HD console owners are pixel counters.

Sub HD matters only when it is on the PS3 apparently.

When a 360 exclusive or the 360 version of FF13 is sub HD people say they don't care.

Then those same people bash a PS3 multiplat that is sub hd. Funny how that happens.

We're in the frickin HD era for cryin' out loud. So, there should be no excuse for Sub-HD games.

If a Sub-HD game is released for the PS3 and 360, it should retail for $50 or less.

Doesn't matter to me. Just as long as I can see what's going on then it's all good.

Some games make up for it in other departments while it's obvious that others do it to take short cuts instead of optimizing the game for the system.

My opinion, yes it does matter becouse of the 1080p resolution TV 3D what i own.
Alan Wake give much blurry pixels on my TV screen, good game with bad resolution.

it matter if it's a xbox 360 exclusive but if it's a PS3 exclusive or version it doesn't matter

I'll take a rock solid framerate over "HD" anyday. And before anyone says it, yes, I know that you can have both with a PC.

This site has turned into propaganda bullsh!t.

99.9% of the links and comments here are just fanboys trying to spin something in their favor.

Ex. PS3 Fanboy: Red Dead Redemption on the PS3 is superior graphically in everyway.
Reality: The PS3 version of Red Dead Redemption is sub-HD just like GTA4.
PS3 Fanboy Response 1: Who needs HD resolution. PS3 for the win!!
Response 2: This site is bias. The writer is a 360 fanboy.

Ex. 360 Fanboy: Alan Wake is going to make Uncharted 2 look like sh!t.
Reality: Alan Wake is sub-HD and lacks detail.
360 Fanboy Response 1: Who needs HD resolution. 360 for the win!!
Response 2: This site is bias. The writer is a PS3 fanboy.

I totally agree with this article. I just bought Red Dead for PS3 yesterday. And I have to say that I am not really noticing the sub HD graphics. All I am noticing is glitches. Pop up here and there, horse and buggies dissapeering like the Manhattan Project and the same buggy controls that all GTA games have had. But I still love every minute. The writing is amazing, the missions so far are fun and varied and overall the game looks beautiful. But I'd say as far as score goes it does not deserve all the perfect 10's its been getting. I'd say 8.9 tops due to all the minor glitches. They are not big but they take away immersion and overall some game play mechanics could have been crafted better.

I challenge anyone on here to show me an official statement or quote from Rockstar Games that states that the PS3 version of Red Dead Redemption is sub-hd at 640p. If you can show me this, then you've won the debate and I'll accept the fact that it is, you have my word. If no one can do this, then I'm sorry I cannot and will not believe these rumors or claims. And no I dont care about the counting-pixel, NeoGaf geeks that most people have never heard of. I wanna hear and see concrete evidence of the kind I stated above. Please do not give me the excuse, "Game devs wont say come out and say things like that". Remedy did, so why cant Rockstar? Rather than disagree with me, show and prove and you've won my respect for your argument.

I was really interested in this game and therefore I read the reviews and research this game in thorough detail. Not one of the major gaming sites said a bad thing about the PS3 version and not one of them said it was inferior. Maybe one or two smaller, lesser-known ones (that I think are biased), but none of the major ones. I find that very strange indeed. I was myself quite concerened, but after playing it on my PS3, I was so relieved. I just cant see this so-called bad version people are talking about.

I'm playing the PS3 version right now and those screen comparison shots showing the PS3 version to look bad and blurry is pure BS. It looks nothing like that on my on 20' Sony Bravia HDTV at all. I'm not gonna say which version looks better, as thats a matter of subjective opinion. I'm sure the 360 looks very good aswell. But I do know for sure that PS3 version is just fine, the graphics are sharp and clear - they are not blurry at all. It's not the best I've seen on the PS3 but it does looks amazing and spectacular in many parts. There are some very minor hiccups with the framerate and pop-up, but thats about it, nothing that you will really notice. It also plays great too. It says 720p on the back of the box, and it looks like that to me. I'm just saying what I've seen as I own the PS3 version and thats the honest truth. No fanboy talk and thats real.

@ The Zeitgeist - I have the exact same experience as you man.

Not all displays are created equal. Buy a good brand tv and you will be fine,don't be a cheap bastard.

For soft, sub HD... Full-HD is awesome. It removes jaggies, and has ingredients to resolution-ize. WOW...

Seriously, anyone who's played COD4 and up on something other than a console KNOWS the difference. As a realist. I put 2 and 2 together... If developers behind 1st party PS3 and 360 titles can pull off ATLEAST 1280x720... Why is the multi-billion dollar Infinity Ward team releasing Modern Warfare 2 at 1024x600...

That means your seeing only 66% of the detail that COULD be seen.

Just to put it into perspective... the jump from 1080p to 720p is about a 44% loss in detail.

Heck yes it matters. Just compare a 1080p game like killzone 2 and a sub-HD game on PS3 like Red Dead Redemtion.

i couldnt give 2 $hits what resolution a game is in.

i grew up playing the atari, commodore 64, DOS games, etc.........so you wont find me whinging about a game being less than 720p when i had the time of my life playing monochrome games in like 300x200 resolution.

the only people that resolution matters to are the people who want to find a reason to bag out the game and the console that the game is on. thats it, noone else. for all the PS3 fanboys that want reasons to make fun of the PS3 and to say its rubbish, alan wake being found to be 540p was like all their christmas' had come at once. this was *obviously* proof that the 360 was less powerful than the PS3.

then the fact that Red Dead Redemption is less than 720p for the PS3 comes along, and all of a sudden its the 360 fanboys turn to cry 'the PS3 isnt powerful enough'.

the difference between the 2 cases - and let me stress the fact that NEITHER console is noticably more/less powerful than the other - is that alan wake being in sub-hd doesnt really hold much weight for PS3 fanboys because even though its in 540p, thats 540p more than it is in on the PS3. can they know for sure that if alan wake was on the PS3 it would be in 720p? no.

red dead on the other hand, well its in 720p on the 360 and its not on the PS3, so even though its stupid to argue, the argument that the 360 is therefore more powerful than the PS3 at least has a somewhat small leg to stand on. the games on both consoles, and it obviously looks better on the 360.

quite frankly, as long as a game is FUN i dont care what resolution its in, what anti-aliasing it has, how many polygons in its main characters, or how many dynamic light sources there are making shadows. i play games because i love playing games, not so i can brag about how much better a game is than another. i buy every console that comes out just so if theres a game i want to play, i can play it - and the game that ive probably sunk the most hours into this generation, with all the whiz bang graphics and resolutions out there, is Geometry Wars Retro Evolved on XBLA. why? because its fun.

the only people that care about resolutions are fanboys.

Only if you're on N4G.

well if it doesnt then you better change the hd logo on the back of the game lol

It only matters if it's the 360 version. If it's the PS3 sub-hd is just fine.

but it seems sub hd games matter for one console and not the other. Which is of course stupid. Alan Wake was ridiculed for being 'sub HD', but now RDR has turned out to be the same for PS3. Dont get me wrong im a PS fan, but id feel embarrassed if i was one of those making such a big deal out of it

the game is plagued with glitches. The Sub HD the game ran at I didnt notice very much but the glitches sooooooooo many

This game is pretty much identical on both systems. This whole graphics war is pretty pointless because ps3 and 360 have similar enought hardware that you dont see a huge difference between muliplat games. Its not like how it was last gen where every Xbox game looked better than a ps2 game and im not going to go out of my way to count pixels and compare minimal color pallet differences to say which version is the winner. Get it on either console and you will be happy.

For me, not really but taking Red Dead Redemption to account I do dislike shoddy ports all together. The PS3 version isn't bad at all but miniscule things like lesser grass (details) compared to the 360 does affect me personally.

why this issue has came to the roof suddenly ? is that because the version of RDR on PS3 sub-HD !! why there is no one spoke on HALO series sub-HD on X360 , much much hate for success of PS3 720p EXCLUSIVE games.

lol, xbots are butthurt bewcuzx their game isnt complete

It matters to fanboys.

Sub hd matters but it is not a huge downgrade since the normal game is 720p and it went to 644p .

What was funny is that xbox360 fanboys and 99% of the reviews did not mention any thing about Final Fantasy XIII on the Xbox VS Ps3.
THAT was a huge difference 540p/540 VS 720p/ 1080p.

Not for a sandbox game. Maybe to adventure games or RPGs that try to be a graphical showcase. Still, the PS3 version of RDR is more HD than Alan Wake and Alan Wake is an exclusive. That's pretty sad especially seeing as how it was hyped up (but I guess that's before it became exclusive, got gimped, and had sandbox elements removed from it).

i got a 52 inch samsung LCD 120Hrtz Refreshrate* thats what counts boys 1080p TV and this game looks beautiful on it... imagine if they went non sub HD?? how many discs xbox would have been? keep in mind this TV has seen Killzone 2, Resistance 2, Uncharted 1 and 2, sub hd or not this game looks and plays good so it does not matter it only matters to XBOYS because they have NO GAMES coming out for awhile and they need to grab at anything to try and stay busy whats after halo reach and all the DLC they plan on rolling out? and after gears of war 3 comes out with all their planned DLC aswell? I see nothing i see people paying good money to play the same old games online over and over and over again...

when ff whatever was sub hd on 360 the internet imploded now that its ps3 with the sub hd it doesnt matter uh?

remember not all tv's support the so called resoultion same with PC monitors a game can still look like **** running in 1080P or 2054x1540 and still look like **** if all the settings quality are on the lowest same applys to consoles take out some nice shaders or lighting and what not and you still have a shitty looking game MGS4 is a good example runs at 1080P looks like ****

No the game matters, but it is funny watching people being hypocrites changing their tune from game to game.

Um, no, it doesn't matter. It has absolutely no affect on the gameplay or story whatsoever. If you are a stupid ignorant elitist who refuses to play a game because it's "sub-HD" then it's your own problem. No one is losing out but you. Get over yourself.

The game is fine, and the textures are good enough that you don't even notice. I doubt anyone would have noticed or cared if no one brought it up in the first place. Millions of people would be playing it without even realizing it. The second someone complains, suddenly everyone is saying it's unacceptable when they wouldn't have even noticed or cared if they didn't know in the first place. Ignorance is bliss, so stop reading every single stupid bit of "news" posted on N4G and you'll probably get more enjoyment out of your games.

I've been playing sub-HD games for almost 20 years! Hmph, kids these days. :p

when you have an HD-tv it just does not look sharp when the game is some obscure resolution below 720p...

Having said that I find that xbox fanboys tend to be much less critical when a game on their system is sub hd... yet bash the ps3 games for having sub hd...

Sorry to say this but if a game is sub hd it is quite unacceptable we need games this gen to be at least 720p

hmmm...should it matter? Yes and No....No because the games that are made like this are/is passable enough to look good, but is passing just enough? That's like saying you planed on doing a A+ job, but you will settle for a C+ or B- job.
Yes because if you are not going to take full advantage of the console (whether it be 360 or PS3) then why bother at all? People are not paying all this money on HDTV's for nothing. Either make "next-gen" game or don't....stuff like this make you wonder are some devs really ready for "next-gen" Hi-Def gaming demands. Or they don't have the resources or skill to make a game run at a certain level, or just dumb down the graphics on the next console to cut corners and save time.....I dunno, who's to say. But this question can go either way...but in the long run who is really getting the short end of the stick? The consumer?

play the Fing game and stfu,
news flash everyone hardly any of your games run at 1080p if your playing on a console
why are gamers so Fup this gen?

is the reason for buying a pricey TV, HDMI upgrade in later 360 skus, the rise in cost for game development is blamed to HD upgrade, PS3 touts as a high definition console, 360 used to have a 720p requirement, games like Uncharted 2 and GoW3 blow us away.
DONT COME HERE AND SAY RESOLUTION IS INSIGNIFICANT!!!!
Is the main reason we have this HD Gen right now, it has been the selling point since the very begining. Play a sub hd game on a 46in TV or bigger and then tell me it does not matter, IT MATTERS, and a lot!
Just because MS decided to start launching sub hd games and developers like SE are forced to lower the resoluton for the 360 does not mean now HD is a thing of the past. It will be the gamers who lose when developers start back pedaling instead of pushing forward. Resolution does not make or break a game, but it matters big time

Edit
true, component is capable of HD resolution, but it is a known fact that HDMI provides a better image than component. As HDMI being the standard connection these days,i think a tv is must likely to have component connection than HDMI, but both are easily found in lots of tvs

Shadow of the Colossuss really had bad framerate. I enjoyed it anyway.

Guess what, I am playing the GOTY, and it is only 480P. Hint, it is not on PS3 or X360.

Sure graphics is cool and I will get the best port like FF13 and RDR for the platform it was made for. But Ratchet and Banjo has nothing on Mario Galaxy 2 even though they look better and has higher resolution.

Of course this is N4G so it is all KZ3, KZ3, KZ3 and its graphics supremacy until it releases next year. Facepalm.

SubHd only matters for the sake of trolling each other. It matters simply because of how it look on my tv got a 45 inch which is big enough for me to see the difference and the issues. Plus I wear glasses so I will def see it clearly.

Yes it matters. I'm a sony diehard, but ofcourse it matters. Who doesn't want a more crisp viewing experience?

if it comes to FF XIII it matters but in Red dead it dosen't matters ?

ratchet and clank is sub-hd?people hyping out its 'pixar quality' graphics at about 600p,tch-tch

It won't matter enough to stop me from buying it, but I'll be in no rush. Demon's Souls comes out in the UK soon! So I gotta prioritize. :)

agree and disagree with most comments tbh.

It's a tough one.

Of course people with HD sets want at the least 720p. that is understandable.

Does it make the game more fun, no. Does it f-up the game. No.

I also understand where you coming from lowcarb.

Size of map etc, draw distance - textures.

I don't think they culled enough before sending to RSX. Maybe i'm wrong.

But look at RDR Properly, Character wise, not exactly great looking are they when compared to UC2 etc.

Other then hills and foliage, it's baron at times and not really drawing much at all. Other places have alot more going on.

Fact of the matter is this. plain and simple.

The RDR engine was written in 2005 by a small team and is a multiplat engine.

And as everyone knows, you have to put in the time for the PS3 engine.

Nobody knows how fast the physics engine, bullet runs on 360 or PS3.

Like now, Havok runs very fast on PS3, but at first it did not.

yes it does i want sharp clear images not blurry jagged images - simple enough

I remember the drum Sony kept pounding before PS3.

On topic;
Seriously, no-one would care if there wasn't these pixel counting comparisons, so no, it doesn't matter. As long as the game is good, and looks good.

I'm playing RDR on my PS3 and Alan Wake on my 360 and I really don't see what the big deal is. Doesn't take anything away from the game and they both look great to me.

All games nowadays should be minimum 720p. But I don't mind if its a little less as long as the game looks good. I realise developers have to give and take to get the best out of their games.
RDR is a good game and looks quite nice, but IMO Just Cause 2 looks better graphically. RDR has better physics though.
I'm not knocking RDR as a game (so far it is brilliant), the graphics though should have been better, that and the few bugs are the only things wrong with the game. I have the PS3 version.

that may help some of learn more about yourselves:

http://www.tuckerhiggins.co...

I don't know what all of you are complaining about. I'm playing RDR on a 57" 1080p TV along with games like Uncharted, GoW3 and FF13. Honestly, I think RDR looks really damn good, sure it's not quite as good as those games but If I can look at it without comparing and know that it's a damn fine looking game then I'm not going to complain. It's light years better than GTA4's blurry mess of a game. It's a much better game overall as well. My faith in Rockstar has been restored. The only valid complain I have with the game is that I've been having some frequent freezing issues. It could just be my ps3 though but other games don't freeze that much. Regardless, It's a great looking game and while you little teenagers are nitpicking at the smallest details, I remember a time when games were based on quality, not graphics, so stop with your douchebaggery and go play.

Half the people in here bitch about low res, and now say it doesnt matter?

Resolution matters alot; I like to see everything I look at in the distance with 0 jaggies on PC. Consoles, not as much since 720 or under is still low resolution to me im use to it.

How come major XB2 exclusives are sub-HD?

If it happens to the person's preferred console, then it doesn't matter so much. 360 fans can look in the mirror on this subject just like PS3 fans can. To me, any multi-plat that looks slightly worse on the PS3 is not that surprising at this point. It doesn't mean the 360 is better. It means that there is no incentive for 3rd party developers to push the PS3's visuals past the 360's. Third place out of three has that effect. The internet is an odd place anyway. I played the PS3 version of GTA4 and thought it looked amazing. A friend who at the time had a 360 came over, saw me playing, and went on about how much better my version looked. Now I read that the PS3 GTA4 was inferior. Who knew that actually LOOKING at a game in motion was not a good way to judge it's looks? Clearly it's better to count pixels than to look at the whole picture. It's about the game, people.

dont be a douche bag fanboy.

MGS4 is also sub HD but does anybody cared? no

But if a 360 game is in sub HD that the 360 is "last-gen, DVD9 and so on"

PS3 fanboys are getting me tired.

If GT5 will also look better on the 360 THEN PS3 fanboys will also say that the game got gimped because of 360 HARDWARE, LOL.

Gta4 was also sub HD + 25 FPS on the pS3 but the fanboys said that the 360 hardware gimped their version down, lol.

I can't wait for the day when all systems are powerful enough to let the graphics look exactly how the creator imagines them, which in most cases will look like real life. Then and only then will the focus get back to game play and storytelling, what games should be about. No more obsessing over whether a game's resolution is in native HD or upscaled to HD.

I like pancakes. Who writes this shit? I want monster hunter news not toilet paper.

Does sub-HD resolution matter? Says a PS3 fanboy just to be in peace with PS3 version of RDR but the truth is that "HELL YEAH" it matter AND on Xbox 360 looks better than PS3 Period Mwuahahahahhhhhh.

This article says a lower resolution gives developers the opportunity to add post-processing effects and sharper textures but this isn't the case with RDR. The game sacrifices resolution for lower performance. The PS3 version of RDR has blurry textures and unstable framerate that dips to 20 at times all while in 640p.

The PS3 version could look on par with the 360 if Rockstar took the time and effort to optimize the engine for the PS3. The game obviously runs on just the RSX and the PPE core. Migrate some of workload from the GPU to one the SPEs.

Sub HD matters. Anyone that says different is making excuses.

Developers can work magic on the inferior sub HD versions but they can also work magic on the HD versions.

The PS3 and 360 are supposed to be HD consoles...right.../s