Top
190°

Bungie: Halo: Reach definitely not in 3D

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.

Read Full Story >>
examiner.com
The story is too old to be commented.
ThePlaystationFour2740d ago ShowReplies(2)
DasBunker2740d ago Show
MMFGaming2740d ago

Technically even old school VCR's can output 3D. You just need to have those stupid glasses or whatever.

El_Colombiano2740d ago

That isn't stereoscopic so it's irrelevant when compared to the technology Sony is rolling out.

2740d ago
The Lazy One2740d ago

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.

2740d ago
PtRoLLFacE2740d ago

if ya want real 3d then just go to a dome theater lol

The Lazy One2740d ago

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).

evrfighter2740d ago

tried it. looked cool for 2 seconds. then it just got pretty meh

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2740d ago
East_Coast2740d ago (Edited 2740d ago )

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.

The BS Police2740d ago

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.

lastdual2740d ago (Edited 2740d ago )

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 :)

mrcash2740d ago

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.

deadreckoning6662740d ago (Edited 2740d ago )

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.

waterboy2740d ago (Edited 2740d ago )

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

multipayer2740d ago

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.

El_Colombiano2740d ago (Edited 2740d ago )

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.

waterboy2740d ago (Edited 2740d ago )

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

Strikepackage Bravo2740d ago

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.

mrcash2740d ago (Edited 2740d ago )

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

Biggest2740d ago

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.

Strikepackage Bravo2740d ago

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.

Biggest2740d ago

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?

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2740d ago
Shepherd 2142740d ago

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.

TheLastGuardian2740d ago

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.

Shepherd 2142740d ago

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.

MicroSony4Life2740d ago

why didn't I think of that.

Thanks M8

East_Coast2740d ago

11.50? try 15+ in NYC....feel better now? I wish it was $11 for a 3D flick.

Sitris2740d ago

Try paying 23 for the tickets WITHOUT glasses.in australia haha

PS360PCROCKS2740d ago (Edited 2740d ago )

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.

East_Coast2740d ago

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

Show all comments (60)
The story is too old to be commented.