[citation][nom]BrockenBob[/nom]So does anyone know whether this will work with ATI/AMD cards ?[/citation]
It will work if you have a TV that allows you to create a 3D image from a 2D one...
I didn't try it on games, but for the movies, it's pretty impressive what my samsung TV can do
[citation][nom]cronik93[/nom]What is so great about 3D?[/citation]
Well, that's what I came with (by looking at movies, and I suppose it will be close to the game experience); It won't bring you anything, it's not like 5.1 sound, crisp graphs,... Also, you won't have anything "jumping at you", but you'll have an impression of depth, an impression of "reality" that does add to the atmosphere.
I would say, it's like colors in movies, it's not needed, but it's great to have it.
personally I love Nvidia's 3D. I got the Acer H5360 3D projector that Tom's reviewed not too long ago and it is incredible. My fav game in 3D is Portal, as its braintwist goes extremely well with 3D. For me 3D is a great addition and I love it, but its not a life-changer.
wow people really talkin crap about 3d lol. i dont think itd be to great for most games but some i could see it like driving and flying stuff but not a shooter where you need good clean view and aiming. movies on the other hand ive seen a few 3d and its just awesome compared to normal movies
I'm really excited for it in 3D. I've been waiting to buy the 65" 3D Samsung TV and this game would look sweet on it. After reading the Tom's review of 3D wall size gaming that got me really excited. It really does add extra situational awarenes and depth.
I do not have 3D, but there was an article on here before that reviewed the 3D 3-display technology from nVidia, and that seemed to really impress the author of the article, and with all of the experiences he had before, for him to be impressed and describe it the way he did, it seems like it would be really cool. Too expensive IMO at this point in time. Hopefully the software guys continue to develop good code for 3D gaming, and the hardware continues to grow in the direction of not needing glasses etc, and in two years time, we will have decent 3D gaming hardware for decent prices and everyone will be happy! Hooorayyy for progress!
"i dont think itd be to great for most games [...] movies on the other hand"
You've got it totally backwards. It's much much better in games. Most movies are upconverted to 3D, games are natively 3D. And with games, the ability to control where you are and where you're looking... it makes it much more intense. The main reason you have any sort of understanding of a 3D environment in games with a 2D display is that you're able to move around, watch objects get closer and further from you, see near objects moving faster on the screen than far objects... that creates a mild comprehension of a 3D environment. You don't get all of that in movies. When you add that to actual perceived 3D from 3D glasses, it becomes a totally different, potent experience.
"3D -> crappola. It is more distraction then anything."
I wonder, do you walk around with one eye closed all the time? That 3D stuff, it's such a distraction. Who needs it?
I do find the ending note for this article to be pretty amusing. This isn't the first case of 3D zombies--Resident Evil 5 is officially 3D ready. Minecraft has a stereoscopic mode (granted, with cyan/magenta glasses). Heck, Call of Duty: World at War worked with the exact same 3D technology as Black Ops will, and that also let you get 3D zombies.
3D with FPS is a very powerful experience. Trying to explain it to someone who hasn't done it (and no, theme park and movie presentations don't count) is like trying to explain color to the blind. It's not about the look of the game, it's about the feel of the game. Even if the graphics of the game are garbage, the objects that are depicted look very real. In Morrowind, the low-polygon models with crappy textures look like those paper cutouts that you glue together into 3D shapes, but animate and right inside your screen. And when you get a game with realistic visual effects, high-poly models with good textures, it's just... it looks pretty darn real. If you squint and ignore the bezel, you can't tell the difference between what's on your screen and what's not. I frequently find myself reaching for the screen to see if I can guess where the actual surface of the screen is, because when you're viewing 3D imagery extending behind the screen, you really can't tell where the screen itself is, short of seeing how close your hand is to the bezel.
I will say that 3D for FPS is typically plagued with a few issues: when you approach a wall and your face is 6 inches from it, your gun still typically extends a few feet out from your body, so the gun appears to be further from your body than the wall it's clearly in front of. Your brain gets mixed signals: the gun is further away than the wall, but in front of it--it's disorienting at worst, and can even look like your "gun" is actually a 3D carving out of the wall. Additionally, iron sights don't work--if you have both eyes open you have the same problem you would in the real world, you can see two sights or two targets, depending on what you're focusing on. That's why you would normally close one eye for precision shooting. But if you do that in 3D, your aim is always off, because in the stereoscopic 3D rendering, it offsets your eyes to the left or right of where they would be in 2D rendering. This could be fixed if the game had a setting for the dominant eye you use for iron sights, and it lined up that camera appropriately when in 3D mode (how's that for immersion, when you want to snipe you literally have to close one eye to get a good shot). I'm hoping that Black Ops will address both of these issues, as they're things that are immediately obvious the first time you play.
Haters will hate and say that 3D is a gimmick, 3D is an excuse to sell new hardware, 3D doesn't help gaming at all, they can't see 3D, they didn't like Alice in 3D, they just bought a 70" non-3D TV, Avatar cost too much, anything they can to trash talk 3D directly or by association. It's all nonsense. 3D isn't mainstream (but for under $500 you can get a 3D display and 3D kit for your computer, not bad if you're in the market for a new $150+ display to begin with) and it's not perfect, but it's no more of a gimmick than color. You don't need it to get the gist of what's going on, and you can watch a black and white film and still enjoy it, not everyone can perceive color correctly, and just because a film has color doesn't mean the color will be used intelligently... but I think we can all agree that color is a natural thing to include in film. The only difference between color and 3D in this respect is that color had its adoption battle some decades ago, so it's welcome, expected and affordable--3D isn't as much.
Sorry Activision but you lost me with the whole MW2 bullshit that you pulled. This game is step forward from that, but still a big step back from COD4/MW1. Once you reinstate the features (especially allowing user maps/mods) that you removed, I'll gladly try playing your games again.
I see a dangerous slope here. Hypotheticaly, lets say game companies see 3D as the next big thing, so all new games of course support 3D. Great if you have the tech to display in 3D, but isn't that going to give a huge advantage to the people that play in 3d as opposed to those only playing in 2d? Depth of field, aiming and so on? Hope I'm wrong about this, cause I'm not planning on replacing my 2 year old 46" lcd for a while.
And anyway activision will not get any more of my money, regardless.
I thought games in 3D was just a gimmick as well until I saw a demonstration of it at a local computer store. They had Portal in 3D and it was very impressive. As impressive as it was though, 3D monitors/TV and 3D glasses are still too expensive for me. I definitely wouldn't turn my back on 3D when it becomes more affordable. I wonder if the people here who say they hate 3D actually hate 3D or if they hate the price.
[citation][nom]ricdiculus[/nom]I see a dangerous slope here. Hypotheticaly, lets say game companies see 3D as the next big thing, so all new games of course support 3D. Great if you have the tech to display in 3D, but isn't that going to give a huge advantage to the people that play in 3d as opposed to those only playing in 2d? Depth of field, aiming and so on? Hope I'm wrong about this, cause I'm not planning on replacing my 2 year old 46" lcd for a while.And anyway activision will not get any more of my money, regardless.[/citation]
You do realise that the vast majority of games already work well with Nvidias 3d system right?
We're talking about games as old as the original Knights of the old republic (from 2003!) work with nvidias 3d vision without any updates or patching!
Even those that dont work exceptionally well out of the box only need small details working on to be perfect, the most common thing being interfaces \ inventories and menus need rejigging to "look right".
Its not a huge technical thing for devs to support, the graphics drivers which already take care of your camera position just shift the camera draw position 120 times a second, it doesnt require anything from the game developers to allow it to do that!
However to make the experience as polished as possible devs can take a bit extra time to make sure their menus and interfaces are designed to work in both 3d and standard modes, and to make sure that any "unusual" methods they have applied to their graphics work still in "3d".
You could well already be playing against 3d vision using players in your existing games!
Will they be including a vomit bag with every copy? Lots of people get sick looking a a movie and not having to move their head. In a FPS like CoD you have to move your head constantly to look around. Combine that with not-so-realistic 3D and it's going to be chunks ahoy.