Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So I can now play video games in 3d.

13»

Posts

  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    I played Gears of War 3 in 3D and it was really fun. I'm glad I own a 3DTV now.

    Games completed recently: Resident Evil 4: HD Edition, Typing of the Dead: Overkill, Sleeping Dogs, Dishonored, On the Rain Precipice of Darkness 1-4.
  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo Crushing pussy; Marry a man Registered User regular
    I played with the 3D toggle for a few minutes when I got a 3DS. Then I turned it off because it's awful and too much of a faff to keep adjusting.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    I played with the 3D toggle for a few minutes when I got a 3DS. Then I turned it off because it's awful and too much of a faff to keep adjusting.

    That really depends on the game. OOT3D? Yeah I play with it off. Everything else is about 50%... For mario kart I go to 100% because holy shit it looks awesome.

    Games completed recently: Resident Evil 4: HD Edition, Typing of the Dead: Overkill, Sleeping Dogs, Dishonored, On the Rain Precipice of Darkness 1-4.
  • anoffdayanoffday To be changed whenever Anoffday gets around to it. Registered User regular
    Drez wrote: »
    3D is the dumbest new fad. I hope it goes away.

    I have a 3DS and I really like it, but no 3D in my PC games please.

    steam_sig.png
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    eobet wrote: »
    Recently, I saw a demo of a TV that required glasses, but the scene depth of the effect was incredible! Things appeared both a meter or two in front of the screen and several meters into the screen, rather than just the ever so slight change of depth which makes everything feel like cardboard cut-outs in regular 3D TVs.

    Depth is not dependent upon tech. It's based on how much you separate the two images.

    If both eyes are seeing the object at the exact same position on the screen, it will be perceived as being at screen level. After all, this is how we normally watch TV.

    Otherwise, if the object is shifted left for the left eye and shifted right for the right eye, that's...well, either sunken in past the screen or in front of the screen, I forget. And then the opposite for the left eye seeing an object shifted right and the right eye seeing it shifted left. The more they are shifted apart, the further forward or backward the object appears.

    The short answer is that the demo you saw with a lot of depth was that way because the demo had been made that way, not because of the TV. Actual 3D content will vary depending on who makes it...shallower 3D causes less eyestrain and is probably easier to create and fake the effect on non-3D footage, because you're less likely to notice errors.

    UncleSporky on
    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • VothVoth Registered User regular
    I really like 3d when it's well done. Resistance 3 and Uncharted 3 are quite spectacular. I can't even imagine playing them in 2d anymore.

    The solution they found for the Unreal Engine games is ok but it doesn't really compare with something that was made with 3d in mind. Don't let those games fool you into thinking they're the benchmark.

    reverbnation -- last.fm -- facebook -- twitter -- bandcamp --youtube -- PSN: audapostrophe -- XBL: audapostrophe -- NNID: audapostrophe -- Myspace
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    I got Arkham Asylum 3D a while back.

    I was surprised that it did not require a 3D TV.

    Just came with those shitty little cardboard glasses with the Red/Blue filters.

    Seemed to work well enough.

  • LuChiaveliLuChiaveli Registered User
    So ... Every time I played with 3D I was confused and had headaches. I think that 3D at home is not so good, this technology is only good to theaters (and still for a few movies).

  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    I play quite a few games in 3D and love it, no headaches etc. I've even convinced a few friends to invest in 3DTVs after showing them Motorstorm Apocalypse and a couple of other games in 3D.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
  • Dr_KeenbeanDr_Keenbean Registered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    I got Arkham Asylum 3D a while back.

    I was surprised that it did not require a 3D TV.

    Just came with those shitty little cardboard glasses with the Red/Blue filters.

    Seemed to work well enough.

    AssRev supports them as well. It's what convinced me to buy a 3dtv.

    PC games in 3d trump all. 1080p to each eye, not some depth buffer trickery (like the Arkham games) and no down-rezzing.

    PSN: Dr_Keenbean LIVE: Dr Keenbean
    Dr_Keenbean42.png
  • pt_walkerpt_walker Registered User
    Gaming in 3d really sounds good, but before we proceed towards the purchase of a 3d TV for a gaming purpose we must think about certain points such as refersh rate, viewing angle, picture quality and contrast ratio.
    In active 3d glasses we receive a single image at a time which can cause flickering and crosstalk. I bought my LW6500 last year, the best cinema 3d in it's class. It comes with battery free 3d glasses; TV offers high refersh rate up to 240 Hz which means you can enjoy smooth gameplay.

  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    I don't suppose you're the LG rep that was going to be joining are you? :) I hope not because your post is horribly miss-informed.

    If you're after picture quality, contrast ratio and smooth motion then you'd probably want to go plasma, though that does leave you with only active 3D options. Passive is a bit easier on the eyes but the quality is lower, I'd say that a lot of gamers sit fairly close to their TVs and with a passive set those with a keen eye will be able to see the polarising filter on the front of the tv (I know I could), even with 2D content.

    In addition to that passive 3D just isn't as good quality as active. Active works by sending a single 1080p image to the left eye, then a different image to the right eye. It does this with the shutter glasses, which open and close in sync with what's on screen. This is what can cause flickering if there's another source of light in the room (eg looking at a laptop screen). The way passive works is half of the image is sent to one eye, half to the other, it results in a less than sharp image but no flickering and very low cross talk (though modern active sets are by and large equal with that now). Whilst the brain puts the two 540p images together, it doesn't quite add up to a full 1080p image and the loss of quality is clear.

    Refresh rate doesn't matter either, any modern tv will support 24, 50 and 60hz and any 3DTV should support 120hz (passive or not). Your TV doesn't actually do 240hz native, it's clever processing. The same way my Panny GT30 plasma is quoted as being 600hz.

    For gamers, looking for a TV who are exceedingly picky, I'd say there's no better bet (for 42" upwards) than a good plasma. Accurate colours, deep blacks, no floating blacks like on an LCD, brilliant motion reproduction (LCD motion results in ghosting). And as for 3D either active or passive should do most gamers, though if you had a family then passive would be the obvious choice (slightly friendlier 3D, considerably friendlier prices for the glasses!).

    (Disclaimer: I am a big fan of Plasma tvs, and 3D)

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
  • NerdtendoNerdtendo Registered User regular
    I used to have some glasses for PC, and played UT2k4, Tribes 2, and Wolfenstein ET all in 3d. It was pretty awesome. I never suffered from headaches or dizziness personally. I say go for it. It's an experience that you're curious about that's both safe and relatively cheap... and you've only got so much time to experience things.

    IHZR47b.png
  • TheGingerTheGinger Registered User regular
    3D is quite a subjective thing about 1-10 people (probably alot lower in reality, people like to hype things) can't see 3D, plus it can also cause terrible nausia in a higher number of people who are exposed to it for a long time. I like the idea of more immersive experiences however 3D is not the way to go for me.

    p.s. Probes directly in your retina's deffinatly the way to go.

    p.p.s Only Joking

  • ApogeeApogee Lancks In Every Game Ever TorontoRegistered User regular
    So has anyone made a 3D monitor that doens't need glasses, a la the 3DS? That would certainly interest me more than wearing glasses every time I go on my computer... I've tried 3D gaming via red/blue glasses, and it was neat, but it kills the colour.

    8R7BtLw.png
  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    By all accounts glasses free 3D really doesn't work that well on larger displays. There are laptops that have them though which work ok-ish.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    I have 3D on my plasma, and just recently bought a pair of glasses. I'm lucky in that my cable company offers 3D television, but wearing active-shutter glasses for more than an hour or so doesn't sound appealing.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard Registered User regular
    Diablo 3 looked really nice in 3D during the beta, I don't know about the final game, but I couldn't imagine the quality went down. So those of you with 3D displays be sure to try it in 3D.

    Xbox 360/One Gamertag: SpanWolf - PS3/PS4 Gamertag: Span_Wolf
    3DS: Span_Wolf - 4854-6434-9883/WiiU:Span_Wolf
    Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/ - Origin: Span_Wolf
    Brand new XBone digital copy of Titanfall I don't want that I'm willing to part with for $30, or for $40 I'll throw in 3 months of Live with the game. PM if interested.
  • ThemadcowThemadcow Registered User regular
    I've got a 3D laptop and, yeah - it's mostly gimmicky. Of the games that are 'compatible' there are games that look brilliant in 3D and play well (such as Trine 2) and games that look great but the nature of the interface makes 3D a bit more of a challenge to click accurately on-screen (Torchlight, Fallout) and games where it looks good but the 3D effect makes you feel a bit uncomfortable (Grimrock). Overall, I don't think it improves the gameplay experience of any game but it certainly provides a fun experience for a while.

    Basically, nearly any game CAN be played in stereoscopic 3D... but you'll only want to play a few of them that way. I'd imagine Diablo 3 would be pretty good based on my Torchlight experience, but not sure if you'd be playing 'optimally' if you're in to maxing your performance.

  • AllforceAllforce Registered User regular
    I've got the Playstation 24" monitor hooked up to a 360 and PS3 on occasion, Crysis 2 is pretty good in 3D, to the point where I find myself moving my head around to see over ledges and the environment. I've played Gears 3 and Batman Arkham City as well, Gears was good, Arkham looked like you were playing with cardboard cutouts. Motorstorm Apocalypse is worth playing totally in 3D.

    I feel like 3D as it is sold now is only really well done at the extremes of both spectrums, either you have a big ass 100+ inch screen with a 3D projector or a 24=27" monitor set up on a desk so you can sit a foot or two away. Anything in-between seems like a waste of the technology. I go to my buddies house and he has a 60" 3D set attached to his wall....and we sit 15 feet away from it to watch 3D content. The effect is there from the couch but it's very unimpressive as the whole point of 3D is that it's in your face, until you stand up and get right up to his screen then it really kicks in but who watches TV like that?

  • curly haired boycurly haired boy Your Friendly Neighborhood Torgue Dealer Registered User regular
    i'm waiting on the whole 3D gaming thing until we have 4 feet wide curved OLED screens that don't require glasses.

    i'll take improved peripheral vision/wider FoV over 3D depth any day, but if i can get both in the future, then that will be JUST GREAT. :^:

    RxI0N.png
    Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy | blog
  • mntorankusumntorankusu Registered User regular
    The problem with using curved screens (the fact that glasses-free 3D would be significantly more difficult to accomplish aside) is that current games use a flat projection, so the only way to have a correct image is for the screen to be flat. Multi-monitor setups that curve inward are not "correct", even if it looks cool. You need a cylindrical projection for curved screens (or spherical if it's also curved vertically), and that needs to be implemented per-game. It's also more important for the FOV to be set correctly, and for your distance from the screen to be correct if you're using a cylindrical or spherical projection. I agree with you though, technology needs to advance in terms of FOV and realistic display before 3D is going to be as immersive as it could be.

    Lightweight stereo HMDs with full peripheral FOV and head-tracking are what I'm waiting for. I was promised virtual reality, damn it. For now I would kill for one of those Sony HMZ displays, but the FOV is only 45 degrees.

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.