high definition does not equal better graphics (rant)

In article , Eric felt he had
to say

"Conor" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
AirRaid felt he had to say
I read time & time again, forum posters, articles from the gaming and
non-gaming press about high definition. it seems to me most of them
can't or don't understand high definition / HD resolution does not
mean better graphics in games. better graphics and HD resolutions
are two entirely seperate things. with Xbox 360 and PS3, what you
have are two consoles with 99% or more of the games running in one (or
more) of the HD resolutons; 720p, 1080i, 1080p. this gives 3 to 6
times the amount of pixels on screen compared to 480i/480p. on top of
that, the actual graphics complexity, detail, lighting, textures,
shaders, special effects, etc are all somewhat better than the
previous generation game consoles, but it doesn't seem like a
generational leap,

You must be ****ing blind. When was the last time you played a PS2
game? My kids still use a PS2 and the difference is massive compared to
the 360.

He isn't blind at all. Everything he said is straight on. Try this for
comparison: PS2's Gran Turismo 4 (which does have good texturing, lighting,
etc) on a standard definition 480i TV versus an XB360 game that with not so
good texturing, lighting, etc on an HDTV...

GT4 on the SDTV at 480i (my eyes find interlacing to be beneficial for some
games that seem to try to take advantage of artifacting flaws) gives more
immersion of photoreal perception...

www.specsavers.co.uk


--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

On Aug 19, 12:58 pm, Ds Bukkake wrote:
AirRaid wrote:
high definition / HD resolution does not
mean better graphics in games.

DUDE !

I WOULD LOVE TO PLAY PONG IN 1080P !!!!

Here you go!

http://www.bofunk.com/video/594/funny_pong_flash.html

- Jordan

Conor wrote:
In article . com,
AirRaid felt he had to say

I read time & time again, forum posters, articles from the gaming and
non-gaming press about high definition. it seems to me most of them
can't or don't understand high definition / HD resolution does not
mean better graphics in games. better graphics and HD resolutions
are two entirely seperate things. with Xbox 360 and PS3, what you
have are two consoles with 99% or more of the games running in one (or
more) of the HD resolutons; 720p, 1080i, 1080p. this gives 3 to 6
times the amount of pixels on screen compared to 480i/480p. on top of
that, the actual graphics complexity, detail, lighting, textures,
shaders, special effects, etc are all somewhat better than the
previous generation game consoles, but it doesn't seem like a
generational leap,


You must be ****ing blind. When was the last time you played a PS2
game? My kids still use a PS2 and the difference is massive compared to
the 360.

What he's trying to say is better graphics are not equal to sharpness.
Jurassic Park (the movie) on a dvd is in stadard res and it still
outclasses any xbox 360 game for graphical detail.

On Aug 20, 9:06 am, blue wrote:
Conor wrote:
In article . com,
AirRaid felt he had to say

I read time & time again, forum posters, articles from the gaming and
non-gaming press about high definition. it seems to me most of them
can't or don't understand high definition / HD resolution does not
mean bettergraphicsin games. bettergraphicsand HD resolutions
are two entirely seperate things. with Xbox 360 and PS3, what you
have are two consoles with 99% or more of the games running in one (or
more) of the HD resolutons; 720p, 1080i, 1080p. this gives 3 to 6
times the amount of pixels on screen compared to 480i/480p. on top of
that, the actualgraphicscomplexity, detail, lighting, textures,
shaders, special effects, etc are all somewhat better than the
previous generation game consoles, but it doesn't seem like a
generational leap,

You must be ****ing blind. When was the last time you played a PS2
game? My kids still use a PS2 and the difference is massive compared to
the 360.

What he's trying to say is bettergraphicsare not equal to sharpness.
Jurassic Park (the movie) on a dvd is in stadard res and it still
outclasses any xbox 360 game for graphical detail.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Exactly what I was saying.

Jurassic Park the movie, even on low-resolution VHS (about half the
res of standard definition DVD) still has far better graphics than any
Xbox 360, PS3 or highend PC game. there are a million other examples
besides Jurassic Park.

There's tons & tons of pre-rendered television shows, commercials, tv
& cable network logos, intros & cut-scenes in games as well as other
movies. You could see them all in standard definition and they ****
all over the best realtime HD game graphics on consoles or PC.

Obviously there is a world of difference between pre-rendered CGI
graphics and on-the-fly realtime interactive graphics, but as far as
what standard definition sets can display, graphics are graphics, it
makes no difference if it's realtime or prerendered.

Thus, when realtime game graphics get to be an order of magnitude
better, they run natively at SD and blow away current HD game
graphics. obviously of course, having *both* much better graphics
(than now) combined with HD, is even better.

On Aug 19, 6:01 pm, Conor wrote:
In article . com,
AirRaid felt he had to say

I read time & time again, forum posters, articles from the gaming and
non-gaming press about high definition. it seems to me most of them
can't or don't understand high definition / HD resolution does not
mean bettergraphicsin games. bettergraphicsand HD resolutions
are two entirely seperate things. with Xbox 360 and PS3, what you
have are two consoles with 99% or more of the games running in one (or
more) of the HD resolutons; 720p, 1080i, 1080p. this gives 3 to 6
times the amount of pixels on screen compared to 480i/480p. on top of
that, the actualgraphicscomplexity, detail, lighting, textures,
shaders, special effects, etc are all somewhat better than the
previous generation game consoles, but it doesn't seem like a
generational leap,

You must be ****ing blind. When was the last time you played a PS2
game? My kids still use a PS2 and the difference is massive compared to
the 360.

--

you just completely missed my point. you don't have a ****ing clue
what I am talking about, nor do you even understand what you yourself
are talking about. I'm not going to try to explain it to some ****ing
moron like you.

On Aug 18, 3:43 pm, Jordan wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:47 am, AirRaid wrote:

HD only shows more of what's already
there. another example, take a modern game like Half-Life 2 or
Quake 4, run it at 640 x 480, they still have better graphics than
Quake 3 running at 4000x2000 or whatever resolution.

This is something I've been saying for years, which most people still
don't get.

It all depends on the native resolution that a game is created in. If
you have a texture that is created in 640 x 480 it's ALWAYS going to
be 640 x 480 regardless of what resolution you display it at. Choosing
to display an Atari 2600 game at 1080p is not going to miraculously
make it an HD image. You can't add data that's not there.

Fortunately for folks without HDTV they still get the benefit of
higher resolution graphics. Look at a flick like King Kong. I can't
begin to imagine what resolution they rendered the movie in but it's
going to look great regardless of what TV set you show it on. Yes, if
you have an HDTV and HD media it's going to look better because you're
many steps closer to the native resolution, but it's not going to look
"bad" in any lower res.

- Jordan

true. but even if you have a game that's native HD 1080p, it could
still have the level of graphical complexity of a Dreamcast,
PlayStation2, Gamecube or Xbox1 game. it's still truly HD, but the
graphics themselves are "last-gen".

Lets pretend we had game graphics that rivaled the best prerendered
CGI game cut-scenes, or CGI television shows or
CGI television commercials, or dare I say, high-budget movies, and
they were designed natively for SD resolutions, they'd still blow the
living heck out of anything on Xbox360/PS3, and would be concidered a
generation (or two) beyond what those consoles can do.

On Aug 20, 10:01 pm, AirRaid wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:43 pm, Jordan wrote:



On Aug 18, 11:47 am, AirRaid wrote:

HD only shows more of what's already
there. another example, take a modern game like Half-Life 2 or
Quake 4, run it at 640 x 480, they still have better graphics than
Quake 3 running at 4000x2000 or whatever resolution.

This is something I've been saying for years, which most people still
don't get.

It all depends on the native resolution that a game is created in. If
you have a texture that is created in 640 x 480 it's ALWAYS going to
be 640 x 480 regardless of what resolution you display it at. Choosing
to display an Atari 2600 game at 1080p is not going to miraculously
make it an HD image. You can't add data that's not there.

Fortunately for folks without HDTV they still get the benefit of
higher resolution graphics. Look at a flick like King Kong. I can't
begin to imagine what resolution they rendered the movie in but it's
going to look great regardless of what TV set you show it on. Yes, if
you have an HDTV and HD media it's going to look better because you're
many steps closer to the native resolution, but it's not going to look
"bad" in any lower res.

- Jordan

true. but even if you have a game that's native HD 1080p, it could
still have the level of graphical complexity of a Dreamcast,
PlayStation2, Gamecube or Xbox1 game. it's still truly HD, but the
graphics themselves are "last-gen".

Lets pretend we had game graphics that rivaled the best prerendered
CGI game cut-scenes, or CGI television shows or
CGI television commercials, or dare I say, high-budget movies, and
they were designed natively for SD resolutions, they'd still blow the
living heck out of anything on Xbox360/PS3, and would be concidered a
generation (or two) beyond what those consoles can do.

I was going to write this long rant about how you are completely
wrong, but I read through it again and realize you are right on
target. PS3 sucks, but dang those graphics do look good. So does the
X360. If you don't think its a generational improvement, then you
don't have your system set up correctly, they look much better than
the previous consoles. Xbox is less of leap, but the PS2 to PS3 is
VERY significant. With xbox, it really depends on what game you are
playing and what game you are comparing it to.
However, I should note that there are some developers that are paying
attention to these issues and are taking advantage of the HD
resolutions correctly. One example that comes to mind is the recent
xbox Live Arcade title "Marathon: Durandal". Originally a Bungie
product (Halo series developer) pre-Microsoft, made in 1995 or 1997,
or somewhere around there. Originally ran at 30fps, and (I'm assuming)
640x480, that is if you had a Mac that could run it at that
resolution. Freeverse has taken it and remade it using HD textures (re-
rendered the graphics for HD) and tweaked the code to allow it to run
at 60fps. Here is one situation where HD resolution is being used to
its advantage. The downside is that its still the original textures,
just better resolution. So it looks like the same game, only sharper
and more fluid than the original.
Other arcade titles also have this advantage in that they are smaller
games that are designed with HD resolutions in mind, and the textures
and graphics are made to take full advantage of those HD graphics.
However, when they are run at SD resolutions, they still give you an
advantage of great looking graphics. They do not look as good as they
do when they are played on an HD monitor however.
Another point you make is about the more powerful processors being
used for more AI complexity, and lighting/weather/environment effects,
and that is a valid point. It is also the reason that most xbox games
will be designed for 720p resolutions, not 1080p (or i). Even though
that the 360 can produce graphics at those resolutions.
As you said, it is the fluid movement (frame rate) and consistent
rendering that make a game more enjoyable to play, not the resolution.
Resistance does look pretty dang good though.

On Aug 21, 4:35 pm, Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 10:01 pm, AirRaid wrote:





On Aug 18, 3:43 pm, Jordan wrote:

On Aug 18, 11:47 am, AirRaid wrote:

HD only shows more of what's already
there. another example, take a modern game like Half-Life 2 or
Quake 4, run it at 640 x 480, they still have better graphics than
Quake 3 running at 4000x2000 or whatever resolution.

This is something I've been saying for years, which most people still
don't get.

It all depends on the native resolution that a game is created in. If
you have a texture that is created in 640 x 480 it's ALWAYS going to
be 640 x 480 regardless of what resolution you display it at. Choosing
to display an Atari 2600 game at 1080p is not going to miraculously
make it an HD image. You can't add data that's not there.

Fortunately for folks without HDTV they still get the benefit of
higher resolution graphics. Look at a flick like King Kong. I can't
begin to imagine what resolution they rendered the movie in but it's
going to look great regardless of what TV set you show it on. Yes, if
you have an HDTV and HD media it's going to look better because you're
many steps closer to the native resolution, but it's not going to look
"bad" in any lower res.

- Jordan

true. but even if you have a game that's native HD 1080p, it could
still have the level of graphical complexity of a Dreamcast,
PlayStation2, Gamecube or Xbox1 game. it's still truly HD, but the
graphics themselves are "last-gen".

Lets pretend we had game graphics that rivaled the best prerendered
CGI game cut-scenes, or CGI television shows or
CGI television commercials, or dare I say, high-budget movies, and
they were designed natively for SD resolutions, they'd still blow the
living heck out of anything on Xbox360/PS3, and would be concidered a
generation (or two) beyond what those consoles can do.

I was going to write this long rant about how you are completely
wrong, but I read through it again and realize you are right on
target. PS3 sucks, but dang those graphics do look good. So does the
X360. If you don't think its a generational improvement, then you
don't have your system set up correctly, they look much better than
the previous consoles. Xbox is less of leap, but the PS2 to PS3 is
VERY significant. With xbox, it really depends on what game you are
playing and what game you are comparing it to.
However, I should note that there are some developers that are paying
attention to these issues and are taking advantage of the HD
resolutions correctly. One example that comes to mind is the recent
xbox Live Arcade title "Marathon: Durandal". Originally a Bungie
product (Halo series developer) pre-Microsoft, made in 1995 or 1997,
or somewhere around there. Originally ran at 30fps, and (I'm assuming)
640x480, that is if you had a Mac that could run it at that
resolution. Freeverse has taken it and remade it using HD textures (re-
rendered the graphics for HD) and tweaked the code to allow it to run
at 60fps. Here is one situation where HD resolution is being used to
its advantage. The downside is that its still the original textures,
just better resolution. So it looks like the same game, only sharper
and more fluid than the original.
Other arcade titles also have this advantage in that they are smaller
games that are designed with HD resolutions in mind, and the textures
and graphics are made to take full advantage of those HD graphics.
However, when they are run at SD resolutions, they still give you an
advantage of great looking graphics. They do not look as good as they
do when they are played on an HD monitor however.
Another point you make is about the more powerful processors being
used for more AI complexity, and lighting/weather/environment effects,
and that is a valid point. It is also the reason that most xbox games
will be designed for 720p resolutions, not 1080p (or i). Even though
that the 360 can produce graphics at those resolutions.
As you said, it is the fluid movement (frame rate) and consistent
rendering that make a game more enjoyable to play, not the resolution.
Resistance does look pretty dang good though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


just think of some feature length pre-rendered CGI movie you watched
on VHS or DVD on an SDTV set. Or the best pre-rendered CGI intro or
cut-scene from a videogame from the PS2/GCN/Xbox1 generation, again at
SD resolution. those graphics blow anything realtime on PS3/X360 out
of the water.

I totally agree that a game made specifically for X360/PS3 looks
really good on an HDTV set, much more so than on a SDTV set. the HDTV
will bring out all the detail that's there in that X360/PS3 game.

as far as graphics X360/PS3 have two main advantages above PS2/GCN/
Xbox1:

1.) HD resolutions: 720p (3x the pixels) or 1080i / 1080p (6x the
pixels)

2.) more graphics processing horsepower and RAM to create better
graphics regardless of what resolution you view the game at. this is
the more important of the two IMO.


unfortunately, with #2, the leap beyond last-generation is not that
huge, because #1 consumes most of that, so there isn't a whole lot
left over for #2 (improve the actual graphics). granted there IS a
significant amount for #2 even after #1 (increased resolution) is
reached, but not enough to look like a generational leap. you notice
this when you play X360/PS3 games at standard definition. they look
better than PS2/GCN/Xbox1 games, but not much. so most of the
difference is because of #1, the increased resolution, which IMO is
less important than improving the actual graphical complexity,
lighting, animation.

so I hope that with the NEXT generation (X720 / PS4) because the
resolution will not increase again (games will still be made for HD
720p and 1080i/1080p) the amount of horsepower there to improve the
graphics above X360/PS3 games will be HUGE. like what we saw when we
went from PS1/N64 to DC/PS2/GCN/Xbox1. two generations that ran
games at SD resolutions.

my hope is that with the consoles that come out in 4-6 years, we'll
have graphics that look more like the pre-rendered CGI we have in
videogame introductions and television shows, instead of little more
than somewhat improved last-generation-like graphics boosted to HD
resolutions.

going by what I've seen from DirectX10 PC games (like Crysis) running
on Nvidia's GeForce 8800 and AMD's Radeon 2900 cards, the highend of
PC gaming is a step towards that goal for the next round of consoles
that'll come out early next decade which should be much more powerful
than the most powerful graphics cards of today, not to mention leaps
and bounds beyond the less powerful graphics chips in X360 and PS3.

On Aug 21, 5:35 pm, Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 10:01 pm, AirRaid wrote:





On Aug 18, 3:43 pm, Jordan wrote:

On Aug 18, 11:47 am, AirRaid wrote:

HD only shows more of what's already
there. another example, take a modern game like Half-Life 2 or
Quake 4, run it at 640 x 480, they still have better graphics than
Quake 3 running at 4000x2000 or whatever resolution.

This is something I've been saying for years, which most people still
don't get.

It all depends on the native resolution that a game is created in. If
you have a texture that is created in 640 x 480 it's ALWAYS going to
be 640 x 480 regardless of what resolution you display it at. Choosing
to display an Atari 2600 game at 1080p is not going to miraculously
make it an HD image. You can't add data that's not there.

Fortunately for folks without HDTV they still get the benefit of
higher resolution graphics. Look at a flick like King Kong. I can't
begin to imagine what resolution they rendered the movie in but it's
going to look great regardless of what TV set you show it on. Yes, if
you have an HDTV and HD media it's going to look better because you're
many steps closer to the native resolution, but it's not going to look
"bad" in any lower res.

- Jordan

true. but even if you have a game that's native HD 1080p, it could
still have the level of graphical complexity of a Dreamcast,
PlayStation2, Gamecube or Xbox1 game. it's still truly HD, but the
graphics themselves are "last-gen".

Lets pretend we had game graphics that rivaled the best prerendered
CGI game cut-scenes, or CGI television shows or
CGI television commercials, or dare I say, high-budget movies, and
they were designed natively for SD resolutions, they'd still blow the
living heck out of anything on Xbox360/PS3, and would be concidered a
generation (or two) beyond what those consoles can do.

I was going to write this long rant about how you are completely
wrong, but I read through it again and realize you are right on
target. PS3 sucks, but dang those graphics do look good. So does the
X360. If you don't think its a generational improvement, then you
don't have your system set up correctly, they look much better than
the previous consoles. Xbox is less of leap, but the PS2 to PS3 is
VERY significant. With xbox, it really depends on what game you are
playing and what game you are comparing it to.
However, I should note that there are some developers that are paying
attention to these issues and are taking advantage of the HD
resolutions correctly. One example that comes to mind is the recent
xbox Live Arcade title "Marathon: Durandal". Originally a Bungie
product (Halo series developer) pre-Microsoft, made in 1995 or 1997,
or somewhere around there. Originally ran at 30fps, and (I'm assuming)
640x480, that is if you had a Mac that could run it at that
resolution. Freeverse has taken it and remade it using HD textures (re-
rendered the graphics for HD) and tweaked the code to allow it to run
at 60fps. Here is one situation where HD resolution is being used to
its advantage. The downside is that its still the original textures,
just better resolution. So it looks like the same game, only sharper
and more fluid than the original.
Other arcade titles also have this advantage in that they are smaller
games that are designed with HD resolutions in mind, and the textures
and graphics are made to take full advantage of those HD graphics.
However, when they are run at SD resolutions, they still give you an
advantage of great looking graphics. They do not look as good as they
do when they are played on an HD monitor however.
Another point you make is about the more powerful processors being
used for more AI complexity, and lighting/weather/environment effects,
and that is a valid point. It is also the reason that most xbox games
will be designed for 720p resolutions, not 1080p (or i). Even though
that the 360 can produce graphics at those resolutions.
As you said, it is the fluid movement (frame rate) and consistent
rendering that make a game more enjoyable to play, not the resolution.
Resistance does look pretty dang good though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Assuming you could run the Mac at 640x480?

640x480 was the standard Colour resolution for the first colour Mac -
the Mac II, in 1987. I had one back then. I started with 8 bit (256
colours) but eventually added enough Vram for 32 bit (millions). My
friends with 640x480 8 bit VGA, with 60hz interlaced monitors simply
could not believe the image quality. Of course the Sony trinitron tube
didn't hurt.

I played Marathon on the Mac(PowerMac 6100) in 1995. It was hot stuff
back then, and I thought it the best FPS on any platform at the time.
It featured stereo sound - you could for the first time hear which
direction the shots were coming from or where the footsteps were. It
was the first FPS that I ever did multiplayer on - two of us on 9600
baud modems. Trying to remember from 12 years ago, I'm pretty sure
I was running it at 1024x768 - I had a shared Mac PC Monitor (NEC 3D).

James

On Aug 22, 10:50 am, James wrote:
On Aug 21, 5:35 pm, Doug wrote:



On Aug 20, 10:01 pm, AirRaid wrote:

On Aug 18, 3:43 pm, Jordan wrote:

On Aug 18, 11:47 am, AirRaid wrote:

HD only shows more of what's already
there. another example, take a modern game like Half-Life 2 or
Quake 4, run it at 640 x 480, they still have better graphics than
Quake 3 running at 4000x2000 or whatever resolution.

This is something I've been saying for years, which most people still
don't get.

It all depends on the native resolution that a game is created in. If
you have a texture that is created in 640 x 480 it's ALWAYS going to
be 640 x 480 regardless of what resolution you display it at. Choosing
to display an Atari 2600 game at 1080p is not going to miraculously
make it an HD image. You can't add data that's not there.

Fortunately for folks without HDTV they still get the benefit of
higher resolution graphics. Look at a flick like King Kong. I can't
begin to imagine what resolution they rendered the movie in but it's
going to look great regardless of what TV set you show it on. Yes, if
you have an HDTV and HD media it's going to look better because you're
many steps closer to the native resolution, but it's not going to look
"bad" in any lower res.

- Jordan

true. but even if you have a game that's native HD 1080p, it could
still have the level of graphical complexity of a Dreamcast,
PlayStation2, Gamecube or Xbox1 game. it's still truly HD, but the
graphics themselves are "last-gen".

Lets pretend we had game graphics that rivaled the best prerendered
CGI game cut-scenes, or CGI television shows or
CGI television commercials, or dare I say, high-budget movies, and
they were designed natively for SD resolutions, they'd still blow the
living heck out of anything on Xbox360/PS3, and would be concidered a
generation (or two) beyond what those consoles can do.

I was going to write this long rant about how you are completely
wrong, but I read through it again and realize you are right on
target. PS3 sucks, but dang those graphics do look good. So does the
X360. If you don't think its a generational improvement, then you
don't have your system set up correctly, they look much better than
the previous consoles. Xbox is less of leap, but the PS2 to PS3 is
VERY significant. With xbox, it really depends on what game you are
playing and what game you are comparing it to.
However, I should note that there are some developers that are paying
attention to these issues and are taking advantage of the HD
resolutions correctly. One example that comes to mind is the recent
xbox Live Arcade title "Marathon: Durandal". Originally a Bungie
product (Halo series developer) pre-Microsoft, made in 1995 or 1997,
or somewhere around there. Originally ran at 30fps, and (I'm assuming)
640x480, that is if you had a Mac that could run it at that
resolution. Freeverse has taken it and remade it using HD textures (re-
rendered the graphics for HD) and tweaked the code to allow it to run
at 60fps. Here is one situation where HD resolution is being used to
its advantage. The downside is that its still the original textures,
just better resolution. So it looks like the same game, only sharper
and more fluid than the original.
Other arcade titles also have this advantage in that they are smaller
games that are designed with HD resolutions in mind, and the textures
and graphics are made to take full advantage of those HD graphics.
However, when they are run at SD resolutions, they still give you an
advantage of great looking graphics. They do not look as good as they
do when they are played on an HD monitor however.
Another point you make is about the more powerful processors being
used for more AI complexity, and lighting/weather/environment effects,
and that is a valid point. It is also the reason that most xbox games
will be designed for 720p resolutions, not 1080p (or i). Even though
that the 360 can produce graphics at those resolutions.
As you said, it is the fluid movement (frame rate) and consistent
rendering that make a game more enjoyable to play, not the resolution.
Resistance does look pretty dang good though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Assuming you could run the Mac at 640x480?

640x480 was the standard Colour resolution for the first colour Mac -
the Mac II, in 1987. I had one back then. I started with 8 bit (256
colours) but eventually added enough Vram for 32 bit (millions). My
friends with 640x480 8 bit VGA, with 60hz interlaced monitors simply
could not believe the image quality. Of course the Sony trinitron tube
didn't hurt.

I played Marathon on the Mac(PowerMac 6100) in 1995. It was hot stuff
back then, and I thought it the best FPS on any platform at the time.
It featured stereo sound - you could for the first time hear which
direction the shots were coming from or where the footsteps were. It
was the first FPS that I ever did multiplayer on - two of us on 9600
baud modems. Trying to remember from 12 years ago, I'm pretty sure
I was running it at 1024x768 - I had a shared Mac PC Monitor (NEC 3D).

James

Yeah, I didn't have that nice of a Mac. I had a Performa 630 (or
something to that effect) that just barely cut it. I got to play on a
15 inch color screen, but it did look good. I didn't play online
though. I don't actually remember much of the gameplay, but seeing the
reviews of Durandal on xbox Live is starting to bring back memories.