3D will affect game performance

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 19 July, 2010

Graphics or fps sacrificed - R.U.S.E. dev.

Either the quality of graphics or the frame rate has to be sacrificed when games are running in 3D.

That's according to Mathieu Girard, the senior producer of multi-platform real-time strategy game R.U.S.E., who reckons that in some cases "3D games are going to look a bit less good than original games".

"For 3D on console, you must have, I would say, at least 60 frames per second, because, basically, you draw two images to achieve 3D," Girard told Eurogamer. "Your game has to deliver twice as many frames to still remain fluid in 3D.

"You must have twice as many frames, so either you're losing the 60 frames per second, or you are losing the quality of graphics. I cannot imagine a game with all the polished graphical quality running at 120 hertz so that each image is 60 hertz. Something has to be reduced somewhere. It's tricky."

One developer who may argue with Girard is Crytek founder Cevat Yerli. At E3 2010 he told VideoGamer that the impact of running upcoming shooter Crysis 2 in 3D is negligible.

"Whenever we show 3D, we show it intentionally on 360 to make the point. It works. It works flawless on PS3, 360 and PC as well. It just works; and one-and-a-half per cent impact only. Out of 30 frames it's 0.4 frames," he said.

"I use the term 'for free', with this game. It's so negligible. And people ask, how do you do it? I say, well, we do render only once. That isn't magic. But we create a second image out of the first one. But how we do it is the magic. That's the secret sauce. I'm happy that we figured it out!"

So, what's the truth? According to Digital Foundry's Richard Leadbetter, who analysed the performance of PlayStation 3D after E3, Girard's comments make sense.

"Girard is quite correct," Leadbetter said. "Rendering in proper stereoscopic 3D incurs a significant overhead over normal 2D. Basically the exact same scene is being rendered twice - once for each eye. Challenges are two-fold then: to begin with, double the amount of pixels need to be generated, and secondly the scene geometry (the basic 3D shapes that comprise the image) need to be drawn twice to accommodate the different views per eye.

"An alternative is 3D based on a 2D image plus depth, as seen in Crysis 2 on console. Here the scene is just rendered the once, but with separate offsets for each eye calculated from the game's internal depth map. The result is much faster, but can create "gaps" in the image. For example, if you're standing next to a wall that covers the view of one eye, but not the other. It'll be interesting to see how or indeed if Crytek overcomes this."

Perhaps it goes without saying that 3D is beyond R.U.S.E. at this point.

"I would say no plans," Girard confirmed. "We have some stuff on PC but it's very… secret right now. So right now with a game of the magnitude of R.U.S.E. it's a bit too complex either on Xbox 360 or Sony, to achieve that [3D].

"I think a game has to be thought for 3D at the beginning to make sure it has the performance necessary in the end. Maybe that means that 3D games are going to look a bit less good than original games."

R.U.S.E. is due out on 17th September.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (39) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • metalangel #1 2 years ago

    I don't want 3D games any more than I want 3D movies or 3D DVDs.

  • BeersOfWar #2 2 years ago

    3D GAMING - A BIT LESS GOOD THAN ORIGINAL GAMES.

    Put it on the box!

    Edited by BeersOfWar at 19/07/10 @ 09:59

  • The-Bodybuilder #3 2 years ago

    I always need my daily fix of 3D news from EG.

    /injectS 3D syringe.

    YEAH BABY!!!

    Edit: Next up? A news report on Molyneux and Fable III please. I need my dose of that too.
    Edited by The-Bodybuilder at 19/07/10 @ 10:06

  • ignatiusjreilly #4 2 years ago

    The comments section of every article is full of people

    Quoted selectively for emphasis.

  • StooMonster #5 2 years ago

    Doesn't "3D based on a 2D image plus depth" result in pop-up book type 3D, flat "cardboard cut-outs" with depth?

  • woodnotes #6 2 years ago

    I care about 3D games.

  • JDFreeman #7 2 years ago

    3D games will make you vomit

  • Dizzy #8 2 years ago

    Water is wet!

  • jonsaan #9 2 years ago

    2D gaming is where it's at anyway.

  • InfiniteFury #10 2 years ago

    I'm just here to post a message from the future confirming that 4D is, in fact, where it's at.

  • jonsaan #11 2 years ago

    5D even.

  • jonsaan #12 2 years ago

    Double D in fact.

  • Doctor_What #13 2 years ago

    Surely the additional sensory information gives the brain enough data to fill in the gaps more convincingly than it would with 2D images? It could be a bit like the old days when the original Prince Of Persia's animation looked silky smooth because we filled in the rest automatically. I suspect it will work the same way with 3D - give the brain depth and roughly the right look and it will do the rest for us.

    Anyway, whenever the next-gen consoles are released hopefully all this stuff will get a lot easier - hopefully 60fps will be acheivable by most studios and then 3D will be able to run smoothly at 30fps. It'lll take some smart design, but it can be done.

  • Xardan #14 2 years ago

    Hey look...Another article about 3D!

  • charming_fox #15 2 years ago

    "3D games will make you vomit"

    This is how they plan on breaking into that elusive teenage female market........

  • Doctor_What #16 2 years ago

    Hey look... A pro-3D post getting negged! Today really is full of surprises... Oh wait, it's not.

  • space_ace #17 2 years ago

    did they fix clipping yet? that'll be an innovation

  • SpaceMonkey77 #18 2 years ago

    A recipe for disaster waiting to happen. Why waste development time and money on it, when there's no certainty of it taking off?

    The other thing is, at the rate which gamers buy and sell on their games, few will really stop to care 'Oh this game is presented in 3D too, I must keep hold of it, as its poking my eyes out and giving me headaches, really improves the gaming experience.' Ruse has already been dealyed enough. I say ditch the 3D cheese, and focus on getting the game out of the door, before CoD7, MoH and Halo Reach hit. Otherwise, they might as well release Ruse in 2011.

  • ignatiusjreilly #19 2 years ago

    Why waste development time and money on it, when there's no certainty of it taking off?

    To push things forward, try new technology, be first in a new wave? To advance gaming or become known as an innovator?

    If game-makers only spent money on things that are certain of being successfull, everyone would just copy the Wii controller and make all their games play like Gears of War and Call of Duty. Oh, wait...

  • SpaceMonkey77 #20 2 years ago

    @Ignatius

    Okay, point taken. R&D is fine and dandy, but when it holds up a game that's appeared twice at E3 already, its becoming a liability.

    The Ruse game itself I reckon is finished, and i hate to see it bomb just because of such unwanted tweaks sacrificed for missed launch windows. On top of that, the rts genre has it console casualties by the roadside.

  • ignatiusjreilly #21 2 years ago

    True, its a risky genre, but maybe things like 3D and Move support are a way to make it stand out?

    (Are they implementing 3D anyway? Didn't sound like they were selling it well in the article.)

  • ianegg #22 2 years ago

    Why waste development time and money on it, when there's no certainty of it taking off?
    Actually getting a game to go 3D is pretty trivial. Optimising the engine and testing the game is where the extra work comes from, but those optimisations will benefit 2D gamers too. See Superstardust HD.

  • Sunyavadin #23 2 years ago

    And this is one of the many reasons why I maintain that for the foreseeable future there will be no explosion of 3D, as too many people have gotten used to HD quality, and do not want to lose that.
    Edited by Sunyavadin at 19/07/10 @ 11:32

  • M_of_the_sys #24 2 years ago

    too many people have gotten used to HD quality, and do not want to lose that.

    According to people on here, hardly anyone has HD.

  • JahB #25 2 years ago

    If you can't make it good, make it 3D.

  • GamesConnoisseur #26 2 years ago

    8 bits is where gaming at!

  • TheMitch #27 2 years ago

    If the industry tries to standardise framerates, resolutions and creates a basic boundary to work within then this problem would be solved early in the next generation.

    2D Mode: 1080p @ Approx. 60fps with V-sync.

    3D Mode: 720p @ Approx. 120fps (60fps per eye) with V-sync.

    720p @ 120fps outputs 11.1% less pixels than 1080p @ 60fps; with some minor changes that could allow for the geometry and depth calculations.

    There wouldn't be quite as big of a leap as we'd like next-gen, but it'll still be a big improvement, graphically (in an overall 2D and 3D sense) and in other elements there will have to be a minor cut back, but after a few years all will be forgotten and we'll be left with standards, a set of boundaries to work within and to optimise within.

    Performance needs improvement, not because of 3D, 2D modes in games need better performance, but more so because of 3D, graphics, physics, audio and all kinds have all been getting jacked up but we're accepting framerates fluctuating between 15fps and 30fps in some games with screen tear; that in my eyes is a broken game.

    If the industry makes some sacrifices soon and prioritises performance then those few years of no big graphical leaps will be worth it in the long run for stabler, cleaner and smoother games.

  • kangarootoo #28 2 years ago

    So what, really.

    I've seen games in 3D, and I can tell you two things about them.

    a) I honestly didn't notice if there was a drop in texture detail etc.
    b) They were in 3D, and that bit was brilliant!

    You may not like 3D films, but gaming is something different. A sense of depth makes all the difference in driving anf FPS games imo. I know 3D makes some people ill, but it doesn't make me ill, so whilst I feel sympathy for those affected (genuinely) its not something that figures into my own experience and therefore my opinion of my own experience.

    Personally, this is a 1 step back and 5 steps forward situation as far as I'm concerned. Its like complaining that you wallet is heavy because its full of money.

  • Acrid #29 2 years ago

    "3D games are going to look a bit less good than original games."

    Are 3D games all going to be remakes? This worries me cos I really like original games.

    Also, this guy speaks great England.

  • DrDamn #30 2 years ago

    @StooMonster
    "Doesn't "3D based on a 2D image plus depth" result in pop-up book type 3D, flat "cardboard cut-outs" with depth?"

    Why would it? The depth info is on a per pixel basis - the z-buffer. It's not quite as convincing as full on stereoscopic 3D, and there may be other things you need to take into account (like effects not necessarily in the z-buffer like transparencies). They seem to think they've done it well with Crysis 2 though.

  • emilywhite002 #31 2 years ago

    This is an interesting article about 3D's effect on game performance.I have never even thought that 3D will affect game performance.I can say that 3D games are enjoyable to play but I think we have to be careful about it.

    Buy Cataclysm CD Key

  • Moz #32 2 years ago

    Hands up who's actually played a 3D game on the PS3 ....... no one? ...... I see 1 or 2 hands ............ thought as much,

    I've had a go on Motorstorm in 3D and now all I can think of is getting my hands on a 3D TV, don't knock it til you've tried it, 'cos (for racing games at least) 3D rocks.

    EDIT @TheMitch the big issue with performance is that gamers demander better and better graphics with each new release which resaults in programmer pushing the hardware that little too far. I would love for the next gen to be focused on deliver COD:MW2 / BF:BC2 level of grapics but at 1080p 60fps with some maybe some better lighting and particle effects. But i dout it will happen as with that kinda power you could produce "better" grapics (from a single frame capture point of view) @ 720p 30fps with screen tering and frame drops within what the average chav sees as exceptible because the graphics are "bitching"
    Edited by Moz at 19/07/10 @ 15:58

  • Ryze #33 2 years ago

    3D Haters:

    Just play all 3D games in 2D for a marked performance boost.

    Then stop whining - you ill-informed pussies.

  • Ryze #34 2 years ago

    ^ Fuck off.

  • kangarootoo #35 2 years ago

    @Ryze

    you know, for those that have ignored the spammer, it now looks like you are having an angry split personality moment ;)

  • cen4pgb #36 2 years ago

    Um R.U.S.E works fine in NVida £D Vision, looks beautiful for the most part.....

  • cen4pgb #37 2 years ago

    PLus isnt this true of all grpahical improvements pretty much if you want one to improve you genrally take a hit somewhere else.

  • citizenHUNTER #38 2 years ago

    These comments are pretty obvious and what we should have known already to begin with. I think the Crysis way of doing things is pure and simple a compromise, a compromise which won't help things, like Clash Of The Titans being filmed then converted in a hurry (the company who did the conversion admitted this), and the output is just lame compared to something natively made for 3D (Avatar).

    There's no point in 3D gaming, just as it's at the precipice of exploding onto the scene, of tripping up over itself. Of course the PS3 3D is really pushing the hardware and there will be trade offs of course, but the fact it can be done, and done so well even in this generation sets us all up nicely for native, across the board 3D support in all our next gen cosoles, just in time for when 3D TV's become more the norm than the exception... BRING IT ON.

  • Downside #39 2 years ago

    1080p and enough horsepower to generate the frames in the first place at 120hz... That's going to be some console... And I doubt if anyone will want to part with the cash it will cost either. No ones got the cash to develop it and no ones rich enough to buy one.