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 ...
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.
I'm pretty sure that Nvidias PC solution is the same if not better than the PS3's.
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.
Id say if u already have a capable PC.... a 3d (or 120hz) capable monitor is cheaper than a 3d capable tv
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 $1000 easy if not cheaper than this. Moreover I believe they are saying the PS3 is the best option for 3D is because they did such a shit ass job with porting it over to the PS3. Treyarch should be ashamed of themselves for such a bug ridden game.
@hoops 1000$...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.
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.
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?
Very likely indeed.
It's a terrible PS3 port? Must've missed the memo.
You obviously don't have the PS3 version because if you had it, you'd know that the PS3 port is fine.
because fanboys can't accept the fact that Xbox 3D is just a gimmick and PS3 is the real thing
Read it again, I never said the PS3 port is terrible. I said they did a TERRIBLE JOB PORTING it
Haha, I don't really understand what you meant to say then but +bubbles for the misunderstanding then.
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
How is the red/blue of the 360 more superior than PS3 Real D)))?
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...
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.
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.
"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?!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"+ 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?
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.
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!!!"
-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
...only on the 360.
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.
whats the fascination with final fantasy? i dont recall it being a 3d game
if no, then your comment is lame
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).
you are correct
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.
As far as consoles go.
Yay for flamebait!
lol. BS. Even WaW looks better than Black Ops.
Yeah, I can't stop laughing at this! Now all those crappy textures and crap framerates can be even lower now with 3D and jumping out of the screen! Sorry, this game is just bad on the PS3. I loved MW2 and only played it on the PS3 and it played and looked excellent but Treyarch seems to have struggled or rushed it.
have u tried playing it on a hd tv yet cos by reading ur comments it doesnt seem so.
Black Ops looks great.
Well I have Nvidia 3D Vision and it makes even average games look really cool. Nvidia 3D > PS3 3D Activision/ Treyarch has most likely said this for money reasons Edit: Also Call of Duty: Black Ops is a native Nvidia 3D ready game, so this is definitely BS http://www.nvidia.co.uk/pag... LOL at the disagrees
You find these disagrees strange? Check out these: "yet the PC is still the best looking and playing [version of Black Ops]" Agree (19) Disagree (43) http://n4g.com/news/644549/...
is laughable at best to think that people have move on from the recent HD adoption and will jump into the 3D in its expensive begining. Still good for those with 3DTVs, which i had one for GT5 and KZ3, even Black Ops
lol asshurt 360 fanboys,since they have no exclusives they need to pretend the multi games are exclusive. yea lets make believe this isn't on ps3 or pc.[even wii]
...YOU are the one who is "a**hurt". After all, it's a known fact the COD games sell almost 2-1 more on the 360, so it might as well BE an exclusive. I guess PS3 gamers are just waiting....and waiting, and waiting, and waiting...for GT5 and Killzone 3. :o
Its the only game on the 360 thats even worth a damn, thats why it only outsells the ps3 version 2:1.
@SyphonFilter HAha right and the top selling game for PS3 isn't even exclusive. Its modern warfare 2!!!
"they have no exclusives" Hows those exclusives been working out for YOU lately? When was the last major one? March? If I recall, the 360's biggest exclusive game released just a month ago, so I'm pretty sure they've got plenty of stuff to play at the moment.
ModNation Racers came out in May and has a higher metacritic avg than Fable 3 dingleberry. 3D Dot Game Heroes came out just before Crackdown 2 and has a higher avg as well. Sly HD Collection is out this week. GT5 before X-mas. Research rox!
Treyarch wouldn't happen to be trying to make up for the PS3 version's shortcomings in the graphics performance area by saying this, would they? :D
what happened to 1080p/60fps? get that to be the industry standard then worry about pushing 3dtech. and this "3Dready" advertising at retail stores reminds me of the early days of HD sets claiming "HDready" but in reality were just 720P sets. who knows how many more hdmi/3d revisions will be made in the next 3 years? its just not prudent to make the investment now.
lol at the Xbots acting like getting better frame rate on a COD game is a win for them. 360 has barely any games coming out next next year. you lose.
Whats with all the PS3 fanboys calling 360 fanboys names in here? I don't see anyone calling you or anyone a "droid" and I thought PS3 gamers are mature? Come on, it seems one group has grown up and got over the "droid" thing yet I read "xbots" all over this place.. Grow up! And it seems like the people thrashing the PS3 in here are PC folks who are calling BS on the best 3D experience line.
I love how this gets approved to all consoles and pc but i tried posting my nvidia telsa supercomputer running mainly off the video cards is now the fastest supercomputer in the world won't get approved umtil i just make it in the pc category yet ps3,360,pc are all computers just the ps3/360 are locked pc's. Maybe they were mad cause it further proves how slow cpu's are getting cough**cough** cell..... but the ps3 could be faster all you have to do is hook 1,000,000,000,000 of them together.
I heard its unplayable on ps3 and in 3d. It keeps freezing and lagging. Badluck, people who bought it on ps3
wouldn't suprise me 3d takes atleast a midrange rig to run 3d decent ps3 isn't even a midrange pc anymore. didn't know if console had true 3d though cause no t.v's have 120hz refresh rates there all upscaled right so i figured it was a diff tech for console 3d? and after you have 120hz monitor you need a vid card to run that framerate considering consoles can hardly run any modern graphics at true 1080p @ 30fps i think this would be a tough dev problem, unless its a diff tech like i thought?
The 3D tvs I've been looking at have 240hz.
that 240hz is up-scaled i believe not sure though they might be true now check it out and let me know last year i checked all of them were up-scaled i believe. then to get the best 3d experience without tearing and such your suppose to match that framerate a decent pc can run a ton of games 1920x1080 or higher @ 120fps to match the refresh rate of the display. consoles have a tough time getting games @ true 1080 to 30fps.
im about to finish the game. it looks amazing in 3D. your avatar pic explains your response..
huh... ps3 ? these guys http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... say otherwise
that's pretty significant frame drop...
best 3D experience is on a PC