Sections

Haze not in HD, confirms Littlewood

Monday, 19th May 2008 07:35 GMT By Patrick Garratt

haze11.jpg

In an interview with Ripten, Haze creative lead Derek Littlewood confirmed that – contrary to reports on the Playstation blog – the game does not run in high definition.

The shooter runs in 1024×576 (576p) and not 1024×720 (720p), meaning it leaves the PS3 to upscale.

Littlewood, however, doesn’t see what the fuss is about:

“We prioritise a nice smooth framerate over a different res,” he said.

“Personally, I don’t really buy the whole thing. People did the same with Call of Duty, they did the same with Halo, and they say with those games ‘It’s not running at true HD!’ And it’s like, ‘I don’t care’. If the game looks good and it runs smoothly, those are the important things to me.”

Right on, brother. More Littlewood through the link.

By Mike Bowden

Breaking news

39 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Daniel Plainview

    I’m tired of the nitty-gritty details, I just want to waste some time playing a few games

    #1 6 years ago
  2. morriss

    3 days then the game speaks for itself. At last.

    #2 6 years ago
  3. Daniel Plainview

    It’s only been delayed what eleventy billion times?

    #3 6 years ago
  4. patlike

    Should get them to send you a copy, morriss. I’ll mail them today.

    #4 6 years ago
  5. patlike

    Dan: At least.

    #5 6 years ago
  6. morriss

    Thanks! (y)

    #6 6 years ago
  7. Blerk

    Purple haze all in my brain
    Lately things just don’t seem the same
    Actin’ funny, but I don’t know why
    ‘scuse me while I kiss the sky

    #7 6 years ago
  8. G1GAHURTZ

    Poo.

    #8 6 years ago
  9. Blerk

    Why bother getting them to send morriss a copy? Unless they’re sending him a new telly as well? :-D

    #9 6 years ago
  10. morriss

    Ha! Gameplay > graphics.

    Or so they tell me! ;)

    Anyway, looks like I’ll be playing it at its native res anyway! :p

    #10 6 years ago
  11. Blerk

    Ouch! :-D

    #11 6 years ago
  12. G1GAHURTZ

    “Ha! Gameplay > graphics.”

    I believe that they have more of a symbiotic relationship these days…

    #12 6 years ago
  13. morriss

    I wasn’t being serious.

    #13 6 years ago
  14. G1GAHURTZ

    I believe you!

    #14 6 years ago
  15. BillyBatts

    I’m glad, It’s a good attitude for a dev to have. I’d take a rock solid frame rate any day over some ultra crisp textures chugging along.

    #15 6 years ago
  16. patlike

    BB: One concurs. Dropped frames are sourer than the devil’s own ejaculate.

    #16 6 years ago
  17. G1GAHURTZ

    Well I reckon that it needs to run at 60fps really. He’s comparing it to COD4, which runs at a higher resolution, so if it doesn’t get close to matching the frame rate, something’s gone a cropper.

    #17 6 years ago
  18. OrphanageExplosion

    On the one hand, I agree that a smooth frame rate is very important. On the other hand, have you actually looked at Haze? I think it looks really bad. Low-res and smothered in blur (sorry, special effects) to compensate for it. 1024×576 means you’re losing 36% of the HD resolution.

    As for the comparisons with the other games:

    1. Call of Duty 4 runs at a higher resolution than Haze and is pretty rock solid at 60fps, not 30fps like Haze. That’s a trade-off work taking.

    2. Halo 3 also runs at a higher resolution than Haze, albeit with a less than rock solid frame rate.

    I just wasn’t impressed with the Haze demo. If it is indeed just a timed exclusive, I’ll be VERY intrigued to see the Xbox 360 code.

    #18 6 years ago
  19. morriss

    Littlewood’s right. It really doesn’t matter.

    There was nothing wrong with Halo 3′s frame rate afaics.

    #19 6 years ago
  20. Blerk

    Remember back in the good old days when we didn’t know what resolution games ran at? And didn’t care either? :-)

    #20 6 years ago
  21. morriss

    I think deep down in the depths of our subconscious, we always cared a little bit.

    #21 6 years ago
  22. DrDamn

    +1 for the rock solid frame rate = goodness.

    If it looks ok – which Haze does – then it’s on to the gameplay.

    #22 6 years ago
  23. DrDamn

    Halo 3 had a couple of minor issues – bizarrely it seemed to cope worse when it had less to do. Indoors facing a wall would actually cause some stutters. Simple test, stand still and spin round. However if you had no problems with Halo 3 then the devs have done their job.

    #23 6 years ago
  24. G1GAHURTZ

    “Remember back in the good old days when we didn’t know what resolution games ran at? And didn’t care either?”

    Yeah, but nintendo never pimped the NES on the claim that it was better than the Master System because it ran at 640×480, only for us to find out that the vast majority of its games actually only ran at 520×380.

    The more you build yourself up, the more stick you’re bound to get when you fail to deliver.

    Also, PC gamers going onto consoles after the promise of true HD gaming are not going to be happy with this continuing trend either.

    PC gamers are the biggest graphics whores around!

    #24 6 years ago
  25. Harry

    720p is not 1024×720, it’s 1280×720.

    #25 6 years ago
  26. patlike

    Correct. Well spotted. Just testing.

    #26 6 years ago
  27. Psychotext

    One thing that surprises me is that the guy that does this “pixel counting” is consistently right. Whatever his method is, it clearly works.

    #27 6 years ago
  28. morriss

    An array of 1280×720 on a 16:9 display has square pixels. An array of 1024×768 on a 16:9 display has rectangular pixels.

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

    #28 6 years ago
  29. G1GAHURTZ

    You changed that well quick morriss!

    #29 6 years ago
  30. morriss

    You can’t prove I changed anything! ;)

    Still it’s true, all plasma HD TV’s will say 1024*768 whereas LCDs will say 1280*768. Rectangular and square pixels, innit.

    Interesting conversation, this. Anyone want to kill themselves, yet?

    #30 6 years ago
  31. patlike

    Resolution talk gives me the right horn, frankly. Kris Eurogamer’s got a 50″ plasma. It’s fucking epic.

    #31 6 years ago
  32. Blerk

    Whenever I try to play PS3 on Comet’s 52″ Bravia I have to stand about half a mile back from the screen or it’s impossible. Good job those controllers are wireless.

    #32 6 years ago
  33. morriss

    I’m just caught in between a rock and hard place atm. I really want a new TV but at the same time I don’t. The picture quality on my Philips plasma from digital TV via RGB is fucking superb, I literally haven’t seen it bettered by almost any High Street LCD to date.

    However, it really bugs me that I can’t output 1080p and as an avid viewer of HD/BD I really want to experience this.

    Sticking point is money. I won’t go for an LCD due to the lower quality terrestrial image, but to buy a Full HD 40″+ Plasma is going to cost upwards of £1500 (Danish prices).

    I only bought my TV 4 years ago for £2500!! eek!

    The missus will never come round to the idea. :’(

    #33 6 years ago
  34. Psychotext

    morriss: The latest LCDs are far better than the old ones for SD feeds. They still all suck though (including plasmas).

    /rants

    #34 6 years ago
  35. G1GAHURTZ

    Wow. And I thought that UK technology prices were high!

    http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/review/2008/04/01/LG-50PG6000-50in-Plasma-TV/p1

    #35 6 years ago
  36. morriss

    No, seriously. If only you could see my picture. I’ve had EG’s resident HD-TV whore phAge over, and he’ll confirm it really does look the fucking business. As do HD movies, although not as good as they could, admittedly.

    However, his LCD Sony 32D3000 is sharper and cleaner for gaming.

    /needs a windfall.

    #36 6 years ago
  37. morriss

    G1GA: your link doesn’t work

    #37 6 years ago
  38. G1GAHURTZ

    poo!

    Try this one

    #38 6 years ago
  39. morriss

    Much better! :)

    #39 6 years ago