Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Lizard, 2 Nov 2010.
I'm not even going near this moving pictures lark until its as just the same as life.....
(not my life... you know a life that would be fun)
I agree with some other comments that it is way to early to be spending serious money on this tech. Screen tech hasn't improved by much relative to the price you have to pay to level up. We do get goaded into paying astronomical amounts for the latest pittance of technological increments but how much any of it really improves our actual enjoyment of the games we play is debateable at best.
In my opinion, for gaming, the only thing worth paying for right now is multi-screen technology, which is compatible with a fair amount of new games, and just about workable on enough older titles (with some hacks) to be a worthwhile investment given how much it improves your immersion in-game. Even the hike in cost for the IPS/PVA panels is just not value for money right now so I cannot imagine what people buying 3D now are really getting for their gaming money. Just re-watching Jaws 3D was enough to convince me to look the other way...
I saw Avatar: Special Edition 3D at the Imax in London, and was pleasantly impressed by the 3D effect. But that was on the biggest screen in the country. Not only that, the film was designed to be shown in 3D.
I can't see games in 3D being particularly impressive on a relatively tiny screen at home. It just wouldn't be involving enough. Especially when those games are not designed with 3D in mind. 3D gaming has got a long way to go before it's actually something worth spending money on.
Yes I said 3D 6 times in 2 paragraphs. Beat that!
Avatar 3D is one of several 3D films I've seen. As a rule of thumb animated 3D movies like Toy Story 3D and How to Train your Dragon 3D work really well as well, but converted 3D stuff like Piranha 3D, Clash of the Titans and so on really *really* doesn't - mainly due to the terrific amount of work required to create a convincing effect - instead you end up with a pretty unconvincing parallax effect that at its worst can have someones hair on a different plane to their head. That sort of thing a) gives 3D a bad name and b) can really lead to the motion sickness issues people associate with 3D.
9 times in one paragraph - booyah
Anyway, to continue my point. As far as active shutter glass - based 3D for games is concerned I'm a bit torn - from a technical standpoint it should be much easier to create a convincing 3D effect in a game as all the information is being rendered on the fly and the second camera can simply be rendered alongside it. The flip side is I'm not really sure its worth it.
I've played around with 3D Vision and its fun, but I'm not certain that any tech that works off confusing your primary sense is such a great idea - unless the effect is perfect you run the risk of causing headaches, motion sickness and so on...
The other big problem with them is - have you ever glanced at a fluorescent light with one on? I have. You could strobe yourself into a massive headache in no time flat with that sort of setup
Oh and to whomever was complaining about the use of TN panels up there - the reason is that IPS panels do not yet have the refresh-rate needed for this tech (or to be fair, if they do exist not at a financially viable price point).
Personally I think its going to be like any other tool of the gamer - in time we'll get to a point that we'll use it when it enhances the experience or your performance and not when it doesn't - same as joypads, flight sticks and steering wheels.
Beaten masterfully. You deserve some cheesecake!
Im waiting for Toshiba, they are working on a new tech for LCD screens that will allow 3d with no need for glasses, now thats when I think 3d will go big and be awesome
Added a couple in for you
One of the problems PC gaming has always had is that nearly every single person has a slightly different set-up and the full range of set-ups is immense. What looks good on one persons kit will look rubbish on somebody else's.
I think 3D is doomed to have the same problem because of the vast variation in peoples eyesight and depth of perception. Also from various reports I have read men, in general, will appreciate 3D better than women as men generally have better depth perception.
It will be interesting to see how good and how well received the 3D NDS is because it will have a level playing field for the hardware and games written from the ground up with both the 3D and hardware taken into consideration from day 1.
I have ZERO interest in 3D as it has been a fad that comes and goes my entire life. I see 3D as just a gimmick to sell more TV's. Don't get me wrong it's awesome at the theater (Avatar comes to mind).
Therefore 3D ZZZzzzzzz wake me up when you perfect hologram technology.
I don't care for 3D but I'll buy a 3D monitor just for the 120hz refresh rate for higher frames per second and no screen tearing.
imo the best type of games for 3D are first person shooters. I've been playing MW2 in 3D (old school colour type) it's really good. would get the proper stuff when I can afford it.
I got 2x 460 nvidia sli setup and a 3d samsung 101cm tv but the effect even from 3d blue ray movies played with a pc is minimal.
the effect with a real blue ray player is much better, or even wen i only use my tv to make a 2D movie 3D without the help of my Nivdia cards works better so nvidia has a lot of work still to do
Haven't tried gaming jet on my tv but will try that very soon just have to find a nice game for it (I find racing games boring )
Question: how were the 3D settings calibrated (convergence, depth, etc)? Were they left untouched, did individual users fiddle with them, or were they set to a 'comfortable' level by one user and left the same for all other users? The vast majority of headache inducing effects with stereo displays is due to shoving the convergence way, way up so you can "really see the 3D!".
I managed to get this 3D Vision a year ago for only £200 including the monitor. While I do play competitively online in 2D at 120Hz which does help. Most of my single player games in everything bar RTS and Strategy (bar Total War) are in 3D. Games like Resident Evil 5 and Bad Company 2 are great and Dragon Age is like a completely different game in my opinion when playing. I must admit though that I did spend a fair amount of time setting up Dragon Age with 3D having to use the advanced options. But once done, the game is just great. The 3D is so detailed when used at high depth that and the right convergence that you can even clearly see the depth on the player characters face. Swards lunging out at enemy's and a new found scale of the environment. It's one of those things you really need to try for your self.
I do agree though that this technology is indeed in it's infancy though, with most of the good experiences I have had being down to my hour or two of setting up convergence and depth to a proper setting giving accurate cuboid depth and a much better focus point for the 3D over default settings. It just feels tacked on with a minimum of effort or should I say the most compatible way being used for the 3D games rather than the best. When games are developed with 3D in mind in all aspects rather than just some, like Resident Evil 5 and Nvidia develop a better way of adjusting the 3D settings for the mass market then we will see this technology taking off much better.
My opinion is that 3D out the box with gaming is like 3D you look at in Dixons and Currys, flat and boring. It takes the user to make it come alive.
Like you cafuddled, I've spent many a lost hour in the past tweaking, and even rebooting (with old stereoscopics) just to get a game working. But the end result and depth has been worth it. The loss of detail in GFX settings due to needing to boost FPS for 3D strangely hasn't mattered to me because the added depth creates an experience that is immensely more unique and involving.
The real test of whether it worked for me is when I've turned the 3D effect off after several hours and I'm left looking at a boring, dull and flat image. That's not to say normal gaming without 3D is boring, just that for the next 10 minutes the screen display takes getting used to while the lack of depth is accepted in the brain.
I agree with all those saying it's in it's infancy, and it needs improving and certainly simplifying. Maybe a few external buttons and fader knobs could be built onto a USB control pad so that hotkeys don't conflict with the games.
I disagree with all those saying it's crap. Maybe it appears crap because it doesn't work for them? Or its been too fiddly to setup? Or its given them eye aches or head aches? The 350Z is an excellent car, but the clutch controls are positioned badly and some people find them awkward, does that make the car crap? No, ask most owners and they'll tell you how good it is because they've adapted to it or don't even notice a problem.
It's certainly not a fad. Cameron said he couldn't make Avatar until now because the tech wasn't advanced enough for the character manipulations/details, well the same can be said about 3D. We've come along way and we've certainly got some ground to cover yet, but we're getting to a point when it will work mainstream. Although even then there may be those who are still unable to enjoy the depth effect. 3D, albeit very slowly, has been developed over decades! That's a very long-lived fad!
I have 3D on two PCs I built myself for some 9 months now. I mainly use 3D on MS Flight Sim. But also for watching 3D films and Blu Ray 3D.
Some points from my experience so far.
1--You have to build up your time on it bit by bit. maybe starting at around 20 minutes and gradually getting your eyes and brain used to it so you can use it for an hour plus without problems.
2-It makes a BIG difference to use it with a second generation screen. I don't know about the Acer 235HZ monitor. I am using the Acer 245HD which is a big big improvement over my first 3D screen, the Samsung Synchmaster 2233RZ. The Samsung is only HDCP compliant at 120 HZ for 3D. It is not HDCP compliant for ordinary Blu-Ray unless one alters the HDCP setting to 60Hz for say, Cyberlink play back. The Acer is HDCP compliant at 120 HZ for all play back. it makes all the difference.
I got interested after seeing the Avatar film in 3D at the local cinema. 3D in the home is not there yet but it is getting there.. I am planning a 3 screen version for Flight Sim over the coming months if wife and funds allow!
Avatar was **** and not worth the wait for the technology.
My opinion on whether 3D will improve a gamers game and gain extra frags over the competition is no, if my experience is anything to go by then gamers will spend more time looking at the scenery and crapping themselves when enemies appear in front of the monitor.
If you mean the actual film itself then I'd likely agree, I'm not entirely sure what the fuss was about, but maybe to the younger viewer it might be seen as the new ET or like.
What I conclude fromthis article, nothing has changed on the 3D gaming front in the last 10 years...
Despite the eye and headacheproblems
Separate names with a comma.