Two questions about MLB 08's "SUB-720P SIN".

[brawndolicious]

Apparently the people on B3D found out the game runs at 675P with black borders to fill it up to a 720P frame ([ur=http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8288/720pbitchesbelievexw1.jpgl]troll image I saw used on OA explains[/url]).  Now I have two questions for you people:

does anyone care?  nobody knew what H3 rendered at before somebody counted the pixels.  also, people on B3D say having black bars is a really good idea but I'm not sure what the advantage is. Apparently this way, you can use the TV to stretch the screen but why not just use the PS3 scaler?

[Van Cruncheon]

nobody cares as long as it doesn't look like shit

[Smooth Groove]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/06/the-engadget-interview-peter-dille-sony-computer-entertainment/

So, 1080p is really important feature to the PlayStation 3. How does Sony feel about Microsoft's inclusion of 1080p and adding that support and game developer starting 1080p development?

Our view on this is that we're offering true high def, and the PlayStation 3 system is technologically superior to anything out on the market. I think it's curious to read our competitors' comments on this now, versus a few months ago. A few months ago, we were reading things our competitors saying that 1080p of 60 frames per second is impossible, and they won't achieve in year five, let alone that launch software won't get close to it. I think you've probably seen some tentatively titles of running at 60 frames.

They're launch titles. So this notion of resing up, it strikes me as just a little bit disingenuous: what they're really offering consumers, what they said our system could do and couldn't do, and now how they're reacting to it. So, I think for a long time they wanted consumers to believe these systems were really on par with each other. Like, there's no graphical difference, that there's no gameplay difference, and, I think what consumers will see, in a very few short weeks is that nothing could be further from the truth. PlayStation 3 is technologically superior. You're gonna see it in the games. It's true HD. We can now put 1080p at 60 frames per second, and they can't. And that's something that they'll live with. They built their system, it was important to them to get it to market first, and so, based on that, I think they rushed a system to market that wasn't quite ready for prime time.

[Hitler Stole My Potato]

The demo looked pretty damn good to me whatever resolution it was running at.  Don't care.   Don't really care about the game either....baseball and all.

[Joe Molotov]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/06/the-engadget-interview-peter-dille-sony-computer-entertainment/

So, 1080p is really important feature to the PlayStation 3. How does Sony feel about Microsoft's inclusion of 1080p and adding that support and game developer starting 1080p development?

Our view on this is that we're offering true high def, and the PlayStation 3 system is technologically superior to anything out on the market. I think it's curious to read our competitors' comments on this now, versus a few months ago. A few months ago, we were reading things our competitors saying that 1080p of 60 frames per second is impossible, and they won't achieve in year five, let alone that launch software won't get close to it. I think you've probably seen some tentatively titles of running at 60 frames.

They're launch titles. So this notion of resing up, it strikes me as just a little bit disingenuous: what they're really offering consumers, what they said our system could do and couldn't do, and now how they're reacting to it. So, I think for a long time they wanted consumers to believe these systems were really on par with each other. Like, there's no graphical difference, that there's no gameplay difference, and, I think what consumers will see, in a very few short weeks is that nothing could be further from the truth. PlayStation 3 is technologically superior. You're gonna see it in the games. It's true HD. We can now put 1080p at 60 frames per second, and they can't. And that's something that they'll live with. They built their system, it was important to them to get it to market first, and so, based on that, I think they rushed a system to market that wasn't quite ready for prime time.

Yeah, but Sony's completely screwed the pooch this gen, so whatever they said in 2006 is out the window. We already know that 360 and PS3 are pretty much even as far as graphics are concerned. Like Prole said, as long as it doesn't look like shit nobody really cares (except for trolling purposes).

[brawndolicious]

yeah, if it's 60 fps, has AA, and has good graphics than complaining about it's small difference in res is stupid but I'm wondering why they decided to go with black bars rather than just scale it?  if I read correctly, this game does software scaling so why not just make it fill the full 720P window?

[brawndolicious]

to reduce scaling artifacts and jaggies?

I see.

[brawndolicious]

well that's what they made it sound like.

[drohne]

the problem with halo 3 is that its upscaling in combination with no AA produced the worst image quality in a major game this gen. this is a different matter -- it's just not filling the screen. iirc ratchet did the same thing, though with smaller black bars that were simply overscanned on most tvs

[brawndolicious]

Ratchet's black bars were like <10 pixels.  I'm not even sure that anybody would notice it if they rendered the black area since it's 60 fps.