Guerrilla: Working With 3D Can Benefit The 2D Experience
We know Sony wants to restrict 3D games to 720p resolution, and we know the new technology can indeed impact the overall visual presentation.
But Guerrilla, currently in the process of developing the 3D-enabled Killzone 3, has adopted a different, more positive, outlook. In fact, if you check out this cool video interview with team boss Steven Ter Heide, he says working with 3D has actually allowed them to enhance the game's standard 2D appeal.
"That means that the tech guys back home are very hard at work to make sure that the performance gets up there. That benefits the entire game because we need to make sure that 3D runs at 30 frames [per second] and that benefits the 2D version obviously as well."
He adds that it's actually quite the challenge; there are "very subtle changes that initially you don't think about." In truth, they're probably things we gamers wouldn't think about, either; for instance, the crosshair. As Ter Heide says, even though it's not actually part of the game world, you still have to figure out where it resides. In other words, where do you place it in terms of depth? It sort of sounds like he's saying that simply because they have to work harder, the entire project benefits from that extra effort. From extra effort to support another viewpoint comes better understanding, right? Seems to make sense.
Related Game(s): Killzone 3
Tags: killzone 3, 3d, guerrilla, development
7/18/2010 8:58:43 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (63 posts)
manofchao5
Thursday, July 22, 2010 @ 10:07:08 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 9:59:38 PM
Reply
Jawknee
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 10:13:44 PM
Temjin001
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 10:36:46 PM
While I fully expect KZ3 to be an awesome shooter that has the capacity to become a favorite FPS of mine (and I expect it to, perhaps the placebo effect alone will get it there), the hands-on feedback I've observed from those who've played the E3 demo (Alpha Code) has given me cause to be skeptical of the real benefits by adding 3D coded support.
Joystiq.com claims a definite loss in resolution while playing the game demo with 3D enabled.
Whereas, I remember reading a headline that KZ3 will suffer "no loss in graphical fidelity" while being displayed in 3D ( John Carmack also claimed a similar thing with Doom 3's conversion from the PC to Xbox. While the port was indeed excellent, it was far from the same fidelity) Can this be true? Has GG found a way to have complete fidelity parody between 2D and 3D?
While I doubt any of us on these message boards have worked with stereoscopic 3D before I don't think it's inaccurate to make the assumption that this probably isn't true. Especially considering that their very own, albeit early, E3 game demo couldn't meet that claim.
What it all boils down to is this.
If 3D is, in fact, more taxing on hardware to implement, it is only obvious that a more simple 2D output would yield less of a processing overhead.
And as you put it WorldEndsWithMe, why then doesn't this translate to increased performance while playing the game strictly in 2D?
The ultimate concern I have of this whole 3D movement is just this. Assuming that my assumptions are correct, will 2D gamers be robbed from the full potential of the PS3's 2D output if devs restrain processing to ensure parody between 2D and 3D modes?
If so, I don't want it, not yet. Bring it out on a future system when 3DTV's are more saturated into the public. Because, until then, the majority of us will be getting less out of our little black box.
Jawknee
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 12:53:44 AM
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 2:25:17 AM
Highlander
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 9:12:00 AM
Are you sure it doesn't translate to 60fps for 2D? To render 720p30 in 3D the game has to render 60 frames per second, but it's rendering 30 per second for each eye's point of view. So the stereoscopic 3D in 7290p30 is 60 frame per second, it's just 30 per eye.
In 2D that should translate to a rock solid 60 frames per second because in order to achieve a rock solid 30 frames per second 3D experience the game has to be capable of pushing 60 frames per second anyway, and besides 2D takes less rendering work because all the images are from the same point of view.
Last edited by Highlander on 7/19/2010 9:12:10 AM
Shams
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 9:28:38 AM
Jawknee
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 10:14:54 AM
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 3:05:35 PM
Jawknee
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 10:17:08 PM
How can we complain we're not getting games in 1080p anymore when we really weren't to begin with.
I would love to see more games in 1080p but it just doesn't happen. Its when games are lower res then 720p is what pisses me off.
FM23
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 10:25:16 PM
Jawknee
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 10:31:02 PM
Most games should be 720p Native but some developers for some reason decide to make them less. Games like RDR(on PS3), Alan Wake, Splinter Cell and Halo Reach don't reach 720p as their highest resolution.
If you have an HDTV and a HDMI cable Transformers will display in 720p native if that is in fact its native resolution. If you notice all games will say 480i/480p/720p/1080i/1080p on the back with the native res highlighted in red. For PS3 games anyway.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/18/2010 10:32:43 PM
kraygen
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 1:40:23 AM
Instead, now none of them will because they'll be implementing 3d instead and automatically making it 720p.
I would have rather they held off on 3d, until every game coming out was 1080p, then when 3d could easily be done in 1080p brought it out. I know ppl will say that right now thats not possible, but that's kinda the point, tech is always advancing and I'd rather wait until this was possible with 3d.
One tech at a time, very man ppl are still using SD, why bring about 3d, keep games at 720p, when 3d will only cater to the smallest margin.
Highlander
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 9:20:21 AM
I don't think we were/are ever going to see many games rendering at 10980p on the PS3. You'll see almost none (if any) actually render at anything like 1080p on the 360. The reason is that even with the Cell BE at maximum output, the hardware is pushed really hard to do 1080p, and you have to compromise the texture quality, graphical complexity and post effects used in order to achieve 1080p rendering.
As we discussed in another thread recently, some 360 games claim 1080p output, but they still render at or below 720p, the output is scaled from the actual render, so it's not truly 1080p, it's simply a cheat that depends on semantics.
The 1080p games on the PS3 that claim 1080p are rendering to a higher target. Some don't quite render at full 1080p, and use tricks like dynamically altering the render resolution to cope with situations where the frame rate is threatened. Even with the sheer power of the CellBE, 1080p is a push.
Switching gears and going after 3D is not going to deflect any games from hitting 1080p, because few if any games are/were going to hit 1080p anyway.
Sony specified 720p for 3D with 30 frames per second for each eye. That is the equivalent of 2D in 720p60. If every game this generation managed to render at 720p60, we'd have a lot of very awesome looking games. As it is, many games do *NOT* render full 720p60. Many don't hit the framerate, some don't hit the resolution, and some hit neither the resolution nor the framerate. At least this way there is a mandate that may push game developers to actually hit the real 720p target in the first place?
Jawknee
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 10:17:23 AM
kraygen
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 7:06:47 PM
bigrailer19
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 7:32:42 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 11:09:42 PM
sirbob6
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 11:28:59 PM
Jawknee
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 11:30:19 PM
@sirbob6, they should have made them at least smart enough to stay out of your way. I can't even count how many times they stopped in the middle of a corridor while Helghast was blasting us only to clog the hall getting me killed.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/18/2010 11:32:03 PM
Jawknee
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 11:54:33 PM
bigrailer19
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 12:02:11 AM
Alienange
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 12:10:25 AM
sirbob6
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 12:12:25 AM
Highlander
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 1:27:38 AM
kraygen
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 1:45:04 AM
True, 4-5 years ago ppl were saying that about HD, thing is that was 5 years ago, today there are still a lot of ppl saying that about HD.
Also, right now HD is finally worth having, because you can get everything in HD. In about 5 years, 3d will probably be worth having too, but right now, I don't really see much point in spending over $3000 so that me and my wife can watch the occasional thing in 3d.
In 5 years we'll probably be able to watch anything in 3d, but there will probably be a lot of ppl still complaining that it's too expensive.
Highlander
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 2:32:09 AM
bigrailer19
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 6:31:10 PM
I mean its like xbox360 or PS3? HDTV or 3d HDTV?
The choice is clear! ;)
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 2:27:19 AM
bigrailer19
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 6:32:36 PM
bigrailer19
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 6:35:28 PM
kraygen
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 7:07:43 PM
bigrailer19
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 7:37:25 PM
___________
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 2:59:20 AM
Reply
i was expecting to see proper 3D as in debris shrapnel and bullets flying out of the screen, but apparently there not going to add that.
apparently there only having a 3D depth put in there, there is not going to be anything flying out of the screen.
WTF is the point of that!?
having crap fly out of the screen is the whole point of 3D!
3D without crap flying out the screen is as point full as a car without a engine!
sure it looks good, but whats the point!?
The Stig
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 9:17:29 AM
Shams
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 9:43:11 AM
Highlander
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 9:57:43 AM
Jawknee
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 10:16:18 AM
RadioHeader
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 1:03:32 PM
sirbob6
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 4:28:16 PM
bigrailer19
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 6:38:50 PM
about the preview. I think a lot of misinterpretation is happening. The game play at E3 was in pre-alpha stage. It can't be much further along. So anything we seen or gameradars seen, is not what the final product will produce. Just letting you know, some things could drastically change!
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 7/19/2010 6:39:32 PM
Shams
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 10:12:02 AM
The advantage of sequels is that man-hours/development time is saved as the engine for the game does not have to be built from scratch, and even when it is, knowledge from the previous development cycle isn't wasted, as pitfalls to be avoided and optimization tricks learned are to be put to use.
This may very well still be the case. However, I'd rather see budget, man-hours and resources spent on evolving things like gameplay, level-design, and story (things that all of us will enjoy) rather than it spent on a feature that a very small fraction of us will enjoy.
I understand the need to push 3D content for the sake of allowing 3D to emerge in the market. I just hope that Sony recognizes what happened in the HD race. 1080p was vaunted, but 720 was settled upon for the vast majority gaming and HD broadcasted Television. In that case, I could've just saved me a few hundred dollars and stuck with a 720p TV over 1080p one. So, if the vast majority of content will still remain 2D (and at 720p mind you), why should I now spend at least another grand and a half on yet another feature that I will hardly benefit from?
Jawknee
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 10:18:43 AM
Highlander
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 11:20:36 AM
1080p is achieved by some games. 1080i rendered games actually look pretty freaking awesome on a 1080p screen, and of course BluRay looks sweet too.
The other thing is that 720p output looks better on a 1080p screen.
Finally, when this generation of console games launched, no one, including Sony, really knew what was involved in getting a console game to run at 1080p. Remember there are some games that manage to run at that level. A lot of games (multi-plats) are always going to be 720p or less because they are multi-platform. Some exclusives render in 1080i, and depending on the game some claim 1080p. But really, it depends on the game as we've all talked about before.
I mean 1080p is possible, but if game designers feel that 720p is good enough and by sticking to 720p they can apply more complex textures and post processing effects, they'll stick to 720p. That's not exactly Sony's (or anyone else's fault).
CharlesD
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 1:29:41 PM
Shams
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 @ 5:31:18 PM
It's not that I blame Sony for pushing 1080p as a feature on TV's (I would've if Sony pushed ND to support 3D with U2, and U2 suffered for it). It's just that I'd blame MYSELF if I wasted a couple grand for a 3DTV, knowing fully well that I'd be spending even more money for a very limited selection of content that actually supports 3D.
I waited until 2009 for a Full-HD TV. I'd like to enjoy that now. If I can't enjoy 1080p, then let me have games that are optimized for 720p (2D), at least. If Guerilla ends up doing that, I'll be happy.
RadioHeader
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 1:11:26 PM
RadioHeader
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 1:58:22 PM
Godslim
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 3:30:40 PM
RadioHeader
Monday, July 19, 2010 @ 4:00:47 PM
leatherface
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 @ 3:32:21 AM
Reply

Killzone 3









ShadowRunner
Reply
Sunday, July 18, 2010 @ 9:55:17 PM