Super Stardust HD Goes Less HD

TheSixthAxis: Bonkers. Housemarque’s pioneering shooter Super Stardust HD might have been the first PS3 game to ‘go 3D’ but it appears to be at a cost: it’s lost the 1080p mode.

Bizarrely, there appears to be something of a mix up here: version 4.00 of the game certainly does run in 3D on a proper 3D television, but it’s version 5.00 that the developers are assuming is out

What’s the problem?

[DA_SHREDDER]

Whoever submitted this needs to get a life. Not only does it run in 1080p native, but it also does 4x anti aliasing. Nice try troll.

[OpenGL]

According to the pixel counters of Beyond3D, it is only 1280x1080 with no anti-aliasing. This is far more believable than your claim of being 1080p with 4xAA.

[hoops]

All 3D games on the PS3 will have reduced resolutions or reduced visuals.
We knew this. Why are people surprised?
Consoles have a hard time running games at 720p in 2d, why on earth would anyone here think consoles will do full 1080p 3D at 60 fps unless resoultions and or Graphics are lowered....
Anyways at Least SOny is doing 3D for consoles. Seems MS is not venturing into this...
Only system capable of doing full HD 3D at 60fps or better is the PC.
Next generation console 3d gaming will take off.

[ps2ftw]

PS3 is a very complex piece of hardware. There are new trick's and optimizations you can do. Anyway for 3d there are certain tricks.

1. You can use a framerate dependent buffer, example: Wipeout HD runs in 1080p but instead of dropping frames when it gets hectic it drops resolution for a couple of frames down to 1280x1080 or 1600x1080. This is great because you never notice and I wish more games implemented it. Also our eyes are less sensitive to horizontal resolution so 1280x1080 can look a lot better than it should do mathematically. it would look a lot better than 1920x720 for example. (well.. maybe but you get the point) ;)

2.The SPU's are AMAZINGLY good at culling - hiding objects which can't be seen because there is something between you and that object or it's too far away etc. - things out of scenes and there are some objects which do not need to be drawn/calculated for each eye, for example shadows (which are very compute heavy). Also the lighting mostly does not need to be calculated twice though that could prove troublesome because you would spend ages debugging and optimizing. Lighting and shadows are two of the most computationaly expensive graphical effects in games. Just try tuning them down on a pc game and look at that performance boost!

3.You can cut a lot of effects like motion blur and depth of field (which i have noticed are used in every ps3 exclusive I have played) which are also compute heavy. You can cut them out because the effects come free with 3D as your brain does the work when you provide it with a stereoscopic image.

4. There are other things I can't think of right now but maybe i'll come back and edit later. Reflections, transparencies and particle effects do not need to be calculated twice either which are all compute heavy. Everything you don't need to draw twice is compute heavy !XD You don't need to do those because you won't notice if they aren't 100% accurate and they may actually look better due to the unpredictability. Reflections may look worse though.

Obviously all of the stuff I mentioned above needs a lot of coding work and engine optimizations and a lot of new code or just a new engine which is why games that weren't designed with 3d in mind will take a resolution and performance hit, BUT games like Killzone 3 and GT5 should be much better.

[Theonetheonly]

i remember saying this before
http://n4g.com/news/517962/...

[testerg35]

Will be interesting to see how games, that require more processing power, will do when done in 3D.