It would be possible, but improbable. You could do it on a 360 or PS3, but you would need to be able to render everything at 120fps. In other words, the game would look twice as bad, and that gameplay feature would probably not be enough to sell the game(s) because of the lower quality. This would apply on any console, past present or future. Any game you run will have to look twice as bad in multiplayer as the singleplayer version.

So, yes, it's possible, but not likely to be implemented.

It would be possible, but improbable. You could do it on a 360 or PS3, but you would need to be able to render everything at 120fps. In other words, the game would look twice as bad, and that gameplay feature would probably not be enough to sell the game(s) because of the lower quality. This would apply on any console, past present or future. Any game you run will have to look twice as bad in multiplayer as the singleplayer version.

So, yes, it's possible, but not likely to be implemented.
why do you need 120 frames? shutter glasses? you really only HAVE 30 fps per person anyway, virtually NO console game runs at more than 30 fps. so are we assuming shutter glasses? like those from nvidia? imo shutter glasses are utter rubbish as a concept from the start, the glasses themselves are impractical and if you think about it the approach basically converts a nice lcd, led or plasma back into a **** CRT display.
theoretically you only need 60 fps rendered, on a TV that works with polarization. instead of 2 pictures for one viewer you send out 2 pictures for 2 viewers, simple, each player's glasses have one kind of polarization on both lenses.
the real problem is RAM, video- aswell as normal: for 3D you just need twice the framerate but it stays the same gameplay whereas with two players you have potentially twice the amount of objects, textures etc filling up space. i mean i'm assuming this "coop-console" would have singleplayer titles, too. in MP everything has to be present, you can't do much streaming, no tricks. but in SP players would have to be able to take different routes through waaay bigger environments, even in a linear game they couldn't be forced to stick together, that would be lame and take away the point of such a system.

Assuming you going to be using this on one of the "3d TV's" out there right now, then you will have to use the shutter glasses. Also, you will still have to be able to update to the screen at 120hz (even if each player only gets 60hz, and the game only 30hz) If you updated at 60hz, then each player would only get the screen updating at 30hz, which would make the TV appear as if it were flickering. So the console still needs to be able to update at 120hz, although if it uses frame duplication, than at least some people will consider the image "jumpy" because of the long frame display times.

Assuming you going to be using this on one of the "3d TV's" out there right now, then you will have to use the shutter glasses. Also, you will still have to be able to update to the screen at 120hz (even if each player only gets 60hz, and the game only 30hz) If you updated at 60hz, then each player would only get the screen updating at 30hz, which would make the TV appear as if it were flickering. So the console still needs to be able to update at 120hz, although if it uses frame duplication, than at least some people will consider the image "jumpy" because of the long frame display times.
there are 3DTVs that don't use active glasses and i said i WASN'T talking about shutter glasses - remember how i called them "utter rubbish"? i don't like shutter glasses BECAUSE of the 120hz dilemma. now on to the 3DTVs/screens that don't use shutter glasses: most of them basically have 2 screens, each with one polarization. with those you do NOT need 60 fps. 60 fps would be great but, as you should know from gaming, framerates between 20 and 35 already look fluid on regular screens and a polarized screen does not make pauses, your viewing is not interrupted (that's what the shut in shutter glasses stands for).
i know most 3DTVs right now go for the shutter technology, that's because making one screen is cheaper than making TWO. NOT because it's the better solution (it's the worse one). i think we can disregard current circumstances when speculating about the distant future.

It would be possible, but improbable. You could do it on a 360 or PS3, but you would need to be able to render everything at 120fps. In other words, the game would look twice as bad, and that gameplay feature would probably not be enough to sell the game(s) because of the lower quality. This would apply on any console, past present or future. Any game you run will have to look twice as bad in multiplayer as the singleplayer version.

So, yes, it's possible, but not likely to be implemented.
why do you need 120 frames? shutter glasses? you really only HAVE 30 fps per person anyway, virtually NO console game runs at more than 30 fps. so are we assuming shutter glasses? like those from nvidia? imo shutter glasses are utter rubbish as a concept from the start, the glasses themselves are impractical and if you think about it the approach basically converts a nice lcd, led or plasma back into a **** CRT display.
theoretically you only need 60 fps rendered, on a TV that works with polarization. instead of 2 pictures for one viewer you send out 2 pictures for 2 viewers, simple, each player's glasses have one kind of polarization on both lenses.
the real problem is RAM, video- aswell as normal: for 3D you just need twice the framerate but it stays the same gameplay whereas with two players you have potentially twice the amount of objects, textures etc filling up space. i mean i'm assuming this "coop-console" would have singleplayer titles, too. in MP everything has to be present, you can't do much streaming, no tricks. but in SP players would have to be able to take different routes through waaay bigger environments, even in a linear game they couldn't be forced to stick together, that would be lame and take away the point of such a system.

You need 120 hertz television for 3D because it gets broken down into 60hertz. Even if a console only runs at 30 frames per second, having a 60 hz tv run the 3d at 30hz will cause very annoying stuttering.

as you should know from gaming, framerates between 20 and 35 already look fluid on regular screens

Scotties Hottie

 

Posts: 3406

Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:40 am