This in its entirety.

This is exactly the reason 3D has become even a marginal success this time around. But it won't be long before even 3D is being pushed out by 4K HD tv's. Then that will become the newest thing that everyone simply must have...

It's simply a vicious cycle of profit margins and red ink. Not that the tech is better than the previous 60+ years.

I've played 3D games before, and I just don't enjoy it as much as 2d. 3D is cool, but it needs to make a lot more progress before I would prefer it for games and movies over 2d.

Just admit it, mr. Mindwork, you're wrong. Not everyone likes 3D, no matter how good it is. So just stop trying to convince us otherwise.

For me, the only 3D movies that actually were worth it were Tron and Avatar (I will admit I was engrossed in the story, and at one point had to restrain myself from brushing the ash particles out of my face...). Most of the others try too hard to be 3D "in your face", and if you watch the same film in 2D, it's really obvious. Plus, many films have no need to be in 3D.

I wear glasses, and actually have epilepsy, but 3D movies don't give me headaches/eye strain, and I never notice that I'm wearing those Bud Holly specs. But, what is unusual, is that I just can't play for a long time on my PS3 on my HD TV. That gives me major headaches (which was annoying when playing FO3), but I can spend all day in front of my PC monitor, no problem, so naturally my preference is for PC gaming over console.
Old style 3D (with the difference colour lenses) gives me an headache. We brought a DVD with a version of the film in this old style 3D. I had to leave the room after 10 minutes.

Everyone is different, so opinions will always vary. 3D shouldn't be forced on people, option should exist everywhere for 2D and 3D.
Never tried any 3D gaming, but did once try out the 3D DS, that is just a gimmick, looked utter rubbish.


Future of 3D? who knows? It's currently had the most development with new tech, it may go on a back burner again, and then reappear with futher advances of technology.
As mentioned though, true 3D will be those trekky Holo-Decks. Gimme one of those

The games comes in 3D already. Ain't no sidescroller.

I've been playing computer games for 29 years and we've had a long line of advances in that time, isometric '3d', sprites, polygons, etc, etc, and up for debate now, sterescopic 3d..
It's not for everyone and it does have plenty of downsides, but personally I think it's a massive leap forwards in immersion.
No-one's debating whether the concept is new, but advances in both active and passive technologies, along with the fact that modern computers have the power to render enough frames, has significantly enhanced the experience.
I agree that film studios and tv manufacturers have pushed it on us as a great 'new thing', when it's not, but with a decent modern pc and with the right display technology (ideally dlp projector) it's quite simply stunning and has added a wow factor to gaming that is just not there when playing in 2d.
Some people do find it tiring, but I think it's a shame that many peoples perception of 3d gaming has been ruined by rubbish 3d films in the cinemas and the 'push' of 3d tv's into the household with hardly any decent content.

I agree with the sentiment, if not the statement. Even if 4k HD display devices became more readily available, we are years away until there is any meaningful content. I blame the companies, don't get me wrong, but look how long it took to even get HD channels. HD was being talked about decades ago. We're still stuck with DVD's because Sony killed HD-DVD and try to rip us off with Blu-ray prices.
Regarding 3d, the tech is definitely better now. As far as I know we had no DLP displays and no passive 3d tv's either.

I don't get any headaches or eyestrain with mine. One of my friends came up with that excuse but tried mine all the same and said he could easily wear them all night because it wasn't straining his eyes at all.

If you use the colored glasses, it can cause serious eyestrain. I can bear the colored glasses for about 2 minutes before I start getting a headache and I feel like I have two lumps of steel in my face for eyes.

Shutter tech is totally different. It flickers at 120 times per second, alternating for each eye which is way faster than you can perceive, the monitor has to be 120hz to deal with it, (60hz for each eye). If shutter tech caused eyestrain and headaches for you, so would a standard light bulb in your house which actually flickers at 50-60 hz depending on what country you live in. I am not denying that standard lighting can cause some people to get headaches but those who say shutter tech does but household lighting doesn't, I'd have to call them out on it. The very reason for shutter tech to use that particular frequency is because people are used to it. Being an American developer, they opted for 60hz which is the American frequency for mains electricity rather than the British 50hz.

At most, I see a very slight dimming of the lenses when it kicks in but after that, it's just like watching TV with a pair of ordinary glasses on. Admittely, a slightly heavier frame but no perceived flickering. Nvidia do actually have a setup program that comes with the glasses so if you do see flicker which happens when the monitor and glasses are not in synch, you can alter the synch to get rid of the flicker. Chances are that those who have seen flickering, which will cause eyestrain, have used glasses that are not set up properly.

Not hard at all. However, not enjoying something and lying about "faults" in the tech are two different things.
Those who just don't enjoy gaming in 3D should just come out and say so instead of making up lies to defend their opinion. Nobody is condemning a personal choice here.



Word Origin & History
fad

1834, "hobby, pet project;"
1881 as "fashion, craze," perhaps
shortened from fiddle-faddle. Or
perhaps from Fr. fadaise "trifle,
nonsense," ult. from L. fatuus "stupid."

I'd call modding a car pet project. Hang gliding, powerboat racing can also be classed as a craze or a hobby unless you do it professionally.

Baron Knights: Fads and Crazes. 1980
Fads and crazes, I get phases, got to try them all.
I play ping pong on my skates as I hang glide down the hall.

That was the first two lines, can't remember the rest.

Interestingly, I feel the opposite. Movies with "good" cinematography & filming seem (to me) to get less out of 3D, exactly because it's not obvious - it's only when you make a cheesy "throw crap straight out of the screen" 3D movie, that there's any point in the tech. And those are bad, gimmick films, since they're all designed around those shots.



Considering the number of articles we've seen over the last couple of years, talking about the headaches, eye strain, and other physiological issues, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that we're not "making up lies".



And pretty much every 3D movie I've seen has used polarized glasses, not colored lenses or shutters. Which do end up dimming the screen (really obvious in Alice in Wonderland, especially in the White Grey Queen's Castle) - it's supposed to be "fixed" by turning up the projector bulbs, but it's pretty well documented on cinephile sites that lots of theatres don't do that because it reduces the lifetime of the expensive bulbs. So the owners cheap out and let their customers see poorly presented movies.

Good 3D has nothing to do with popping out of screen. Just to let you know

"I bet my TV can beat up your TV!"

No chance. My TV is Anderson Silva. Andwot?

No they are not stop deluding yourself.

And again the stupid glasses do not work with my real ones... WTF reading comprehension fail much... Has nothing to do with looking ugly; I can do that well enough all on my own w/o adding anything to make it worse.

Ignorance is bliss. Have a good life. stop trying to sell something very few people in this thread want.

I actually saw my first current gen 3d movie not to long ago. I did not like it. Wearing the glasses gave me a headache and trying to watch the movie without the glasses made me feel just as ill. I pretty much sat there for an hour and a half just listening to the movie. I certainly hope if they ever do make a 3d game they still have non 3d version.

OK so... Pretty much 6 pages of "op I dont like green eggs and ham. I will not eat them on a van" type posts and OP responds with trying to give you more green eggs and ham...

So why do you continue giving this thread attention then? You're fueling the fire just as much as the OP.

It's more like Monty Python's Spam sketch.

The difference here is we have already eaten the green eggs and ham, and did not like them, Sam I am.

Well, you know how it is. Some people just aren't happy until everyone accepts their view as gospel truth.

It's the internet. People will argue themselves blue in the face over the most inconsequential topics.

Here's some more eggs and ham:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=100645&view=findpost&p=1389155
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=100645&view=findpost&p=1331555
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=100645&view=findpost&p=1352771
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=100645&view=findpost&p=1354084
http://www.gamesas.com/just-want-say-skyrim-looks-amazing-nvidia-vision-t158486.html

Mindw0rk, just curious, as a PC player what would I need to get set up with to have a decent 3D gaming experience? Would it cost much to upgrade my PC?

You need 120 Hmz monitor, Nvidia graphics card and 3D vision glasses. Will cost you about $1K to get nice performance in Skyrim 3D. Newest games to run in 3D on highest settings require top GPU (like GTX 680) and its nice to get Lightboost monitor to get rid of darkening screen

Thanks for the reply. I'm not keen on wearing glasses but you've piqued my interest with this thread. I built my PC only last October so I think it's decent enough but I went with AMD instead of Nvidia. The next time I upgrade I'll consider buying 3D capable gear.

Thanks again.

What have I said about five times in this thread?