The future of S3D gaming, is it really a fad?

defaultluser said:
Sure thing Professor! And after I finish those assignments, should I wash your windows and do the dishes as well?

First of all, Prof - do us all a favor and avoid cryptic acronyms in your title and post. You could at least do us the favor of typing out TechniColour (TC) ONCE.
Click to expand...

sic: Stereoscopic 3d has been the topic of at least 100 threads if not more over the past year. It's common terminology around here akin to CPU were most people won't write Computer Processor Unit once when asking 'which cpu to buy? __ or ___'. It's usually considered somewhat ok or common practice to use acronyms when addressing a group whom you expect to know those acronyms.


defaultluser said:
Second of all, color is a luxury - on the TV end of things, the low-end sets do not support color at all. The midrange sets (like the one I bought two months ago for $1200) support color sorta-kinda, but it cuts your framerate or resolution in-half so the experience is lackluster. The only sets with true techni-color capability are the top-end sets - these are often the only ones that actually include glasses.

Unless of course, you want to tell little Timmy that he has to watch the movie in TechniColour(TM) because there aren't enough to go around.

And oh yeah, my final point: color is a luxury because YOU DON'T NEED IT TO WATCH TV. Maybe someday it will become affordable and become a standard feature, but that day is at least a decade off. This is why most people are not holding their breath.

So, while it's possible that color may finally take off, do keep in mind that this is a fad that's gone hot and cold dozens of times over the last 150 years. Every time we've see an advance in color in techs, it's been dug out of the dustbin, rebranded, and eventually tossed back into the bin. It's anyone guess if that trend will be broken this time, but I don't think it will be.
Click to expand...

Editing your original post for humor. Your complaints seem familiar. I can't quite remember where. I was tempted to replace 'techni-color' with 'hdtv' but colour seemed to be more humorous.
 
I have realized that some people don't "SEE" the stereo 3D like others.
My wife is one. Going to a 3D movie she can kinda see it, but over all she can't see all that much difference. Does she have vision problem??? No, her vision is 20/20. But it seems some people don't perceive it on a level that it looks compelling. They don't see the "depth" like others so the reaction is "Meh". For me Stereo 3D has always knocked my socks off and I'm just waiting for the price point to be more affordable.
 
Last edited:
I really enjoy 3D content both in movies and games, but there are times where the muted colors--as seen through 3D glasses--really detract from the image quality a game can render in 2D. Killzone 3 is a good example of that; a beautifully drawn and rendered game in 2D is made rather ugly and rough and muted in 3D though I can only speak to the demo content. Gran Turismo 5 really benefits from 3D when using the cockpit view.

I do not at all understand the crotchety technophobia displayed by some people who hang out at technophile websites like this one. Fair enough that we don't need, one and all, to share the same preferences: but doesn't it make more sense to hope for a better and newer technology to replace 3D if you dislike the current iteration?
 
I did stereoscopic gaming back in the 90's. Was fun but not much interest/support. Would not be surprised if it disappeared again.

I would be interested if it was 100% solid/supported/no hassle


Sunny_Stefan said:
If you haven't played a game in 3D Vision surround, you can't even begin to speculate how immersive it is, it truly is amazing, and the next big leap in gaming.
Click to expand...



That's what we said in 1997.
 
I did it back then too but right now is a WHOLE new game...the experience is so much better is not even funny.
Heck my first try was with the Sega Master 3d glasses lol
 
Devnull said:
I did stereoscopic gaming back in the 90's. Was fun but not much interest/support. Would not be surprised if it disappeared again.

I would be interested if it was 100% solid/supported/no hassle






That's what we said in 1997.
Click to expand...

I saw demos of it in the 90's as well and really there's no comparison. And the support is getting better and better all the time. The a large number of the AAA titles coming out now, even some indie titles, support S3D. To say the situation with S3D was like it was over a decade ago just isn't today's reality. Of course there's plenty to improve upon but even in just the 8 months I've had my rig there's more and more 3D support coming every day it seems.
 
Dr. Righteous Limp Gawd:
I have realized that some people don't "SEE" the stereo 3D like others.
My wife is one. Going to a 3D movie she can kinda see it, but over all she can't see all that much difference. Does she have vision problem??? No, her vision is 20/20. But it seems some people don't perceive it on a level that it looks compelling. They don't see the "depth" like others so the reaction is "Meh". For me Stereo 3D has always knocked my socks off and I'm just waiting for the price point to be more affordable.
Click to expand...

That is a very good point. If we can be "color blind", or "near/far sighted", why NOT some other anomaly that would give us a take-it or leave-it attitude about S3D. Remember those STEREOGRAMS that were the rage about maybe 10 years ago, some people just could not see the effect.
 
I think current 3d technology is definitely a fad. i think people fail to realize "normal" television IS 3d. it's called depth perception and most of us have it. when you watch television, it's not hard to tell what is in front of what and the distance of objects JUST THE SAME as you do in real life.

putting blue and red colors around objects and making everything blurry and distored is NOT 3d... does it work to make certain objects stand out? yes. would it ever work to replace actual depth perception? no, i think too much effort is involved and you just end up with a horribly nasty fuzzy looking pictures.

an even bigger joke all the videos on youtube with two pictures next to each other and telling you to get close and cross your eyes... LOL:rolleyes: no thanks, I prefer my eyes to work the way the were intended to work.

i did my senior project on 3d technology. some day, potentially, we could be watching a football game in real 3d on a table like we are sitting in the stands with holographic technology, but current forms of "3d" IMO are a joke and a fad.
 
I don't know what 3D implementations you've used but what you've described certainly hasn't been my experience overall and a number of others in this thread.
 
As soon as you can watch/play 3D movies/games without some funky stupid glasses im down.

And from what I have read lately they are getting close :).

Otherwise it is a Fad, With the way technology is taking off. It is only a matter of time before Nvidia's and ATI 3d with finky glasses wont be needed anymore.

Think about it this way. The first Video card graphics company to produce 3d gaming/movies without needing wonky glasses or some special driver or monitor will have a huge advantage.

Look at eyefinity. It's been out for over 1.5 years now, and Nvidia still havent caught up with ATI on putting on 1 card.

Technology ftw
 
But YamahaAlex37, depth perception of 3d while watching 2d TV picture has nothing to do with 3d perception in real life.

1st comes from experience and logical expectation and 2nd is pure triangulation, right?
 
I think the biggest problem with 3D these days is that its not an 'extra'. They use it as a marketing gimmick to hide the fact they didn't spend enough effort on more important things like story, gameplay and bugtesting. Its no different to cut-scenes with famous actors. I'd rather have an ugly game with a great plot that was fun to play than a fabulous looking game that was boring as hell and crashes all the time. They're losing sight of what makes games worth playing.
 
No point going surround, 3D and all that stuff when games out there are terrible.
 
adriantrances said:
No point going surround, 3D and all that stuff when games out there are terrible.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree, there are some good games out there for that wok in 3D Surround, in fact most of the titles that've I've played in the last 6 months worth with 3D Surround either out of the box, patches or utilites.
 
heatlesssun said:
Have to disagree, there are some good games out there for that wok in 3D Surround, in fact most of the titles that've I've played in the last 6 months worth with 3D Surround either out of the box, patches or utilites.
Click to expand...

I meant they are terrible content wise :)
 
If a game is bad content-wise S3D will not change that. If you have abad engine in a car, new tires will not change the fact you have a bad engine. However, the quality of content in a game varies from person-to-person. Some people liked "Medal of Honor" better than "Black Ops" but if say 60% of those that like MOH or B.O. like it better in S3D that is a huge market share. What part of the game market does a company need to be successful? A LOT less that 60%. If major companies did not see a profit to be made in S3D panels they would not all be getting into it.

People that buy now are funding the time when we can have S3D without the glasses. People who bought Henry Ford's Model 'T' funded the next generationof cars that had windows & doors. They funded the cars that had heat in the winter and AC in the summer. The quicker it is funded the quicker we will have a better product. This cycle happens at the macro and micro level.

We all choose what technology we wish to fund because a portion of our dollars spent goes into Research & Development. I choose to enjoy the benefits of some of what I am funding before it is 'PERFECT' because if I wait until it is perfect, I won't enjoy much in this life.

On Mar 22 we will begin to see what a game looks and runs like when it is intentionally developed for S3D. I will be able to play it but not in S3D because I am waiting for the 27" 3D monitors to be made available(suppose to happen the end of March beginning of April). Crysis 2 is said to only reduce the framerates by 1.5% when in S3D mode. I also read in an interview that CRYTEK has a person that just looked for S3D issues that may annoy people and they fixed the issues.

Every technology has its growing pains. It also seems that there are different levels of expectation out of technology. I simply want S3D to give a slightly better depth than we get now. Others seem to want more of a physical reality out of 3D. I think if we can accept S3D for what it is, we will be amazed by it. How is it that a physician looking at a 3D representation of a tumor or MRI results find it a better representation of the problem in diagnosing and treating a problem than a 2D x-ray of the same disease entity than gamers? What about designers that use 3D as a tool to create more esthetically pleasing products

Another issue I have seen when new technology is introduced is that people will bash something that they can not afford to have if they feel some of their peers can afford it. If there peers can not afford a particular new technology item then there is not the bad-mouthing of the product. There is an old saying, "That which one does not understand he will try to control or destroy."

3D of today is NOT your daddy's 3D of days gone by. It has not only feet but legs and a body of companies supporting it. Its arms are reaching into many different disciplines and soon it will come to a head and S3D will be mainstream
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
I think current 3d technology is definitely a fad. i think people fail to realize "normal" television IS 3d. it's called depth perception and most of us have it. when you watch television, it's not hard to tell what is in front of what and the distance of objects JUST THE SAME as you do in real life.
Click to expand...


Um, no it is not. Picture is like a postcard, flat with no depth even though you know there is some. Picture on normal TV is like seeing real life with just one eye. Thats what the 3d is about, make use of both our eyes, our stereo vision that allows us to (relatively) accurately measure depth.
 
Just my 2 cents...

1) We process depth perception based on these factors:

- Expected size and shape of any given object, based on previous experience...(The smaller 747 is farther away than the larger one)
- Expected luminosity and shadow given our experience and observation of lighting conditions.
- Expected speed of motion (An F-15 doing mach 1 100 ft from you...ZOOOMM man! But same plane, same speed 10 miles across a clear sky...not too impressive (I live near an AFB)....just making an all too obvious example)
- With relative motion we process what objects occlude what other objects....obviously the tree in front, closer to me, blocks the view of the one farther away...this may not be apparent without relative motion...of the object(s) or the observer)
- Last but not least...the differing perspective from our 2 eyes...the one sequential 3d mimics. (Anybody remember Viewmaster) EDIT...so my wife points out the s3d, just like the viemaster IS an optical illusion, but my point is the perception of 3d really is heavily reliant on post image processing analysis and because in most visually experienced people those algorithms are pretty set in stone they are easy to screw with by optical illusions)

The last factor is huge in novel/new or unanticipated situations, but most people don't experience a huge obvious "flattening" of there vision by covering one eye...this is because of a lifetime of stored 3d processing data in our brains combined with memory and the other 4 factors above...(Things that most 3d optical illusions screw with)

Try this...WW2 depth perception test...hold your arms out strait ahead with your pointer fingers pointing toward the sky...move them separately either toward or away from you by flexing/extending your arm from the shoulder or elbow and judge when the are both exactly at the same distance...try it with one eye closed then with both eyes open...so, pretty easy test and the difference this close is certainly subtle but pay attention and the difference is obvious.

Actually in ww2 (My dad was Army Airforce stationed in England) you had to pull a string to line up objects a little farther away...trick was those 2 objects were not necessarily the same size and you didn't know how big they were, usually 2 sticks were used. Nearly impossible to do without binocular vision.

2) I never really thought much of getting a 3dtv until I did my research and my top pick 58 inch magnolia (panasonic) 2d plasma was only 300 bucks less than the 3d version...(well, maybe allot but when you are spending 3000 it seemed silly to not cough up the extra 10%...I must say...right from the demo on the store floor it really blows me away...(no experience with gaming, but the 3d effect in blu ray 3d and 3d cable broadcasts)...Those broadcasts are too few and too far in between so far but my local comcast has a dedicated 3d channel...off the air half the time, mostly special events/sports...but baby steps...baby steps...
 
Last edited:
adriantrances said:
I meant they are terrible content wise :)
Click to expand...

Batman AA is considered a great game. Bulletstorm that came out a couple of weeks ago has been well received and I think it's a blast. I know a lot of people are down on gaming and PC gaming in general due to consolitis but I think overall game quality is pretty good there days.
 
Metro 2033 was decent on my 60" Mistu with 3D Vision :D

Starcraft 2 was... er... rather unusual, but very pointedly S3D, lol.
 
Schoenda, Great food for thought. You are a fortunate man to have your wife discuss technology with you. I am with you on the Panasonic picture quality. I thought Samsung was good then I saw the Panasonic picture, SIMPLY BREATHTAKING!!
 
hcforde...interesting the premiums some people would pay for 3d....I would like to see that crossreferenced to answer the question...If you already have played 3d games what premium would you pay in the future...just as I would like to see those surveys done both before and after a demo of the latest 3d tech...would you walk away like "Meh"...or would you be like, "WOW That roksorz...sign me up!" otherwise its more about finances and preconceptions than anything else. Thanks for the link.

BTW thanks for the comment on my wife....though this one MAY have fallen under the category of pointing out when I am wrong rather than truly tech interested... ;)

I'll just assume the best and leave it at that...
 
I was answering a PM and decided to post some of the answer here.

"Just my imagination running here but imagine a 3 projector setup that can do holographic 3D.

I remember seeing an episode of the original Startrek where Kirk had these little disk that he could spin to get a recorded voice. We were using 8-track tapes back then(about the size of a 3.5" HDD) for 1 album worth of music. THEN YOU HAD TO HAVE A PLAYER TO PLAY THE CARTRIDGE!!! But, your music was portable without a radio, it was big and bulky to carry around but look at us now. Radio is still here but we carry our music around with us (TONS OF IT) on small devices many times smaller than just the 8-track cartridge and we get video to boot. That was in the late '60's. "
Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to carry around his or her own music if we have radio. Radio is good enough for all of us isn't it? We don't need anything different. While we did not have forums back then, I am sure someone thought portable music was a fad.
 
I don't think it adds enough too the game to make up for the associated costs. The 3D these days will not become mainstream, but surely holographic displays will. Clear, three dimensional images, will change a big role in the way we play games.
 
For some people like me it adds a LOT to certain games. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As the technology improves it will be beautiful to more and more people of course.
 
However, 3d holographic display will be prohibitively expensive especially in the beginning and the fad arguments will start all over again. This, in my opinion, is simply technological growing pains. As developers begin to code for it and become more adept at there may be a lot of added value. Especially in 'puzzle' type games. We are at the beginning of this phase an granted we have a ways to go, but I think we have to be careful in what we say is or is not mainstream as that is difficult to quantify. Usually we can only look back and say it became mainstream back in xxx. Also high end video cards are NOT considered mainstream yet there is a thriving market for them.
 
3D gaming? So are you guys tellin' me that the 1200 dollar 30" monitor that I just bought is gonna be obsolete for gaming soon? Say it ain't so!! Down with 3D! Damn it to Heck!




Haha. JK. Look forward to it. Damn I'm glad I just turned 27, the next 40 years should be fun... Shit I hope I'm still gaming when I'm 70+! :D
 
DOOMHAMMA said:
I have zero interest in 3D. It just doesn't appeal to me. I hope it goes away and stops distracting the talent from making more interesting and useful products and games.
Click to expand...

Me neither, I feel they can focus on other features instead.
 
Having been interested in the S3D effects since I was first introduced to them when they pushed them out with the early GeForce cards - it wasn't too impressive, but it was a massive improvement over what I had seen before. If they've made it even better since then, then I'm definitely an interested party.

I don't mind wearing glasses, but honestly I'd prefer a solution which didn't involve headgear, just a 3D display of some sort. When this matures just a little bit more, I think I will find myself with a 3D display to immerse myself with.

Within the last year or so I played with my old Stereo3D - Max Payne and a few other games. It really helped remind me just how immersive and fun it can be when this technology comes together.
 
AthlonXP
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I have zero interest in 3D. It just doesn't appeal to me. I hope it goes away and stops distracting the talent from making more interesting and useful products and games.
Click to expand...

Me neither, I feel they can focus on other features instead.
Click to expand...

I have read this a number of times, What would you rather have hardware and software companies focus on? How do you feel they are missing the big picture? What can they do that wil be more profitable for their companies?
 
A lot of think that there's nothing perfectly good about TN 6-bit panels even if they are 120 Hz, IPS or bust. That's been on of the nice benefits of going 3D, I didn't realize just how much smoother things could be if youn can actually drive a game beyond 60 FPS and have a monitor that can keep pace. 3D is like a cheap bonus.
 
hcforde said:
What would you rather have hardware and software companies focus on? How do you feel they are missing the big picture?
Click to expand...

Software companies (assuming you mean games):

Better gameplay. Not QTEs & console controls that spoil pc gaming.
Better plots. Cheap to do compared to most of their gimmicks they focus on.
Try something new. Not every game has to use the old tried & tested formula.
Spend more effort testing before you release. Customers are NOT your betatesters.

Hardware companies (monitors?):

Thinner bezels. I bet it would increase multi-monitor takeup.
Higher resolution displays. Enough with the hollywood driven 1080p.

What can they do that wil be more profitable for their companies?
Click to expand...

That is unfortunately the problem. They only focus on profit these days. They'll jump onto every single gimmick bandwagon just in case it takes off and market it as the next big thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top