Super Stardust HD revitalised by 3D

By Robert Purchese Published 7 January, 2010

Sony's CES 2010 stand provides proof.

Sony's pledged to enable stereoscopic 3D on PlayStation 3 this year via a firmware update, and has shown the fruits of its endeavours this week at CES 2010.

Games, Blu-ray discs and downloadable videos can potentially make use of 3D visuals, but they'll need to be programmed to do so - they won't magically transform after the firmware update.

This differs from NVIDIA's PC approach, which makes use of existing code to establish a 3D scene. NVIDIA 3D Vision is bought as a kit for around 300 quid.

Sony's CES 2010 demonstration featured three bespoke 3D games, including a previously unheard of 3D Super Stardust HD. The others were Gran Turismo 5 and James Cameron's Avatar. IGN added that each demo station used Bravia televisions and a pair of shuttered glasses - not regular cinema 3D cinema specs - to achieve the desired effect.

Eurogamer's dizzying Digital Foundry blog filled us in on the theory of 3D gaming on PS3 last year. Expect fuller technical analyses when we see the 3D technology with our own eyes.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (20) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Darren #1 2 years ago

    I can't say that I'm a big fan of this new fangled 3D technology personally but that's because it seldom works for me. For example, I saw Avatar in 3D over Christmas and apart from one or two moments where jellyfish-like things were floating across the camera, the 3D was totally lost on me as it looked 2D!!!

    As for games and 3D... well I can accept that the 3D I see on my 2D TV as being fairly convincing so I have no desire to rush out and buy a new and expensive 3D-compatible TV for a handful of games and films nor do I want to play/watch them while wearing an uncomfortable pair of glasses thank you. I can't help but think this love for 3D tech is little more than a gimmick myself and it'll quickly die a death like it did in the 80s and 50s. It seems to me to be more of a marketing tool to drag people into the cinemas than anything truly worthy. That's just my view though.

  • mode7 #2 2 years ago

    When there is a way of conveying the 3D effect without having to wear special glasses, will be the day that I'll be interested.

  • BabyJesus #3 2 years ago

    Every bloody couple of years there is some new crap tv companies need to push out to convince people their viewing would be better with their new tech.

    Fuck off 3D, my HD set is only a couple of years old and I don't have to wear fucking glasses to watch tv or play games with that.

    Wake me up when we have holodecks.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #4 2 years ago

    When can we expect 3D Super Stardust then?
    How much later this year?

    Cos I wanna play it now - I don't care what type of 3D it is, I don't mind wearing red/green or whatever glasses, just give me SuperStardust in 3D :)

  • Gregolution #5 2 years ago

    Gimme gimme gimme! Love 3d, looming forward to this

  • El-Dev #6 2 years ago

    I wasn't overly impressed with Avatar in 3D either, didn't revolutionise my cinema experience in any way. Though I did notice Sky are bringing out a 3D package this year. Wearing glasses doesn't bother me in the slightest though.

  • Darren #7 2 years ago

    @designerheadache - In my case I suffer from a very slight squint in my left eye due to having whooping cough when I was a toddler so my eyesight is not perfect. As a result 3D rarely works for me all the time, certainly not the 3D that requires horrid blue/red glasses and, sadly for me, not the new type that Avatar uses either. Sometimes it works like I said earlier but I find I have to concentrate on it which strains my eyes and winds up giving me a headache. So you can probably understand now why I'm not keen on 3D really and you won't find me rushing out to buy either 3D games or TVs.

    Incidentally, I saw Avatar with three other people aged between 14 and 65 and they all agreed that the 3D effect was not that noticeable. Perhaps they just accepted it was 3D and forgot about it or maybe the 3D really isn't noticeable unless someone waves something right in front of your eyes like those naff old 3D movies did (equivalent to those jellyfish moments I mentioned)? Still I thought the movie was absolutely excellent and the scale/depth was wholly convincing to me because the CGI effects themselves were superb.

  • dither #8 2 years ago

    GIMMICK

  • Doctor_What #9 2 years ago

    If it's the shutter-lens models then I'm suddenly more interested - much more so than with the polarised ones.

  • Jelly_Head #10 2 years ago

    How many pairs of 3D glasses do you get with these new TVs?

    EDIT: Hmmm... with the new Sony Bravia 3D TV, you only get one pair.
    Edited by 1 at 07/01/10 @ 15:01

  • mr_bez #11 2 years ago

    If they've invented a pair of 3d glasses that can be worn comfortably over regular specs, I might be interested, but whenever I've been to the cinema to see a 3d film, I've spent half the time fiddling with them and taking them on and off. They take me out of the experience, not make it more immersive, and I'm sure I can't be the only one.

  • miiiguel #12 2 years ago

    Well I particulary liked Avatar 3D aproach exactly because it didn't have those "in your face! 3D moments", it's all very subtle, and contextualized. Good stuff. Good job mr Cameron.

  • TRUTH #13 2 years ago

    It's gonna give headaches fpor sure, with that slight tint to viewing spoils it too!...I watched Avatar in 3D and normal 2D - some scenes just gave me a headache and actually more confusing in 3D, rather then 2D.

    Great movie though.

    Not really bothered with this 3D stuff!!!

  • TRUTH #14 2 years ago

    Also the problem is though it may have extra depth, there is nothing else - This what that killed the atmosphere of BEING THERE! in Avatar - it just felt like a gimmick rather then a WOW must have/see.

    It wasn't the 3D that made Avatar special - it was the cgi that can be experienced just as well - if not better (no tint,less confusing, less strain, no glasses) on 2D.

  • smelly #15 2 years ago

    >GIMMICK

    Funny I said (and still do say) the same about HD. Everyone else disagreed with me though.

    See for me, HD doesnt make the game play better, nor does it make a movie more entertaining. However, From a gaming pov i CAN see how 3d will make some games play better - proper depth in a fps for example??

    EDIT : I get the feeling this will get negatives as a lot of people will be upset that i'm "dissing" their purchasing decission of a hdtv.. But I still stand by what i say. I have a 1080p tv, it upscales dvds correctly. If I was going to rent a movie - i usually choose to rent the cheaper dvd than the bluray, as the number of pixels i'm seeing makes no difference to the enjoyment of the film. In games, I can see the visual difference much more clearer - but then, it doesnt make them play better (if anything, it makes them play worse, as since we've gone hi-def the frame rates have dropped from 60fps to 30...)
    Edited by 1 at 07/01/10 @ 22:50

  • BadBoyBonner #16 2 years ago

    Still surprised when people say 3D is gimmicky - is that so? Well, why not rip one of your eyeballs out then as you clearly fail to see any benefit from it.

    Sure wearing glasses isn't the most convenient thing in the world but millions of people seem to have managed it for over 200 hundred years.

    Using 5 speakers to create a 3D sound field is no doubt also not for the same people. Clearly they only have 2 ears so why on earth would they ever need more than one speaker? They can clearly hear sound from that one speaker in both ears and prevent the huge inconvenience of running another 4 cables ?

    NICAM stereo was no doubt a gimmick to make them buy a new TV, then Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Digital etc.

    For me entertainment can be heightened by immersion. Sound went fully 3D years ago and I think it is nice to see the imaging technology starting to catchup. First in resolution and now in offering stereoscopic viewing.

    Well over 99% of the worlds entire population benefit from stereoscopic sight. The use of either polarisation or shuttering to gain 3D depth ensures that the much more common Colour Blindness has no impact on their enjoyment.

    In addition to Smelly's suggestion of 3D being great in FPS, which I agree with, I would have to say that the best use will be driving games. It suddenly transforms the winding little triangle on screen to a road stretching out before you.

    How about GT5 on PS3 offering 3D from launch?

    P.S. personally I can't wait to play Wipeout in 3D http://ww w.viddler.com/explore/engadget/...
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 00:45

  • 3william56 #17 2 years ago

    Jesus - SSHD already makes my eyes bleed once it gets going. In 3D it's going to blow my brains out my left ear. *_*
    Have to invite someone with kids over later in the year to knock over my plasma, so I can get a shiny new 3D telly on the insurance...

  • MaxiSleep #18 2 years ago

    @ smelly

    HD makes a huge differrence to my gaming. I enjoy racing, rpg and shooters.

    With racing games it is like night and say - the ability to see the road ahead is key, and in HD you can see further more effectively. Compare Gran Turismo city races on ps3 with city races in pgr

    For rpg HD allows better presentation of data - again key

    Finally for shooters the abililty to see detail in the distance is again a huge improvement.

    For movies and documentary on sky there is no comparison between HD and SD.

    Perhaps you need an eye check?

  • TRUTH #19 2 years ago

    I find most movies on normal dvd fine - I don't really get blown away with HD movies. Sky HD looks a little sharper, but watching standard tv on my Pioneer plasma, people have commented 'Why' doesn't my HD look that good...The fact is HD on is not a major leap as in video to dvd quality. I run most of my dvd's on normal standard and they look absolutey fine. HD might look a bit sharper, but it really ain't that big of a difference...In fact some standard resolutions look better then some in HD.

    In gaming there is better display in resolution in HD. The only real reason I upgraded to HD.

  • TRUTH #20 2 years ago

    I found the image poorer too in 3D when watching Avatar at Imax, watched it again in 2D and actually looked better, less confusing and actually able to focus better in 2D in the fast scenes (3D has a slight blur and not as clear).

    Not really to bothered with this 3D, once experienced a couple of times it's just another gimmick that looses it WoW factor.