By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 09 March 2011
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
Slimebeast said:
mendozahotness said:
Slimebeast said:

ell they did.

There's a plausible explanation for all this. It's the 3-D graphics.

A designer guy from ND in a gametrailers interview recently said that 3D in Uncharted demands essentially twice as much rendering power (those were his almost exact words) and they had to develop tricks to deak with that. So there definately has been a penalty to performance and decrease in image quality to get the game to support 3-D.

i heard they did dat with kz3 and ended up going sub hd when 3d is on and getting rid of the cool motion blur fx form kz2

Exactly! Now that you say it I remember reading that (probably on that Eurogamer gfx analysis collaboration thingy).

There's different ways to deal with the penalty from 3-D.

If the "penalty" is in the 3D, it defeats your argument. Your talking about 2D screens, he's talking about sub-HD 3D. Completely different.

Also, the motion blur from KZ2 was engine-taxing in and of itself, and since they used MLAA instead of Quincux AA (as used in KZ2), it made much more sense to do without the heavy use of blur. Just read through the Official thread, you'll learn a thing or two.

In KZ3 the penalty is only apparent when 3-D is on (you get no motion blur and you get sub-HD res). In 2-D mode everyone can see the improved graphics. Everybody wins.

But other games handle 3-D differently - some devs make the whole game, including the 2-d version of the game, look worse and thus suffer from 3-D support.

Not saying I know which method UC3 is using.