For this you only need to let them play 10 minutes Trine 2 in 3D. Easiest way to turn pretty much any hater and sceptic into 3D convict

Watching movies in 3d gives me a headache, and that slight dizziness. I cannot stand it.

Don't need 3-d. It gives me a headache to watch for too long.

I agree with todd, 3D bothers my eyes so im not a fan..also dont like wearing the lighted home version (my brother has it).
The only way i would be a 3D fan is if they invent HD holograms without glasses or any kind of plug into the matrix thing

Plug into the matrix thing that's great!!

I don't like it :/ 3D just doesnt improve Skyrim for me. I like some games in 3D, but not all. Well, it all boils down to personal opinion I guess.

I have a 27 inch 3D monitor 120Hz and the Nvidia shutter glasses. The 3D in Skyrim is good but I have to say that the 3D in Fable 3 is better by far because there is far more depth to it. Similarly, the online game called World of Tanks has awesome 3D. In the garage you feel as if you can put your hand into the screen and pull out the tank like a model out of a glass fronted cabinet.

IMO, it's no good trying to play a game in 3D with a small monitor, you need a big monitor to get the full effect but you are talking serious money then. My 27" 3D monitor and glasses combo cost me 450 UK pounds alone. When the prices come down for bigger monitors it might become more mainstream.

Grats, you found the 1 thing Fable 3 is alright at.

You know what the best thing about Skyrim in 3d is?

Nothing. 3-D is, and always has been, and forever will be, a ridiculously stupid gimmick. No matter how great the technology gets, it's still the same stupid, pointless thing. I don't need my video game or my movie to be in 3-D. My life is in 3-D and rarely gives me migraines.

Making the game into 3d capable would have wasted true development time. It's not even required to enjoy a game. It's a poor excuse to charge you an extra 150+ usd then in some cases extra for in glasses. I just bought a 23" led flat panel moniter. 170 normal is 239+ 3d version... Add another 200.


I can't even see the difference between 3d and 2d other than it being blurry.


3d tech has about 60ish years of going in and out of style. This is including in video games since the Atari 2600. I'm sorry but tell me in what way is it worth it to pay almost 300 plus another 100 per eye glass set for a fad?

haha we're not far from it with all the tech being worked on...they already have prosthetic hands that are surgically wired to your brain so you can control the hand mentally

the matrix is near, which pill will you take?

It works best in stop motion animation or CGI animated films, especially Dreamworks. Coraline, Tangled, and Kung Fu Panda 2 are the best examples I've seen.

The cyanide pill... I'm not going to be a energizer for them.>:￡

When you pay crap, you get crap. People make anaglyph glasses from paper, watch something in "3D", think they saw everything and go to forums saying about how bad it is.
For experiencing real 3D in its full glory you need high end gaming rig (mine cost me 3500$) with good 3D monitor (Lightboost recommended), time invested to learn how to run games properly (some need fixes and community patches),
playing with options and configs to set proper depth.

Is it worth it? If you play 3 hours a week and dont really care - no, its not. If you're avid gamer and want to immerse yourself like never before, constantly being blown away - its no brainer. 2 years ago there were only few games with 3D Ready lable. Now most AAA games support 3D.

So your saying my $1500 gaming machine can't handle 3d even though the parts I have 3d support. I can run all game at max settings with no problems. I play a lot of games and watch very little tv. When I'm home and not working around the house I'm gaming. I still think its a fad untill they remove the glasses and improve 3d tech. 60+ years of going in and out of style tells me it's a fad. I'm a avid gamer and have seen 3d flagship stuff... It's not even worth it. At least to me. But more power to you for liking it. Also the health problems (eyes) makes me think twice.

It's not a "gimmick" or "fad" at all. It's as much of a step towards making the appearance of videos/games match real perception of that scene as color is. It's necessary for making something totally immersive.

However, I can't really believe that Skyrim would look "so much better" in 3D - the only game I've played in 3D is Crysis 2, but I've made some stereo screenshots of other games, and the thing about them is... yes, there's depth, but you see every tiny texture and 3d model fault so much easier as well. So that just breaks the immersion anyway, so I think overall it's not the main thing that should be focused on improving right now.

That would be horrible.

(And, honestly, given that there's a good number of people who have physiological problems with 3D - eye strain, headaches, etc - I can't imagine them just writing off a good portion of their audience. "Sorry, you don't get to enjoy media anymore. Have fun!")

I've seen three movies in 3D - Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and Toy Story 3. Didn't really do much for Avatar and TS3, and it screwed up Alice - all those nice pure rich colors that they designed into the movie, dimmed/washed out by wearing sunglasses indoors. (Let's not even mention the excessive surcharge.) So I've sworn off 3D movies.

And then there's the part where I just don't enjoy wearing 3D glasses over my regular glasses, it svcks. (And no, I'm not getting contacts - even if I could deal with sticking my fingers in my eyes at regular intervals , my vision in my right eye is probably too screwed up to work with them... somewhere on the order of 20/300.)

This is just an excuse for mindw0rk to do some [censored] waving, as if anyone really cares he has a 3k pc.

/thread

taste is a matter of opinion, he isnt wrong, he just doesnt like 3d, many people dont

I remember the same comments about anologue sticks, pressure sensitive buttons, and motion sensor technology. Heck it was even said about DVDs by some people.

My point is I don't think 3D has been given a chance yet. It may be expensive and gimmicky now but today's technology is just a stepping stone to future advances.



Ok, ok, my real point is that if people give up on researching 3D technology then I'll never get my holodeck

Just so you know. I'll repeat it again. 3d has 60 years worth of chances. To many problems with individuals being able to enjoy it.

Eye strain and headaches being the big problems.

60 Years isn't enough of a chance for you?

I skipped page 2 so if this has already been mentioned... I couldn't care less.

3d svcks. I cannot see properly w/o my glasses and frankly wearing their glasses over mine doesn't work. Doing so gives me migraines... not going to happen I'll stick to regular TV, games, and movies thankyouverymuch.

You whoever you are with your $3500 PC go jump off a clif or something and stop bragging about your system.

Has is really been sixty years? I had no idea. But if that's true than you have to at least admit that the boffins have made some progress with 3D technology in that time. Something as complex as bringing a flat image into the 3rd dimension doesn't happen overnight.

I'll admit too that humans may not be ready for such visual stimulation. I've suffered headaches and a funny feeling in my eyes while simply trying SF4 on the 3DS at the local game shop but I still think 3D has a chance in the future.

As much as the haters will hate it, 3D tech will never go away. Why? The holy grail of 3D tech: 3D porm

Unless they can get a real holodeck up n running even that won't make me interested. Least with the holodeck I'd be in the action not watching it.