Ex: Earlier today we reported on a story about Halo: Reach being shown in 3D at GamesCom. Was Bungie sneaking in an unannounced 3D update or was this a clever marketing ploy? The latter appears to be the case according to Bungie.
Technically even old school VCR's can output 3D. You just need to have those stupid glasses or whatever.
That isn't stereoscopic so it's irrelevant when compared to the technology Sony is rolling out.
stereoscopic refers to any 3d produced by 2 images (one for each eye). A VHS could easily be adapted to do it, it's just that nobody wasted the time doing it because DVDs were out already. 3DTVs for the most part use shutter glasses or polarization. http://www.3d-tvbuyingguide... This technology has been around and in popular use for at least the last decade. I remember going to the muppets 3d at disney world when I was 12, and it used polarized glasses.
if ya want real 3d then just go to a dome theater lol
No. That is not how it works. Old 3D works exactly how it works today, and I assure you that it did not look like a paper cut out. Anybody that's been to bugs life 3d or muppet 3d knows this (IE gonzo's nose coming out at you or the bees trying to sting you). What you have said is blatantly wrong. Muppet Vision 3d opened in 1991. It's tough to be a bug was in 2001. The Amazing adventures of spider man opened in 1999, and had dr. octopus' tentacles coming out at you. Stereoscopic 3d refers to 3D video produced by using two separate videos for each eye. That is all it means. The only difference between new (Since 1991 with polarized lenses and CGI) and old (crossing your eyes, red and blue glasses, etc) is that the new lenses are easier to use. If anybody put enough time into it, they could easily make a stunningly detailed 3d image using red and blue old fashioned lenses. You can actually do this with a rendering setting in blender. For example, here's a video where you cross your eyes using blender. http://www.youtube.com/watc... looks just as 3D as any other method except the inconvenience of having to cross your eyes. The only thing that matters is that each eye receives it's own unique visual information. Regardless of how it gets there, that is stereoscopic. The only new tech is shutter glasses, which are just a different mechanism for getting 2 separate images to each eye. The video has more detail because we've got more computing power to render it all, but the projection technology 10 or even 20 years ago is still fully capable of producing 3d. Avatar 3d in theaters, for example, is the exact same technology used to project and view the muppets 3d in MGM studios (polarized projector with polarized glasses).
tried it. looked cool for 2 seconds. then it just got pretty meh
not to mention HD.
360 users hate 3D gaming anyways right? All I know is that I need to save up and get a 3D set a soon as possible. It's going to be crazy brah. Edit: Ok my bad Xbox users don't dislike the tech, they just view the tech as being expensive and premature at this point. Well I think if you combine 3D with head tracking then that makes for a very potent combination. And I'm glad they're doing it now instead of waiting another 20yrs to get the ball rolling. I'm not that young any more and can't afford to wait like some of you.
Alot of gamers who own every console hate the concept of 3D gaming. Honestly this is just another lame 3D fad that will fade away into obscurity after it's been beaten into another 20 year coma.
Yeah, I've got every console, but no 3D TV, and honestly I don't feel any desire to buy one until they are glasses-free. Current 3D tech is like motion controls to me - just a phase that I hope passes like a child's mood swings. I'm totally buying a 3DS though :)
I don't hate just don't need it. I would have prefered that killzone run at 60fps or in 1080p instead of them working on 3d something that most people wont even get to enjoy.
Bubbles for mrcash. Very well said. "how would you know killzone 3 wasnt 60fps or 1080 unless guerilla told you?" But they DID tell us. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
how would you know killzone 3 wasnt 60fps or 1080 unless guerilla told you? thats the thing pc nuts would have nothing to talk on ps3 or any other platform if these developers would never blurt out stuff like this cause no one would ever be able to tell that it isnt 1080 p or 60fps til the developer told you a disagree for me and agrees for mr cash, oh well 400 disagrees would still not change his untruth and my truth just keep disagreeing it just shows how ignorant this site is and the more right you are the more disagrees you get thats how the world goes, and the more wrong you are the majority will probably agree with you cause that wrong needs company the point im making is the main thing pc fan nerds attack on any ps3 game top exclusive games is resolution and fps and its so ignorant cause these games look better than games that do have those resolutions and that fps
People are ripping images from the console versions all the time and it shows their native resolution. Which is usually below 720p, like Halo 3... The problem with "console nuts", is they have very little idea how to do things like that and never actually seen an FPS at 1920x1080 with 60 frames per second. It's the future, gimping that for 3d is not.
Waterboy, I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p just by looking at the game running on my system. The difference is night and day. Also, figuring out whether a game runs at 60fps against 30fps is as easy as looking out my window to see if the sun is out. EDIT: When did I ever mention PC gaming? I was talking about my PS3. It's night and day / black and white (whatever floats your boat) when I turn my PS3 from 1080p to 720p max. Wipeout HD looks noticeably worst than it is at 1080p and so do all of the other games with 1080p support. The XMB even looks horrendous at 720p. Touching on frame rate, all I need to do is point you to Bioshock 1 and 2. The change between unlocking the frame rate and locking it in the options is as clear as day, and it rarely if ever hits 60fps. So it's CLEAR to see ANYTHING about 40fps and above is faster than a mere 30fps.
they always overglorify the ability of pc to change settings and such which you cant do with other platforms if pc could do ps3s games with those specs then pc would impress me el_colombiano im sure you could with your nerd glasses glued to the front of that pc monitor, how bout this i played uncharted to on an sd tv and it still blows any game on any platform out of the water despite the resolution and fps my first comment has 6 disagrees, from 6 pc fans and counting keep them coming pc nerds
but I agree with mr cash. That is one of Sonys biggest faults, they push stuff on their customers that the customers dont want or didnt ask for, just so they can try to get market penetration. I agree, 1080p and 60fps would have been a nice place to start because anyone with a PS3 could have enjoyed that. But no, not sony, they would rather tell you what you need instead of give you what you want, just so they can continue to try and make a big deal out of that weak @ssed 3D technology, so they can sell more TVs. For the life of me I don't understand how so many people hate M$ and give Sony, an even more sleazy company, a complete pass.
Most people can tell the difference between 60 frames and 30, I'm assuming that you've never played a detailed fps in 1080 at 60fps thats probably why you can't see the difference. I'm in no way knocking Killzone I will be purchasing it day one, but it would just be nice have it run at those settings if its possible. For reference go play modernwarfare and then play killzone and you should definitely see a huge difference. @waterboy I'm far from a pc fanatic, although I am currently enjoying starcraft, I really love games I own all hd consoles and we have a wii lying around somewhere. I'm sorry that you took such offense to what I said, you must be an avid supporter of 3d technology. From my gaming point of view, I would enjoy 1080p and 60fps instead of 3d i guess you feel otherwise, you would rather have 3d then have the game look and run better. If you want look me up on psn: BigRudowsky Live:BIG RUDOWSKY785
Hey StrikepackageBravo. . . Are you ready to Kinect? Have you jumped into Facebook and Twitter on your gaming console for a fee? I'm just wondering why you feel that Sony is pushing 3D on anyone when you pay for internet usage twice. I am buying a 3DTV because I want to buy a 3DTV. I know for a 100% fact that I will end up using the 3D of the TV for movies way more than games. Don't project your feelings of neglect onto PS3 owners. 3D is not and will never be forced on us.
What da? biggest that is a really bad analogy. I was ALREADY paying for Live, and proudly I should say, its worth everypenny, kinda like paying for HBO, or pay per view, even though I already pay for cable. Anyway I was already paying for live, and MS decided to ADD features to the service that I was ALREADY paying for, at NO extra cost. Sure I never asked for facebook on live, but then I never use it, and it doesn't cost me anything extra. 3D is different, I and most folks dont want it yet we are being asked to pay for it, and if you dont want to pay for it, you still are effected by it because Sony decides to slack on the quality of Killzone, so that they can put effort into adding 3D, so they can make you feel like you need a 3D TV, wtf? That effort and money should have went towards 60fps and 1080p like they said ALL PS3 games would have before the dam thing launched. This is not even close to facebook and paying for live, people love paying for live, but nobody gives a rip about 3D, nice try though.
If they could have Killzone 3 in 1080p and 60 FPS they would have done it with Killzone 2. From the look of Killzone 3, I don't think they had to expend too much time and energy on 3D alone. My analogy is valid by the way. HBO isn't regular cable. HBO is more like PS+. It has nothing to do with regular cable. XboxLive Gold is regular cable with a few extra channels to make the extra price seem justified. If you got rid of HBO, you could still watch cable. If you got rid of XboxLive Gold you could not play online. 3DTV is even farther removed from these products. It isn't some service thrown into a piece of hardware. It is the actual hardware. It is the next step up from HDTV. Don't forget that Sony isn't the only company making 3DTV. It isn't going away. Maybe the gaming community won't embrace it. But the PS3 will have it just in case. It's there if you choose to use it. That isn't a very good way to force something on someone, is it?
I dont even want to play in 3D. Im sick of having to pay $11.50 for a fucking ticket just to see a movie because the local theaters offer popular films in 3D only, i guess to make more money. Im hate this new 3D craze and im not alone. i dont want it to effect my gaming either.
My theatre has 3d and 2d versions. I just keep my same glasses and take them everytime and buy the cheap ticket and go watch the movie in 3d.
My theater offers some films in 2d and 3d versions, but it definitely did not offer Avatar or How to Train Your Dragon in regular 2d, and ive noticed the same thing for other films i wasnt going to see. Thats a good idea you mentioned actually.
why didn't I think of that. Thanks M8
11.50? try 15+ in NYC....feel better now? I wish it was $11 for a 3D flick.
Try paying 23 for the tickets WITHOUT glasses.in australia haha
In Colorado they have 2D for $10. 3D at $13 and IMAX 3D at $15. Like the guy above said though...^^ i save my glasses and just switch theaters. 3D is not an expensive transition for theaters and they are WAYYYY overhyping and overcharging for it. Oh and $23??? damn bud, that sucks.
23?? Yes I feel much better thank you. lol Well I understand why...shipping those big heavy movie reels to the land down under can be expensive. :P
never mind, I get it, most can't afford it so the simple thing to do is say it sucks. Then when it becomes affordable jump at the opportunity and act like anything they said before is irrelevant because they have it. I'm gonna love seeing all these jerks buying 3d tv's whether they want it or not, because unfortunately for you, it will be standard in the near future.
Somehow I doubt "the future" is everyone wearing funky glasses whenever they watch TV. I agree that 3D will become the stantard eventually, but the tech is currently in its infancy. It won't go full mainstream until it overcomes the glasses hurdle and manages to display without a noticeable hit to the resolution.
Plus, I really don't see the glasses being that big of a "hurdle". Sure an option to the extent of not wearing them would be more suitable, but that tech is in the "very special hug stage" so what choice are people really gonna have.
What 360 have 3d besides crysis 2?
Avatar: The Game. Game changer, I know.
Batman: Arkham Asylum GOTY, Avatar: The Video Game, Invincible Tiger (XBLA)
in fact I am gonna take a day or two off work for it....but.... it will have enough trouble running at 1024x640, (not even HD) at 30 frames per second, with all the sweet lighting and excellent texture work bungie has put into it.....screw 3d....this gen is not going to utilize it much...3d glasses kinda suck...I work in the av industry and have tried them all....they suck.... plus for true 3d requireing frames rendered double.....think about it...most games struggle run at 30 frames per second on console...let alone 60 or 120 needed for true 3d....just get a samsung 3d tv if your really that worried about it......their 3d tv's can make any game, movie or tv show 3d with internal frame doubling.... maybe on the next batch of consoles,.....which i hope gets here soon....2011 please.....xbox720 and ps4...simultaneous launch pleasssssseeee.
no platform is
I bet it's not in HD either.
lol I had to laugh at your post. Total fanboy comment, but still kinda humorous. Lol Reach is going to be awesome though.
Bungie couldn't pull off 3D even if they wanted to. They're great developers for making fun games, but they're bad developers for making games that include the "wow" factor. With all due respect, I'm buying Reach Day 1, but let's face it. Halo Reach doesn't look as good as one would hope from the last Halo game on the 360.
That "wow" factor would be the shit ton of features crammed into their games as well as matchmaking, something everyone in the industry has learned from Bungie as far as consoles as concerned. In a generation where it's all about graphics, Bungie is defying that rule and goign their own path by cramming a lot of features into one game. Goes to show you Bungie are not sheep.
Are u living in a Rock bro or just a delusional fanboy guess u never experienced the ps3, uncharted 2 says high best console graphics and gameplay second to none, yea great gameplay is the core but is it too much to have great graphics too, guess on ur console it's not
I'm sorry, Bungie must feel like asses if that's why they are a bit lacking in graphics like you say. If I were to list all the "features" in GT5 then list what it's doing graphically, that whole "Hey look, their doing matchmaking." would fly right out the window. I personally would like an entire package, not just great graphics and not just a ton of features, both would be a perfect world in my eyes.
nolifeking.... Really? GT5 is a racing game...you drive. Maybe a bit more complex but Reach is a FPS with a huge sandbox to balance between vehicles, weapons and armor abilities....They have to balance all that together..... People are too invested in graphics....to GodOfWar9903; I played UC2 and it's a fantastic game no matter how you slice it but there's a reason I'm still playing Halo 3 three years after release and I'm not playing UC2 online. It's the featureset and overall gameplay. I'm not knocking anyone who plays UC2 online because it is a fun game but I could care less whether Halo 3 is sub HD or whatever since I'm too busy killing people and constantly moving my eyes around trying to spot fools. Graphics in multiplayer games are way overhyped. I think this whole..."ZOMG PS3 just owns all" is purely opinion and I don't buy into it. Personally, UC2 is fun but I played it for about a week online and didn't enjoy it. Before you say you were just bad, I'm bad at MW2 and still play it and can enjoy it (if i don't run into too much of the brokenness of it). Whatever, I'm not gonna try harder than that because it's pointless... I'll close with graphics don't make a game, gameplay does....graphics are important to me but gameplay is more important
period next to gow3 and kz2 and other ps3 exclusives
3d is in it's infancy, slap that shit on the casuals, use them as test fodder, then when it is actually something sweet, give it to the gamers, though i am excited to play killzone in 3d... but damn i hate those glasses
I was talking about "features", and regardless of the genre of game, GT5 puts them ALL to shame. Using the genre as a scapegoat is a bit low considering all you do in Halo is shoot. In gt, you have to balance 1000 cars, different paint jobs, tuning options, physics and so on. So how armor, vehicles and weapons suddenly become more intricate than those is a mystery to me, because as far as I know Final fantasy has done 2/3 of those for years. I feel people try and use gameplay as a cop-out to inferior graphics. Team fortress 2, which looks better than Halo 3, but not as good as U2, I play a lot more frequently than either game. So what Godofwar9903 said means nothing to me. I don't even know why you brought it up . Why is asking for gameplay and graphics a crime all of a sudden? I remember talking about a single game and not a console so the whole whatever it was you said to bring up the ps3 was pointless. I'll close with: A good game can have bad graphics. A bad game can have great graphics. The truly great games though, they have both(as in great graphics and gameplay). Even the supposed holy grail, Halo: Combat Evolved.
You put on game on a 3d tv and every thinks it is going to be in 3d. Only ps3 does digital 3d, yes other system can do 3d but with cheap paper glasses or by using a 3d tv. But you aren't getting digital 3d.
Don't have a 3DTV and not considering wasting money on one. So this is pointless for me. 3d is a silly fad, considering how long 3d has been around.
Who gives a f)ck?! Unless you have a TV that supports 3D, why is this a open for discussion? That's likes caring if Halo Reach supports 1080p and you have a 27 inch composite connection television
They don't need gimmicks to make their games interesting. @orange-skittle - Exactly. The discussion is pretty mute since probably only 1% of gamers own 3D TVs.
im glad halo isnt in 3d, + what is reach running fps wise???? 60fps???
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.