i was then wandering what skyrim would be like in 3d...
has anyone got a 3d monitor/tv and would care to share their experiences with skyrim in 3d? is it horrible? awesome?
explain!
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
skyrim in 3D.... anyone?
» Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:24 am
i was then wandering what skyrim would be like in 3d...
has anyone got a 3d monitor/tv and would care to share their experiences with skyrim in 3d? is it horrible? awesome?
explain!
-
Spaceman - Posts: 3429
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:09 am
» Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:02 am
"
Given how good this game looks under ordinary circumstances, there was no reason to expect it would look bad — or even unsatisfactory — when decked out with stereoscopic 3D. And, of course, it doesn’t. This was by far the most immersive of the four games (again, no small feat given how engrossing Skyrim is anyway), but it was also the least intrusive.
I never wondered, as I did with Battlefield 3 and L.A. Noire, about the depth of what I was seeing, or how this object or that person looked at this distance or that distance. Instead, I could only marvel at how much more real everything looked: at the way trees “stacked” as they dotted up a hill, at the subtle softening of a group of people standing behind the man I was talking to, at the way combats became so much more intense because they’re so point-blank “in your face” to start with that they seem to live up to the 3D ideal movies have been struggling to meet since the 1950s. So effortlessly was all of this presented that Skyrim was the hardest of the games to write about: How do you explain what you can barely detect? But because this meant that I no longer had to think about it — I could just accept it, the way I do all the games I play without stereoscopic 3D — I couldn’t be happier."
From http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/107825-nvidia-3d-vision-skyrim-battlefield/2
-
Assumptah George - Posts: 3373
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:43 am
» Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:06 pm
Didn't try it myself but it seems to be very good in 3D
"
Given how good this game looks under ordinary circumstances, there was no reason to expect it would look bad — or even unsatisfactory — when decked out with stereoscopic 3D. And, of course, it doesn’t. This was by far the most immersive of the four games (again, no small feat given how engrossing Skyrim is anyway), but it was also the least intrusive.
I never wondered, as I did with Battlefield 3 and L.A. Noire, about the depth of what I was seeing, or how this object or that person looked at this distance or that distance. Instead, I could only marvel at how much more real everything looked: at the way trees “stacked” as they dotted up a hill, at the subtle softening of a group of people standing behind the man I was talking to, at the way combats became so much more intense because they’re so point-blank “in your face” to start with that they seem to live up to the 3D ideal movies have been struggling to meet since the 1950s. So effortlessly was all of this presented that Skyrim was the hardest of the games to write about: How do you explain what you can barely detect? But because this meant that I no longer had to think about it — I could just accept it, the way I do all the games I play without stereoscopic 3D — I couldn’t be happier."
From http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/107825-nvidia-3d-vision-skyrim-battlefield/2
"
Given how good this game looks under ordinary circumstances, there was no reason to expect it would look bad — or even unsatisfactory — when decked out with stereoscopic 3D. And, of course, it doesn’t. This was by far the most immersive of the four games (again, no small feat given how engrossing Skyrim is anyway), but it was also the least intrusive.
I never wondered, as I did with Battlefield 3 and L.A. Noire, about the depth of what I was seeing, or how this object or that person looked at this distance or that distance. Instead, I could only marvel at how much more real everything looked: at the way trees “stacked” as they dotted up a hill, at the subtle softening of a group of people standing behind the man I was talking to, at the way combats became so much more intense because they’re so point-blank “in your face” to start with that they seem to live up to the 3D ideal movies have been struggling to meet since the 1950s. So effortlessly was all of this presented that Skyrim was the hardest of the games to write about: How do you explain what you can barely detect? But because this meant that I no longer had to think about it — I could just accept it, the way I do all the games I play without stereoscopic 3D — I couldn’t be happier."
From http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/107825-nvidia-3d-vision-skyrim-battlefield/2
i have battlefield 3 too, however i remember hearing over at the battlefield forums that 3D is horrible on that game. Because of all of the dust particles and dirt on the screen in-game to make it look like the soldier is wearing goggles, it made 3D look unbearable because these particles were projected wrongly. interesting review of skyrim in 3d though! looking forward to it!
-
~Sylvia~ - Posts: 3474
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:19 am
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1