I think you should go play a Ratchet and Clank game or Borderlands 2 in 3D
Or try the Imax 3d bluray series.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is it too early to say 3d is dead?
- Thread starter markot
- Start date
I think you should go play a Ratchet and Clank game or Borderlands 2 in 3D
Or try the Imax 3d bluray series.
Fox Mulder
Member
It's an improperly used gimmick for greed, but I have no problem with 3d.
I loved how it's used in certain movies like Avatar and Dredd 3d, but Hollywood is really abusing the gimmick with shitty conversions and every single movie doesn't need it. They just cmant help selling more expensive tickets.
As for gaming, it basically halves the framerate on most hardware and most game experiences dont really gain anything from it. Nintendo is probably one of the few companies that actually tried to give a shit and tailor gameplay around 3d.
To Far Away Times
Member
There's some good stuff out there that justifies it's existence. Seeing Avatar in a theater was awesome, and the 3DS is awesome.
You wouldn't catch me wearing 3D glasses at home though.
You wouldn't catch me wearing 3D glasses at home though.
BigDaddyFatSack
Banned
I just bought a 3DTV and my god, what a REVALAITON! I just played Killzone 3 and I swear to god, it actually feels like I'm there. Sometimes, it feels even more real than real-life. I spent an hour just walking around in the first level (Helghast's mountain-top base).
This makes me feel even more excited for Oculus Rift, considering it will support consoles in the future. I can't fucking wait.
I was just like one of you guys: I hated the thought of using 3D Glasses. Now, I feel heavily disappointed when I play any game without 3D effects. It just feels too 'flat.'
I'm getting Doom 3 BFG for PC next and going to try it out using my AMD HD3D.
CHEERS!
This makes me feel even more excited for Oculus Rift, considering it will support consoles in the future. I can't fucking wait.
I was just like one of you guys: I hated the thought of using 3D Glasses. Now, I feel heavily disappointed when I play any game without 3D effects. It just feels too 'flat.'
I'm getting Doom 3 BFG for PC next and going to try it out using my AMD HD3D.
CHEERS!
Alex
Member
I like the 3DS, but honestly the 3D portion of the device was ruinous to what it could have been, in my opinion. Between the cost involved in building the thing, the incredible power draw 3D takes on both the hardware & the battery and the incredibly low resolution screen they had to go with, it just feels like a huge waste for the rather low end effect, especially with the terrible viewing angle.
I personally doubt they'd have chosen to go 3D again, if they had a do-over. Their device would have been cheaper, with less quibbles and would be more marketable with a higher resolution 2D display instead. I always thought they kind of missed the boat as a sort of iPod Touch competitor, since that was a popular gift for kids and Apple has sort of mishandled it.
Anyhow, I actually like 3D, I just think it's simply too early. No one wants to wear glasses, so the display technology needs to be cheaper and more mainstream and you need very significant hardware to pull it off well in games, and we're not even to the point where we can have it without massively destroying resolutions, framerates and completely foregoing anti aliasing for it.
The 3D of today is a gimmick. It's in a no mans land of 2D and 3D... lower frame rates then it needs to work well with movies and videos...
Slows down the frame rate on games.
Adds only a few minutes of 3D pop before your brain adjusts and forgets about it.
I mean, I get why some of you like it. I certainly don't mind it myself.
But when you contrast it to 3D end game... i.e. VR, you'll understand why I hold the current form of stereoscopic 3D is such low regard.
That said, I'm curious to see how they'll eventually adapt film and cinema to cope with the strengths of VR.
Will they have hand held high speed, high resolution camera array mounts used to capture subjects from a variety of angles with enough detail that it can be interpolated into a 3D model?
Even in such a setup, there are going to be areas that the cameras don't capture... so presumably, if you shift your head far enough, you're going to see artifacts that result from a lack of information.
To give you an idea of what I'm talking about... here's a link to a process called DTAM (Dense Tracking and Mapping), that uses a webcam to recreate the space in a stitched together point cloud 3D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9WhgibCQA
Presumably with 10-15 years of development, such a system could reasonably extrapolate details into the unseen areas - it won't be able to tell exactly what's there... but it'll be able to at least clean up occlusions and extrapolate textures and edges into their logical corners.
When combined with software that intelligently deals with an excess of movement (i.e. the scene is intended to be viewed from a fixed location; if you start moving around, the scene will follow you, rather than keep giving you information on what's in the environment), it should work quite well.
The desired effect should be akin to having the movie play out in front of you like a personal theatrical show, except keeping the significant advantages of theatrical movies - framing, pacing, special effects, etc will still be part of such a movie effect.
Slows down the frame rate on games.
Adds only a few minutes of 3D pop before your brain adjusts and forgets about it.
I mean, I get why some of you like it. I certainly don't mind it myself.
But when you contrast it to 3D end game... i.e. VR, you'll understand why I hold the current form of stereoscopic 3D is such low regard.
That said, I'm curious to see how they'll eventually adapt film and cinema to cope with the strengths of VR.
Will they have hand held high speed, high resolution camera array mounts used to capture subjects from a variety of angles with enough detail that it can be interpolated into a 3D model?
Even in such a setup, there are going to be areas that the cameras don't capture... so presumably, if you shift your head far enough, you're going to see artifacts that result from a lack of information.
To give you an idea of what I'm talking about... here's a link to a process called DTAM (Dense Tracking and Mapping), that uses a webcam to recreate the space in a stitched together point cloud 3D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9WhgibCQA
Presumably with 10-15 years of development, such a system could reasonably extrapolate details into the unseen areas - it won't be able to tell exactly what's there... but it'll be able to at least clean up occlusions and extrapolate textures and edges into their logical corners.
When combined with software that intelligently deals with an excess of movement (i.e. the scene is intended to be viewed from a fixed location; if you start moving around, the scene will follow you, rather than keep giving you information on what's in the environment), it should work quite well.
The desired effect should be akin to having the movie play out in front of you like a personal theatrical show, except keeping the significant advantages of theatrical movies - framing, pacing, special effects, etc will still be part of such a movie effect.
I just don't understand this, it's not virtual reality or anything close to it to warrant that kind of reaction.
BigDaddyFatSack
Banned
I almost didn't buy a 3DTV because of people's reactions like this. Folks, just try out a properly-implemented 3D game such as Killzone 3 (Ass Creed 3 and Black Ops 2 3D look very cheap. Not much depth involved.) You might find it game-changing. I am a strong believer in 3D now and I know that it's not going anywhere.
Bidermaier
Member
When I bought that airport conveyor puzzle for the 3ds I was really annoyed that it didn't have 3d althought I use my 3ds in 2d quite often.
It's because the perception varies from people to people. For some it's as drastic as B&W versus colors.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
3D with glasses is definitely still-born.
The 3DS is doing alright though, and I think that 3D without glasses or fully-immersive 3D displays might be successful.
The 3DS is doing alright though, and I think that 3D without glasses or fully-immersive 3D displays might be successful.
KojiKnight
Member
3DS is doing allright not because of glasses free 3D, but rather because it's a dedicated handheld game system.
Look at other consumer level glasses free 3D (such as 3D cameras with glasses free view finders and smart phones) and they aren't selling for anything either.
I've seen it before but haven't been very impressed as I haven't with movie 3D. It's too much of a cost issue as I have to buy a whole new TV and all that stuff, and it costs too much performance in games too. Image quality and framerate suffer and no gimmick can pay for those losses.
scar tissue
Banned
3D with glasses will never catch on in the living room. You can quote me on that in 10 years.
3D will work as long as there are games genuinely designed with 3D in mind. Just like movies such as Life of Pi or Hugo which have absolutely brilliant 3D games will also eventually benefit. We need better tech on consoles to render 3D in 1080p with 60 fps for it to be effective. Right now the horrible drop in resolution and frames in 3D mode is just not worth it.
KojiKnight
Member
The thing is... no amount of tech will ever make up for it. No matter HOW you look at it you're rendering twice as many pixels, which means twice the shaders that need to be applied, etc etc. Even with a top of the line ultra machine your choices are to either push the game as far as you can in "2D" and lose quality/framerate when rendering it in 3D OR to not push the hardware as hard as you can leaving graphics that aren't going to look the best.
3D needs more ressources than 2D. That's one of the major hindrances for games. I can see 3D getting better though, the 3DS already does a good job - with the XL improving the screen quality. I hope Nintendo continues to make glassfree 3D better.
Edit:
I think the cost prohibitive effect of 3D was an important aspect for Nintendo to push the glassless 3D, but unfortunately it's not enough to push the software support.
Edit:
That's actually a good argument for handhelds though. Like with 60fps, devs need to lower the degree of details of their models, which is more forgivable when the resolution is low. And simpler models need less manpower.KojiKnight said:
I think the cost prohibitive effect of 3D was an important aspect for Nintendo to push the glassless 3D, but unfortunately it's not enough to push the software support.
Agreed. 3D done right adds to my enjoyment of the experience tremendously. See Motor Storm Apocalypse, Killzone 3, Gears of War 3, etc.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Dead? For something that wasn't even taken seriously in cinemas until 3 years ago I'm surprised how major its home consumer presence is.
BigDaddyFatSack
Banned
Just got back from playing Doom 3 BFG on PC with 3D on for straight 2 and a half hours. It is perfect my god... buttersmooth 60fps @ 1080p. but damn... I feel so nauseous! xD
I hope Oculus Rift is better at not making me feel sick when playing 3D for a long period of time.
I hope Oculus Rift is better at not making me feel sick when playing 3D for a long period of time.
Dacvak
No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
I've personally been loving 3D gaming recently. That includes my 3DS, PC (27" monitor) and a Playstation 3D display for consoles. Love all three.
3D is freaking awesome if you have it. The only people I really ever hear saying 3D is dead are people that don't have a great 3D setup. Most people who have the means to enjoy 3D do. It's wonderful.
3D is freaking awesome if you have it. The only people I really ever hear saying 3D is dead are people that don't have a great 3D setup. Most people who have the means to enjoy 3D do. It's wonderful.
Can I ask you (and any other PC gamers in this thread) what GPU/Monitor you guys use to rock that 3D gaming? I'm convinced that 3D is seriously the way to go, but I don't want to half-ass it at 30fps and whatnot.
Synth_floyd
Banned
I think it's about the right time to declare 3D dead. Unless 48fps or 60fps ends up being a real game changer, it's just a dumb gimmick.
PedroPanache
Member
I bought a new TV during the summer, it was 3D by virtue of the fact that every new TV is 3D, but it wasn't really a factor in terms of essential product features I needed in a TV. Of course, I had to try it out, and for a week or so it was a pleasant diversion playing a handful of PS3 games and watching a few movies in 3D. Uncharted 3 was decent, but it lost too much in terms of the resolution drop and detail drop, not to mention the choppy framerate. It was a nice feature, but not worth the sacrifice. Ratchet & Clank HD Collection was incredibly disappointing, trading off 1080p and 60fps for very little gain; the 3D barely stood at all. I rarely, if ever, used the feature after that.
However, since getting a new PC, my opinion on the matter has done a complete 180. I've just finished Arkham Asylum for the first time, playing it entirely in 3D, and it's been an absolute revelation. If you've never seen a PC game running in 3D at 60fps and retaining a high amount of detail and resolution, you're missing out, particularly if you've dismissed the feature solely on just playing 3D games on the PS3. I just love how much more immersive it feels, how much more it feels you're a part of the action. Truly, these last two weeks have really opened my eyes to the potential of 3D.
That's not to say every game benefits from 3D, there are some where I don't think it adds that much and are much better played in 2D, but for games such as Sonic Generations, Batman Arkham Asylum & Arkham City and others it really does bring something new to the table. It's not for everyone, and I don't think it's going away anytime soon, but it's just another handy tool I can use in how I choose to play my games. If you're serious about getting into 3D gaming, a high-end PC is an absolute must.
However, since getting a new PC, my opinion on the matter has done a complete 180. I've just finished Arkham Asylum for the first time, playing it entirely in 3D, and it's been an absolute revelation. If you've never seen a PC game running in 3D at 60fps and retaining a high amount of detail and resolution, you're missing out, particularly if you've dismissed the feature solely on just playing 3D games on the PS3. I just love how much more immersive it feels, how much more it feels you're a part of the action. Truly, these last two weeks have really opened my eyes to the potential of 3D.
That's not to say every game benefits from 3D, there are some where I don't think it adds that much and are much better played in 2D, but for games such as Sonic Generations, Batman Arkham Asylum & Arkham City and others it really does bring something new to the table. It's not for everyone, and I don't think it's going away anytime soon, but it's just another handy tool I can use in how I choose to play my games. If you're serious about getting into 3D gaming, a high-end PC is an absolute must.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Right now I'm using a GTS 450 and playing on an E3D420VX TV. Of course frame rate can vary a lot, but the ones I've put the most time into in 3D (Oblivion, Just Cause 2, Borderlands, emulated Xenoblade) I can't complain too much for a mid-range GPU from a few years back. When I don't play a game in 3D it's usually not because of frame rate, but because the game just has issues with 3D--layers not having correct depth, shadows not matching properly, things like that.
PedroPanache
Member
I've been using it in lieu of the fact that Nvidia's 3D Vision is kind of rubbish on my TV, offering only support at 1080p 24hz (which looks and feels awful) and 720p 60hz (which isn't native resolution, so that doesn't look good either). Thankfully, Tridef 3D does a much better job, and I can play my games using SBS (side by side) at 1080p 60hz. I've been very impressed with it so far. I'm currently towards the end of my trial, but will probably pick up the full version once the trial ends.
I'm currently using a Gigabyte GTX 670 and playing on a HDTV, rather than a monitor, it's an LG 47 inch TV. I've been playing Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, and the framerate has been pretty solid, probably between 40-60fps on average. The only game that has disappointed has been Binary Domain, which looks wonderful in 3D, and is somewhat deceptive as it starts out at a silky smooth 60fps, but as soon as you encounter any enemies, it drops to about 20-25 fps. I guess it isn't well optimised at all. Portal 2 runs beautifully, has great depth and is 60fps pretty much all the time. Some games don't really suit 3D, but the ones that do, will blow your socks off and then some.
BigDaddyFatSack
Banned
Yep and with the depth slider all the way to near 100% (alt+shift+]). It defaults at 30%, which leads to a very shallow 3D experience. Dishonored is godly in 3D. :O
For some reason, I find it very doubtful that we will have a glassless 3dtv that can be viewed by multiple viewers at the same time. Maybe for a solo 3D experience, sure. Either way, Passive 3D glasses are cheap as hell. Not to mention most passive 3D monitors/TVs come with them for free.
CadetMahoney
Member
Who owns the patents to 3D technology used in films and games anyway?