Just want to say Skyrim looks amazing in NVIDIA 3D Vision.

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:49 pm

Forget what you see in the movie theaters.
Forget what you see on 3D TV's.

I'm talking about stereoscopic 3D for directX based games. Skyrim looks absolutely amazing in 3D. Guys please be open minded and try it out. If you're eyes are sensitive it takes about three weeks for you to adjust so please take it slow. Start the 3D settings very low when you start and only for an hour at a time. Then slowly build up. I have 20/20 vision and I'm over 30.

* You look down from a cliff and actually sense the distance from where you are to the ground. Scary!
* You look up from under a waterfall and see the water coming down! Sweet! It's almost as if you can feel it.
* Incoming projectiles are truly terrifying in a great way! Easier to dodge.
* You can really feel the dragon flying over your head.
* First person interactions with NPC's are far more engaging.

Thanks for letting me share this epic experience.

DirectX Stereoscopic 3D is not a gimmick.....
User avatar
Marie Maillos
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:39 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:36 pm

Agreed. The game looks amazing with Nvidia 3DVision. Everything is taken to a higher level of immersiveness when in 3d. The interior environments are especially impressive. The 3d depth just gives it a higher level of "realness" and it even makes the games textures look like a higher resolution than what they are. I sometimes toggle the 3d effect off when in some dungeons or buildings just to see the difference and it is amazing. I can't imagine anyone not wanting to play the game in 3d after experiencing it first hand. Wonderful experience!
User avatar
Avril Churchill
 
Posts: 3455
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:00 am

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:50 pm

Agreed. The game looks amazing with Nvidia 3DVision. Everything is taken to a higher level of immersiveness when in 3d. The interior environments are especially impressive. The 3d depth just gives it a higher level of "realness" and it even makes the games textures look like a higher resolution than what they are. I sometimes toggle the 3d effect off when in some dungeons or buildings just to see the difference and it is amazing. I can't imagine anyone not wanting to play the game in 3d after experiencing it first hand. Wonderful experience!


Good to see I'm not alone. I just finished another dungeon in 3D and it was simply amazing.

Witcher 2 was the best game I've played in 3D, but Skyrim is now in 2nd place even though it wasn't designed for 3D.
User avatar
Dean
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:58 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:22 pm

Might have to conider 3D down the line.. Though im having a hard enough time with the spiders as it is without them being truly in my face lol
User avatar
Richard
 
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:50 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:08 pm

Yup, it looks incredible - perk constellations, the aurora, magic effects. It's almost entirely free of the usual issues too - only water refraction seems messed up.
User avatar
TRIsha FEnnesse
 
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:59 am

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:58 pm

I hate to be "that guy" but I really hate 3D, it's just a personal taste issue though. I don't think the effect is as impressive as it's been hyped up to be, and it might sound weird but I just feel more "orientated" playing in "2D".

I have a 3D vision monitor, I didn't buy it for that particular feature though.
User avatar
glot
 
Posts: 3297
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:41 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:06 pm

I hate to be "that guy" but I really hate 3D, it's just a personal taste issue though. I don't think the effect is as impressive as it's been hyped up to be, and it might sound weird but I just feel more "orientated" playing in "2D".

I have a 3D vision monitor, I didn't buy it for that particular feature though.


These kinds of responses always make me wonder if color television/movies had the same initial reception.
User avatar
Siobhan Thompson
 
Posts: 3443
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:40 am

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:49 am

Yeah... no. Never going to bother with 3D stuff. Every experience I've had with it has been an eyesore. Total gimmick, you work for NVIDIA or something?
User avatar
carla
 
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:36 am

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:29 pm

The problem is that it doesn't work for some people. My wife being one, where I have switched the 3D on and off while she looked at the screen with the glasses and didn't see a difference. None at all. Some people just can't distinguish between the two unless it is something obviously 2D like a photograph. If it's a 3D world being displayed on a 2D monitor, then the brain is kinda tricked into rendering it as 3D even without the glasses. So the effects of the glasses goes unnoticed. This also means that when the rest of us sees the object leap out of the screen during a 3D movie and gets close enough to touch it if you reach out, they simply see it still at the screen. Its weird.

I'm just glad that the 3D works for me just fine. This game is amazing in 3D but it would be nice if the crosshairs wasn't part of the UI and could be rendered in 3D as well. I know, simply solution, turn off crosshairs and use one of the one that comes with the 3d vision.
User avatar
Nick Swan
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:34 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:30 pm

These kinds of responses always make me wonder if color television/movies had the same initial reception.

Apples to oranges. It's not that I dislike the concept of 3D, it's that I don't like the implementation.

It's still early days and the effect looks cheap. If you want to draw a parallel to colour TV then look at the black and white "colourisers" that came out before real colour TV and that's kind of what our current 3D technology is like.
User avatar
Kelsey Anna Farley
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:33 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:37 pm

I'm not really sure how the effect could be improved, aside from getting rid of the minor ghosting you see in high contrast areas. The shutter glasses send one image to one eye, another image to the other, and the graphics card renders them from two different viewpoints. That's how 3D works, via parallax, even in real life. Some movies have fake 3D that's edited in after the fact, which I'm sure looks gimmicky, but video games never need to do that since all the spacial information is right there in the engine.
User avatar
Gemma Flanagan
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:34 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:34 pm

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.


If this guy is right, and I'm pretty sure he is given his experience/knowledge, it's not something people can just get used to.
User avatar
IM NOT EASY
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:48 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:38 pm

I'm not really sure how the effect could be improved, aside from getting rid of the minor ghosting you see in high contrast areas. The shutter glasses send one image to one eye, another image to the other, and the graphics card renders them from two different viewpoints. That's how 3D works, via parallax, even in real life. Some movies have fake 3D that's edited in after the fact, which I'm sure looks gimmicky, but video games never need to do that since all the spacial information is right there in the engine.

The effect won't be improved until we have technology that just isn't commercially available right now.

3D computer graphics are still essentially 2D on a computer screen, all 3D does is takes the components of that "2D" image and represents them in a pseudo-three dimensional way. Maybe I'm just one of these people mentioned above, and my brain just isn't fooled, but when I have viewed 3D in its current form all I have seen is layers of pseudo-3D objects. It looks like crap too, I am honestly more convinced by 3D games displayed two-dimensionally.
User avatar
George PUluse
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:20 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:40 pm

3D is nice but just not worth the cost right now. The last Resident Evil movie had the best 3d effects I've ever seen in a movie. But even for that level of 3d I'll still wait untill there is a less expensive way to get it.
User avatar
~Sylvia~
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:19 am

Post » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:40 am

I came in here thinking there would be a screenshot of this "amazing" nVidia 3D Vision stuff but there isn't... :sadvaultboy:
User avatar
Tiff Clark
 
Posts: 3297
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:23 am

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:06 pm

I'd love to play Skyrim in 3D..
About how much is the performance loss?
User avatar
JERMAINE VIDAURRI
 
Posts: 3382
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:06 am

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:50 pm

3D HDTV's are too expensive.
User avatar
evelina c
 
Posts: 3377
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:28 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:16 pm

Forget what you see in the movie theaters.
Forget what you see on 3D TV's.

I'm talking about stereoscopic 3D for directX based games. Skyrim looks absolutely amazing in 3D. Guys please be open minded and try it out. If you're eyes are sensitive it takes about three weeks for you to adjust so please take it slow. Start the 3D settings very low when you start and only for an hour at a time. Then slowly build up. I have 20/20 vision and I'm over 30.

* You look down from a cliff and actually sense the distance from where you are to the ground. Scary!
* You look up from under a waterfall and see the water coming down! Sweet! It's almost as if you can feel it.
* Incoming projectiles are truly terrifying in a great way! Easier to dodge.
* You can really feel the dragon flying over your head.
* First person interactions with NPC's are far more engaging.

Thanks for letting me share this epic experience.

DirectX Stereoscopic 3D is not a gimmick.....



This is so insanely obviously advertising it's not even funny, pathetic attempt man.
User avatar
james kite
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:52 am

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:07 pm

This is so insanely obviously advertising it's not even funny, pathetic attempt man.
While I agree it appears to be advertizing, I've tried the glasses and it makes a lot of difference, certainly greater depth, but I can only wear the glasses for a few minutes at a time, my eyes become quickly tired.
User avatar
kitten maciver
 
Posts: 3472
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:36 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:36 pm

The effect won't be improved until we have technology that just isn't commercially available right now.

3D computer graphics are still essentially 2D on a computer screen, all 3D does is takes the components of that "2D" image and represents them in a pseudo-three dimensional way. Maybe I'm just one of these people mentioned above, and my brain just isn't fooled, but when I have viewed 3D in its current form all I have seen is layers of pseudo-3D objects. It looks like crap too, I am honestly more convinced by 3D games displayed two-dimensionally.


That's what I'm saying though, there's nothing pseudo about it. The way the technology works will produce just as much depth within a single object as it will between objects at varying distances. If the depth setting is turned down though, as it most likely would be in a store demo since it takes most people some time to get used to higher depth settings, all you're going to be able to see is the difference in depth from one object to the next, making it look like a bunch of 2D cutouts. Once you've got everything dialed in right, you'll see the contours in NPC faces and the weapons in your hands will look like physical objects (Fallout's Pipboy looked particularly real). That's why nVidia makes those 3D profiles for all the major games.

Agreed though, the OP sounds like an ad.

As for performance, I'm running the game at 1680x1050, "high" textures, low shadows, no anti-aliasing, on a single 9800GT, 4 gigs of ram, 3.2 ghz dual core processor. I can run dragon age, dragon age 2, and fallout maxed out, but had trouble running Metro 2033 at times, and had to put the graphics settings pretty low for Witcher 2. I picked up the monitor and glasses for $450.
User avatar
Avril Churchill
 
Posts: 3455
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:00 am

Post » Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:42 am

I have support for 3D and such but I never use it, never even tried it, isn't it horrible on a PC screen no matter the size or am I being too negative ?
User avatar
An Lor
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:46 pm

Post » Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:12 am

Those saying 3D is nothing but a gimmick haven't personally played a GAME in 3D. Not cinemas and stuff. Just saying.
User avatar
Kellymarie Heppell
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:37 am

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:46 pm

I've seen a couple of movies in 3D theaters, and I'd definitely say a computer monitor is better. The computer screen is also closer to you than a TV, so it takes up more of your field of vision, which is good. You're also sitting directly in front of it, so there's no distortion (when I saw Avatar in 3D my seats were off to the side, and it svcked.)
User avatar
Amelia Pritchard
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:40 am

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:06 pm

I've played Uncharted 3 in 3D (PS3 obviously), and while I understand why some people consider it just a gimmick, I enjoyed the extra dimension while playing :)
Too bad this game/engine wasn't made for 3D.
User avatar
Sarah Bishop
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 pm

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:02 pm

It seems I'm not alone :thumbsup:

I understand that people might not get a kick out of it but I don't understand why some are so hostile towards it.

I play exclusively in 3D. I think I only played Skyrim without it, once, for 5 minutes. Other than that, I have 90 hours of 3D gameplay with a big screen (projector) and I can say that this is the first game I felt the 3D was done right. It's still early and early adopters have to go through a lot of crap that won't exist a few years from now, this one though, even though it's not perfect (some glitches still being sorted out), it's close to perfect. Clearly the best 3D experience I had so far. In most content out there though, I agree, it's more of a gimmick.

The other thing about gaming in 3D is that it requires you to know what you're doing to get a good experience. I can imagine most people getting a crappy experience at some point and forming an opinion around that. I had pretty bad experiences at first before I figured out how to adjust the depth and convergence the way I wanted. I actually think it's more likely you'll get a bad experience at first, based on bad settings or bad content, than otherwise.

I can safely say though, that Skyrim in 3D, with the correct equipment and configuration, is a much superior experience to Skyrim without 3D. I really miss it if I'm not using it now.
User avatar
Crystal Clear
 
Posts: 3552
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:42 am

Next

Return to V - Skyrim