This makes sense, you're effectively asking them to render twice the number of images. Well, depending on how clever their shaders are for doing this it can be dramatically less but that something only really high-end film guys like Pixar (Renderman) are doing at this point, at least to the best of my knowledge.
I don't now what is the problem with that, I think you have sensitivity with ps3 it is the only console device that is able to run 3D game and instead to be happy about that you stuck with this issue about the resolution and you have to know this is because HDMI 1.4 standard, I'm pretty sure if that for the Xbox360 you will not write such things.
I'm not sure how resolution will impact the 3D experience, but for the most part native 720P content scales well enough on most sets that you would struggle to tell the difference. HD is all pretty good, the average consumer won't notice the resolution difference, but chug his frame rate to 20, then it will become apparent that there is a problem. Its probably a pretty good trade off.
OH YEA MEDIA AT ITS BEST TELL ME BUD WHAT DO THE COMPETITORS HAVE? AND PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS BILLED AS UP TO 1080P NOT FIXED AT 1080P. THIS HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE MOST PATHETIC COMPLAINTS I HAVE READ.
The grand majority of good games on the PS3 already run at 720p or less. I just hope they won't have to compromise in areas other than the resolution to compensate for the increased workload of 3D. Killzone 3 looked promising visually.
3d Gaming is crap imo, i got to play cod4/5 and bioshock 2 at a 3d gamig convention =), You get used to it so evntually it just becomes sameish, And in the long run it just muddles up your sight =/
primesuspect
Beepin n' BoopinDetroit, MI Icrontian
Comments
Because most of the retail games based in disc we play, are Native for 720p and upscaled for 1080p.