3D in video games is rather a hush hush affair, almost a pandering to those who have adopted 3D TV sets and monitors. With little fanfare for 3D enabled games, is it really just one big failure?
source says all ;)
You make it sounds as if the PS3 is the only console that has 3D :/
Mostly its true - i like that feature, why to hate it - dont need to use it, super stardust is great, idea is not to force 3d in to the games and think about gameplay optimization for 3d - that is harder to make...
Most people here make it sound like the article was negative. The only thing it was really negative about was the advertising and under-utilization of most games... well that and the people like down below who don't even try it. The author matter of fact listed Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 as GOOD examples. Surprises me to see just how many don't even bother clicking through before hating on the site.
It may be a crappy source, but in terms of how many people actually own a 3D TV, 3D gaming hasn't really taken off with the masses. I think that having to wear 3D glasses puts alot of people off.
Mostly it's true? No it's not, PS3 has 3D games Xbox 360 has 3D games as does PC - the article even mentions Xbox 360 exclusives that have 3D like Gears of War 3. Stop trying to be clever by thinking an Xbox site is merely digging at the PS3 again (yawn). OT: I agree 3D is badly advertised. I am looking at the Xbox 360 version box of Ghost Recon Future Soldier and it has "better with Kinect" plastered over the top but no mention of 3D anywhere, not even the little info boxes at the back. Why would Ubisoft go through the trouble of putting 3D in the game and then not advertise it, unless of course the PS3 boxart has a 3D sticker, then I'd start calling a conspiracy theory.
As someone who plays 3D games all the time on PC and console, i have the opinion that it has not really taken off on console for a couple of good reasons- one being they just don't do it properly. These machines aren't designed for 3D and 3D is a performance sapping feature. They just don't seem fast enough and you have a bunch of visual compromises to make it work on their aging hardware. 360 certainly isn't really designed for it and the output is even less capable than PS3 in terms of connections and even the way the architecture is designed (limited EDRAM size you have to render to). Of course this puts off developers less willing to compromise their vision and effectively create two modes with different visual quality and performance. This in turn limits the number of games, and essentially the appeal for people to go out and buy a 3DTV. That makes devs less bothered about spending the cash and effort making their console game 3D with such a limited audience. The negative feedback loop continues. The way this is really broken is for your next gen machine to make 3D modes for every game mandatory much like how this generation of consoles standardised HD gaming (or something close to it!) This standardisation stimulated HDTV sales for gamers, for sure. Although it still took time of course. Make 3D standard for games next gen, and it'll take off eventually after 2 or 3 years.
As long as consoles would retain their "closed" nature as a platform, 3D would never be able to properly be represented. IMO, the best way to go about this is make 3D more of a novelty akin to buying a racing wheel for a driving simulator. I suppose "farming" 2 consoles together to retain the native res and frame-rate is the best possible option since it properly demonstrates what 3D could do without "compromise".
valcan stay on pc please. Crysis 2 in 3d plays virtually the same with no draw backs. your trying way to hard. what is the proper way? edram what lol? please STFU
No, it doesn't jetlian and try to get my name right next time, obviously you can't read. Crysis 2 in 3D on console simply does not have the depth of 'true' dual framebuffer 3D games because it does not employ proper stereoscopic 3D.... It uses a pixel separation effect to try and give the game more depth, which reduces the performance hit to nearly nothing, BUT reduces the quality of the 3D effect to....virtually nothing. Compared to dual buffer 3D it is rubbish, coming from someone who has played countless 3D titles on every platform. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... This technique has been avoided by most console devs because in truth it is half assed 3D. I have played Crysis 2 in 3D and the experience is poor compared to say Batman AA. You may as well not bother with it in the 3D mode it adds nothing to the experience. I can tell you know virtually nothing about 3D games and how they work. Please STFU yourself until you know what you are talking about. Cheers very much :)
VALCAN I dont care if it uses full stereo or not so long as its in 3d which it is. I have over 10 games with 3d form ps3/360. I also have about 10 movies in 3d. proper Stereo(as you call it) only maintains a higher image quality and thats it.Stereo means 2 and crysis 2 uses sbs. even in DF page which you provided it shows a 4 frame drop from 2d to 3d thats nothing. Even anaglyph is 3d only down side is color. Whats even worse and I know your trolling is batmans 3d on consoles is wack. 3d on that game near the bottom of the games I have. 3d works the same as it always has you need 2 slightly different angles and thats it!! now please STFU My 3d games, GOWc2,SCC,SC4,UC3,tekken hybrid, Wipeout,CODBops,ACR,BMa city,GOW3,Avatar,green lantern, captain America,halo ann.
You should care, because when is 3D gaming not 3D gaming? When its Crysis 2. It simply is not stereoscopic 3D. Full stop. End of. This is EXACTLY the sort of compromise i talked about, if they don't compromise the games assets or framerate, they massively compromise the 3D effect so that it is basically worthless. You have over 10 games? Just the ten? I have loads more on PC alone, nevermind the Ps3 and 360 ones. I have experience on all these platforms, and 3DS. PROPER stereoscopic is the only worthwhile target for 3D. You are basically admitting that anything else isn't very good, by saying "only maintains a higher image quality" WELL DUH! Wasn't that my entire point from the start? LOL! Of course batman on consoles is poor. But then i have the ultimate version- 3D vision enabled (i.e stereoscopic) on PC. It is quite frankly astounding and easily up there as one of the best 3D gaming titles around. Of course you might know that if you actually could play it.... Why isn't the 3D so mindblowing on the consoles? Because they simply aren't fast enough to do proper stereoscopic, and don't really support the connections required. Instead of getting the most compelling looking 3D title on console, you get 3D that just isn't worth bothering about. All the console 3D games i own are clearly compromised one way or the other, which is why my point easily towers above your attempts to argue. I know what proper 3D games can do, what they look like, what they SHOULD look like to convince people to invest in the technology. 3D vision enabled titles on PC are absolutely incredible, if you could see it for yourself, you would be hugely more convinced to buy into the tech. This isn't impossible on console. Just impossible on THIS generation of consoles. If it is specified from the start of next generation, i can guarantee far more interest once people see for themselves how well it can work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... there you go. The process of 3d is the same 2 images at different angles.there is no proper 3d.it doesnt matter what system you run 3d will always require more than 2d. A more powerful console will produce better gfx.2d will still be easier than 3d even then. 4 frame difference makes it worthless lol. Now I will say most 3d games on consoles dont do full 720p for both images. thats true but it is stereoscopic 3d
"The process of 3d is the same 2 images at different angles" That article you linked to is headed 'STEREOSCOPY'!!!!! This is called stereoscopic in games that use 2 separate frame buffers. Crysis 2 is not truly stereoscopic, it does not use 2 rendered framebuffers i.e 2 different angles..... How many times have i said it? http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... "So what happens when you cancel out the pixel offset? We've done just that in this video, confirming that the view per eye is IDENTICAL" Thats why its 3D is crap. Do you just repeat the same thing over and over to prove my points more and more correct? These. Consoles. Can. Not. Do. 3D. Properly. Without. Compromises. What don't you get? The reason they are compromised are because people are already accustomed to 2D games which look a certain quality from the start of this generation. 2D will always be faster, but haven't you read ANYTHING i have said from the start? If EVERY game next gen is required to have a stereoscopic 3D mode to pass QC, then thats that. Thats the baseline. Nobody can build a 2D only game that looks much nicer than 3D games, once you force it as a standard, then the bar is set and thus it isn't really a compromise, its a standard. Please don't tell me it has taken you all these replies from me to finally get you to grasp that. Once these modes are standardised then devs will make every game 3D ready, and the technology will be far more appealing as a result. Not rocket science, just common sense.
no not really as matter of fact im getting a 3d tv next week sony and a sony 3d blu ray hometheatre system
Go for a soundbar instead. A lot less messy than 5 speakers and a subwoofer. i used to have a home theatre but couldn't stand all the wires! A soundbar is a LOT neater.
My father and myself have exactly the same tv and blu-ray set up, he has a soundbar, I have a full 5.1 onkyo set. His soundbar is good, and as you say, very neat; but my amp is a level beyond. I have hidden the wires under the carpet, and the speakers aren't that noticeable. Really it comes down to whether neatness is your number one priority.
stonecold, listen to someone who shelled out 1400 on a sony 3D bravia........ do not under any circumstances buy a sony active 3D tv. infact, do not buy an active 3D set by anyone, be it samsung, panasonic etc. I am in the process of "trying" to get my set changed. the cross-talk is unbearable, some films are unwatchable, avatar which was made in 3D is terrible... the list goes on. if, you definately want a 3D set. then get a passive (cinema) 3D LG or the new passive one just released by panasonic. active 3D as a technology is not good. the levels of cross talk in most sets is terrible! and something for the premium price should most definately not be there. there is not much "pop" with active, merely depth. although the clarity is a bit better than passive. in my experience, i regret buying active. on a side note i live in france. last tuesday after phoning the store where i bought my set, i was phoned by a technician from sony. he then told me that cross talk was normal, and said that to get rid of it, i should buy a more expensive tv..lol and refused to send a technician. when i asked for that in writing, he refused to give it to me. the next day i spoke to customer services, who put me through a second time to the technical department. another tech told me that there is nothing that they can do, and to speak to either the store or sony for a replacement (which i dont want) or ask to be refunded for the tv.. trust me, dont buy active!!!
Interesting you say this. I bought a passive tv since I couldn't justify the extra cost of active but figured active was better. For sure you lose 1/2 the resolution with passive but there's almost never crosstalk or ghosting.
Stonecold3 you wont go wrong with a sony 3d tv system there amazing and yes you can pickup a samsung or lg 3d system for less but i think the quality of the sony tvs are still better but thats what i like better. As for 3d games being a flop i dint think they are but not too many people have a 3d tv most people have only just got a hd tv so in the next 3 to 5 years most people will up grade there tv to a 3d tv and more people will play games with them too and with the next xbox and playstation givin us full 1080p 3d games they will look better than this gen too.
mcstorm: what model 3D bravia are you using?? because i would be interested in knowing which sony set gives "amazing" 3D?? because mine is terrible! and all the reviews of the bravias, mention just how bad their 3D is. but, in 2D and HD, but my set is very very nice. it really is disappointing..
tokugawa I cant remember off the top of my head but I have read in some reviews that if you have the clear or clear plus motion view turned in sony tvs with 3d it looks bad but with it off the quality improves. Ill get the make of my tv tonight and post it on here for you.
It's more like a gimmick.
You try it? You're the kind of people this article is referring to.
I tried the 3DS, and it seems with 3D on, it actually lowers the frame rate more. In my opinon I guess I think it's because of my eyes trying to focus.
So yeah more like a gimmick and just improves the visuals of the game, though that's not to say it's a bad thing, it's just not for me.
i believe its not a failure, more a work in progress. Eventually it will have its day.
At this point its a gimmick
in a word....yes
It's just an option , but god forbid things were optional and not a standard lol
3D hasn't got a fair shot since its mostly tacked on at a low framerate. The judder that people experience, and thus most of their headache, is because 3D requires a much higher framerate/refresh rate than 2D. I want to see a 120hz 3D experience before I write off 3D forever.
I don't know i enjoy my 3d tvs ;) and the gaming side of things have not been a letdown. Secert for me has been passive 3d means i havent had to rely on games made just for 3d. I just hit my 3d button on the remote and away i go :). Hell my pcs linked up to my LG 47" in my bed room and then my game systems in the livingroom.
If the game developers try to force 3D next gen. Those that do not have a 3D TV (which is plenty. Just will not buy those games. It is a bad idea to force 3D
Let a game have 3D, just dont use it as hype or anything to excuse a crappy game. Also don't dumb down the visuals, that wouldnt be fair to people who dont use it.
I just played two hours of Diablo 3 in 3D, so no, it's not a failure.
I just played two hours of Portal 2 in 2d. So yes it is a failure. What? My comment is just as valid as yours.
My point is that I just saw another proof of how amazing playing in 3D can be. The difference between us is that I try something to say if it's good or bad. Your phrase, on the other hand, makes as much sense as saying "I tasted sugar, so salt is bad".
You try something to say if it's good or bad.... really? Are you one of those arrogant little boys? You know the ones. They present their opinions as if they were set in stone objective facts. Act like there's something wrong with anyone who disagrees. I do agree with you. 3D needs a little work (HTC Evo 3d), but it can be mind blowing (Avatar). However. One game is not a representative sample, and anecdotal evidence won't hold up in either a courtroom or a laboratory. So all we really have from your comment, is one person's opinion of one game. Nothing more. And, for the record, salt is bad. Its only decent application is mashed potatoes.
I said just Diablo because it was the game that I was playing, and I already said the games I must play in 3D a few times here in N4G. But if you insist... Racing games, Street Fighter IV, Resident Evil 5, Assassin's Creed, World of Warcraft, Diablo 3, Batman Arkham series, Witcher 2, Crysis, and the list goes on and on. For me, arrogant is someone who acts like no one should give their opinions. That's what you're doing. You don't agree with me? That's fine. Trying to make me stop stating my opinions? That's you being a jerk. You say I act like there's something wrong with who disagrees with me. But please notice that you didn't disagree with me in your comment, you just teased me. Actually, what was the purpose of your comment? Is your hobby going around the internet teaching people to state their opinions? You should learn it before trying to teach others. And, for the record, you try and try to invalidate what I say, but not even once you said "I played this game and that one in 3D". In a courtroom or laboratory, the testimonial of someone who has experience with the topic of interest is worth more than the talk of someone who hasn't. How would you know that salt is bad if you never tried it? And how would you know playing in 3D is bad if you never tried it? I did, and I say it's good. Until you try it and say it's bad, stop trying to invalidate my opinion.
For me I've started thinking whether I'd like to play GOW3 or Uncharted 3 in 3D or with a better resolution? This is where it falls dow I think. On the PC however it's a different story because I can have both (if the system is powerful enough). Without a doubt it adds an extra element of immersion, Arkham City in 3D was awesome. Of console games I'd have to say GT5 is probably my favourite use of 3D in a console game, the in car view is just beautiful especially when rain falls on the windscreen. 3D can only get better, it's not going to go away but it may take some time for it to be truly utilised.
Everything is a huge failure at some point. The ps3 was a huge failure during the "no games" affair the 360 was a huge failure during that RROD fiasco The 3DS was a failure right after launch. I forgot why. I bet if you look, you'll find some articles calling the Wii a huge failure.
Hell NO 3d on my ps3 is the greatest who even said YES does not have or just mad they cant afford a 3d tv.
No, consumers are the failure. 3D is awesome.
3D is amazing. I will always stand by it with the tech as of now. Anyone who says otherwise is stubborn, or hasn't tried 'real' 3D games.
My issue with 3d gaming is that it shouldn't be done this generation, while the effect is cool it comes at to high a cost. If u compare Killzone 2 to Killzone 3 you'll notice a significantly lessoned amount of enemies, destruction and physics related effects. These things actually contribute to the immersion of the game. The same goes for the transition between Uncharted 2 and 3. In addition to loss of physics and enemies there was also some weird thing that made in game face textures look shitty(at least when compared to 2). These can be attributed to thd fact the systems have to be able to render everything twice and i totally understand that but if thats the case then you probably shouldn't do 3d. I'd rather have a solid 2d experience (infamous 2, uncharted 2, killzone 2, god of war 3 and more recently max payne 3) than to have their lowered quality 3d counterparts. Until consoles are as powerful as modern gaming pcs it just isnt worth it.
This console gen lacks the power for 3D, the only game isn't full of jaggies and sub-HD resolution is Crysis 1 and Crysis 2.
I see no reason to hate on something i'm not that interested in, i use it occasionally but have no great need for it in my games. Is it a failure? No It does what it's intended to do and there are people out there that like it.
Those of you that have 3D, what are the best games? My favorites so far are: Wipeout HD - bar none the best use of 3d Motorstorm - looks great, adds a lot to the game Superstardust HD - one of my favorite games anyway, and 3d pops Gran Turismo 5 - cockpit view is amazing in some cars The above games make the most of 3d and truly enhance the experience. Here's some more that also look great, but to be honest just enhance the view and give it more depth. Killzone 3 - probably my favorite of this list Uncharted 3 Gears of War 3 Air Conflicts Secret Wars Ratchet & Clank All 4 One
I have the playstation 3D tv and UC3 and KZ3 are siiiick!!dont knock it till you try it,one of the trick to long gaming sessions with 3D is turn down the saturaion on the games option menu.and 3D gaming is very afordable now,playstation tv is 199.00 at some stores and sites.3D is the future,be ready for it.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.