I don't know if its 480p but it looks really bad in 3D to me... And its a shame cause it has most practical 3D application. Mud and stuff flying at your face...etc

The game is most likely running at 1280x360 resolution...just like split screen would.

Why you think that the 3D halves the resolution?

If i'm not mistaking, the 3D actually halves the frame rate, so there is a need to double the framerate.

A game in 1080p@60fps in 2D, if the dev wants to maintain resolution, will run at 1080p@30fps in 3D for each eye.

A game in 1080p@60fps in 2D, if the dev wants to maintain framerate, will run at a lower resolution like 960x1080, but in 60fps.

First of all, all 3D ps3 games will run in 720p per eye maximum. The 3D TVs can not accept 1920x2160 at 60 hz, which is needed to show 1080p. They only accept 1920x2160 at 24 hz for bluray...any other refresh rate has to be 720p. Its part of the HDMI 1.4 spec. Strdust HD was ready at 1080p 60 frames per second in 3D but devs had to drop it to 720p per eye to meet the HDMI 1.4 standard...

There is some logic in what you are saying. Games that run 1080p on the PS3 may be able to pull out 720p 3D for each eye and maintain the frame rate. However for motostorm, I believe the game was already 720p @ 30 frames per second in 2D. They had to maintain the 30 frames per eye, so they halved the resolution to 1/2 of 720p in 3D. When you see the game you will understand what I mean...it looks very grainy.

Good news is that games that are running at 60 frames per second and are 720p may be able to maintain 720p resolution and half the frame rate in 3D. However do you know many PS3 games which run at that speed?

COD black ops will be interesting. Older COD games were sub 720p @ 30 fps on both consoles. They will most likely be 1/2 of 720p per eye @ 30 fps in 3D.

The interesting part will be the 360 VS PS3 3D performance. They are using sligtly different formats (30 has side to side while PS3 is using HDMI 1.4 over under). I am really curious which one will run better.

yeah you are correct.

I don't see many games already released becoming 3d compatible. Only new ones.

Would be cool if guerrila and other Devs made the 2d version of their games in 60fps.

Well, CryTek approaches 3D with the 2D plus Z method digitalfoundry proposed as a reasonable option.

I'm not sure if that may have an influence of the 3D effect, but it's undenieably a big advantage to only use some under 5% of additional processing power for 3D instead of almost 100% for rendering both eye scenes individually.

If it works out well devs probably will chose that method over the dual-rendering one, so that we can have full 720p60 in 3D.

We areall waiting for results of this Crytek 3D tech... I have a feeling that it will be a suitable method for consoles, but the PC users who are used to the full beans 1080p 3D gaming, will probably not like it as much.