Forget no Russian, how about no 3D as Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 3 ignores 3D support.
I think this is a big let down as Black Ops 3D wasn't bad at all and when games like Arkham City has less quality loss, 3D is getting more refined.
If you have a 3DTV hit agree, if not hit disagree...I'm just curious :)
3D comes and goes, has been for over 100 years now. Do we really care?
3D has been around for a 100 years? Oh yeah I forget, 3D has been around longer than airplanes have. LOL.
You could say, it's been around in reality since the dawn of time...that'd make more sense.
Incorrect, we've always had real-time HEADTRACKING!
PC version probably will have 3D. Its amazing PC as a platform which is the least hyped in regards to HD and 3D (its the console makers that keep screaming these features), yet its the PC that supports over 500games in 3D, the nearest competitor Sony only supports about 30 games in 3D (that too by lowering res on most of their games), Funny Sony is also the one trying to get people on the 3D train.
So far I think uncharted 3 has the best 3d of any game so far. Though I freaking hate wearing those oversized glasses over mine so I could only use it for an hour is so before going 2d.
the first 3D movie was made in the 1910`s so yes hes actually correct. "The first anaglyph movie was invented in 1915. Though the earliest theatrical presentations were done with this system, most 3D movies from the 50s and 80s were originally shown polarized." http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
pictures have been around for over 100 years. hate IW and this just proves they are second rate. Treyarch has always been better. We losing 3d and 4 player coop. UC has way to much artifacting in 3d. Its the worst 3d game I have.
To all those people going on about 3D being around 100 years are missing the point entirely. Current gen gaming,what it offers and the addition of 3D has only been around for a few years. It's one thing to stare at a few 3D stereo-grams for a few moments, and another to be fully immersed in an interacting gaming experience.
I have an LG 47LW5700 and LOVED 3D in Black Ops. Passive 3D (Cinema 3D) works great, and playing through Killzone 3, Gran Turismo 5, Crysis 2, Crysis, Resistance 3, Uncharted 3, and CoD:Black Ops was great. Anyone saying that 3D is just a fad hasn't had the chance to really play on a 3DTV. Although honestly, for gaming I would recommend passive 3D over active shutter lenses. The flicker of active shutters bugs my eyes out after a little while.
exactly what I was thinking; and came to post. 3D is getting better, and more inexpensive. It's something I've always wanted, and nearing the edge of getting. I would have thought MW3 would had amazing 3D support, as they were acknowledging the noticable affect of 60FPS. Naughty Dog sure thinks 3D has an important role in gaming.
Haha, woo iw! 3d is annoying! I'd rather they focus all their power on the multiplayer since you know they need it. Boo to the worthless 3d fad. May it die a quick death so we don't have to lose anymore braincells over it. It's an insult to our intelligence that they feel they need to throw stuff at us to keep us entertained. It died in the 50s, it died in the 80s and may it die in the 2010s.
More than a let down it is pretty obvious. developing 3D into the game from beginning to end, or even into multiplayer would cost extra money. And with companies like Activision, they do what they can to get the most buck out of consumer's wallet without having to do too much. Don't worry maybe they'll it in next year.
Adding 3D will drop the 60fps that it's known for.
not for pc it won't if I can run bf3 all ultra 1920x1200 at 100 fps I am sure cod well play in 3d at 60 since the engine is outdated...Still tho gonna be a fun game for online run and gun and for a thinking fps we got bf3
I don't think he is referring to the PC version.
3D is optional, the framerate won't drop for those who will play with the option turned off. For some 3D is a fad, for others it isn't, and it's nice to have the option to choose, not just ignore the fanbase that likes 3D.
I have a 3D display and it doesn't make the game any less valuable to have the option of 3D. Not every movie is in 3D and I don't care to watch every movie in 3D just like I don't have to play everything game in 3D.
3D might make the experience what the developer wants it to be. To get 3D you have to sacrifice other things. I own Black Ops, and had no clue it had 3D. Does it even perform well considering this is 60fps already? Oh well, don't have a 3D TV and don't care to pay extra for it, let alone premium.
"To get 3D you have to sacrifice other things." I agree on the statement however our perception of sacrifice would be a lot different. Generally, a standard stereo-scopic 3D cuts the frame-rate and resolution by half. So if your game is 1080p it would drop to 720p in 3D, if your game 720p, it would drop to 540p and so on and so on. Therefore, the sacrifice is "post-determined" nature and not "pre-determined" as many would believe. But the "sacrifice" is just dependant on resolution and frame-rate and has no effect to the quality of the non-3D part of the game. This would be tantamount of saying your pizza will downgrade in taste if you slice it in half. An example would be Wipeout and the original motorstorm. These games were NOT built for 3D, yet the implementation was successful due to the high resolution and frame-rate. The only side-effect is that it would not be as optimized as if the 3D were built from the ground up.
***Therefore, the sacrifice is "post-determined" nature and not "pre-determined" as many would believe.*** I would imagine that would be dependent on developer decision and what sacrifices was made to obtain that higher frame. I think in some games, the draw distance is reduced, effects removed and so on to maintain a higher resolution and a higher frame rate to support 3D. In the end it is about reducing the time it takes to draw a frame to only half. There is obviously no limitation on how to achieve that, even if developers might prefer to just cut the resolution to make 3D happen.
It didn't hurt the framerate on Black Ops. 3D is no more of a hit to performance than splitscreen is.
Considering Black Ops was 3D, this is a step backwards. Not good, IW, not good. At least have it optional so framerate isn't affected if people don't want it to be.
Considering the graphics of Black Ops vs. even MW2, visually black ops was a step backwards.
Thanks alot Infinity Ward... Thanks for not at least giving us the option.
So they are gonna piss off a couple hundred people & the rest of us really wont care. I agree with it being a fad i have no interest in it.
I don't agree that's its necessarily a "fad" where its gonna die off in the future. I can only see 3D grow more and more in popularity over the upcoming years, but you're right....its only gonna upset a small minority of gamers FOR NOW.
Errr a couple hundred you say??? That doesnt quite tie up to the fact that ALL tv's being released now are 3d ready.. i for one own a 47" passive 3d tv which is very comfortable to watch with no eye strain or crosstalk and 3d gaming is amazing... I'm totally livid with the fact that IW have not even bolted on a basic 3d option like in black ops as even with the drop in resolution the added depth more than makes up for this!
Man the more i see and read about MW3 the more im turned off, Quickscoping, fucked up Killstreak System that requires almost no Kills and other stupid Crap, you die too fast like in MW2, why not make it like COD4 or BO where if you get hit you have a Chance to recover?
What can u expect from a cheap ass publisher/owner like Activision? It looks like they haven't changed the game engine since the Original Modern Warfare. Putting more features in the game requires more funding and game development cost. I think Infinity ward just optimizing the engine to just to make improvements on the graphics. @Montrealien Just stating facts. They still using the same IW Engine on their 3rd installment of MW.. What can u say about that?
the dark force runs deep in this one...so much hate, so much anger.
Yeah but with COD for every person that hates it and won't buy it, 100 people love it and will get it day 1.
Say about what Burning Finger? it's a great engine. oh, and quick note, opinion's are not facts, but looking at your comment history, you are clearly just another nameless troll, so, talking reason with you is clearly a waste of time.
I'm glad, those are resources better used elsewhere. Honestly 3-D always has been a fad, I mean if you had to choose what the developers should spend more time on, I think almost everyone would prefer time spent on other issues.
It's still up in the air as to where 3D is going. Most 3D movie revenue was doing about 60% 3D and 40% 2D. Today, most 3D movies, but not all, do about 40% 3D and 60% 2D. MW3 taking a step back with no 3D support is not a surprise. Hell, the electric car acene already took a step back by Costco yanking out all of it's electric car charging stations a couple of months ago. (i'm not an electric fan) Near perfection may take some time for glasses free, but I'm waiting to hear some reviews on this TV: http://www.highdefdigest.co...
Good, useless gimmick. So that's something they have done right.
someone doesn't have a 3D tv... Seriously it's an option...how can you be mad if they had implemented it...that's just silly.
Obviously you don't have a 3D tv.... seriously people, this gimmick comment is getting old.
I do have a 3D TV, and I have tried the 3D with Black Ops, and it sucked ass and was not worth it. 3D has become such a overused gimmick thanks to a certain film staring giant blue people. It's in every movie now a days and its just lame and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one tired of it.
Yet u bought a 3D display. What idiot claims it is a overused gimmick but buys the tv? Talk about common sense.
I actually thought the 3-d in Black Ops was done very well. In my opinion the 3-d effect matched other games known for it like Killzone 3, Motorstorm 3, and Resistance 3. Not as graphically nice as the other games but the 3-d effect was great. Why would you just not do it in the next game in your series? Developers have flat come out and said that working the engine in 3-d also helped them with the quality of the 2-d version as well.
and yet they used the 3D quicky movie effect AKA crap 3D.... Unfortunately this would not help their engine, because they don't double render the entire frame individually. The just double render the image. No stress to the engine there.
Good, because Black Ops 3D was awful. If you can't do it right, don't do it.
Don't have a 3DTV. Don't give a crap.
A fad ignoring another fad... oh the irony, RollsEyes!
It's more of they are lazy to do it. heck, MW3 is a recycled game after all who wants to pay for a $60 DLC?
I personally think it has been a huge step backwards not including at least a 3d option.... after spending over a grand on my tv i have loved playing black ops, hell i'll take the resolution hit for the added depth!! I really hope that IW will add even a bolted on 3d mode similar to black ops, there are going to be thousands of other gamers feeling the same...
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.