Top
280°

No 3D support for Modern Warfare 3 - Infinity Ward ignores 3D fad

Forget no Russian, how about no 3D as Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 3 ignores 3D support.

Read Full Story >>
msxbox-world.com
The story is too old to be commented.
RaidensRising2227d ago

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.

fluffydelusions2227d ago

If you have a 3DTV hit agree, if not hit disagree...I'm just curious :)

Montrealien2227d ago

3D comes and goes, has been for over 100 years now. Do we really care?

RioKing2227d ago

3D has been around for a 100 years? Oh yeah I forget, 3D has been around longer than airplanes have. LOL.

RioKing2227d ago (Edited 2227d ago )

You could say, it's been around in reality since the dawn of time...that'd make more sense.

DigitalAnalog2227d ago (Edited 2227d ago )

Incorrect, we've always had real-time HEADTRACKING!

decrypt2227d ago

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.

raytraceme2227d ago

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.

Ghoul2227d ago

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.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

jetlian2227d ago (Edited 2227d ago )

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.

RaidensRising2227d ago

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.

hfaze2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

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.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2225d ago
BattleTorn2227d ago

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.

ReservoirDog3162227d ago

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.

rezzah2227d ago

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2225d ago
Michael-Jackson2227d ago

Adding 3D will drop the 60fps that it's known for.

poo3429472947922227d ago

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

fluffydelusions2227d ago

I don't think he is referring to the PC version.

White-Sharingan2227d ago (Edited 2227d ago )

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.

Mustang300C20122227d ago

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.

gamingdroid2227d ago

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.

DigitalAnalog2227d ago (Edited 2227d ago )

"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.

gamingdroid2227d ago

***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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2227d ago
hfaze2225d ago

It didn't hurt the framerate on Black Ops. 3D is no more of a hit to performance than splitscreen is.

lorianguy2227d ago

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.

RioKing2227d ago

Considering the graphics of Black Ops vs. even MW2, visually black ops was a step backwards.

2227d ago Replies(2)
hyabusha2227d ago

Thanks alot Infinity Ward... Thanks for not at least giving us the option.

Show all comments (55)
The story is too old to be commented.