Eurogamer Expo: Hands-On Gran Turismo 5

Killzone 3 in 3D didn’t quite impressive as much as it perhaps should have done. Let down by some very fuzzy graphics, upscaled and artefact filled, much of the subtleties so obviously noticeable when viewing things in the third dimension were lost. Whilst depth perception still remained, its usage somewhat limited by your reduced line of sight, with enemies being made a little harder to pick out from a distance.

Thankfully Gran Turismo 5 doesn’t suffer from any of these problems; instead you could comfortably describe it as being Sony’s real flagship demonstration for the benefits of 3D gaming.


My first taste of GT5 came standing next to a player seated down next to me, right in the middle of a race. Putting on a second set of LCD shutter glasses provided for spectators to become acquainted with the 3D effect, I was initially a little disappointed. At an angle the 3D effect in GT5 looked rather strange. The car appeared to hover above the track whilst the scenery seemingly moved around it. However, when finally sitting down to go hands-on, positioned directly in front of the screen, things changed completely.

The 3D effect in GT5 is nothing short of superb. The vast levels of depth perception, and visual judgement of distance really come close to replicating the actual experiencre of being right there, hovering behind the car in the classic outside view, as I pelted around both the Tokyo and Rome circuits.

Not only can you accurately gauge distances between cars and the surrounding environment, you can also read with unparalleled precision the angle in which your car is situated in relation to others on the track in a real-world 3D space. Subtleties that previously had to be second-guessed from a 2D perspective in a 3D game are now opened right up allowing you to react and respond almost as you would in reality. I say almost, as the 3D version of the game was only controllable with a DS3 at the event. The 2D build was kitted out with a high-end Logitech GT Force wheel.

Also compared to seeing KZ3 in 3D, there is very little in the way of double image ghosting in GT5. The main reason for this is that Polyphony Digital’s driving sim runs mostly at a smooth 60 frame per-second, thus eliminating this unwanted effect. Some crosstalk was still present however. Although this is down to the nature of the LCD display it self not being able to provide a completely smear-free image, rather than the actual game, so it’s not really an issue.


Visually GT5 looked suitably stunning, in both 2D and 3D modes. The high levels of image quality gave way to a crisp and clean final image, both clinical in nature whilst appearing natural at the same time. Sharp, detailed textures are complemented with incredibly detailed car models, and lavish roadside scenery. A combination of real-time lighting, HDR, and pre-baked solutions also gave the game a bespoke sense of depth, whilst the overall quality of the rendering provides a photo realistic feel to the proceedings.

In terms of gameplay GT5 looks to have been given another massive change to its handling system. Compared to the Time Trial demo, the overall handling system feels far weightier, with under steer being as much of an issue as over steer. Not that this is a fault however, as you now have an even greater awareness of each vehicles weight and grip characteristics than before. In particular, racing at too high a speed can often lead to an excess of unwanted grip being produced, in which case careful braking and proper timing is required in order to quickly, but deliberately manuvere your way around sharp turns and constant changes around the track.

One thing I noticed is that it is actually a lot easier to not spin out of control this time around. More often than not going too fast leads you straight into a wall, or careering off the intended path, rather than having you car slide around in circles right in the middle of the road. Although that does happen when you try too hard to over compensate.


The balance is now even more determined by small incremental changes in weight, speed and grip than before, with much in the way to learn compared to GT5 Prologue – which now feels a little archaic in comparison. That said, I didn’t tinker too much with the few gameplay-based options that you have before each single race. And I believe that a variety of handling types may be available in what looked like an Arcade mode of sorts. I simply kept the ‘standard’ setting as that seemed like the most obvious choice in best representing the feel the developers had intended for the game.

Sadly I didn’t get a chance to sample all of the cars and tracks featured in the demo, and couldn’t compare how well the handling mechanics felt when using the GT Force wheel to the standard DS3 pad. However my short time with demo was more than enough to convince me that the game has gone through some serious upgrades over the last year or two alone, and that the 3D effect was one of the most promising I have ever seen.


Out of Sony’s line-up GT5 stood out by far as the most polished of all the first party games on display. It may not have delivered the high-level intensity of Killzone 3, or the same innovative talents as Little Big Planet 2, but it did provide a largely successful showcase for the 3D format, along with being one of the most accomplished driving games to be seen so far.

Update: looks like I should have switched to the 'professional' option for a more realistic, and less grounded approach to the games handling - the sources for the lack of oversteer almost certainly originates from this point. Although even the 'normal' option is considerably better than before. Going down the professional route will definitely be something I'll be doing in the final game. Shame I missed out on it at the Expo.

Editorial: Why Sony Mandates 720p For 3D Gaming

Creating games in 3D is an arduous task, with the need to render two separate frames (one for each eye) baring a heavy load both on the consoles and for the developer, the quest to reach that mythical 18080p status weighing in on the back of their minds against the ever increasing demands of the consumers this generation.

The solution then, it seems, is simply not to participate in such an endeavour in the first place, instead dictating somewhat more manageable terms to developers and anyone looking to venture into the 3D space. And this is exactly what Sony are said to be doing, mandating a standard of 720p for all developers wanting to make their games in 3D.

Just a few weeks after Housemarque and Ilari Kuittinen revealed on the PlayStation Blog that they had Super Stardust HD running at 1080p and 60fps in 3D, Sony's Simon Benson recently commented at the Develop conference in Brighton that the company was planning to enforce a 720p maximum resolution mandate to developers. This means that even if you are able to get your game running at a higher resolution it will be downscaled by the machine into 720p, much like what will be happening Super Stardust HD as soon as the next PS3 firmware arrives.

The reason behind the move is simple. It’s partly due to the HDMI 1.4 specification not supporting 1080p60 officially (1080p24 is the highest it will go), and to make things easier for developers by taking the pressure off in trying to get things running in 3D at 1080p by removing the option. Perhaps that is not such a bad thing as many games struggle to render in native 720p let alone 1080p, and at 60fps that whole scenario dramatically worsens considerably.

Benson also came to this conclusion and mentioned at the conference that despite the mandate being applied to most games, some ‘more cinematic’ titles which could benefit from using a higher resolution and lower framerate would be allowed access to the 1080p24 3D rendering mode supported by the console. No games would be able to use 1080p60 even if the developers had comfortably implemented it.

Sony’s argument over the use of 1080p60 then, or rather, 1080p for 3D gaming in general seems to be directly aimed at the stresses of getting games running to that standard in the first place. Benson emphasised the difficulties that many developers would be facing and told attendees that this mandate was a way of curtailing that. A preventative measure of some sorts, restrictive but at the same time ultimately beneficial, especially when you think that having more stuff on screen at 720p is usually far more impressive than a game being cut back in order to hit 1080p.

However, rendering at 1080p60 in 3D doesn’t have to mean rendering one frame for each eye, as Crytek has shown so enthusiastically at this year’s E3. Instead it is possible to render in one single frame for 3D, like with normal 2D rendering, and to simply apply a form of 2D displacement tech to the image (2D to 3D conversion) thus creating a final 3D display without any of the usual workload involved. We talked about Cytek’s solution here, although Sony have also said in the past that they were working on something very similar.

So the question is why are Sony restricting the rendering resolution on 3D games when clearly they have, or will have in the near future, a solution which circumvents rendering two frames instead of one. Surely that in itself would make things much easier for developers without taking away another all important check-box feature. But perhaps that’s the point, that for this generation 1080p is largely just that, a check-box feature that has more use on paper than practically in games development, and when you consider the potential performance costs incurred by running in 3D then it makes perfect sense.

Either way, the removal of 1080p60 and 1080p24 does very little to harm the end user. When you consider how many titles actually use the resolution effectively, and that contain more detail and visual effects when running in this mode, you can see why the chase for the supposed holy grail that is 1080p isn’t particularly justified, and could even be described as wasted.

That said, there is no doubt that some of us out there will still salivate over the potential of seeing another title pushing that magical 1080p60 resolution on consoles. It’s an incredible feat when you see it in 2D, so how much more spectacular would it be seeing it in 3D, full 1920x1080 no less. This is not something that we will be able to tell you with Sony’s proposed plans, but is it really going to make all the difference? I suspect a resounding no is the answer.

Personally I’d much rather be seeing more titles running in full 720p and with at least 2x multisampling anti-aliasing, or morphological AA at 60fps than a misguided attempt at 1080p with absolutely none of those benefits. And judging by Sony’s reaction, and indeed Crytek’s 2D displacement tech, many developers feel the same way.

Tech Analysis: Killzone 3 E3 Demo - 2D VS 3D

Killzone 2 is still one of the technical benchmarks for Sony’s PS3. However you might dislike the dark and grainy art style, or the subdued colour palette on offer, the game showed developers (and gamers alike) just what was possible on the system when tightly using the CELL + RSX combo the way is was supposed to be used. And for E3 2010 Sony took Guerrilla Games’ Killzone 3 as their lead technical showcase for not only the PS3, but also for their newly affirmed focus on 3D gaming.

From all the screens and videos released there’s no doubt that Guerrilla’s latest is as visually striking as it is technically brilliant, but what about under the hood? What’s changed? And more importantly how well does the current engine hold up to rendering in 3D, especially with minimal compromises on what’s being pushed around on screen?

Well, in this feature that’s exactly what we’ll be taking a look at, analysing the E3 build of the game in both 3D and 2D, seeing exactly what improvements have been made and what has been paired back in order to get the game working (fully playable I might add) in 3D.

Anyway, before we talk about that in more detail, lets take a look at the game in 2D and see just how it fares at its current point in development.

Like with it’s predecessor Killzone 3 renders in 1280x720, but rather than use quincunx anti-aliasing again the developers have elected to use morphological anti-aliasing instead - a far superior technique for reducing jagged lines whilst maintaining overall image quality.

Looking at the screenshot below, the effect the MLAA has on image quality is obvious. The final image is much sharper and clearer, with fewer jagged lines being present than before, and without any additional blur caused by the use of QAA. The only blur you are seeing in the screens is caused by the various post process, and depth of field effects that Guerrilla are using throughout the game, all of which are artistic choices and not technical compromises. It’s all part of the dark and gritty look of the franchise.


Like with God Of War 3 some surfaces receive as much as 16xMSAA, whilst others more in the range of 4x, or occasionally less in areas with ultra small polygon edges. Ether way the use of MLAA is a marked improvement from the QAA of the first game.

However, unlike in certain games (I’m talking about you Red Dead) the use of QAA in Killzone 2 wasn’t at all detrimental to the overall image. Instead the slightly blurrier looked suited the art style the developers were aiming for, and the image still looked particularly clean and quite sharp. The same could also be said of Insomniac’s Resistance: Fall Of Man, and its sequel - both of which used the infamous QAA.

Switching to MLAA simply allows texture detail to come through unscathed (no blur) with greater levels of edge smoothing at a lower cost. You’re getting a smoother look without making any of the same compromises as before, and potentially saving on memory as well.

So like with God Of War 3 the use of MLAA does much to improve image quality whilst having less of a performance hit than you might think. Although are times in which this new form of anti-aliasing isn’t so effective at dealing with jagged lines, particularly when coming up against sub pixel aliasing - something which does crop up noticeably in parts of Killzone 3. Areas of the game which features loads of thin polygon lines; fences, railings, power cables etc, are all prone to displaying jaggies, and this is something that MLAA can’t really help with.

Below is a clear example of what I mean. In the screenshot it is evident that sub pixel (a triangle smaller in size than a pixel of the rendering resolution) edges receive no AA of any kind, something which would either require a change in how these objects were rendered or a switch to supersampling in order to resolve the problem.


Essentially MLAA works by detecting edges in a scene on a pixel level, finding them and smoothing them over resulting in a highly effective way of dealing with jaggies. This is perfect for high contrast scenes (unlike with MSAA) as edges are clearly detectable thus being easily smoothed over. The problem comes in when the edges you have to deal with are smaller than one pixel of the rendering resolution, and as MLAA works only on pixel size edges anything smaller simply gets no anti-aliasing. Or that is how I understand it. The result is some edge shimmering and noticeable aliasing on objects with lots of sub pixel edges.

Moving on to smoke and particle effects, it is obvious that they are again rendered in a lower resolution than the rest of the game.

Like in Killzone 2 all alpha effect buffers are rendered in 640 x 360 (quarter of the resolution of 720p), a common practice for most PS3 developers due to the system’s lack of available memory bandwidth compared to Microsoft’s 360 with its 10MB EDRAM.

Basically PS3’s GPU, the RSX, features a fairly low pixel fill rate, and this effects how many transparencies can be drawn on screen at any given time. 360 on the other hand through its use of EDRAM provides the GPU with a much higher fill rate enabling not only more transparent objects to be drawn at once, but also to feature transparencies at a matching screen resolution en masse.

In motion the lower resolution of the alpha buffers is hardly visible with the various post processing effects going on – such as depth of field - and they do look rather smooth and well defined. Although, as we can see below in still screens these effects still appear to look softer than the objects around them.


Impressively, it looks like the developers are using volumetric effects for all the smoke in the game (like with Killzone 2), although in reality this is somewhat misleading. Instead of actually rendering 3D volumetric particles, they are using layers of 2D sprites which have been blended together and combined with geometry using something called ‘alpha test’ in order to re-create that volumetric look without the added processing cost of doing it for real.

This blending is also one of the reasons why the smoke and particle effects all look somewhat soft and smoothened, in addition to the AA that they seem to be getting on top of that, and of course the upscaling taking place. It is also noticeable that the higher contrast nature of the stage demoed at E3 seemed to lessen the volumetric look associated with the effects, whilst also diluting the dynamic lighting being used somewhat.


Despite this Killzone 3 still looks visually stunning though, losing nothing along the way from the last game, and the developers may have also seen fit to upgrade the use of ambient occlusion for this latest instalment.

Previously for Killzone 2 Guerrilla were in the process of adding real-time SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion) to the game but didn’t have time to properly implement the effect, instead using baked AO as a substitute. Now it looks like this could have been changed, and for the first time we are seeing what appears to be proper use of SSAO for Killzone 3.

Although officially unconfirmed at this point, the screenshot below clearly shows some evidence of the effect being present. Just check out the shadows on the floor below the Helgast’s feet, in which we can see that something different is definitely going on. SSAO? Maybe. And it wouldn’t be a surprise to see it given the fact that it was being worked on long before development on KZ3 started.

You can also see the improvements made to texture quality compared to KZ2. Textures are clearer, crisper, and generally more detailed than before, perhaps as a result of no blurring being present from using QAA, but also because texture resolution seems to have been upped for certain objects in the game.


From what we’ve seen so far KZ3 is shaping up to be a clear visual improvement over the last game in 2D, with the MLAA being a particular standout, and the cleaner, sharper look appearing giving the game a more polished feel overall. The sense of scale has been noticeably upped, and the sheer amount of stuff going on at once is undoubtedly impressive.

But how does this compare with the game running in 3D?

Surprisingly, Guerrilla Games have also managed to achieve some of these feats when rendering the game in this mode, like keeping in all the complex smoke and particle effects without cutting back on the amount of stuff on screen at any time. However, the game’s rendering resolution in this mode leaves a lot to be desired.

When rendering in 3D you are essentially doubling up most of your graphics work rendering every frame twice, one for each eye. Now, certain things can be carried over between frames to save on performance, but many things can’t, and this why cutbacks have to be made. And for Killzone 3 there are sizable cutbacks with regards to the games rendering resolution, and the resolution of alpha channel visual effects.

Below are two screenshots showing the game in action. The top one shows the game running in 3D mode, and the bottom the same scene but running in 2D. As you can tell the difference is night and day, with the 3D version looking rather unsightly.


Killzone 3 in 3D


Killzone 3 in 2D

Looking at the above screenshots you can see that image quality has taken a massive hit as a result of the steep drop in both rendering resolution of the main framebuffer, and the alpha channel effects buffers.

For its 3D mode Killzone 3 renders in 640x716 with MLAA, and the effects buffers (which were already rendering in quarter resolution) are again halved down to 320x360 creating an unsightly scene of jagged lines and upscaling artefacts.

The alpha effects in particular seem to suffer the most with this, as when they overlap with opaque geometry they cause aliasing atifacts to appear heightening the games increased jagged appearance. In addition shader and sub pixel aliasing are also magnified as a result.

Having to render twice the amount of geometry on screen at once also causes problems, and various reports of seeing the game running in 3D state that there is noticeably greater levels of pop up compared to running in 2D mode. Even though you are running at half resolution, you still have to render the geometry twice so there is still an impact with performance despite cutbacks in the number of pixels being worked on compared to rendering in full 720p for 2D.

So far it isn’t looking too good for Killzone 3 in 3D, with the current build definitely being a poor representation of how the game should look, although in that respect you simply cannot expect standard 2D levels of performance with current generation console hardware. There just isn’t enough power to handle it, and with optimisations only so much can be done. However seeing the game being displayed with all the intricate particle effects and multiple light sources in 3D is pretty impressive, even if the result isn’t as clean or as smooth as we’d like. I would say that it not only shows promise, but also is a key indication of just how much untapped potential is still left inside the PS3 hardware for games in general.

There is also the opinion that increased levels of jagged edges and upscaling artefacts are less visible when viewing them in 3D compared to seeing the same thing in 2D. How true or accurate this is I don’t know, not actually seeing Killzone 3 running in actual 3D in the flesh – only a 2D version of the game’s 3D rendering mode. But the argument for even having a cut down, lower-res 3D mode is unsurprisingly strong, especially given the marketing potential for this new format.

Either way Guerrilla Games have stated that they are targeting 720p (1280x720) for Killzone 3 in 3D, and it’s likely that they’ll do whatever it takes to reach that milestone without overly compromising the look of the game, optimising where necessary, and cutting back on post processing effects that don’t work so well in 3D (motion blur, depth of field). Full 720p looks to be pretty much out of the equation, realistically. But you know, maybe something like 852x720, which would still provide better image quality than 640x716, but without having to cutback as much on the core graphics make up of the game.

With Killzone 3’s release not until February next year the developers have plenty of time to improve and optimise their engine for both 2D and 3D, so it will be rather interesting to see just how well the game fares a few months down the line. As new videos surface, and information gets drip-fed out we shall no doubt be taking another look at the game and the tech behind it.

Editorial: 3D Visions - The Next Arms Race?

The lure of 3D to the gaming industry is no more surprisingly than the increased focus on the format in recent film production, with many new releases being retrofitted for screenings in 3D in order to generate that extra buzz required to bring more people into the cinema. Everyone it seems is after a piece of the pie, and given the renewed public interest in viewing movies down at the local picture house it was only a matter of time until some of gaming’s big guns got on board.


Cineworld recently reported a 17% increase in ticket sales directly as a result of 3D movie screenings, and most of which were at the higher price charged for seeing a film in 3D. The effect it has had for the film industry has not gone unnoticed, with various high profile game developers stating that this new format could well be the future of videogaming as a whole.

Many state the incredibly accurate depth perception that comes from using the format, along with the increased levels of immersion when putting the player visually closer to the action - taking them perhaps further into the game than ever before - as the main reason for pushing forward with the tech.

Perhaps in this case 3D does more for most games that it does for most films. Improving our judgement of space and distance on a 2D display, separating images clearly from one another allowing us to truly experience more life-like scenarios than ever before. For gaming, the use of 3D, and in coordination with motion controls opens us up to a world in which we can feel really connected in a way that a film never could. And it’s this feeling which has driven many software developers and hardware companies into investing in its future.

With the DS in its fifth year, and the two most powerful current-gen consoles in a strong battle of one-upmanship over features, 3D represents a clear path for at least one of those two companies to distinguish themselves. Sony in particular - going for the ‘it does everything’ impression with the PS3 - sees 3D as their next milestone in gaming, hoping to become synonymous with the format in time for the next generation of consoles still a few years away.

Despite support for the format from Microsoft (although more concerned with Natal at this point) Sony in particular want to be seen as ‘the company’ who delivers the most cutting-edge of all 3D content, lining up a barrage of compatible titles at this year’s E3.

Sony are clearly aiming at the high-end here, with the prices of 3D enabled HDTV’s starting around £1700 and going up to at least £2200 for Panasonic’s reference level VT20. Admittedly not cheap, and certainly out of the mainstream user’s standard price range, which means that any uptake is going to be rather slow and distinctly pedestrian at first.

However, Sony and many other publishers see a potentially bright future going down the 3D route, ensuring their focus is strong and their software line-up defining enough to make a dent in peoples impressions. Plus in a few years time it is expected that most 3D compatible tellies will be available from at least 37” as the norm, with some smaller high-end 32” models also featuring the tech. Eventually though, every single HDTV will support the format, and its inclusion will read out like another check-box feature such as ‘100Hz processing’ or ‘HD Ready 1080p’.

Clearly this is just what Sony are counting on, and their aim to deliver the definitive 3D experience in light of this potential is understandable. Sure, it may take a few years for the tech to become widely adopted by the mainstream, and the overall cost associated with development may well go up (inevitable regardless of the inclusion of 3D), but at least they could have a much stronger position in the market as a result. Or that’s how they appear to be looking at it, adopting a standard long before it has any real presence in the consumer domain and turning it around so that it does in fact become prevalent. It’s this forward-thinking approach which catapulted the PS2 to worldwide success, but which also stalled the initial uptake of the PS3 with the insistence on pushing BluRay.

Nintendo on the other hand, are trying something altogether different. Once again they are focusing on the handheld market, in which they’ve held nothing but a dominant position since they first unleashed the GameBoy to the masses some twenty years ago. With 3D they have found a clear gap in which to exploit, however gimmicky it initially appears, and this could indeed set them apart from other manufactures in the handheld space. Yes, I’m talking about the 3DS.

Nintendo’s latest handheld is likely to be a very affordable entry into the world of 3D – below £200 price point is likely – and with complete backwards compatibility guaranteed for all NDS and DSi titles they won’t be alienating their existing user base, simply building right on top of it. Also, if rumours are to be believed the company has something else up its sleeve with the 3DS outside of its auto-stereoscopic screen.

Currently, the effect of viewing 3D images on such a small scale is relatively unproven, though somewhat tantalising, and its use in at least one Japanese smart phone has apparently yielded promising results. And perhaps this is the reason behind the push forward into that realm of an extra dimension, not only because hardly anyone else has done this before, but because Nintendo have a clear track record of taking something untested and making it work in areas others have failed (VitualBoy aside).

Disruption like with the NDS and the Wii, is the key here. They need something other than motion controls and the touch screen - which Apple have made their own, and which Sony are no doubt eying up for PSP2 - to once again separate themselves from others in the market, and they know it. 3D is one of those things, but with the option to turn it off, not the only one it seems. More surprises then? All will be revealed at E3.

Like with Sony, Nintendo not only hopes to capture a large chunk of the market, along the hearts and minds of gamers everywhere, but instead also intend to be the first ones to bring affordable 3D tech into the home. The 3DS with its estimated sub-£200 price point (I’m gambling on £169.99 or 179.99 as the clincher) has far more potential at opening up the gaming mass-market to 3D technology, in both the handheld space and the home consumer market than the exuberant price tags that accompany bleeding-edge 3D HDTV’s.

Being cheaper and more affordable is a start, but they need more than price on their side. They need to impress. But what if this new technology turns out to be something of substance, really visually impressive on the small scale? It could convince many people into buying one of those expensive 46”+ size HDTV’s we mentioned earlier, thus in turn actually helping Sony and their high-end approach to 3D gaming, and industry adoption of the format in general.

Looking at it this way, it’s not hard to see that the consumer is presented with what looks like a win-win scenario, with both ends of the pricing scale accommodated for. I also imagine that Microsoft will begin driving forward 3D support in conjunction with Natal if the PS3’s attempt to capture this new market gains momentum, especially if it has a noticeable impact in 3D HDTV sales – more TV’s sold means more opportunities for pushing the format, and greater sales potential for all that extra work. Sales of current HDTV’s jumped with the advent of high-def consoles, and then exponentially so with the eradication of standard-def CRT’s from the market.

Either way, the thing to remember is that the notion of 3D isn’t particularly new, and it will take a few years of price reductions on HDTV’s, and impressive software to convince the consumer to invest. The glasses also are another hindrance, heavier and more bulky than their cinema equivalent. Even then, it’s hard to expect any revelations, or even a major impact on the console front before the next-generation of systems is upon us. 3DS aside, which looks to comfortably occupy its own space, for now anyway. In the end the seeds are being sewn, and the groundwork being laid. All that’s left is to see how we as consumers perceive the road lying ahead, and whether or not this is indeed the path we’d like to go down.

Other than trying to predict what might happen , something tells me that this story is going to be particularly interesting, it could in effect usher in a new level of interactive entertainment with both 3D and motion controls at the forefront. Or it could simply fall flat on its backside, another reminder of what happens when the industry tries to push something that just isn’t ready. The death of classic gaming this is not, that’s for certain. But a mere an expansion into areas that bring us closer to the games we play, and the worlds we get so immersed in.

Near defining statements aside, all shall be revealed at this year’s E3 in two days time. There we will have a better view on just what each manufacturers plans are for the format, and how this much-talked about 3D thingy finally fits into place.

Sony Outlines 3D Plans

Today at the 3D Gaming Summit in Los Angeles, Sony’s David Coombes (Platform Research Manager) discussed plans for the upcoming 3D enabling PS3 firmware update, talking about how it will affect the machine’s performance in actual game scenarios, whilst also detailing ways to curtail certain issues using a game’s existing engine, and code base. Specifically he mentioned using an existing split-screen game engine as the base for rendering the two separate images required for 3D to be displayed, as the extra work has in theory been mostly carried out already. But more on that later.

Coombes specified that the firmware responsible for delivering 3D content via the PlayStation 3, would be released in two separate waves. The first allowing the option of playing 3D enabled games on the system; and the second, to allow the playback of 3D Blu-Ray movies, which should arrive soon after the initial update. Part of the plan is to have the PS3 at the forefront of the 3D home revolution, or so they hope, along with their flagship range of Bravia 3D ready LCD TVs coincided for release at around the same time as the firmware update.

In terms of game development in 3D, Coombes confirmed that for a game to be playable in 3D it would have to have been coded and designed for the medium in order for it to work. Meaning that unless a game is specifically written to take advantage of the 3D technology, it won’t be displayed in 3D. Sony will not be providing any kind of post-process 3D conversion software into the firmware update, stating that whilst it would be possible, they are leaving that for other TV manufacturers to do.

Instead Coombes proposed a series of solutions in order to help ease the performance burden of having to develop with 3D in mind. For example rendering a scene in 3D takes roughly twice the computational power than that of rendering in traditional 2D, with each frame having to be drawn twice. However not all aspects of the scene need to be handled this way. Coombes gave the example of shadows, which are generally flat, and could easily be shared between left and right frames used to make up the 3D image as a way of rendering certain objects only once for each frame. These objects, or graphical effects, would have to be made up of ones which have no-3D information, or rather, no depth buffer, in order for the process to work. The savings however, can lead to a performance boost or could be used to leverage the remaining GPU power for other optimisations.


Some games though, are already ripe for an easier 3D conversion process. Coombes highlighted titles which featured a split-screen two player option as having most of the graphical optimisations already needed for a quicker route into rendering in true 3D. Essentially 3D works by rendering two individual frames, one for each eye, and uses shutter glasses to alternate each image to for form a single frame displayed to the user. With split-screen rendering the engine is basically drawing everything on screen twice, requiring very few optimisations in order to work in the context of creating a 3D image. Using this as a starting point, it could allow developers to better optimise their titles, keeping higher framerates and more detail that otherwise might have been lost.

PS3 3D games, and 3D Blu-Ray movies will be compatible with all 3D enabled HDTVs that meet the HDMI 1.4 standard. The ‘3D Ready’ official standard in the UK also means that TVs displaying the slogan will be compatible with all PS3 games and Blu-Rays that are available in this format. Also, in terms of scaling, it was reaffirmed that the PS3 would scale the 3D output to whatever resolution was supported by the users HDTV (720p, 1080i and 1080p), depending on which check boxes have been ticked in the ‘Display Settings’ menu in the XMB.


Lastly, Sony revealed that final 3D software development kits have been in developer’s hands since January this year, and announced that they would be showing off a whole host of 3D enabled titles at E3 later on this year. Along with this, Sony reiterated the list of known compatible titles including PAIN, Wipeout HD, and Motorstorm Pacific Rift.

With 3D being the buzzword of the moment, and with gaming potentially leading the way on early uptake of this latest display technology, we at IQGamer will be following its development very closely.

PS3 3D Support Confirmed For This Summer

We’ve talked about 3D before at IQGamer, about the ramifications on how it could affect game design, as well as the possibilities in providing an experience that is literally closer to home. However this 3D revolution could actually be hitting you sooner than you might think, especially since by this summer, most of the large flat panel manufacturers will have 3D enabled displays finally on sale.

Sony are one such manufacturer, and whilst in the past there has been speculation as to when exactly the firmware update will arrive to enable the PS3 for 3D output, possibly hinting at it appearing in time for the launch of their first 3D Ready HDTV, it has now officially been confirmed by Sony themselves.

The company plans to launch their first 3D enabled TV in Japan on June 10, a 46-inch 1080p Bravia LCD screen, costing around 350,000 yen. Panasonic are also planning to launch a 3D HDTV in time for this summer. Their flagship 50 inch VT20 3D Ready Plasma is set for release in early May, right here in the UK, and is a screen which borrows some of the legendary technology used inside Pioneer’s exceptional Plasma displays. Some leaked shots of Firmware 3.20 confirmed the plan to offer PS3 owners with a 3D solution earlier this year, and now a report on Japanese site AV Watch dates its release for this June.


This report has since been officially confirmed by Sony themselves, and just yesterday, Sony engineer Ian Bickerstaff, in an interview with Gamasutra, speculated on what kind of initial uptake to expect, and how development studios themselves were planning for a potential 3D revolution.

"I think (3D gaming uptake is) going to depend on the uptake of 3D televisions. We're not going to spend crazy, crazy amounts of money (on 3D games) expecting everyone tomorrow to have 3D TVs, clearly. But, we believe this is the future, and three or four years from now, you won't be able to buy a television that doesn't have a 3D capability."

"To be honest, we have not had an internal project to throw at people to make their games in 3D, yet there are loads of games in 3D, like MLB 10, Super Stardust HD - that looks fantastic - and so on," he said. "And that's really just because of the enthusiasm from the developers themselves."


He also added that Sony as a company were taking the cautious approach, but were very optimistic with the potential by going down that particular (3D) route. By the same token, he also stated that it would take time for 3D to really take off in the home, boiling down to how fast an uptake there is with people buying 3D TVs.

How fast will it take for 3D to finally hit the mainstream? Well that all depends on the price of entry, as well as the ability to buy a 3D TV in a smaller screen size, such as a manageable 32-inches, or something similar. Currently all 3D offerings are at least 42-inches or above, with pricing starting at over £1000, not something anyone will be able to rush out and buy. However, with 120hz accepted input and 3D support likely to be integrated into all new HDTVs in the future; it’s perhaps only a matter of time before it becomes another standard check-box feature to tick off your list.

We look forward to finally getting our hands on at least one 3D enabled display at IQGamer. You never know, hopefully someone will be kind enough to let us to sample the mighty Panasonic VT25 upon release, but we doubt it.