PS3 News: EA's Moore: Max Frame Rate More Important Than 3D - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

EA's Moore: Max Frame Rate More Important Than 3D

Would you rather have 3D or 60 frames per second? Well, EA boss Peter Moore says the majority will choose the latter.

In speaking to CVG about the trade-off, the EA Sports head honcho said he doesn't believe gamers want to sacrifice the max 60FPS for 3D. EA Sports hasn't announced a 3D title just yet (although Sony will make next year's MLB: The Show in 3D) and right now, Moore isn't so keen on the idea. If you remember, Sony limited 3D titles to a maximum of 30 frames per second and that may or may not be a worthwhile sacrifice. Said Moore:

"I've seen a couple of our games running in 3D [behind closed doors]. 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.

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."

He also added that you still have "to be able to play the game." He mentioned the top-down perspectives in sports franchises like FIFA and Madden and reminds us that "the higher the camera is, the less the impact of 3D happens to be." Moore did admit that it's a little "too early" to pass judgment, though, and right now, EA will simply "watch and wait." Some people say the immersion offered by 3D gaming is better than 60FPS, simply because it's such a drastic visual difference.

But is that where you come out? Perhaps the type of game comes into play, too.

Tags: 3d gaming, gaming industry, ea, peter moore

9/23/2010 10:36:05 AM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (68 posts)

Deleted User []
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 10:53:06 AM
Reply

i'll start. I take 60 frames per second over 3D anyday.

Last edited by n/a on 9/23/2010 10:53:31 AM

Agree with this comment 10 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:35:00 PM

Same here

Agree with this comment 5 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

ace_boon_coon
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:47:05 PM

you say that until you experience 3d.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

eLLeJuss
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:55:22 PM

I'd take 3d as long as framerate is smooth. 30 Fps isn't too bad. You barely notice it. Its not like the difference from an HDTV and Standard TV. or Bluray to DVD =/

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 10:55:39 AM
Reply

In the case of fast action games, sports and NG, I have to agree. Despite how nice it is to have the added depth of 3D, half the frame-rate can really have an impact on the fluidity and responsive control these games thrive on.

The best solution is 3D + 60fps = =)

Agree with this comment 11 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 10:57:34 AM
Reply

Well considering that I have yet to try 3D, I am not sure on whether I agree with that statement.

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ace_boon_coon
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:48:48 PM

you must try it, it's awsome. it's not just a gimmic.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

manofchao5
Sunday, September 26, 2010 @ 10:56:11 PM

probably just saying that about 3d because ea will probably have trouble keeping the frame rate up trying a new technology like 3d
rather than critizing it they should work with it and try to get their developement teams ready

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mr_Nice_Guy
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:12:02 AM
Reply

Well, as someone who actually has a 3D setup and has played 3D games via the PS3, I can honestly say that 3D is great for gaming. The sacrifice in framerate is something I really don't notice. And I really hope Sony adds Move support to MLB The Show 2011 to go along with the 3D.

Agree with this comment 11 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:34:16 AM

A few questions sir...

What's your set-up?
What games have you played?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Frenchy17
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:49:34 PM

I have to agree with you, I have it myself and like the gaming aspect of 3D much better than watching movies.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:14:50 PM

I have tried GT5 in 3D. I did notice the 3D aspect at first, but once I started playing, I really wasn't consciously aware of it, unless I specifically diverted my attention to it. Having said that, I have heard that the 3D effect in GT5 is not as substantial as it is in other games. Also, I haven't tried any other 3D games, nor have I played GT5 in 2D, so I have no basis for comparison.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mamills
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:13:18 AM
Reply

soo true,

i mean with the right 3d setup it can be very appealing, but lets face it, the right 3d setup is a 3dtv with no glasses.

so for now 60 fps is more important especially in fighting, action or racing games

and by the time 3dtv's are good enough for us to purchase without spending a fortune, then who knows maybe the next playstation will be able to render 3d at 60fps

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 9:07:53 PM

The next Playstation can render 4d with 120fps. yeah.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

coverton341
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:15:45 AM
Reply

I would much prefer 60 frames per second. I don't care for 3D, it feels gimmicky at this stage in the game, it gives me a headache after a while due to the brain's tendency to shift primary focus to one eye after extended viewing of something, and last but not least 3D requires an extra investment that I just don't want to make.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

spiderboi
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:20:48 AM
Reply

3D = party/ adventure games like LBP, Flower
60 fps of course for FPS, TPS and racing. Can't sacrifice fluidity of motions for eye-candy

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

B-RadGfromOV
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:22:11 AM
Reply

Yeah I'm not so big on the whole 3D thing. It's just unnecessary, and I think it's a waste of time and resources for Sony. It's just not something the current technology or the world is really ready to embrace.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:23:43 AM
Reply

Frame rates....ah yes. What frame rate do you think Uncharted 2 runs at folks?

30 frames per second.

You know I respect Peter Moore, and I agree with him on the surface - gamers want 60fps over 3D. But, I think that he's also wrong. Many games run at 30fps, some at 60fps and some somewhere in between. The thing that makes the biggest difference regardless of the actual frame rate that the game claims is whether it's stable.

A game that is absolutely locked at 30 frames per second and never dips below that will look smooth. OK, a game locked at 60fps will look that little bit better, especially if it's a fast paced game. But even though, you won't always notice, depending on how well the developer does their job. As for 3D, I don't think you can say, yet, whether gamers prefer something over 3D since most gamers have yet to experience any game in 3D and so are not in a position make a judgment.

Hell, we played PS2 games for years that rarely exceeded 30 frames per second in an interlaced display mode. Going from that to a non-interlaced 30 frames per second with more than double the resolution (720p) is a quantum leap. 60 frames per second is nice, but in all honesty a game running at 30fps will look great as long as the frame rate remains rock steady.

Agree with this comment 10 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:35:51 AM

I was about to bring that up...

Yes, sometimes I believe people get hung up on numbers. Uncharted 2 is an excellent example, and easily one of the best games ever made.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:36:29 AM

Yea, I was just going to say this guy is stating the obvious since a majority of gamers don't have, and won't have a 3DTV for a while.

60fps is great but 30fps is just fine as long as its consistent like you said.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:39:50 PM

Um... TheHighlander? Since UC2 runs at 30fps it cannot be in 3D. It would have to be bumped up to 60fps to get the same game running in 3D. What Moore is saying is he'd rather have UC2 at 30fps than have it in 3D running at 30fps with the rather large added expense.

Doesn't make him wrong, it makes him thrifty.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SvenMD
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:41:07 PM

I'm glad someone said it.

Most of my games don't run at 60 fps - hell, the orange box barely runs at 20 fps most of the time ;)

I'm also one of those people that wants 3DTV, but I already told my wife that I promised not to get one until Killzone 3 comes out.

@Alienange - He seems to be talking about games that are ALREADY running at 60fps - and his belief is that gamers would not want to make that game 3D if it meant reducing the framerate to 30fps....that we gamers would rather keep the game at 60 fps without 3D.

His reasoning is that top-down games don't visualize the 3D effects well enough to justify the decrease in framerates....which might be true for some games. But he shouldn't generalize it like that.

Last edited by SvenMD on 9/23/2010 12:46:20 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:55:08 PM

The games that are currently running at 60fps are not the games TheHighlander is referring to. Regardless, 60fps games would have to be bumped up to 120fps to keep that same fidelity and run in 3D. Moore is making it clear that it would be a major expense and a strain on his team. Something he doesn't think would be worth it in the end because the extra sales 3D would bring in would be meager at best.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SvenMD
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:15:06 PM

Right, Highlander isn't talking about games currently running at 60fps...his point was to say that UC2 was phenomenal and it only ran at 30fps.

Moore on the other hand is telling the world what he thinks I want....and he's wrong.

From the CVG article - He added: "I don't think gamers want to sacrifice a smooth framerate. In other words, games that are current running at 60fps going down to 30 just for 3D."

Which personally, I don't care if it runs at 60fps, I'd want to see it in 3D and then I'll decide if it's worth it to drop the framerate....but as a general rule, I would want a game to be 3D....cause that's just freakin' awesome.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:54:53 PM

God Of War 3 runs at 30FPS. I know for a fact.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 2:30:42 PM

@Alienage,

The point I was making was that the frame rate is not as important as it is cracked up to be. As an example I put forward Uncharted 2 which runs at 30 frames per second and looks phenomenal. 60 frames per second is not required for an action game to look phenomenal - as demonstrated by Uncharted 2.

Peter Moore was saying that in his opinion gamers would prefer 60fps over 3D as if there was some kind of equivalence between the two which there is not. If you are asking me do I want a game running at 60 fps, I'll say yes. If you ask me if I want exactly the same game only in 3D with the framerate locked to 30 frames per second. I'll say yes again. If you ask me to choose between the two alternatives, I'll ask you why I can't have both - since the rendering engine does almost the same amount of work for each way of presenting the game. If you are telling me it's one or the other. I would actually say that the 3D presentation is my preference because I have played plenty of games at 30fps which are drop dead gorgeous. I am not stuck on having every game at 60fps, it nice when games do that, but unless you're really looking to find fault a game running at a stable 30 fps will look great.

Last edited by Highlander on 9/23/2010 2:32:03 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 6:09:48 PM

Precisely TheHighlander. Both you, SvenMD as well as myself, are on the receiving end of games. We'd take 60fps just as we have taken 30fps and we'd take 3D just as we have taken non-3D. We take anything.

Here we have Moore explaining what it's like on the giving side. We can't sit here and say he's wrong because no, he's not. He sees more sales in having games running 60fps as oppose to running in 3D and so, for him, it makes more sense to focus his money on what will sell.

Of course, the reason he believes that and is subsequently sharing this information with us, is not because he's talking out of his ass either, it's because the man has heard from more gamers than we'll ever know even existed. He knows exactly what his customers want, because they tell him as much.

If you look around, you don't see Activision publishing all kinds of 3D games either. Frankly, neither is Nintendo or even Microsoft. The reason is not because of anyone's lack of ability to produce it but the lack of consumer interest.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JackC8
Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 8:11:37 AM

Thirty frames per second sounds fine when you use the game of the year as an example. But how about the other 99% of them, how will they look? How many games are "locked" at 30 fps? I'm currently playing Dragon Age Origins which is lucky to chug out 20 fps. Before that it was Dark Void, which actually came to a complete stop for 10 seconds at one point. Before that it was Fallout 3. I'm assuming none of those are locked at 30 fps? Because those are the games I actually play.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 10:17:25 AM

Something to add. It boils down to this.

30fps nearly always looks better than 60fps, detail and effects-wise. 60fps drains fill-rate resources and lessens the reservoir of data a dev can push through (texture detail, effects, polygonal complexity of rigs etc).

The purpose of 60fps isn't to make a game look better but play and feel smoother.

When it comes to racers, brawlers, fast action hack 'n slash (NG, Bayonetta etc), sports games or anything that deals with a lot of speed and responsiveness, 60fps helps significantly.

Some games, like Uncharted 2, while is an action game, aren't nearly as fast as many of the aforementioned titles. The game is largely pop 'n fire. The camera rarely needs to swoop around. Quick movement and aerobatics in general isn't anything like what's found in a game like NG. And that's not the purpose of a game like Uncharted 2. It would be wasted and misappropriated to have a game like Uncharted 2 run at 60fps when the game really puts to great use the added graphics resources for doing a lot of other things other than just fast action.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Saturday, September 25, 2010 @ 5:17:06 PM

The main advantage of 60 FPS is that if there are minor frame rate dips, they aren't as noticeable/problematic, since 45, 40 or even 30 FPS is still pretty smooth.

If the top frame rate is 30 FPS, then it really needs to be locked to be smooth. Dips to 20 FPS are easily noticeable.

For me, I'd rather have frame rate dips than screen tearing, which drives me crazy. Why not just drag a knife across my eyes; it'll have the same effect.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SolidFantasy
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:24:05 AM
Reply

Interesting. EA is notorious for going multi platform and what a coincidence 60FPS can be done on both consoles. While 3D is a PS3 exclusive.
One might think Peter is trying to subliminally tell us that we should keep buying EA's multi platform games? I would rather have 3D. My personal favorite games of the gen happen to run at 30FPS with out 3D and I still prefer them over most 60FPS.
In his defense sport games might be better off with 60FPS, but the genuine AAA title can all take a slower 3D path IMO.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:42:25 AM

Strangely enough the latest NFS game developed by Criterion for EA does not run at 60fps, it runs at 30 frames per second. Remember, Criterion previously put out Burnout Paradise that was rock steady at 60 frames per second, something that they as a developer were extremely proud of. If 60fps is so important, why did EA elect to allow NFS to come in at only 30 frames per second?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SolidFantasy
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:55:06 AM

Not sure. Burnout Paradise benefited very well from 60fps. It's one of the few 60fps games that I really love. If NFS is brought down to 30fps it'd better have even better crash physics than burnout paradise.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

daus26
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:12:08 PM

Every racing games is best played at 60fps, especially a fast-paced arcade game like burnout.

Taking it down to a solid 30fps doesn't make it as bad as you think. In GT5p, I'd play at 60fps, but replays at 30fps. Honestly, the difference was slight and it only affected the environments passing by. In a game like burnout where the environment blurs anyway, I don't think 30fps would hurt it too much.

My guess is that the new Criterion game is bought back down to 30fps because of more detail and it certainly looks that way.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:27:49 PM

good point solid. ea needs to worry about making playable sports games first. funny how devs and publishers want to bash sony when they put out mountains of garbage. ea sports has consistently hid the salami in ps3 owners that it's a shame. i've played the mlb10 demo in 3d and it is awesome.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 2:13:18 PM

I think the big issue with Criterion going with 30 fps is memory. And with switching to 30 fps they are concerned with controller lag. Digital Foundry interviewed Criterion back in July and mentioned the 30 fps issue.

Burnout Paradise and many other games in order to speed up and achieve 60 fps, the engine will often run a separate render thread. Typically these threads run about one frame behind everything else and this means that the game needs to set some memory aside to buffer the data being rendered. So with NFS:HP, Criterion is running everything together in one thread allowing for lower controller latency and not having to set aside extra memory for a separate thread.

Last edited by Simcoe on 9/23/2010 2:14:16 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

coverton341
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 3:16:46 PM

Avatar The Game is running in stereowhatever 3D on both systems...exclusive how?

Don't get me wrong, Avatar The Game is crap but it's still in 3D on the 360 so I am at a loss as to where you seem to be driving this subliminal point.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FullmetalX10
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:28:18 AM
Reply

I haven't played 3D yet, so I can't really say, but right now, I guess I'd rather have my games run fluidly than in 3D, making the comparison more of a fluidity versus 3D, since SolidFantasy and Highlander remembered me that 30 frames per second games run just fine.

Last edited by FullmetalX10 on 9/23/2010 11:32:12 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Hezzron
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:34:37 AM
Reply

I completely agree with him. 60 FPS over 3D for the simple fact that more people will benefit from it.

Last edited by Hezzron on 9/23/2010 11:35:01 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

daus26
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:38:19 AM
Reply

Don't players get the choice to play in 3D or not anyway? At least I know in GT5 you get the choice of 2D/60fps or 3D/30fps. *But note that even in 2D, GT5 is really too advanced for the ps3 to keep the game locked at 60fps.

Perhaps he's talking about 3D specific games or something, but even that, as highlander already mentioned, 30fps can certainly be good enough for gaming, given that it's constant, and doesn't drop.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:40:21 AM
Reply

What games does EA make that run at 60fps? The only games I know of that run at 60fps are MW2 and the God of War Collection. Obviously neither are from EA.

As I said above, he's stating the obvious. Not many people have 3Dtv's so of course they would choose 60fps if given the choice. But again, what games has EA made that run at 60fps?

Last edited by Jawknee on 9/23/2010 11:40:50 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Saturday, September 25, 2010 @ 5:21:00 PM

Given that Peter Moore is the head of EA Sports, you can probably guess which games. :P

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Effi
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:49:40 AM
Reply

specs people... specs. I dont want to have to pick up my thin plastic specs everytime I get excited to dodge a bullet.

not 30fps, not 60fps.

3D FLIMSY PLASTIC SPECS!!!! goddammit.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

daus26
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:04:15 PM
Reply

I also read from a website somewhere where they compared God of War III and Uncharted 2. Two great looking games but one ran 30fps, the other 60fps. While God of War III ran 60 fps, Uncharted 2 had better visuals because of more texture being implemented.

Then people would vote 30fps with more detailed graphics over 60fps with less detail. It makes it sounds like Moore's statement isn't exactly valid.

Now gamers have 3 choice: 3D/30fps, 2D/30fps, 2D/60fps. Whichever one, the advantage over the other (graphics or framerate) the difference is too little to be making a major comparison. I think he's just worried about the development cost.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:23:31 PM

God of War III mostly runs at 30fps with jumps to 60. Not sure why they are claiming it's 60fps. Even Stig Ausmussen said the game runs below the 60 mark a majority of the time.

As far as visuals, they both look damn good. I would just give Uncharted 2 and extra browne point because you actually have control of the camera.

Last edited by Jawknee on 9/23/2010 12:24:55 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:29:22 PM

Either that or he's worried that EA can't do 3D yet. With respect to multi-platform games, I don't think EA will be doing 3D since the 360 lacks that capability. If they do 3D in their multi-platform games, they either have to implement it on the 360 using those funky red/blue glasses (not very cool), or implement two separate game engines, one for 360 and one for PS3 that includes 3D support. That definitely adds to the cost. So I think that Peter's statement is essentially a subliminal message that says don't expect many (any?) 3D multi-platform games. But instead of simply saying that he's distracting everyone by throwing out a spurious comparison between 60fps and 3D. That way people will see it as an issue of quality, where EA are the 'good guys' since they are striving for better quality instead of going with 3D.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:27:37 PM
Reply

Moore, let's have no Moore of that old man fuddy-duddy way of thinking..

"Get with the times, man, get with the times"

("I have")

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 12:51:47 PM
Reply

This is precisely why I like EA. They understand gamers and they have their finger on the pulse of the gaming community. All these early adopters of a technology that is not fully "there" yet are nothing but a bunch of wannabe show offs.

EA knows that the grand majority of their customers would prefer 60fps at 1080p for the TV they have now over 30fps (or less) in 3D for the TV won't be getting. And focusing on what your customer prefers is how you make money.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

SvenMD
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:04:09 PM

You call them "early adopters" or "wannabe show offs", but some people might call them innovators or pioneers.

If everyone sits back and take a "wait and see" approach then no one will work on 3D and then we will stagnate and get stuck in our old rut of making money off the same thing we made money off of last year. (ie Modern Warfare, or a new Madden every year -oh, what?, I can be the coach this year and not even control a player! that's fantastic!)

It's called innovation and creativity....I'm sorry that EA doesn't want to jump on that bandwagon.

I'm glad that they continue to stick to their roots in some aspects and produce games that gamers like because that's what they liked 10 years ago....but for a billion dollar company like this, it's OK to take a gamble every once in a while. Hell, they should be pushing to make the tech better if they think it's not there yet. But what he shouldn't do is sit there and tell me that I don't want 3D....cause I do.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:57:46 PM

Im sorry Alienange, but there is no come-back from that.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 4:26:25 PM

I think the value added to the experience by 3D far exceeds the value added by 60fps.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RobiinzZ
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:05:56 PM
Reply

Well, atm i'd say no more than 5% of ps3 owners are playing in 3D, so keep the 60fps please,

Bring in 3D on the ps4, 60fps full 1080p :D

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Amazingskillz
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:12:18 PM
Reply

Hmmm... From what I've heard Sony is planning on making WipEout HD in 3D. That game runs at 60fps. I doubt that they are going to back track down to 30fps. So that makes one wonder if the limitation of 30fps+3D is for EA only. If Uncharted 2 was at 30fps then thats good enough. A compromise would be 45fps+3D. Me personally, I want 3D bad. Can you imagine the bombs in Wipeout HD coming out of the screen at you. Or Kratos swinging the blades in 3D! That would be sick!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

DjEezzy
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:13:40 PM
Reply

I think Fifa would be pretty cool in 3D. Sure it may not have a HUGE impact on the game but it would add more depth to the game. More than the awesome amount it already has. Which would be cool. I totally dig what i've seen in 3D already and i can't wait until i get a full setup. I'd have to say i'd rather have 3D over 60 fps.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shadowscorpio
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:17:03 PM
Reply

Question for anyone whom would like to give their 2 cents.

Resolution is important to me but I prefer smooth looking/running visuals. Is it necessary for me to go any higher than a 720p, 60fps HD TV?

Maybe 1080p, 60fps would suffice? I was considering a 1080p 120fps, thinking that it would make the visuals slick while playing my PS3, but is that really the case?

Please anyone, your thoughts?

Last edited by shadowscorpio on 9/23/2010 1:17:53 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Shams
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 2:37:41 PM

Majority of content is still 720p (Games, HD Public TV Broadcasts, etc), so you won't be missing out too much if you want to save some dough. However, seeing how that 3D-enabled TV's are making their entrance in the market, you should be seeing a similar drop in price on the non-3D 1080p TV's as we saw with the 720p TV's when 1080p made it's advent. So if you look hard enough, you might find as good a deal on a 1080p TV as you would on a 720p TV. So, keep your eyes peeled, especially since 1080p will become more of the common standard in the near future.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shadowscorpio
Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 12:41:53 AM

Thanks shams.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shadowscorpio
Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 12:44:10 AM

Whoa, sorry we were on the topic of frame rates that I abbreviated wrong. I meant 60hz as opposed to 120hz.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Saturday, September 25, 2010 @ 5:24:42 PM

The closer to your TV you will sit, the more important 1080p is.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a 720p set now; the savings aren't worth it, but Shams' info is all good.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 9/25/2010 5:26:55 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 1:50:30 PM
Reply

Uncharted 2 was capped at 30fps and I did not feel as if the visual experience was crippled.

Sure 60fps is nice. So give me the option; 60fps for standard 2D gaming and 30fps for 3D gaming if I choose too.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 2:42:30 PM
Reply

I'd prefer 60fps. I won't be having a 3D TV for a long ass time, and it would be unfortunate for the 2D experience to be brought down to 30fps just to be on par with the 3D experience.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sirbob6
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 3:58:16 PM
Reply

Personally I'd like the 3D over the 60fps, even though I won't be getting a 3D TV soon. Besides I can live with 30 fps. I mean look at KZ2, it was 30 and looked real smooth for a fast pace shooter.

Last edited by sirbob6 on 9/23/2010 4:08:58 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 4:11:53 PM
Reply

30FPS or 60FPS, I don't care at all!
Just as long as the picture, the graphics are good & the game play's stable & right.

So I'll take the 30FPS with a 3D TV, please!
Just let me know when to be home so I can properly thank you for my free gift

Last edited by BikerSaint on 9/23/2010 4:13:36 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 3:50:08 AM
Reply

get a PC and you wont have to make that choice.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CreamCracker
Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 7:42:55 AM
Reply

Peter Moore = Dreamcast Killer, I hate this guy!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JackC8
Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 7:58:57 AM
Reply

I'm gonna lose my silky-smooth frame rate so that the tiny percentage of people who can afford to drop a grand on a new TV can have their 3-D? F*** that. There are WAY too many frame rate problems in some games already - if they think they're getting my money for games with even more problems, they've got another thing coming.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RebelJD
Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 5:47:36 PM
Reply

3D is cool. Some games that run 60 FPS suck. I'd prefer a game that looks awesome and is awesome, regardless of fps.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

StangMan80
Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 6:19:30 PM
Reply

I don't think it is that noticeable, especially a game like GT5. I would choose 3D, but in more fast paced, action, fighting games I guess you might want the 60fps, but then again it's your personal preference on the two. I personally would choose 3D,
now I just have 30 fps on my "not 3D" tv...



GT5 Countdown: 38 days

Last edited by StangMan80 on 9/24/2010 6:20:01 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

What do you think of the Destiny beta?
It's awesome! Can't wait for September!
It's only good, but I'm having fun.
Eh, it's okay, but I expected more.
It sucks, period.

Previous Poll Results