Home Gaming Final Fantasy XIII Will NOT Be High-Def On Both Consoles

Final Fantasy XIII Will NOT Be High-Def On Both Consoles

1 min read
54

HDSDboobs.jpg

Everyone has that little thing that just gets on their nerves. For Lazygamer, it’s console installs, but me?- I hate it when developers are too useless to release HD resolution games on an HD console.

It happens here and there but when it happens to a game that’s coming from a top-notch development team, I feel no pity. Take Halo 3 for example, the flagship title and series for Microsoft and the Xbox 360 and Bungie couldn’t even get the damn thing running at 720p.

As you all know, Final Fantasy is coming to both platforms. One of them isn’t going to be running in HD, and that hacks mah goat summin’ fierce.

Which one is going to be the blurry one? Did you guess?

That’s right, it’s the newcomer, the Xbox 360. At this rate I want to call it the Xbox 360p.

The truth is that when this bloke from a thingamaplace ran his doodad on the whatchamacallit, he found out that the Xbox 360 version is only going to be running at 576p. Now I don’t know if any of you noticed, but 576p is significantly less than 720p, and let’s just not even think about 1080p, because it’s nearly double the resolution.

HDSDFF.jpg

Just look at the image above and tell me that you can’t see a big difference in quality, it’s pretty ridiculous. The full size images from the doodad can be seen here.

I hate it when this happens, these are HD consoles. You are supposed to be running HD games on them, not blurry upscaled games that are supposed to kind of look like HD games.

It’s obvious that the PS3 version was the lead platform for Final Fantasy XIII but I don’t accept that as a sufficient excuse. Shame on you Square-Enix. If you are in it for the visuals, now you know which one to buy.

Source: Product-Reviews

Last Updated: February 19, 2010

54 Comments

  1. I don’t think the lead platform has anything to do with the quality. Lets face facts a game designed on a 25Gb Blue Ray is going to have to make some cuts fitting on to 1 or 2 9Gb DVDs.

    I think your rant is rather unjustified.

    Reply

    • Flamebaitboy

      February 19, 2010 at 11:19

      You don’t THINK the lead platform has anything to do with this. no one KNOWS why it is the way it is.

      I think your comment is rather unjustified.

      Reply

    • Shodan

      February 19, 2010 at 12:00

      He did not say the reason for the gfx being better was because of the lead Platform. Read it again.

      “It’s obvious that the PS3 version was the lead platform for Final Fantasy XIII but I don’t accept that as a sufficient excuse”

      Reply

      • Flamebaitboy

        February 19, 2010 at 12:18

        I was refering to the comment above mine, and NOT to the article.

        Reply

        • Naudran

          February 19, 2010 at 13:29

          And so was he 🙂

          Reply

    • adfadfa

      March 4, 2010 at 10:09

      Well ps3 is just wack…umm the specluations have proven that final fantasy XIII in fact will be released in 1080p. Witch is insignificant. yeah so the blu-ray has more storage space. but i think its pretty awesome the whole 3disc’s. it takes me back to the very first play station that all the final fantasy games where more than one disc long. Anticipating making significant progress through the game….lata haterz

      Reply

  2. Al360

    February 19, 2010 at 11:17

    well if they splitting it over 3 disks y not add a 4th and release it in all its glory not to say u paying a little money for these titles

    Reply

  3. Bacon

    February 19, 2010 at 11:17

    Maybe it’s time to get a Playstation.

    Reply

    • Flamebaitboy

      February 19, 2010 at 11:22

      I have one.

      Reply

  4. Al360

    February 19, 2010 at 11:19

    PS3 AND PSN FTW :cheerful: :silly: :cheerful: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:

    Reply

  5. riezo

    February 19, 2010 at 11:20

    Thats what you get for going multi-plat after the PS3 version is almost done :lol:.

    Truth be told, this seems like a terrible porting job.

    I cant wait for FFversusXIII :biggrin:

    Reply

  6. TheBeasht

    February 19, 2010 at 11:24

    That’s a little lame if the game engine is running anything less than 720p on 360. I mean it’s a known fact that devs have an easier time making their games look good on the 360 than the PS3. I can understand if it’s just the cutscenes that look shitty.

    Reply

  7. Fred

    February 19, 2010 at 11:25

    Still does not make up for the poor ports we usually get on ps3.

    Reply

  8. Fred

    February 19, 2010 at 11:29

    By the way your title is misleading since a vertical resoloution of 720p is Hi-def (just not FULL-HD), which is the res the ps3 renders the game at apparently

    Reply

    • Flamebaitboy

      February 19, 2010 at 11:48

      Why is it misleading. The title reads High def and you clearly state that 720p is High Def but not “FULL HD”

      I would also like to hear your reasoning for what the difference is between High def and FULL HD. Bluray’s are HD not Full HD. I buy a HDTV not a FULL HDTV. And by your reasoning the TV broadcasters in America are lying when they say their programming is HD because they only broadcast in 720p and 1080i.

      Reply

      • Fred

        February 19, 2010 at 11:59

        The title said it will not be high definition on BOTH , but the ps3 version is HD or am I missing something.

        Reply

        • Flamebaitboy

          February 19, 2010 at 12:06

          Either you are missing something or I am :

          It will not be High Def on BOTH consoles, which means to me only 1 will be High Def. But I suppose it depends how you read it.

          Reply

          • Fred

            February 19, 2010 at 12:12

            Ok , it was the way I read it…. apologies. It should have said will not be high def on the xbox ..

          • Bacon

            February 19, 2010 at 17:16

            It was slightly ambiguous. I had to do a double take when I first read it too, but I understood what you meant.

  9. Exp

    February 19, 2010 at 11:47

    Wow, finally a multiplatform game that looks better on the ps3 instead of the Xbox. My world has been flipped upside down.

    Reply

  10. lefornicator

    February 19, 2010 at 11:49

    hahahaah xbox suxorz

    Just get over it… PS3 is better and xbox has limited themselves cause of their vision that the console to come out 1st will win. so they stuck with DVD and some consoles with no Hard drive.
    I pity them i really do

    Reply

    • Chobe

      March 5, 2010 at 15:47

      As An Owner Of Both Console’s I Can State That There Is Little To No Difference In The Graphics And Most Multiplatform Games I Have Played Are Identical Eg: Assassins Creed 2 , Army Of 2 40th Day , Resident Evil 5 , All These I Own On Both Consoles , And To Me They Are Identical And I HAve Perfect Vision , So If There Truly Is Going To Be A Difference i Would Love To See It I Really Would , But At The End Of The Day , Are YOu REALLY Going To Be Able To Tell? Really? , And Also Being The Owner Of Both Consoles I Believe The XBOX 360’s Strong Point Lies In Its Network As The PSN Is Utter Crap Compared Too It And Dose Not Compete In Anyway :devil:

      Reply

  11. daki-sama

    February 19, 2010 at 11:52

    This wasn’t a rushed port job, it’s widely known the engine used was a multi-platform engine. The issue was
    capacity. I’m unsure if it’s the same case here, but Microsoft have pressured developers into lowering their disk-count before. The stills may be disappointing, but the consensus is that in motion this game is still beautiful on the Xbox and most differences are barely noticeable. Don’t get riled-up, there was going to be a difference. If the game’s framerate is as bad as Bayonetta’s on the PS3, then start flinging the poop.

    Reply

    • Flamebaitboy

      February 19, 2010 at 11:55

      I am stunned. A sensible comment on Lazygamer. Well done sir!

      Reply

      • Fred

        February 19, 2010 at 12:07

        Not sensible at all .How can a rendering rate of an in game engine be dependant on disk capacity. I’ll understand that for the video sequences.

        Reply

        • SlippyMadFrog

          February 19, 2010 at 12:55

          What is a “rendering rate”? If you are talking about frame rate then why do you think the frame rate will be different between the two versions? What I understand is that one will be Sub-HD and the other one not, framerates will be the same. Lowering the resolution of textures reduces space I guess hence the sub-HD resolution.

          Reply

          • Fred

            February 19, 2010 at 14:55

            Sorry , I meant rendering resolution.

  12. Fox1

    February 19, 2010 at 11:54

    • Flamebaitboy

      February 19, 2010 at 11:56

      It doesn’t matter because 720p is not “FULL HD”. :ninja:

      Reply

      • SlippyMadFrog

        February 19, 2010 at 12:56

        It has to be 1080p @ 120fps otherwise it’s garbage.

        Reply

  13. daki-sama

    February 19, 2010 at 12:26

    sadface, I got a thumbs down. I was referring to the CG, didn’t realize I would have to specify. I was really pointing out that at the end of the day we should be more concerned with framerate, and it doesn’t deserve to get a public castration for a ‘bad port’ when it’s not nearly as horrible as the Bayonetta port. These stills aren’t going to stop you from buying the game if you wanted it before, or at least, they shouldn’t.

    Reply

  14. Flamebaitboy

    February 19, 2010 at 12:38

    According to my screen you got two thumbs up?

    Reply

    • daki-sama

      February 19, 2010 at 12:44

      No, you see, according to my logic, thumbs-ups go above an avatar. That, and I’m feeling a bit silly now and will stop commenting 🙂

      But before that, I’ll say it one more time: Looking forward to this game!

      Reply

      • Flamebaitboy

        February 19, 2010 at 12:53

        The funny thing is I don’t care. Never played a FF game and never will. Turn based stuff just doesn’t do it for me.

        Reply

  15. uberutang

    February 19, 2010 at 13:29

    Flameboy is kwaad vandag! 😉

    Reply

  16. Nick de Bruyne

    February 19, 2010 at 13:39

    I do agree with Fred, the disc capacity has nothing to do with the resolution that the game is rendered at. That comes down to pure engine use of processing power and if the engine or the processing power isn’t sufficient they have to drop the resolution to maintain a solid framerate, or deal with 720p at a bad frame rate. Sub-HD is the lesser of two evils in my opinion, but I still believe that developers should have to work harder to ensure that all games released for HD consoles run at an HD resolution.

    While 1080p is obviously the higher resolution, and in my opinion incorrectly named “full HD”, 720p is the base resolution that is classified as HD.

    Reply

    • RSA-Ace

      February 19, 2010 at 13:55

      What about textures though? If you can’t fit all the HD textures in the game then you would have to compress them. I’m not sure how much textures have to do with the resolution though… Just a though 🙂

      Reply

      • Nick de Bruyne

        February 19, 2010 at 14:33

        No textures have nothing to do with the actual resolution. Textures themselves have resolutions for their texture image, and that can affect performance, but with lower capacity the Xbox 360 version would then already be forced to utilise lower texture resolutions that accommodate smaller file sizes.

        It’s just like on a PC, if it’s runnign sluggish, you have to lower the resolution, but these arent PC’s. It’s the developers job to make the game run at the right res. Unless your game looks better than every other game out there, you have no excuse. Look at games like Mass Effect 2, Gears of War 2, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2… All look incredible and run at HD, so there is no excuse.

        Reply

        • RSA-Ace

          February 19, 2010 at 14:46

          Yeah that does make sense. I figured it might be like that.

          The only reason I was confused was because of the method in which the resolution is checked. http://bit.ly/bOqMsE they seem to use some random edges to zoom in on and then count the pixels.

          Reply

          • RSA-Ace

            February 19, 2010 at 14:48

            [Sorry clicked on submit early]

            Now if they chose a low resolution texture wouldn’t that show less pixels and thus lead someone to believe that the texture is lower than what it should be.

            I know that’s not the case. That’s just what made me think the texture has something to do with it :tongue:

      • Nick de Bruyne

        February 19, 2010 at 14:59

        I see where you got confused, but no it doesn’t work that way

        Reply

  17. evilredzombie

    February 19, 2010 at 17:43

    If it was the other way around the story would have had a different tone… Mocking ps3 owners… All I can say is lol at all those who previously laughed at ps3 owners that ff is not exclusive anymore…

    Reply

  18. GougedEye

    February 19, 2010 at 19:37

    I just LOL at Fanbois in general. Sad little twits.

    Reply

  19. ffjunk

    February 19, 2010 at 20:28

    the xbox is not a port. SE developed a seperate engine specifically for the 360. ps3 version is hd

    Reply

  20. eXp

    February 20, 2010 at 09:51

    People seem to think that every second game is full 1080p. You could hold all the Xbox and PS titles that are true 1080p in one hand.

    Reply

    • Nick de Bruyne

      February 20, 2010 at 12:11

      This man speaks the truth

      Reply

    • RSA-Ace

      February 20, 2010 at 16:44

      I think there are more than 60 on both consoles which support native 1080p. At least that’s how many I found from a list which was dated in 2008. So I’m sure there will be 100+ by now.

      The problem is most of them are Arcade or PSN titles.

      I’m perfectly happy with 720p 30fps (locked) games.

      Reply

      • WitWolfyZA

        February 22, 2010 at 08:52

        I concur, if the game is good, graphics don’t play such a major factor, but is always a welcomed extra

        Reply

  21. Koos du Kakis

    February 26, 2010 at 12:14

    There are 1080 titles that look worse than 720 titles. Resolution is just one factor. Oh and Halo3 looks far better on 1080. Native 720 – ???

    Reply

  22. RSA-Ace

    March 5, 2010 at 08:26

  23. eltonriley

    March 5, 2010 at 09:10

    Mate, I am glad bout this because I made a decision last week that ME2 was the last game I will buy for the 360 and will put all my money in building up my PS3 library. Am tired of Microsoft and lately, the constant freezing of my Xbox which has been intermittant for the last i dunno say 5 or 6 months.

    Just hope that devs stay out of Microsofts pocket and dev more quality titles for the PS3. Unfortunately, money is very tempting for the devs and buying stuff to snub the competition is about the only thing Microsoft is really good at.

    Reply

  24. Alucard

    March 9, 2010 at 16:31

    Talking about rubbish compared to the screen shots and actually playing the graphics and video looks pretty good on the 360. I don’t anything wrong with the resolution either. I believe something isn’t right about those pictures seem to me they’re rigged since they’re in favour of the PS3.

    Reply

  25. Fish Tacos

    March 12, 2010 at 02:21

    720p is in PlayStation 3 and 576p I believe in 360.

    720p is HD. 576p Standard TV or dvd

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Uncharted Movie Passes $100 Million – Sony set to Make a Franchise

After 14 years Sony finally released the Uncharted movie to medium reception. The movie ha…