Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

Lets Talk About 3D Gaming "The Goggles, they do nuzzing!"

13»

Posts

  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch regular Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    It's not the size, it's how much it sticks out. Or something.

    How big's your screen? I think 50" is about the largest I could fit in to this room comfortably.

    Mr_Grinch on
    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard regular Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Mr_Grinch wrote: »
    It's not the size, it's how much it sticks out. Or something.

    How big's your screen? I think 50" is about the largest I could fit in to this room comfortably.

    My TV is 73".

    The_Spaniard on
    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
  • JuanthekoreandonJuanthekoreandon Registered User
    I own it, but don't own a 3D set

    But the framerate's down on its own from the original game

    I can't imagine it going slower and still being enjoyable (don't framerates typically slow down for 3D?)

    I recently bought a 3D TV and use it all the time for gaming. People may have an active style TV not a Cinema 3D one, my effects even on 2d to 3d pop out quite a bit. Make sure you playing games that are actually 3D, not just using the 2d to 3d? I bought a Cinema 3D for gaming because I did not want to take the huge fps hit with an active one and 60hz is way to slow for fps games lots of motion blur etc. Not to mention the $150 price point per pair of glasses left for dead is out of the question.

    Now if you have a passive TV I would like to suggest a few things. First sit within the recommended viewing distance per your TV size I have a 55" so I had to move my couch up a bit to 8' that helped a lot for the 2d to 3d. Get actual 3D games some of these are available on the Xbox market place not 100% on the ps3.

    Don't expect a movie since stuff does not normally fly at the center of your screen this would be really annoying in most games a lot of the effect is going to be in depth not coming out at you. Play Assassins creed those leaps of faith feel like they go on forever.

    If you have an or want active 3D TV I can’t really help you they were never intended to play games they display 2d content the same at 240+ hz. I hope this helps also check and make sure you have good av cables and are using hdmi the lag on bad cables can be significant further reducing your 3D experience.


  • urahonkyurahonky regular Dayton, OHRegistered User regular
    Okay well at first I was a little skeptic on the concept of 3D gaming. But as soon as I tried the 3DS I knew that I it could be the next big thing. The problem is the TVs. But then again that's what we said about HDTVs and we know how that went.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle regular Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote:
    Okay well at first I was a little skeptic on the concept of 3D gaming. But as soon as I tried the 3DS I knew that I it could be the next big thing. The problem is the glasses. But then again that's what we said about HDTVs and we know how that went.

    Fixed. This is why all the manufacturers are going absolutely apeshit trying to perfect glasses-free 3D.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • urahonkyurahonky regular Dayton, OHRegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote:
    urahonky wrote:
    Okay well at first I was a little skeptic on the concept of 3D gaming. But as soon as I tried the 3DS I knew that I it could be the next big thing. The problem is the glasses. But then again that's what we said about HDTVs and we know how that went.

    Fixed. This is why all the manufacturers are going absolutely apeshit trying to perfect glasses-free 3D.

    3D gaming would work okay for Single Player games mainly because glasses-free is very strict on where you look.

  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor regular Registered User regular
    I tried some 3D gaming last week - Killzone and MK specifically and I can't imagine playing like that all the time. I generally don't have any issues with 3D anything but I found that gaming REALLY hurt my eyes and made me feel nauseous. I hope this all goes the way of the dinosaur soon.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham regular Registered User regular
    Personally I think that Head Tracking 3d is much better than regular 3d for gaming. Heck, in that youtube video the tv inside the monitor looks like a 3d image on a regular monitor with no glasses simply because the transition of the image behind it fools your brain into thinking you are wearing the head tracking thing. Considering how good the kinect is at tracking your head position I can't believe we won't start seeing head tracking for it.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Honestly, I think the most awesome thing I've heard about using polarized light is the potential to do multiplayer without a split screen, but considering how much that'd take in system resources and how much online is being focused on, I doubt it'll be a driving force for the time being, if ever.

    I loved the shit out of Avatar in 3D, but am definitely feeling the malaise about the technology as every last bloody film seems to be pimping it hard, often badly, and whether it's warranted or not.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • urahonkyurahonky regular Dayton, OHRegistered User regular
    Forar wrote:
    Honestly, I think the most awesome thing I've heard about using polarized light is the potential to do multiplayer without a split screen, but considering how much that'd take in system resources and how much online is being focused on, I doubt it'll be a driving force for the time being, if ever.

    I loved the shit out of Avatar in 3D, but am definitely feeling the malaise about the technology as every last bloody film seems to be pimping it hard, often badly, and whether it's warranted or not.

    Yeah local multiplayer would be so awesome, but only for two/four players. If you have 3 you'd have to have it 2vs1 or something like that because of the right/left problem.

    And you couldn't really do 4 players because of the way the technology works at the moment.

  • JuanthekoreandonJuanthekoreandon Registered User
    urahonky wrote:
    Forar wrote:
    Honestly, I think the most awesome thing I've heard about using polarized light is the potential to do multiplayer without a split screen, but considering how much that'd take in system resources and how much online is being focused on, I doubt it'll be a driving force for the time being, if ever.

    I loved the shit out of Avatar in 3D, but am definitely feeling the malaise about the technology as every last bloody film seems to be pimping it hard, often badly, and whether it's warranted or not.

    Yeah local multiplayer would be so awesome, but only for two/four players. If you have 3 you'd have to have it 2vs1 or something like that because of the right/left problem.

    And you couldn't really do 4 players because of the way the technology works at the moment.


    That is only for active TVs Cinema 3D (passive) TVs support as many people as you want using polarization, and you should not be gaming on an active TV any ways much lower fps. Also autosteroscopic is pretty far away for large displays at least until oled gets cheap enough for the average person to buy it. Also you don't have to worry about head tracking for passive TV as well as the glasses wont black out if you turn your head.

    I recently bought a kinect and it works really well, the 3d is good and when i have to lay down etc I can still see, on non gaming also much more comfortable to watch as i can have my head at 90 degrees to the TV.

    Here is a youtube video that explains is better, I'm really sorry about the auto-play being on as it is not my video I have no control over it please if you click the link be aware. This is a review for gaming 3D TVs. If there is a way to post with out auto-play I am unsure. Its very informative an only about 4 minutes long.

  • anoffdayanoffday To be changed whenever Anoffday gets around to it. Registered User regular
    I recently got a 3DS and I'm loving it, but I've been playing Pokemon White, The World Ends With You, and Golden Sun, so I haven't really been using the 3Dness. I also have Ocarina of Time, and while it looks cool in 3D, I've been playing it in 2D first and decided to save 3D for my second playthrough. I think when Nintendo comes out with some decent games for it, it's going to be a whole new way to play old games, but right now there's not much going on with it.

    Steam: offday
    XBL and PSN: AnOffday
  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon regular Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    [quote="Juanthekoreandon"
    That is only for active TVs Cinema 3D (passive) TVs support as many people as you want using polarization, and you should not be gaming on an active TV any ways much lower fps. Also autosteroscopic is pretty far away for large displays at least until oled gets cheap enough for the average person to buy it. Also you don't have to worry about head tracking for passive TV as well as the glasses wont black out if you turn your head.

    I recently bought a kinect and it works really well, the 3d is good and when i have to lay down etc I can still see, on non gaming also much more comfortable to watch as i can have my head at 90 degrees to the TV.

    Here is a youtube video that explains is better, I'm really sorry about the auto-play being on as it is not my video I have no control over it please if you click the link be aware. This is a review for gaming 3D TVs. If there is a way to post with out auto-play I am unsure. Its very informative an only about 4 minutes long.
    [/quote]

    I'm not a fan of how passive 3d cuts your resolution in half, as to the fps issue with hdmi 1.4 active 3d displays can output 3d at 60 fps 1080p which is fine for games as long as you have a source with a beefy enough gpu to power it. If you're using passive and you have a source like the ps3 with a lot of games that only output in 720p, and your 3d is cutting that in half, it's not pretty.

    taliosfalcon on
    WII U NNID- talios
    steam-taliosfalcon
    XBL-AdeptPenguin
  • JuanthekoreandonJuanthekoreandon Registered User
    I'm not a fan of how passive 3d cuts your resolution in half, as to the fps issue with hdmi 1.4 active 3d displays can output 3d at 60 fps 1080p which is fine for games as long as you have a source with a beefy enough gpu to power it. If you're using passive and you have a source like the ps3 with a lot of games that only output in 720p, and your 3d is cutting that in half, it's not pretty.

    If you want to say that you can talk about the huge loss of viewing angle of Active 3D, the fact that flicker is impossible on a Passive but very prevalent on Active TVs and cross talk is 4x more likely on Active TVs. Not to mention the super expensive glasses that require charging not to mention you can't play most games with more than 2 people. Also the whole half resolution argument is pretty much over that is just active propaganda any way LG just got certified by intertek for full 1080p while using 3D. While I tried to look for Vizio and Samsungs passive models I could not find any info on them.

    I am speaking for console games primarily and yes 60fps from the TV is great if you love motion blur and less than crisp graphics and 60 hz with only each eye seeing roughly 30fps depending on your brand/model some are less. And you would only be able to see half resolution if you closed one eye to watch 3D which would defeat the purpose in the first place each eye being 540p the same argument can be made for active as only one eye is able to see the TV at a time the other only see's black just close one eye and look at any high res image the quality will drop due to the way your brain process images. Active TVs also have glasses that let way less light through in general less than 1/2 of Passive glasses due to the fact they they are suspended liquid.

    Personally for gaming Passive wins on all accounts, one could make an argument for other content but they are not very strong especially cause I like to lay down and watch TV. I have viewed both and found the 3D effect very similar if not indistinguishable. Though having to sit through flicker/crosstalk, expensive glasses, not being able to turn your head, small viewing angle, large heavy glasses that must be charged, 60hz 3D, not to mention the tech from active 3d has been around since the 1920's though passive has been since the 70ds.

    With Sony, Samsung, and Haier (china) all making passive sets too I can't really see a very strong future for active. Especially with most people buying LED-LCD TVs and soon OLED.

    Being a Sony person ps3 owner I could see how you might want to have brand loyalty ( I have no issue with this), but for gaming Passive TVs are simply technically better.

  • JuanthekoreandonJuanthekoreandon Registered User
    bump

  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon regular Registered User regular
    I am speaking for console games primarily and yes 60fps from the TV is great if you love motion blur and less than crisp graphics and 60 hz with only each eye seeing roughly 30fps depending on your brand/model some are less.

    You're kinda proving you don't know what you're talking about here, the vast majority of active 3d tv's are 120hz, 60 hz and thus up to 60 fps per eye

    WII U NNID- talios
    steam-taliosfalcon
    XBL-AdeptPenguin
  • JuanthekoreandonJuanthekoreandon Registered User
    edited July 2011


    You're kinda proving you don't know what you're talking about here, the vast majority of active 3d tv's are 120hz, 60 hz and thus up to 60 fps per eye

    Thats just simply not true, if you speaking the majority of NICE active TVs then I will give it to you; but I was talking mostly about led-lcd TVs as plasma, and lcd are both older tech. Most Active TVs in the 1,200-2,000 range are 60hz in active mode which is 30 to each eye. There are exceptions in the plasma and Panasonic does make a nice TV for 1,799.

    Also because a 120hz active TV uses the glasses you would have to measure each pair to see if you are actually getting 60hz most glasses flash over once per 16 milliseconds which would actually lower your total fps. Now for me to track down each brand that makes active would take for ever.

    LCD technology is not usually rated by frames per second but rather the time it takes to transition from darkness to brightness and back to darkness, in milliseconds. In order to achieve an equivalent minimum refresh rate of 120 Hz, an LCD must be able to transition at a speed of not more than 8.33 ms. However, each frame is displayed for at most 8.33ms, and minimizing the response is key. For example: if it takes 8.33ms for the LCD to transition to the desired image, and a sequential black/white image is shown, the 8.33ms which should be displaying "white" will begin at black, and after 8.33ms finally achieve white. Similarly, the next 8.33ms which should be displaying "black" will begin as white, and after 8.33ms finally achieve black.

    But due to syncing and simply people buying cheaper glasses or many other factors, some go all the way up to 10ms or 12ms this means that while you think you may be seeing 60fps on a nice TV or 30fps on a normal one. The fact is your probably seeing less. A lag of even .1 ms would result in a loss of 1fps for math sake ( its actually .964 fps).

    In a perfect world and perfect circumstance with perfect content your still unlikely to see 60fps to each eye.

    edited for spelling.

    Juanthekoreandon on
  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch regular Registered User regular
    You've made a good decision to get a passive set, they're great. I like Passive sets, I really do. But the whole thing you have going on with fps and refresh rates is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The main reason I have an active set is because I'm a fan of Plasma over LCD (after many years of swapping and changing) and a Passive Plasma at present seems to be out of the question. Calling Plasma old tech is ridiculous and flat out wrong. LED is insanely expensive (Like £2k for a 20" tv?), LED-LCD is just a slightly thinner, better backlit LCD. It's still 'old tech' as you put it. Plasma has come on leaps and bounds and for anything above 42" is highly recommended. I'd take the deeper blacks and smoother motion of a plasma over an LCD any day.

    Speaking of smoother motion LCD gives MORE motion blur as it's simply not as responsive as a Plasma TV, this is well known and well tested. Why do you think the best Active sets are plasma? The panels are considerably faster at refreshing than LCD which reduces cross talk. Ok a passive set won't suffer from cross talk, but it will suffer the old LCD motion blur. Newer LCDs are better but even the newest, most expensive LCD isn't as responsive as a half-decent plasma.

    You need to stop spreading miss-information.

    Regarding 3D the following resolutions can do frame packed 3d:

    1080p @ 24hz
    720p @50hz or 60hz

    It's impossible to get higher than that regardless of tv, purely because the HDMI cable is INCAPABLE of passing through a 1080p 60hz frame packed signal. So even if devices supported more than that, it wouldn't be possible. This is why when you connect a pc to a 3dtv you can only game, in 3d, at 1080p with a lower refresh rate, or 720p with a higher refresh rate. Not so much an issue with consoles as the current gen don't REALLY have the grunt to push out 3D and 1080p.

    Also why can't you play games with more than 2 people? Provided you have the glasses you can. I've had 3 or 4 people sat round my Active tv. If you're talking about the clever new split screen you can do with passive, whereby one person wears glasses for one polarisation and the other for the other, then yes, that's not possible but even on a passive set you're limited to 2 people.

    If you're on about just being sat round gaming then the limit is how many glasses you have. Admittedly this is a more pricy prospect with an Active TV but it's certainly no limit.

    Your arguement for 30hz to each eye is baffling and no more true than saying Passive tvs only get half resolution. It's the same arguement. I've had considerable experience with both passive and active 3d sets, and gaming and personally I found the crisper image was with the active sets. The passive win out for convenience but both were equally smooth, motion doesn't take a hit regardless of method.

    As an aside I don't think ANY 3d game on a console runs at 60fps, even wipeout slows back down to 30fps when put in 3D. And I've never been a fan of the 2d to 3d modes tvs offer, they're just not convincing.

    Finally laying down to watch TV is actually EASIER with most active sets (the Sony excluded, that had some weird issues when not looking straighton). Passive has a vertical sweet point, if you're below or under it then it looks terrible. This is one of the issues they're trying to combat whilst advertising passive tvs, if stood close in a shop and too high/low the polarisation won't work and it'll end up a mess. You're fortunate you don't fall outside of this range when laying down.

    A further flaw with passive set is you can actually SEE the polarisation filter if you're sat particularly close, even on 2D content.

    There are positives and negatives to both methods and I have no doubt that passive 3d is what'll help the market take off, it's so much more convenient but it's not necessarily better.

    Let's not turn this thread in to an LCD/LED/Plasma Active/Passive battleground and stick to talking about the actual 3D in the games themselves.

    Speaking of which Uncharted 3 looked pretty good in 3D, though there was a noticable drop in detail over 2D. Not sure what I'll be playing it in when it comes out!

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
  • ZiggymonZiggymon regular Registered User regular
    If you are in Europe, and see a demo model of it, try out the LG Optimus 3D phone. It shows a slightly more advanced version of the 3DS screen.

    However while its really impressive for watching 3D video and photos (actually able to watch from several viewing angles), gaming seems to draw up the same problems as the 3DS, with only 1 viewing angle and constant ghosting.

    I have REZ for the Dreamcast PAL for sale £35. Other Excellent retro games for sale PM for details
  • JuanthekoreandonJuanthekoreandon Registered User

    I was again talking about LCD-LED TVs, not LCD so please read again. I think that LCD TVs are not to be bought. And Plasma is the oldest technology of the 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LED_TV.jpg also LCD-LED offer the highest picture quality with the least amount of maintenance.


    "Finally laying down to watch TV is actually EASIER with most active sets (the Sony excluded, that had some weird issues when not looking straighton). Passive has a vertical sweet point, if you're below or under it then it looks terrible. This is one of the issues they're trying to combat whilst advertising passive tvs, if stood close in a shop and too high/low the polarisation won't work and it'll end up a mess. You're fortunate you don't fall outside of this range when laying down."

    Now this is a strange argument because the only active TVs that you can lay down and watch are plasma which again I was not talking about. The higher end LCD-LED TVs are not able to do so. This is also anecdotal evidence. While most Passive TVs have a 26-30 degree vertical view angle at 8 feet away from a TV that is 4 feet off the ground you have a 11foot range so unless you watch TV from a tree house out side you will never be out of that range which is higher floor to ceiling than most peoples houses.

    Also Passive TVs win far and away on horizontal resolution which means when you game with 4 friends they will all see the same 3D effect while using a plasma they would definitively see a loss of brightness or color distortion for off axis viewing (less of a problem with less viewers) or have to sit really close together. As a plasma owner I am sure you are aware of this. Again I did not include plasma TVs in my argument because I think they are inferior to LCD-LED

    "A further flaw with passive set is you can actually SEE the polarisation filter if you're sat particularly close, even on 2D content."

    Viewing distance is key either active or passive, for 2D and 3D this is a non argument as no TV should be watched that close.

    "As an aside I don't think ANY 3d game on a console runs at 60fps, even wipeout slows back down to 30fps when put in 3D. And I've never been a fan of the 2d to 3d modes tvs offer, they're just not convincing."

    This is just your opinion, no facts here though I agree mostly. The newer LG models like the LW6500 or the Samsungs latest 370 both have pretty good 2d to 3d last years models are far worse.


    "Your arguement for 30hz to each eye is baffling and no more true than saying Passive tvs only get half resolution. It's the same arguement. I've had considerable experience with both passive and active 3d sets, and gaming and personally I found the crisper image was with the active sets. The passive win out for convenience but both were equally smooth, motion doesn't take a hit regardless of method."

    If you have a 60hz TV you will see 30 to each eye and I showed you the math do a quick search online and you will see that is how they are rated. Now a 120hz active TV a newer one say with in the last 12 months. Will still not show 60fps due to shutter speed I may not be a huge drop or even noticeable to you but its there. Also just read reviews of glasses breaking the expense of them, slowing down at half battery, going out of sync not to mention flicker(can't happen on passive) and cross talk(4x) that is way more likely. (sorry for not citing a source on this cause I'm not on my home PC I will edit this with a link later)

    "It's impossible to get higher than that regardless of tv, purely because the HDMI cable is INCAPABLE of passing through a 1080p 60hz frame packed signal. So even if devices supported more than that, it wouldn't be possible. This is why when you connect a pc to a 3dtv you can only game, in 3d, at 1080p with a lower refresh rate, or 720p with a higher refresh rate. Not so much an issue with consoles as the current gen don't REALLY have the grunt to push out 3D and 1080p."

    That is correct with HDMI 1.4 but will change with 1.5a You have to remember that 3D TVs are not used exclusively for gaming but as that is what this thread is about I don't want to argue other content.

    I think for gaming Passive TVs still take the cake, from personal experience (which does not really count any ways) but more so from a data standpoint With a newer gen of consoles on the way and more people hooking up pcs to game on I think 240hz to 400hz in 3D is a must. With HDMI 1.5a slated for dec 2011 jan 2012 and LCD-LED TVs not edge leds. I can't see a solid enough argument that is backed by actual data not just opinion. Sorry for the quote style as I'm still getting used to the new forums.

  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch regular Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Missread some of what you said, sorry. I'm basing most of my points on Active plasma sets. Active LCD is dreadful,as you quite rightly say.

    Regarding Plasma vs LED, LED still come off worse but yes, Plasma can sometimes have caveats such as a break in period (though newer sets don't require you to do anything specific, just the better picture takes about 100 hours of usage). LCD-LED is essentially just LCD with LED backlighting, it helps the deep blacks but still have drawbacks. And Plasma may be 'older' but it's certainly still going and improving all the time.
    9. Top LED TVs can come close to the picture quality of the best plasmas, but they still have drawbacks.
    LCD TVs have long been knocked for not producing the deep blacks of plasma TVs. Well, with the introduction of LED backlighting with local dimming, blacks on the best LED TVs can go toe-to-toe with the blacks on some of the best plasmas, and the picture is outstanding. Also, as noted, LED-backlit LCD TVs are more energy efficient than plasmas and weigh less. But off-angle viewing and picture uniformity remain a sticking point. With plasma, by comparison, you can sit to the side of the TV and the picture won't degrade, and blooming and other uniformity problems are nonexistent.


    Read more: http://reviews.cnet.com/led-tvs-review-10-things-you-need-to-know#ixzz1SoVEbtNN

    So whilst you CAN use a passive set and the viewing angle is helped (by it being passive) the quality of the image is hindered by it being LED-LCD. Additionally it really is the top of the top that can compare with an average plasma, hence, expense.

    Active sets all refresh at 120hz (it's a requirement) to avoid extreme flicker (old CRT shutter glass technology used to refresh at 60hz, I had some glasses, they were horrible), I'm not sure where you're getting your 60hz/30hz figure.

    Whilst the signal fed is 60hz, the signal outputted is 120hz. The reason the 3d picture is so poor on Active LCD (and even LED-LCD) sets is they don't have the fast response times of a plasma, meaning ghosting is very obvious.

    And I'm not sure what you mean by the passive having greater horizontal resolution. Both output 1080p, there's no increase. If you mean viewing angle then that again isn't true, a Plasma has a far better viewing angle than an LED-LCD tv. If you mean passive vs active then again, the passive effect is lost with the wider viewing angle, see here for info on it:

    http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-tvs_Page-3

    And whilst all my arguements seem to be FOR active, they're not, I'd love a passive set and when I can afford a spare will pick up one for the spare room. However for the living room, 50" and above, I'll stick to Plasma.

    Finally, I've tried pretty much all 2d to 3d modes, I can't say I care for any of them, even in more modern sets (I'm now on my 3rd 3D set!). THere's a reason it costs a considerable sum for a movie to be post-converted, and why it takes a long time. Doing it on the fly with a tv just doesn't produce reliable results, I'm a stickler for seeing something how it was supposed to be seen, not via an educated guess (Which is why Intelligent Frame Creation Technology or any weird effect like that gets turned off on my tvs).

    If you're after playing games without a 3D option IN 3D then I'd recommend getting a PC. Software like Tridef is fantastic, being all the geometry information is there in a game it produces amazing results.

    PS, if you want to quote the best way is to [ QUOTE ] and then [ /QUOTE ] to end it. Just take out the spaces :)

    Mr_Grinch on
    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch regular Registered User regular
    Well, that little discussion killed this thread.

    Anyone else ventured in to the wonderful world of 3D gaming? Playing Alice: Madness Returns at present in 3D, very impressive.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
  • KetarKetar Ready to feel better about your own miserable lives?Registered User regular
    Mr_Grinch wrote:
    Well, that little discussion killed this thread.

    Anyone else ventured in to the wonderful world of 3D gaming? Playing Alice: Madness Returns at present in 3D, very impressive.

    I've had a 3D tv for a couple of weeks now, and am enjoying it quite a bit. Have only played Mortal Kombat in 3D so far, but I have enjoyed it. Next up is probably Killzone 3.

  • DarlanDarlan regular Registered User regular
    I finally got around to picking up a 3DS and Zelda 3D, and it's impressive when I'm holding the system just so, but I usually find myself turning it off since the slightest movement of the system messes it up and irritates my eyes. Use the touchscreen for the additional item slots? 3D messes up. Use the gyroscope for aiming? 3D messes up. Adjust yourself slightly as you sit in the chair? 3D messes up.

    It's truly horrid. I'm really let down by it.

  • urahonkyurahonky regular Dayton, OHRegistered User regular
    Darlan wrote:
    I finally got around to picking up a 3DS and Zelda 3D, and it's impressive when I'm holding the system just so, but I usually find myself turning it off since the slightest movement of the system messes it up and irritates my eyes. Use the touchscreen for the additional item slots? 3D messes up. Use the gyroscope for aiming? 3D messes up. Adjust yourself slightly as you sit in the chair? 3D messes up.

    It's truly horrid. I'm really let down by it.

    Put the 3D slider to half way. And you'll get used to it... Just don't hold the system close to your face and you can move it around.

  • DarlanDarlan regular Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote:
    Darlan wrote:
    I finally got around to picking up a 3DS and Zelda 3D, and it's impressive when I'm holding the system just so, but I usually find myself turning it off since the slightest movement of the system messes it up and irritates my eyes. Use the touchscreen for the additional item slots? 3D messes up. Use the gyroscope for aiming? 3D messes up. Adjust yourself slightly as you sit in the chair? 3D messes up.

    It's truly horrid. I'm really let down by it.

    Put the 3D slider to half way. And you'll get used to it... Just don't hold the system close to your face and you can move it around.
    I'll give it a try, thanks.

  • RakaiRakai regular Registered User regular
    Yeah, I couldn't take Zelda at full. I played with it only a third up and it looked great. I really want some 2D sprite games. The converted Muramasa shots looked amazing. As for TVs, I'm waiting for all the standards issues and various technologies to sort themselves out before considering one. Maybe by then there will be OLED tvs! (I wish).

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong regular Registered User regular
    I really feel like this is a fad, just like the movies. I mean I remember seeing in the late 90's that they had glasses/monitor technology to do 3d the same way we do it now(at least the same outcome, the technology is probably different). I feel like the fad is circling back around again since movies are doing it.

    I was at pax east last year and played just cause 2(amazingly beautiful game) and L4D2 in 3d. Well I watched a friend play just cause 2 in 3d, and it was alright, it was distracting to try and play it that way my friend said. We all then tried L4D2 with it. First thing we noticed was that we didnt notice the 3d at all until the camera was taken out of our control and we had to passive watch a hunter mauling us/tounge tying us up. It seemed pointless.

    Considering the cost, I am out. Ill wear glasses if I dont have to buy a monitor for them, and they cost less then $50. But I wouldnt even shell out for a new monitor for what will likely be hundreds of dollars increase for glasses less for PC.

    steam_sig.png
  • JuanthekoreandonJuanthekoreandon Registered User
    I really feel like this is a fad, just like the movies. I mean I remember seeing in the late 90's that they had glasses/monitor technology to do 3d the same way we do it now(at least the same outcome, the technology is probably different). I feel like the fad is circling back around again since movies are doing it.

    I was at pax east last year and played just cause 2(amazingly beautiful game) and L4D2 in 3d. Well I watched a friend play just cause 2 in 3d, and it was alright, it was distracting to try and play it that way my friend said. We all then tried L4D2 with it. First thing we noticed was that we didnt notice the 3d at all until the camera was taken out of our control and we had to passive watch a hunter mauling us/tounge tying us up. It seemed pointless.

    Considering the cost, I am out. Ill wear glasses if I dont have to buy a monitor for them, and they cost less then $50. But I wouldnt even shell out for a new monitor for what will likely be hundreds of dollars increase for glasses less for PC.

    3D is not a Fad this time around to many major players have put to much money into it (Sony,Samsung,LG,Micosoft,Nivida,Radeon,movie production houses). The technology is evolving into autosteroscopic, but with all major movies, games, and even some TV shows now, and with sports being(probably the most important) also porn being viewed It's here to stay.

    Most 3D are at the top of the line internet connected ones now, and oled on its way is going to drop the price and the size and space. If you want to try something great I would recommend Batman man for the 360 its pretty awesome in full 3D. Or go to one of those Special LG Cinema 3D theaters I found the effect is a lot better there but the tickets are like $11-$15 depending if you go on a week day or not.

    Soon maybe after 3 or 4 years your probably going to have a hard time buying a TV over $1,200 that does not have 3D.

  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Duke Nukem Forever is an Nvidia certified "3D ready" game. That is basically the highest rating that a game can get on the 3D quality scale from Nvidia, and means that the game should look absolutely tits in 3D. I pre-ordered DNF way before it came out, got my copy, but never played it cause I didn't want to play it until the developers fixed or someone modded in more than 2 weapons at a time. Anyway I decided to finally load up the game just to futz around and check out the 3D. It was GOD AWFUL, like some of the worst I've ever seen. When I have the convergence right on a singular object or person, it is gorgeous, but everything else in the frame gets thrown out of whack. So basically I can only decide to have one object in focus at a time and everything else is completely double imaged, which frankly makes the game flat out impossible to play. So I'm wondering how the hell this thing got the highest marks in 3D readiness from Nvidia? Am I doing something wrong, because I'd imagine all I have to do is load up the game and it is ready to go?

    The_Spaniard on
    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
  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch regular Registered User regular
    Sonic Generations 3D is amazing. Resolution takes a bit of a drop for me (I can't run it in 1080p, so it's 720p, then halved vertically) but good God, it's good.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
Sign In or Register to comment.