Top
430°

CoD: Black Ops - Best 3D Experience only on PS3, says Treyarch

At the Launch Event in Berlin has Treyarch talked about the best 3D Experience in Call of Duty: Black Ops, that can you find only on PS3 ...

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.de
The story is too old to be commented.
Red_Orange_Juice2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

Too bad I don't have 3D TV, I've heard Black Ops is done really good to ensure great 3d experience

btw. on that website there is a background ad showing Heavy Rain and Time Crisis, those German rating stickers look awful.

JsonHenry2783d ago

I'm pretty sure that Nvidias PC solution is the same if not better than the PS3's.

fr0sty2783d ago

it's the same, but you're going to pay a lot more getting setup to run 3d on PC than you will on PS3. you'll actually get better results on the pc though, since you'll get an actual HD image out of the 3D. although i've heard that nvidia 3d tech doesn't do well resource wise, and really bogs down the performance of the game.

Scenarist2783d ago

Id say if u already have a capable PC.... a 3d (or 120hz) capable monitor is cheaper than a 3d capable tv

hoops2782d ago

The Nvidia setup is a lot cheaper than the PS3 version of 3D.
A 3D TV will set you back at least $2000.
The PC Nvidia setup will const you under $1000 easy if not cheaper than this.
Moreover I believe they are saying the PS3 is the best option for 3D is because they did such a shit ass job with porting it over to the PS3. Treyarch should be ashamed of themselves for such a bug ridden game.

PSFan1002782d ago

@hoops
1000$...that's about 600£, you're having a laugh it cost me around 1,300£ to set up 3d vision (PC from scratch)...you forget you need windows 7, decent ram/cpu, 3d enabled graphics card, 120 lcd, the actual kit itself (glasses, sync device) etc. Of course it's better on PC since you can have a 1080p experience, you just need the rig to handle it.

inveni02782d ago

I hate that people are perpetuating the myth that a 3DTV costs "at least $2000". There are DOZENS of options that are cheaper. Need an example?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site...

That's a 50" 3DTV and glasses package for just $999. That's pretty f*ck'n cheap. Best of all, it's a SAMSUNG...so it's not like it's a Vizio or something.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2782d ago
Blaze9292783d ago

lol...although this is more than likely true - why do I have a feeling they are only saying this because of the terrible job they did with the PS3 port?

raztad2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

Very likely indeed.

ReservoirDog3162783d ago

It's a terrible PS3 port?

Must've missed the memo.

huzzaahh2783d ago

You obviously don't have the PS3 version because if you had it, you'd know that the PS3 port is fine.

Red_Orange_Juice2782d ago

because fanboys can't accept the fact that Xbox 3D is just a gimmick and PS3 is the real thing

Blaze9292782d ago

Read it again, I never said the PS3 port is terrible. I said they did a TERRIBLE JOB PORTING it

ReservoirDog3162782d ago

Haha, I don't really understand what you meant to say then but +bubbles for the misunderstanding then.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2782d ago
DigitalAnalog2783d ago

Eurogamer confirmed the 360 is superior in both non-3D and 3D experience. So they resort to lying to the PS3 fans now. What's the matter, 2.5 million sales not enough from this side?

-End statement

A Cupcake for Gabe2782d ago

How is the red/blue of the 360 more superior than PS3 Real D)))?

ct032782d ago

You think the Xbox version is anaglyph? You think the 3D on PS3 has anything at all to do with RealD, a system that uses circular polarization?

At least do some research before posting nonsense.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

Scotland-The-Brave2782d ago

What? The 3D on the PS3 is a shit load better. I know i was playing them both on my bros 55" Samsung 3d tv.

punkpop1012781d ago

As simple as that.360 gamers have always played much more COD than PS3 fanboys so they deserve better versions.Here ps3 fanboys play Pro Evolution Soccer all the time in Greece.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2781d ago
PS360fanboy2782d ago

"it's the same, but you're going to pay a lot more getting setup to run 3d on PC than you will on PS3."

What? Do you know how much a 3D tv costs?!

MRMagoo1232782d ago

well here in australia jb hifi are doing a sony 3d tv 50 inch with a ps3 and the movies kit with 2 pairs of glasses along with 4 ps3 games for under 2k

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2781d ago
Pandamobile2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

Excluding the PC, I'm assuming. Doesn't seem like something Treyarch would say after they partner up with Nvidia to make the PC version fully 3D Vision enabled.

toaster2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

3D is still in it's infancy on console while PC has had 3D since 2008, I would think that 3D optimization for PC would be superior than on the PS3 or 360. 99.9% of people don't even have a 3DTV yet while there are lots of PC gamers with 120MHz monitors and even some with an nVidia 3D Surround setup *drools just thinking about it*.

Also with console 3D, the performance you see is the performance you get. With PC there are multiple drivers and beta drivers and updates to the 3D profile for a particular game so performance can only increase.

lol This German site is so full of shit, "The reason is quite simple. The PS3 is built for 3D gaming, while it is only an added feature in the Xbox 360." They're forgetting that none of the consoles even had plans for 3D when they initially launched. If any platform is "made for 3D," it would be PC.

snp2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

Downside to the PC though is those monitors aren't as good at 3d as a Plasma. Lot's more crosstalk and ghosting.

Hardware wise and in terms of game selection, though, i agree with you - PC is the better option.

When Oled monitors finally come out for PC, 3d should be something worthwhile there.

Nihilism2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

But that's not a downside of PC...that's a downside of the monitors. You know you can use a 3d-tv for a monitor?

But the OMFG120/240HZ!!! TV's aren't even real, eg. they can't do 60 or 120 frames per eye respectively.

So you can 'choose' to have a better picture and 30 frames per eye, or you can get a 120hz monitor and get full 60 frames per eye with no input lag due to repeated frames.

If I had a 120hz monitor...I wouldn't be wasting it on 3d, i'd be v-syncing that sucker at 120hz and playing shooters the way the are meant ot be played.

@Innevitable responses of

"yeah but it was never mainstream until sony did it"

http://www.nvidia.com/objec...

500 odd games...I think that's more mainstream than the games you can count on your fingers on consoles.

+ it's way more affordable on PC.

Cheaper+ superior quality = better on PC.

@Bathyj

Way to understate it. My PC monitor was 24", that is the minimum standard these days. Now I use my 40" TV as my monitor. Conversely you should have said, "depends if you want game in 3d with 60 frames per eye on a 26" screen at 2 feet, or a 32" HDTV at 6 feet with only 30 frames per eye"

As far as I'm aware, that is much more like the reality of it. Most HDTV owners have 40" or under and at 6 feet that makes the screen smaller than a 24" at 2 feet by a long way.

fr0sty2783d ago

"+ it's way more affordable on PC. "

um... how is having to drop $200 on a video card in addition to the PC itself in order to be able to run a game in decent 3D, not even counting the monitor, cheaper than paying $300 for a PS3 and then buying a 3d monitor?

snp2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

But that's not a downside of PC...that's a downside of the monitors. You know you can use a 3d-tv for a monitor?
----

Sure, but the post i was responding to was comparing 3dtv console setups to PC's with 120Mhz monitors.

Should have maybe been clearer 'the downside of that 'PC setup' versus..' etc.

And you're right, there's limits on Plasma's to, although of what i've seen of both, i'd rather a Panasonic Plasma (or maybe Samsung) 3dtv - even with those limits acknowledged - if my focus is '3d' than any of the available 120Mhz monitors (crosstalk is the most glaring of the things to be considered, if 3d is your focus, in my experience and opinion).

Again, though, Oled's where it's at - or where it's going to be at. Best of all worlds.

Nihilism2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

Your are making that famous console gamer mistake of thinking you need to buy an entire new PC to play games.

If you have a PC, add 1 $200 GPU and a $299 3d monitor

$500 for 3d gaming.

"cheaper than paying $300 for a PS3 and then buying a 3d monitor? "

It's certainly cheaper than buying a ps3 and a 3dtv.

+ the games will run at 1080p with AA and more than 30 frames per eye.

So like I said, it's cheaper and better. But whatevs, enjoy your "BRAND NEW NEVER SEEN BEFORE PS3 EXCLUSIVE 3D!!!"

snp2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

-Nihilism

And a $180-200 for the NVidia 3d Vision kit.

Also, 'if you have a PC' is a bit... I mean, you could as easily say 'if you have a 3dtv' - then it's just $300 for the PS3 to get into 3d gaming. (3dtv's obviously aren't just being sold for gaming, but also broadcast tv and bluray).

Best to compare like for like - the complete setup for one versus complete setup for the other. Otherwise it's kinda stacking the decks.

Btw, don't presume everyone who isn't necessarily sold on 3d for PC's is somehow a Sony goon. I own a PC - a pretty good one. And i prefer playing games on my PC (hell, for that matter, i prefer Nintendo's game list probably slightly over Sony's - although the fistfights here tend to be Sony/MS).

I actually speak as someone who came 'this' near to buying the required bits to get 3d up and going on my PC (i required Nvidia 3d glass kit, an Nvidia card - mine's an ATI - and a new monitor), but after doing some pretty extensive research there are just way too many issues with PC 3d capable monitors atm. Crosstalk is the big ugly common one, but there's also all sorts of problems with some of the brands rendering big chunks of the screen wrong and other problems.

Seriously, if you've seen games on 120Mhz PC monitors and on a Plasma, for _3d_ the PC monitor simply isn't cut and dried better. The fps difference is far less of a problem in terms of enjoying the 3d effect than the rendering and crosstalk problems of a PC monitor. Well, in my experience, at least.

Again, though, soon as Oled comes out at a reasonable price for PC i'll be all over it and probably back looking at PC 3d.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2783d ago
Bathyj2783d ago

I suppose it depends if you'd rather watch 3D on a 20 inch moniter at your desk or a 50 inch tv on your couch.

Newtype2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

PS3 has a nVidia 7800GT.

"When Oled monitors finally come out for PC, 3d should be something worthwhile there."
And Sony owns that technology.

Plasmas have the best 3D btw, and that's a fact.

kaveti66162782d ago (Edited 2782d ago )

No, the PS3 doesn't have a 7800GT. I think that the 7800GT is in fact superior to the RSX GPU, but that doesn't matter because of the CELL.

jony_dols2782d ago

PS3 is the best supported 3D platform.

When you have the likes of Killzone 3 & GT5 to show it off there is no denying it.

Pandamobile2782d ago

PS3 is the best supported 3D platform? Is that some sort of joke? How many games can you play in 3D? 10? 15? It's not a lot - and don't forget that the games have to be SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to run in 3D.

How many games can I play in 3D on my PC? There's over 400 supported games, and hundreds more without official support, but you can still play in 3D with just an option in the GPU drivers.

hoops2782d ago

The PC has over 500+ games supported for 3D gaming. And in TRUE HD above 30fps at that.
The PS3 cannot even make this claim AT ALL.
Console 3D at this time will be a poor ass implementation because these consoles do not have the power to do it properly.
Look at the sacrifices in visuals and resolutions that have to happen just to get 3D on these consoles. KZ3 3D is a prime example of this.

I sold my GTX 295 and Nvidia 3D vision setup and let me tell you. It's far better than what I have seen on the PS3.
It's not even a contest here folks

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2782d ago
2783d ago Replies(3)
SyphonFilter2783d ago

nice spin. there is no best,it's on each persons opinion,unless its a ff 13 situation. I know a person who has both consoles but got it on ps3 because he didn't want the holes on the cases that 360 games now have.

siyrobbo2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

whats the fascination with final fantasy? i dont recall it being a 3d game

gamingisnotacrime2783d ago

if no, then your comment is lame

yeracnivek712783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

As a matter of fact it is.... just like ALL COD games, through 2012 ( http://www.xbox.com/en-US/P... ). I guess you didn't here about the deal between Activision and MS, at last year's E3. ;)

But to be honest, I wasn't even thinking about that when I posted my comment. I was referring to the best performance, best online experience (with the best community features), and the best support (PS3 usually gets dumped on, when it comes to patches).

Silly gameAr2783d ago (Edited 2783d ago )

You guys are really trying to rub it in like it matters or something. If this is the best you can come up with, you might want to find other small flaws to blow out of proportion.