First 3D PS3 Games Getting Visual Downgrades

Nature of producing 3D images means downgraded resolutions -- even to sub-HD levels.

By Kris Pigna, 04/24/2010


Sony released the patch to make all PlayStation 3s ready to play 3D games earlier this week, but here's a small word of notice for really nitpicky technofiles who plan on buying a 3D TV to play them: Those first batch of 3D games will feature reduced graphical fidelity compared to playing them in 2D.

As part of a thorough look at Sony's 3D development process filled with tons of highly technical details, Eurogamer reveals that two of the first 3D PS3 games -- retrofitted versions of Wipeout HD and MotorStorm: Pacific Rift -- will have downgraded resolutions when played in stereoscopic 3D (via Kotaku). Wipeout HD originally could run as high as 1080p, but will be restricted to 720p in 3D (and with a reduced frame-rate, as well). And MotorStorm: Pacific Rift could run as high as 720p normally, but is actually dropped to a sub-HD resolution when playing in 3D.

The reason for the drop is the extra processing power it takes to render two different interlaced images (which is how the 3D effect is created), and it echoes concerns Ninja Theory co-founder Tameem Antoniades recently voiced about 3D gaming on the current generation of hardware. "The problem is that to do 3D properly you need to render 60 frames per second, per eye. And at least a 720p resolution [per eye]," Antoniades said. "So in essence that's 1080p rendering at 120 frames per second, and the current generation can only process very rudimentary graphics at that spec."

So does that mean 3D gaming on the PlayStation 3 (or Xbox 360, for that matter) will fundamentally always remain limited? If we're to take Antoniades at his word, yes -- and this first batch of games is the initial proof. But then it's really a subjective question: If you're playing a game in stereoscopic 3D, would you really mind if it's not also running at the highest possible resolution as well?

Source

Who didn't see this coming?

Duh. They'll be in 3D instead of the usual 4D.

I'm going to guess that resolution will suddenly become amazingly unimportant all of a sudden.

For the record, I don't care if it gets downgraded if it's still a cool experience, and it's the first step to getting our VR interface on home consoles, so good on you Sony.

The biggest problem is that in outputting a lower resolution image I don't believe they would able to upscale locally on the PS3 so you would have to rely on the TV upscaling 60-120 FPS from 5xx-720P all the way to 1080P and you'd incur a reasonable latency hit depending on your TV. We're talking enough to make a 30FPS game feel noticeably slow in responding.

i'd take resolution over lame 3D graphics, i bought an HD tv for a reason =/

Not surprising for anyone who knew how 3D gaming works (rendering two images per frame instead of one).

Nice stealth troll.  Maybe you should wait until someone actually says something to that effect before saying something like that.

Anyways, I would have thought that a visual downgrade would have been obvious for 3D games.  Personally, I'll stick with 2D TVs.

After having seen the results for ATI's new cards perform 3 way Eyefinity, there is no way in hell the consoles can do stereoscopic 3D. Even the new GF100 Nivida chips struggle. It's a nice idea, but no way can it be done well this generation, or this moment in time for that matter.

Hah! Good point, apparently I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Well, I rescind my statement. I'll stick with the second part though, with a big IF its super cool, then I don't care about the downgrade. Of course I'll have to see it somewhere else, 'cause the wife ain't going to let me buy another new TV anytime soon.