Ben-DutkaWould you rather have 3D or 60 frames per second? Well, EA boss Peter Moore says the majority will choose the latter.
In speaking to CVG about the trade-off, the EA Sports head honcho said he doesn't believe gamers want to sacrifice the max 60FPS for 3D. EA Sports hasn't announced a 3D title just yet (although Sony will make next year's MLB: The Show in 3D) and right now, Moore isn't so keen on the idea. If you remember, Sony limited 3D titles to a maximum of 30 frames per second and that may or may not be a worthwhile sacrifice. Said Moore:
"I've seen a couple of our games running in 3D [behind closed doors]. There are some cool moments, but there is a cost for my development teams to do it. There is a tax on the hardware – you know, you need two cameras. there is a frame-rate issue… you've got to bring it back up again.
I don't think gamers want to sacrifice a smooth frame-rate. In other words, games that are current running at 60fps going down to 30 just for 3D."
He also added that you still have "to be able to play the game." He mentioned the top-down perspectives in sports franchises like FIFA and Madden and reminds us that "the higher the camera is, the less the impact of 3D happens to be." Moore did admit that it's a little "too early" to pass judgment, though, and right now, EA will simply "watch and wait." Some people say the immersion offered by 3D gaming is better than 60FPS, simply because it's such a drastic visual difference.
But is that where you come out? Perhaps the type of game comes into play, too.
I think the value added to the experience by 3D far exceeds the value added by 60fps.
Well, atm i'd say no more than 5% of ps3 owners are playing in 3D, so keep the 60fps please,
Bring in 3D on the ps4, 60fps full 1080p 😀
Hmmm… From what I've heard Sony is planning on making WipEout HD in 3D. That game runs at 60fps. I doubt that they are going to back track down to 30fps. So that makes one wonder if the limitation of 30fps+3D is for EA only. If Uncharted 2 was at 30fps then thats good enough. A compromise would be 45fps+3D. Me personally, I want 3D bad. Can you imagine the bombs in Wipeout HD coming out of the screen at you. Or Kratos swinging the blades in 3D! That would be sick!
I think Fifa would be pretty cool in 3D. Sure it may not have a HUGE impact on the game but it would add more depth to the game. More than the awesome amount it already has. Which would be cool. I totally dig what i've seen in 3D already and i can't wait until i get a full setup. I'd have to say i'd rather have 3D over 60 fps.
Question for anyone whom would like to give their 2 cents.
Resolution is important to me but I prefer smooth looking/running visuals. Is it necessary for me to go any higher than a 720p, 60fps HD TV?
Maybe 1080p, 60fps would suffice? I was considering a 1080p 120fps, thinking that it would make the visuals slick while playing my PS3, but is that really the case?
Please anyone, your thoughts?
Last edited by shadowscorpio on 9/23/2010 1:17:53 PM
Majority of content is still 720p (Games, HD Public TV Broadcasts, etc), so you won't be missing out too much if you want to save some dough. However, seeing how that 3D-enabled TV's are making their entrance in the market, you should be seeing a similar drop in price on the non-3D 1080p TV's as we saw with the 720p TV's when 1080p made it's advent. So if you look hard enough, you might find as good a deal on a 1080p TV as you would on a 720p TV. So, keep your eyes peeled, especially since 1080p will become more of the common standard in the near future.
Thanks shams.
Whoa, sorry we were on the topic of frame rates that I abbreviated wrong. I meant 60hz as opposed to 120hz.
The closer to your TV you will sit, the more important 1080p is.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a 720p set now; the savings aren't worth it, but Shams' info is all good.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 9/25/2010 5:26:55 PM
Uncharted 2 was capped at 30fps and I did not feel as if the visual experience was crippled.
Sure 60fps is nice. So give me the option; 60fps for standard 2D gaming and 30fps for 3D gaming if I choose too.
I'd prefer 60fps. I won't be having a 3D TV for a long ass time, and it would be unfortunate for the 2D experience to be brought down to 30fps just to be on par with the 3D experience.
Personally I'd like the 3D over the 60fps, even though I won't be getting a 3D TV soon. Besides I can live with 30 fps. I mean look at KZ2, it was 30 and looked real smooth for a fast pace shooter.
Last edited by sirbob6 on 9/23/2010 4:08:58 PM
30FPS or 60FPS, I don't care at all!
Just as long as the picture, the graphics are good & the game play's stable & right.
So I'll take the 30FPS with a 3D TV, please!
Just let me know when to be home so I can properly thank you for my free gift
Last edited by BikerSaint on 9/23/2010 4:13:36 PM
get a PC and you wont have to make that choice.
Peter Moore = Dreamcast Killer, I hate this guy!
I'm gonna lose my silky-smooth frame rate so that the tiny percentage of people who can afford to drop a grand on a new TV can have their 3-D? F*** that. There are WAY too many frame rate problems in some games already – if they think they're getting my money for games with even more problems, they've got another thing coming.
3D is cool. Some games that run 60 FPS suck. I'd prefer a game that looks awesome and is awesome, regardless of fps.
I don't think it is that noticeable, especially a game like GT5. I would choose 3D, but in more fast paced, action, fighting games I guess you might want the 60fps, but then again it's your personal preference on the two. I personally would choose 3D,
now I just have 30 fps on my "not 3D" tv…
GT5 Countdown: 38 days
Last edited by StangMan80 on 9/24/2010 6:20:01 PM