EA Sports revivalist Peter Moore has never shied away from sharing his opinion about the latest happenings in the industry and it’s not difference when it comes to his opinion on the 3D push Sony is making. Apparently, Moore isn’t willing to write off the technology as a whole, but understands that the tech results in lower frames per second when implemented into titles. Considering Sony has confirmed that 3D games can’t be pushed past 30FPS, Moore feels gamers don’t want to sacrifice the performance for the technology.
Speaking with CVG, Moore had the following to say about the tech: “I’ve seen a couple of our games running in 3D [behind closed doors],” said Moore. “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.
He added: “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. The other thing is, you’ve got to be able to play the game. You play FIFA from a top-down perspective. You play Madden from a top-down perspective. The higher the camera is, the less the impact of 3D happens to be.”
To be honest, I’d have to agree with Moore on this one. Despite how much I enjoy the way EyePet 3D looks and feels and how SuperStardust HD plays, both titles would benefit from pushing 60 frames per second at all times. It’s no secret that games play much smoother and offer much richer experiences when pushing 60 compared to 30. You don’t have to go any further than when Madden was pushing 30 FPS on PS3 while the 360 was doing 60.
Would you guys sacrifice that 30 fps difference in exchange for 3D?
Hmm. Not so sure. I have no interest in 3D, but I’d sacrifice 60fps for more graphical detail or more draw distance in games, if it was necessary.
With any game, I’d rather it was locked at a steady 30fps than had a shaky ‘up to’ 60fps, as many are.
well, i give a loot of atention to quality, but as someone who dosent own a 3d tv(yet) i cant say anything, i do know howewer that a stereoscopic 3d tv can project a 3d movie at 120 fps
the new 3d works cinda like this:
2 pictures from difrent angles are played at once each blinking for a moment, when you put on the new glases they flicker so that each eye gets a difrent picture so youre eyes fink youre looking at a 3d shape
to achive that, like i said before a picture must be projected at tvice the speed than what the desired framerate is,
but its not a problem that cant be solved, Kutaragi said that the ps3 is capable of playing games at more than 120 fps, and we ale know what some dewelopers are capable of…
sadly most of them just copy and paste while scratching their balls all day long…
SSD3D IS pushing 60fps at all times. It’s the only game that does.