With more games on Xbox 360 getting 3D support, here's a handy list which tells you what modes are supported.
I hate 3-D in all it's forms! even on the Xbox 360! Die already! Stupid fad!!!! ARRGHHHH!!!!
Xbox 360 3D sucks.
ps3 cannot do proper 3d either. on consoles 3d is a GIMMICK. its only pc that can do it the way its supposed to be done. on consoles game devs use algorithms to create a 3D ILLUSION that you'll need a 3dtv and 3d glasses to view properly when its actually almost the same as the 2d version. proper 3d requires TWICE the processing power and TWICE the frame buffer size, pixel fillate and bandwidth. while fake 3d only requires as little as 1% extra processing power. so therefore if a game runs 30fps in 2d its supposed to run 15fps in TRUE stereoscopic 3d on the same hardware. if you think the ps3 does proper 3d then you are terribly ignorant. sony is just being brilliant by trying to entice people into buying their 3dtvs. I'd do the same. @Axecution You have no Idea what you're talking about. killzone 3 only splits the frame and alpha buffers into 2 and thats it its not true stereoscopic 3d thats also he reason killzone 3 looks significantly worse in 3d than 2d. in 3d killzone 3 runs 640x716 when doing 3d on pc the framebuffer and alpha buffer resolution does NOT drop so what the hell are you talking about ? and its the same as PC ? uncharted 3 3d is 896x504 per eye http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... look at the killzone 3 3d analysis and you'll realize that killzone 3 does fake 3d http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... split screen is NOT the same as stereoscopic 3d, if you think so they you are foolish. I suggest you get some experience in game development I assure you that you'll learn a thing or two. the frame rate drops in killzone 3 and others others are they up to 50 percent drops as its actually supposed to be when TRUE steroscopic 3d is performed? NO killzone 3 never runs at 15fps and has almost no 3d effects it still has some because it runs 2 split frame and alpha buffers but doesn't render 1 separate frame for each eye. or are you really going to say any ps3 games have metro 2033 or even batman: arkham asylum pc 3d quality ? if so you are insane. even a 2006 high end pc is between 5-7 times more powerful than ps3 and you somehow think it can match pcs in 3d ? thats the most idiotic statement I've heard in a while LOL ps3 cannot even match bulletstorm pc visuals which by the way don't even loo as good as crysis 1 running medium 8xAA 16xAF @1080p and you consolites are trying to talk ? lol the super computer that cannot even do cross game chat or emulate ps2 in software which my pentium 4 can do and run all games at 720p 60fps(all the ps2s with backwards compatibility have the ps2 emotion engine in built in so uses ps2 hardware to run ps2 games rather than software emulation) lol consoles FAIL.
@qwertyz Theres so much idiocy in what you just said its unbelievable. By your logic, split screen gaming requires 2 times the processing power. Let's take Wipeout HD. It runs at a solid 60fps when in 2D mode. Play it in 3D, and it's 30fps. Same with Killzone, Stardust, etc. The PS3's 3D is the exact same as a PC's 3D, just at a slower fps for obvious reasons. How the hell do you even 'fake' 3D? Its just looking at the image from different perspectives in each eye... You can't... fake it. That doesn't even make sense. It's not an illusion. If anything, an illusion would... frik, i can't even... As for the 1% processing power thing you said. If that was true, then why would they need to drop the fps to get 3D running? LOL n4g commenters sometimes. xD
How can you hate on a well made 3d movie or game? I don't get why ppl are so afraid to move on with tech...
Glad they decided to differentiate between which games are anaglyph passive 3D, or dynamic stereoscopic 3D...considering they produce two radically different experiences. However, including games that have no 3D mode confirmed seems a bit "fluff". Those shouldn't be on until confirmed.
I love 3d
until 3d is universal and 1 proper path is chosen, passive or not etc.. 1 type of glasses and its just included in every tv and not mad e spectacle of then it will succeed because as of now its not doing that well.
Explain what you mean by not doing that well. Considering the amount of content thats out for it (games/Blu rays/certain TV Subscription channels) the adoption rate isn't that bad, and it will only get better as costs decrease and content increases.
Whilst i agree somewhat that a single path would be better for all, different technologies drive competition and advance the technology. So someday we may be watching content that looks as good as full steroscopic 3D, with passive type (cheaper) glasses on, or even better, with no glasses at all
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.