshiba Regza 47" 1080P LCD...

When i bought COD4 i was pumped that i would be able to finally game at full 1080P res on my 360, i popped COD 4 in and was in amazed by the graphics...gorgeous eye candy...I had just recently bought my vid card so i hadnt really bought any PC games. So i downloaded the PC version COD4 DEMO and ran it on my PC 1920 x 1080

I bet half the people complaining don't even own an HDTV.

Previous 50 Comments

Call of Duty 4 not HD: only 600p, claim pixel counters [update]

Reader Comments (90)

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 10:09AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 10:13AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 10:27AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 10:15AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 10:35AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 11:14AM daveosaur said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 11:18AM Dragun said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 10:42AM easo said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 11:07AM Serious Kriss said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 2:08PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 11:07AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 12:57PM Vidikron said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 11:16AM severian00 said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 11:59AM TwEE said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 12:06PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 12:31PM mundox said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 12:59PM Vidikron said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 1:24PM AirIntake said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 1:25PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 1:52PM Nick the Hero of Canton said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 2:38PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 2:06PM SirUrza said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 2:13PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 2:14PM quickshade said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 2:24PM Spoit said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 2:53PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 23rd 2007 9:10AM baby sea tuna said

Posted: Nov 23rd 2007 9:59AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 3:14PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 10:05PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 5:30PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 5:59PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 6:59PM Mats said

Posted: Nov 22nd 2007 11:51PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 23rd 2007 3:54AM ummhello said

Posted: Nov 23rd 2007 5:49AM Mats said

Posted: Nov 23rd 2007 9:00AM Spakkenkhrist said

Posted: Nov 24th 2007 8:01PM ummhello said

Posted: Nov 23rd 2007 4:49PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Nov 24th 2007 1:29PM (Unverified) said

Info

Description

MSRP

Release Date

Genre

Developer

Publisher

Rating

Breaking News

WB conjures up Harry Potter for Kinect this fall

Featured Stories

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW