Ben-DutkaWe know Sony wants to restrict 3D games to 720p resolution, and we know the new technology can indeed impact the overall visual presentation.
But Guerrilla, currently in the process of developing the 3D-enabled Killzone 3 , has adopted a different, more positive, outlook. In fact, if you check out this cool video interview with team boss Steven Ter Heide, he says working with 3D has actually allowed them to enhance the game's standard 2D appeal.
"That means that the tech guys back home are very hard at work to make sure that the performance gets up there. That benefits the entire game because we need to make sure that 3D runs at 30 frames [per second] and that benefits the 2D version obviously as well."
He adds that it's actually quite the challenge; there are "very subtle changes that initially you don't think about." In truth, they're probably things we gamers wouldn't think about, either; for instance, the crosshair. As Ter Heide says, even though it's not actually part of the game world, you still have to figure out where it resides. In other words, where do you place it in terms of depth? It sort of sounds like he's saying that simply because they have to work harder, the entire project benefits from that extra effort. From extra effort to support another viewpoint comes better understanding, right? Seems to make sense.
Related Game(s): Killzone 3
I like their positive attitude, I have no doubt they're delivering a solid game.
the way i see it if the developers are good enough to get 720p @30fps running 3d then they can either pump out up to 1080p or 720p @60fps in 2d because it would be around the same since 3d requires two screens processed at once 720p = 1megapixel while 720p in 3d is 2 1megapixel screens being processed and 1080p is 2 megapixels
So why doesn't that translate into 60fps for us poor little 2D lovers?
Playing Killzone 2 now. The game really would have benefited from 60/fps.
My thoughts exactly, World.
While I fully expect KZ3 to be an awesome shooter that has the capacity to become a favorite FPS of mine (and I expect it to, perhaps the placebo effect alone will get it there), the hands-on feedback I've observed from those who've played the E3 demo (Alpha Code) has given me cause to be skeptical of the real benefits by adding 3D coded support.
Joystiq.com claims a definite loss in resolution while playing the game demo with 3D enabled.
Whereas, I remember reading a headline that KZ3 will suffer "no loss in graphical fidelity" while being displayed in 3D ( John Carmack also claimed a similar thing with Doom 3's conversion from the PC to Xbox. While the port was indeed excellent, it was far from the same fidelity) Can this be true? Has GG found a way to have complete fidelity parody between 2D and 3D?
While I doubt any of us on these message boards have worked with stereoscopic 3D before I don't think it's inaccurate to make the assumption that this probably isn't true. Especially considering that their very own, albeit early, E3 game demo couldn't meet that claim.
What it all boils down to is this.
If 3D is, in fact, more taxing on hardware to implement, it is only obvious that a more simple 2D output would yield less of a processing overhead.
And as you put it WorldEndsWithMe, why then doesn't this translate to increased performance while playing the game strictly in 2D?
The ultimate concern I have of this whole 3D movement is just this. Assuming that my assumptions are correct, will 2D gamers be robbed from the full potential of the PS3's 2D output if devs restrain processing to ensure parody between 2D and 3D modes?
If so, I don't want it, not yet. Bring it out on a future system when 3DTV's are more saturated into the public. Because, until then, the majority of us will be getting less out of our little black box.
As long as the res stays at 720p i don't see a problem. If 3D games are going to be at least 720p why would 2D suffer?
You could say they suffer if, as my ninja friend said, they want the 3D and 2D versions to be as similar as possible and don't make the 2D play at a faster fps. I guess my thing is, if its at 720p and 30fps in 3D, then why can't they up the frame rate on the 2D play? Cuz, well it's just smoother and prettier.
@Worlds,
Are you sure it doesn't translate to 60fps for 2D? To render 720p30 in 3D the game has to render 60 frames per second, but it's rendering 30 per second for each eye's point of view. So the stereoscopic 3D in 7290p30 is 60 frame per second, it's just 30 per eye.
In 2D that should translate to a rock solid 60 frames per second because in order to achieve a rock solid 30 frames per second 3D experience the game has to be capable of pushing 60 frames per second anyway, and besides 2D takes less rendering work because all the images are from the same point of view.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 7/19/2010 9:12:10 AM
That's just it. I don't want my 2D experience watered down by 3D when I know I won't be having 3D. So at least give us the option to turn it on and off. Non-3D play would enable 1080p at 30fps rendering, or perhaps, 720p at 60fps (I'd prefer the boost in framerate). 3D play enabled would be rendered at 720p at 30fps. Only in the case of optimization settings can it then be said that 2D "benefits" for 3D in any way.
Killzone 3 in 3D is not going to be the only option Shams. I think Sony is smart enough to understand that making 3D only games is a loser. Of course there will be an option.
Well Highlander, to be honest I don't know but I get the creeping feeling that if it hasn't been mentioned yet it ain't happening. It would look REALLY good at that framerate though. The movements just have that realistic feel to them you don't see at 30.
I'm afraid we're gonna have to accept games being downgraded (if only minimally) to accommodate 3D gaming. I have no doubt in my mind KZ3 will be amazing, just wish they'd hold off on this 3D tech until it's fully compatible without sacrificing anything.
There aren't that many games that are 1080p native anyway so i don't see it as having to downgrade.
How can we complain we're not getting games in 1080p anymore when we really weren't to begin with.
I would love to see more games in 1080p but it just doesn't happen. Its when games are lower res then 720p is what pisses me off.
Ha…Transformers WFC says 480P on the back…I didn't know they even made games under that resolution anymore. Seriously what is the point of buying a 1080P TV for gaming when most games play under 720P.
480p is mandatory because not everyone has a HDTV. The native resolution is still 720p, its just the game is able to display at lower res so people who don't have HDTV's aren't left out.
Most games should be 720p Native but some developers for some reason decide to make them less. Games like RDR(on PS3), Alan Wake, Splinter Cell and Halo Reach don't reach 720p as their highest resolution.
If you have an HDTV and a HDMI cable Transformers will display in 720p native if that is in fact its native resolution. If you notice all games will say 480i/480p/720p/1080i/1080p on the back with the native res highlighted in red. For PS3 games anyway.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/18/2010 10:32:43 PM
Here's my problem with 3d and 1080p. I understand that right now very few games run in 1080p, however I would expect that as times went on, more and more of them would have.
Instead, now none of them will because they'll be implementing 3d instead and automatically making it 720p.
I would have rather they held off on 3d, until every game coming out was 1080p, then when 3d could easily be done in 1080p brought it out. I know ppl will say that right now thats not possible, but that's kinda the point, tech is always advancing and I'd rather wait until this was possible with 3d.
One tech at a time, very man ppl are still using SD, why bring about 3d, keep games at 720p, when 3d will only cater to the smallest margin.
@Kraygen,
I don't think we were/are ever going to see many games rendering at 10980p on the PS3. You'll see almost none (if any) actually render at anything like 1080p on the 360. The reason is that even with the Cell BE at maximum output, the hardware is pushed really hard to do 1080p, and you have to compromise the texture quality, graphical complexity and post effects used in order to achieve 1080p rendering.
As we discussed in another thread recently, some 360 games claim 1080p output, but they still render at or below 720p, the output is scaled from the actual render, so it's not truly 1080p, it's simply a cheat that depends on semantics.
The 1080p games on the PS3 that claim 1080p are rendering to a higher target. Some don't quite render at full 1080p, and use tricks like dynamically altering the render resolution to cope with situations where the frame rate is threatened. Even with the sheer power of the CellBE, 1080p is a push.
Switching gears and going after 3D is not going to deflect any games from hitting 1080p, because few if any games are/were going to hit 1080p anyway.
Sony specified 720p for 3D with 30 frames per second for each eye. That is the equivalent of 2D in 720p60. If every game this generation managed to render at 720p60, we'd have a lot of very awesome looking games. As it is, many games do *NOT* render full 720p60. Many don't hit the framerate, some don't hit the resolution, and some hit neither the resolution nor the framerate. At least this way there is a mandate that may push game developers to actually hit the real 720p target in the first place?
What Highlander is saying makes sense. I hope hes right. KZ3 in 720p with 60/fps would make me very very happy.
I didn't even mean specifically the ps3, future systems as well, it'll be all too easy for them to continue this trend.
I'm still just saying I'd rather have 1080p than 3d.
It wasn't going to be 1080p to begin with!
Well this is good news if true. I'm stoked. I hope they improve your partners AI in KZ3. I'm playing KZ2 again right now, i forgot how useless and annoying Rico the others can be. They constantly get in your way and get wounded forcing you to baby sit while you get shot to hell.
It did feel like the Helghast AI was smarter than your comrades didn't it?
I think they said in an interview for KZ2 that they had to scale back friedly AI because they would kill everyone in the room with ease and leave no one for you to kill. However I think they might of scaled it back to much.
Much smarter. I'm trying to beat it on Hard at the moment and Rico is doing nothing but getting me killed in the Radec fight.
@sirbob6, they should have made them at least smart enough to stay out of your way. I can't even count how many times they stopped in the middle of a corridor while Helghast was blasting us only to clog the hall getting me killed.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/18/2010 11:32:03 PM
Hard at work to make 3D "believable". I dig it.
Sounds like a prolonged development cycle for nothing. Why waste all this time making a game in 3D for the 14 people who will benefit?
The game is out in Feb 2011. Two years development time is NOT prolonged.
Make that 15 people, got most of the money saved up for my new 3d t.v! 😉
Ok bigrailer19. Do it if you have to, but don't forget the batteries and don't come back complaining about how many games you could have gotten instead. 😛
@alienage
Come after the holiday season quite a few more people will have 3d, plus a 2 year development time is the development time of the CoD series so its not that long.
Dude, people were saying the exact same thing about HD games and HDMI approximately 4-5 years ago. Things change, and quickly.
@ highlander
True, 4-5 years ago ppl were saying that about HD, thing is that was 5 years ago, today there are still a lot of ppl saying that about HD.
Also, right now HD is finally worth having, because you can get everything in HD. In about 5 years, 3d will probably be worth having too, but right now, I don't really see much point in spending over $3000 so that me and my wife can watch the occasional thing in 3d.
In 5 years we'll probably be able to watch anything in 3d, but there will probably be a lot of ppl still complaining that it's too expensive.
Yes, but what I'm getting at is that 3D starts now, and the only way it will develop is if there is content for it. Had the content providers listened to the naysayers 4-5 years ago, we wouldn't have games at anything better than 480p, and movies would still be DVD only.
Well to be honest I'm in the market for a new t.v. regardless if it was 3-d or not. But since im almost to the amount I need to get a 3-d t.v. why not opt for it? I mean it does everything my hdtv does right now and more so, I promise I will not complain to you! 😉
I mean its like xbox360 or PS3? HDTV or 3d HDTV?
The choice is clear! 😉
I can see their point about it improving the 2d quality, but I still would have preferred to have KZ3 in 1080p instead of 3d, because I won't be able to enjoy that until a few years from now.
Props to the 5 ppl who will get to play KZ3 in 3d on day 1 tho.
That will include Ben if he ever buys his goofy dummy goggles.
Make that 6, almost got enough saved up! Thats weird earlier someone said 13 people! Either way add me to the list!
KZ2 wasn't even in 1080p, so please stop making it sound like 1080p is a standard when its not. I agree it would be nice if it was, and I also agree that it should be something to strive for. But the fact of the matter is the technology isn't up to par for it yet. Well the technology is there but to use it so sufficiently to where nothing would suffer in such case, its just not entirely possible right now!
never said 1080p was standard, not even close.
Your absolutely right, and what I said is you make it sound that way. You constantly hit on 3d for not being 1080p, yet 1080p is few and far between RIGHT NOW anyways. Not to mention I'll put money on it that KZ3 wasn't going to be in 1080p anyways, so you might as well move past this.
i just finished reading gameradars preview of KZ3 in 3D and am really disappointed.
i was expecting to see proper 3D as in debris shrapnel and bullets flying out of the screen, but apparently there not going to add that.
apparently there only having a 3D depth put in there, there is not going to be anything flying out of the screen.
WTF is the point of that!?
having crap fly out of the screen is the whole point of 3D!
3D without crap flying out the screen is as point full as a car without a engine!
sure it looks good, but whats the point!?
I get what you're saying. The real wow factor with 3D is stuff coming out of the screen, but depth also plays a big part in 3D immersion.
I've heard that MotorStorm 3 will be actually be best showcase and pusher of 3D, with the debris-flying-out-of-screen effect you speak of.
Well, that's how Motorostorm got this generation started, so I guess it's natural for the next evolution of Evolution's game is 3D with debris flying off the screen.
You decided to hate this game before Cowherd so whats the difference?
Knowing Flatliner, he'll get his crap flying out the screen but complain that it just disappears rather than build up on his living room floor.
The whole bullet flying at you would look very gimmicy, just like 3d movies from the 70s.
Radioheader- haha you nailed that one. Its very true that he would complain about that! Thats awesome!
about the preview. I think a lot of misinterpretation is happening. The game play at E3 was in pre-alpha stage. It can't be much further along. So anything we seen or gameradars seen, is not what the final product will produce. Just letting you know, some things could drastically change!
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 7/19/2010 6:39:32 PM
I doubt that the little things they learn from working with 3-D will make make up for the huge amount of time being spent on 3-D that otherwise would be put into making more and better levels and that sort of thing.
You might be surprised.