All comments

good :)

My my my, the developers continue to pour salt on the PS3's open wound.

I know the faces in a tennis game aren't as important as the faces in, say, a boxing game, but man oh man these faces are fugly.

After the abysmal no-voice 4 player online multiplayer in Full Auto 2: Battlelines they need to bring some of that loving back to the 360 aswell. Please mr Sega? Pretty please?

Good job.

well, they did a pretty good job on Monfils, but the other not so (I guess that's supposed to be Sharapova)

Game looks pretty good otherwise, but it's the animations that are more important to me in this game, and as far as I've seen they don't surpass ok-ish...

^^^...Holy shit, that looks awesome..! (it's in the wrong topic though)

POst the Mass Effect Screens in the forums!

U mean 1080i. I don't think games run in 1080p yet.

I'm pretty sure MS has an update available, that allows support for 1080p.

I didn't know this game looked so bad until now. Perhaps they should have stayed in 720 LOL jk.

But yeah Tarrell, 360 works in 1080p just fine.

I know this one!

Ooooh, they look so plastic. Super plastic! And their skin should have.. err... some kind of shader with no performance hit.

Haa! Plastic people, oh my god so plastic!


Plastic!

Thank you.

Holy smokes 1080 native. Most devs have problems hitting 720p (and some dont) not to mention a smooth 30fps at said resolution. GO Sega!

Looks good, too bad I dont like tennis.

no the mean 1080p

HAHAHA @ the audience in pic 4!

I have been saying for over a year, based on the specs of the current systems (Xbox 360 and PS3), 1080p gaming is a lose, lose situation. Here is why. There are approximately 255% more pixels in a native 1080p image, than in a native 720p image. No matter the frame rate, that gives you less than half the time to render each pixel + effects than before and then move on to the next frame. You must do this 30 or 60 times per second. With less time to render effects to the pixels, that means you have to cut back on the level of detail and amount of effects you can use on that pixel to get it rendered into to move to the next frame. So now not only is your time per pixel cut in half, but so is the number of lighting and shaders and textures effects that you can apply as well.

Based on current processor speeds, memory and bandwidth allocations in both systems, neither is fast enough, sophisticated enough nor have memory or bandwidth enough to accomplish this goal with any real level of effectiveness. Take a look at all the 1080p games to date (RR7, VT3, etc.). They all look like last-gen games running at hi-def. So you wind up with VT3. The problem increases by double with the jump from 30fps to 60fps, and so far the big hype of the day is 1080p games running at 60fps. The result being Dreamcast games running in high-def.

Then you get back to glorious 720p games like Gears of War and Mass Effect and Alan Wake in all their true next-gen graphic splendor. And you begin to understand why there is such a huge dichotomy and why native 720p just look light years better than native 1080p games.

Any talk of 1080p for right now is a joke and just some really bad marketing. If I wanted Dreamcast graphics in HD, I'd just plug in my DC to my VGA port on my HDTV,and have it scale the image all the way up to 1080p for me. I think that it is safe to say that anyone who spent $400 on a 360 and $600 on a PS3, did not do so, so they could play games that look like last-gen titles - only now in hi-def.

1080p will have it's day in the sun. By 2010-2012 when the next batch of consoles are arriving to market, processor power and all the other requisites for true next-gen graphics in 1080p will be in place and no doubt at least one hardware manufacturer will see to having a game console capable of making those games a reality and 1080p, next-gen graphics, a standard.

Until then, continue to be disappointed by native 1080p games on your PS3 and Xbox 360. In the meantime, I'm gonna be more than happy to 'settle' with native 720p classics like BioShock, in all the rich graphical detail that you just cannot get yet with native 1080p gaming.

As correct as you are and as a audiovisual engineer I am, I can say : even 720p poses some BIG challenges for current next gen hardware. Just look at how many games suffer from screen tearing (and global review community is quiet about it) or slowdown. Let alone 720p running at 60 fps. Maybe RR6 is a good example of how things should be approached : settle with less detail, but run at a steady framerate (which is higher than most other 360-titles, maybe not 60 but close). All I can say is : they tried to push HD into our homes. They tried to convince us of the need to purchase a good HDTV, but I am still gaming on my 'old' Panasonic widescreen 100Hz CRT TV - which by the way gives me far less screen tearing than the same game played on pc monitor or HDTV. About that pc monitor/vga HD cable "attempt" (it doesn't deserve a better name) : how is it possible that people are still having porblems with aspect ratios, game related VGA-bugs etc.? I don't think 2010-2012 will solve all problems concerning 1080p @ 60 fps... by that time developers will be hanging so much extra balls on that christmas tree we call a console that other and new problems will arise. Photorealistic HD games without slowdown and at 60 fps may be further away than we hope..

The Ps3 version looks much better than the 360 version, either way, i'm sorry but this is leagues ahead of anything the Dreamcast could achieve.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/viewer.php?mo...
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/viewer.php?mo...

Im so glad sega decided to focus on online gameplay, tournments, Virtual tennis tv etc in the 360 version, this automatically give it a +20% on whatever review score the ps3 version gets

Sega loves us again, but they're releasing crap! *looks at the latest sonic*

If you want to read the whole story why the xbox360 is better at 1080p than the PS3 ...follow this link and read...

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372