QOTD: Do You Want True 3D Graphics for Games?

[Guest]

Stereo-3D is definitely a yes for me!

 

[zambutu]

[citation][nom]Dave K[/nom]Valid concern... though usually the console ports play much better on the PC. Dead Space was a great game, but I agree it would have been MUCH better if they'd simply added a proper mouse interface. DS was IMO the exception though not the rule. In general, FPS games are far better on PC's (because they normally fix the crappy control problem)... and that alone makes a hot PC worth the price. Then there's games like L4D, that game would be impossible on a console (unless they made it a WHOLE LOT easier)... but it's outstanding on a PC. Bioshock, Oblivion, all the MMO games... the list goes on. Since I finally updated my PC last fall I've not bought a single 360 game and only two PS3 games (and at least 6 PC games).The COD series seems to be able to manage it (though I wasn't impressed with CODWAW... a little TOO console-y).[/citation]

perhaps Crysis has just spoiled me, but im just seeing PC games AS games 'made' for the consoles, then 'made to work' on the pc. Yes they can tweak them up a little here or there, but often these PC games appear as lame attempts to make some extra revenue, as an after thought.

You can always tell a console game by the non mouse friendly menu systems. Like some of the later need for speed games have had terrible menus systems. Racing games like Pure, and Shawn White snowboarding, obvious console ports, my pc could probably run both at once. hardly worth 50$ each, maybe 20$.

Bioshock was good, LFD very good (but the 3d engine is getting old), COD5 was well done, but was consoley and lacked some depth. Just played Brothers in Arms, Hells highway (untl my save game deleted itself haha), not sure where that was from but it would make a good 2005 quality PC game, not 2008.

I guess what i'm feeling is PC games are dying, even Crytek said they learned a lesson making Crysis for PC, and will focus on consoles primarily, or somthing like that. I have 2000$ worth of PC gaming hardware in front of me and if there are only a couple high end PC 'caliber' games released per year, i'll be in line for the next gen consoles instead.

 

[ordonator]

Stereo 3D is cool, but I find its effects short-lived. After about 30 minutes of viewing it, the effect becomes less noticeable. From what I remember, this was its damning characteristic to begin with.

Lots of great comments here. A possible conclusion? This is a niche market, at best. Not worth the time and effort to develop it further.

 

[A Stoner]

It might be interesting and a great add on, but what I really want to get to before we get to 3d visuals, is closer to 3d worlds. With more and more destructible, pliable and real world like environments. PhysX seems to be on the right path.

 

[bounty]

would be nice, but too much $ plus I disagree with "Most of today's games hardly cause our GPUs to break a sweat" Mainly becuse I would want to game at native resolution, and LCD's the thing... so we're talking 1080P or 1650x1080 with AA. Most modern games are not getting 120+ FPS at those settings cranked. Cut FPS in half(?) with "3d" tech and now we've got stutter. The price of required video and equipment is just too much. Make it cheap and with wide support and then it's game on!

 

[kittle]

cool concept.

but I already wear glasses (as do a lot of PC users), so having to wear 3D stereo glasses is a deal breaker. a VR helmet would be an interesting thing to try.... mabye.

How about instead of dumping all the R&D stuff into spiffy looking hardware, but instead dump it into sofware to make things EASIER TO USE. so more games can take advantage of the GPU processing power.

 

[Enterfrize]

Most S-3D solutions let you wear their 3D glasses over prescription glasses.

Regards,
Enterfrize

 

[hurbt]

Like some of the above, I'll take game quality over eye candy... but, I still like eye candy. If I had the bank account, I'd have this setup, just to show off to friends and enjoy. The problem is, I like games on my xbox more than on my pc... except for RTS's... Supreme commander would eat this setup for dinner... as the framerate would be intollerable when cut in half.

 

[zambutu]

[citation] I disagree with "Most of today's games hardly cause our GPUs to break a sweat" Mainly becuse I would want to game at native resolution, and LCD's the thing... so we're talking 1080P or 1650x1080 with AA. Most modern games are not getting 120+ FPS at those settings cranked. [/citation]

keep in mind that when a game is tailor made for a different, lesser system, and then 'ported' cross platform, then it may not be able to properly utilize the superior hardware. I remember this especially back in my Amiga gaming days in the early '90s. Atari ST, etc. ported game after game, that looked and played the exact same on the superior Amiga.

A more modern day glaring example was Halo for PC, that game ran aweful, on PC's 2 or 3 times fster than the xbox. That's why i like the term "PC exclusive" games, like Crysis was. And Crytek said they won't make PC exclusive games anymore. Its all in the programming dude.

Consoles have an advantage, often, that a particular game was made to run perfect on that exact system. The best we can do with our mix n mash of random parts PC's is to make sure we have a way overpowered system to smooth out the campatibility irregularities. Its all in the programming.

 

[sniper117]

I think that untill you experiance 3D its going to seem like theres alot of hype about nothing. The teck is just now good enuff to make it viable and it will only get better

 

[mano74]

Well I have read almost all of the comments regarding the 'True 3d' topic. I can safely say that none of you guys have ever experienced proper stereoscopic 3d. I have the Nvidia 3d vision package hooked up to a mitsubishi dlp hdtv 65" and i can tell you that it is truly amazing. The above is new techonogy. I am not evern a hardcore gamer. I have an older set up which works just as well. Nvidia 7600gs card hooked up to a front projector, maybe you shuld try experiencing images popping out of a 102" projector screen only a couple of inches from your face and if you still feel the same then 3d its just not for you.

 

[edo1946]

Once you have played true stereo 3d you cant go back.. Whether it is a first person shooter like Left 4 Dead, RPG like Fallout 3 , an RTS like Warhammer Dawn of War, or an MMO like WOW or Lord of Rings, the immersion is amazing. All of the above are great in s3d with bullets or arrows flying by your head which can make you duck.. this is so much more than eye candy.

 

[Edex]

[citation][nom]psimitry[/nom]Nope. I'll be perfectly happy to go from 2-D images to visual cortex stimulation.[/citation]

Exactly!

 

[Fos]

I absolutly want it, I already have some edimensional glasses that I can use thanx to the new IZ3D drivers and it really looks great
many of my friends used to say this technologie was crap but curiously, most of them once they gave it a try at my place with the right settings have changed their minds and are waiting for nvidia's 3d vision to hit europe (france)
3d is great, too bad that so many people try it on the wrong material or with wrong settings, they really miss a great gaming experience

 

[chrisdfw]

Wow! Those of you complaining about 3d games must not have tried it on the right setup. I'll agree that it isn't user friendly yet, but the rewards are amazing!

I play on a Samsung 42 inch Plasma ($700 at Fry's). With it set about 3 to 4 feet away it provides the perfect 45 degree Field of View that most games are done in. Racing, Flying, and FPS games are simply incredible in that kind of immersive 3d.

I set up COD4 on it in the exhibitor's room at Quakecon and had over 1000 attendees try it out and they were all blown away.

If you think $700 (plus another $150 for good shutter glasses) is too much to spend for gaming then also consider it doubles as my HDTV in my living room. Soon, there will be 3d blu ray movies that will also work on it.

One benefit people don't realize about many forms of 3d is that it actually doubles your perceived resolution in the game as well as making them pop out (or in). Even if the display is 1024X768 your brain takes the two different images and combines them into almost a 2048X1536 level of perceived realism.

3d is the way of the future. If you are worried about looking dorky in the glasses, then quit playing games while you have people around you and go do something social with them.

 

[Agustus69]

Nope - not interested. At least not until the technology is there to give a decent 3D image without special glasses, reduction of framerates, etc.

 

[Enterfrize]

I guess you will never buy an iPod because it needs headphones. :=(. Shame.

Regards,
Enterfrize

 

[rashaen]

3D glasses don't work for everyone. I for example simply see two colors and get a headache as do several other people in my family. Probably strong dominance of one eye at work. In any case that makes this stuff pretty darn useless for me.