Nvidia Geforce 3D vision support?

[ElectraGlide]

Please tell me this game will be designed with us 3D vision owners in mind. Please???

Metro 2033 has been a mindblowing surprise in 3D and the developers knew this once they added the necessary support to their game. The immersion factor is increased exponetially in 3D mode. Thief TDP is my all-time favorite game. What a treat it would be to have this new installment be 3D-ready like Metro 2033 or Batman AA! :D

[jtr7]

Unfortunately, no one here knows much about T4, and those who would aren't talkin'. I know people who've played TDP with 3D goggles several years ago, so it's not so critical for the game itself to come with special software to support it. If they did go through the trouble of building it in, it would be a shame for the majority of players who wouldn't have any of the hardware, so I'd hope it wouldn't require much to implement, but like I said, the games themselves don't usually require software or even a specific brand of graphics card for it to get the job done. It's my limited understanding that the NVidia 3D driver patches the games to work with the hardware, so that tells me the games really don't have to be built with it.


I'm just hoping T4 will run on whatever new rig I own in the future without lag or performance issues, before worrying about spending US $200 on something that can easily cause framerate issues.

[DarknessFalls]

Would love 3-D as a forethought rather than afterthought. I love 3-D. Very immersive and not gimmicky for me.

[garryengly]

Would love 3-D as a forethought rather than afterthought. I love 3-D. Very immersive and not gimmicky for me.

+1 I agree!

[jtr7]

Most players won't be able to experience it without dropping a lot more money, and one can buy 3D gaming goggles right now to play TDP/Gold, TMA, and TDS, without any code by LGS or ISA. It's a gimmick if it's a major selling point that the game can't sell as well without, not because of the player's feeling about it. It's not cheap and available to the majority, and the goggles and other hardware won't come with the game. The game itself doesn't need anything extra in it for the 3D and goggles to work. Why is it believed otherwise?

[Yaphy]

Maybe it is easier and cheaper to get your hands on when Thief IV is released? Anyhow, I think that Thief is the perfect game to make 3D.

[s guy]

How do the 3d goggles work that they can work for TDP, TG, TMA, TDS, etc.? :confused:

[DarknessFalls]

I used the term "gimmick" in the Wii controller way. For me, the Wii controller is a gimmick. I'm perfectly fine with keyboard and mouse, or console controller. I don't want or need to stand up and slash around my living room. It feels like a cheap gimmick to introduce something we didn't really need. I thought it would be a passing fad, sadly it doesn't appear as though it will be. It's a gimmick to me, not to others. My feelings may change as the tech is enhanced or I'm more exposed to it.

I don't see 3-D as a gimmick or passing fad, though. I see it as the future of visual entertainment (movies, games, etc.) and don't see it going away. If anything, it'll just be improved over time. It adds an amazing level of feeling you're there, for me. Others see it as a cheap gimmick. They have to wear glasses, it doesn't do much for them, it doesn't work for some, etc. Given these responses, you can't take the viewer's or player's "feeling" out of gimmick.

I don't see how going to 3-D from 2-D is like going to a Wii controller from a console controller. That's how 3-D is not gimmicky for me. Gimmicky is a personal "feeling" I get from the Wii controller.

The new Tron movie was filmed in 3-D; the director had real-time feedback to know how things were looking in the 3-D sense while filming. (I think this is the first movie to do this. The director usually looks at it in 3-D afterward.)

It's not like it will look awful in 2-D if you make something for 3-D. If you have the foresight to be cognizant of 3-D and what it might look like in 3-D while making it, I say go for it.

For T4, I just think it'd be great if they could be mindful of the 3-D tech and think about ways to take advantage of the tech, so the few who get 3-D now -- or 5 years from now when it's cheaper and more mainstream -- can enjoy the game more in 3-D and thank the devs for thinking of the future. I'd prefer this more than if they just make a 2-D game and let nVidia's solution handle everything.

Granted, I don't know much about nVidia's solution, and will be looking into it. I remember seeing some stuff on it a while. back. But I have a feeling Thief 1 and Thief 2 don't look as good in nVidia's 3-D solution than if they had been originally built for 3-D. So, the same for T4. I could be wrong, though.

Imagine: Open world Thief, MMO co-op... IN 3-D!!!!! ;) LOL, just kidding about the the open world and MMO co-op :D

[esme]

How do the 3d goggles work that they can work for TDP, TG, TMA, TDS, etc.? :confused:

any game that uses directx can, in theory at least, run using 3D imaging

[Platinumoxicity]

But don't 3d goggles work by rendering the same image from 2 different angles that intersect at the point where the player is looking at? I think that would need some software from the game end too... I can't see how it would work with the earlier thief games. :hmm:

In this pic of Far Cry 2 (http://mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/farcry2review/FarCry2_%230017.jpg), both screenshots (left- and right eye) are looking at the same spot in the game world but the left eye picture is taken from a position about 3-5cm to the left from the right eye picture, but because the perspectives intersect in the center, it creates authentic stereo vision and depth perception.

Enlighten me plz?

[minus0ne]

Would love 3-D as a forethought rather than afterthought. I love 3-D. Very immersive and not gimmicky for me.
Without pretending to know very much about it (apart from owning some 3D glasses a long long time ago, which weren't that bad actually), I don't think it's that hard to make a game do 3D, whether it's before or after.

Actually, after may be better considering it'll probably take a monster rig to run T4 in high resolution high detail 3D anyway, never mind eyefinity :lol: I'd hate to see Eidos Montreal make a deal with nVidia for GF3D exclusivity though, considering how totally overpriced nVidia hardware is compared to AMD-ATi while lagging behind on actual performance (save for a few tricks nVidia's TWIMTBP games employ).

[Vladimyre]

I for one would hope if it did, we could turn it off 3d movies give me nasty headaches.

V

[esme]

as I understand it

with a game using directx, the image is built using direct3d calls so all polygons have x, y and z coordinates for their vertices

so from now on the game has done it's bit and directx takes over image generation from this model, directx then has a 3d model which it then renders as a 2d image by basically working out what's in front of what from the user perspective and only displaying stuff you can see, it's a lot more involved than this but that's the idea

to get a 3d image from this directx needs to generate two images from viewpoints separated by the average eye separation distance and display them so they can be viewed using the appropriate viewing system

so as long as a game uses direct3d calls to create the display rather than work out what to display based on what's in front of what itself producing 3d imaging should be fairly easy

Direct3D has been bundled in directx since version 2.0 so pretty much any fps type game from the last 10 years should be capable of 3d output

it depends on how it was programmed

so having the capability for 3d display should have a minimal impact on game development

it will however make more demands on your machine

however my understanding could be completely wrong on this

check http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/GeForce_3D_Vision_3D_Games_uk.html for a list of 3d compatible games

[DarknessFalls]

I had a dream last night that I already owned nVidia 3-D glasses kit and just had them lying around for a few years because my computer wasn't fast enough. But then in my dream I had recently upgraded my PC, and realized I still had those 3-D glasses lying around and that I should hook them up :) I think I've spent too much time on this forum :D

[Secondary]

sounds good as long as its done carefully (but really, i say that about everything):D

[minus0ne]

as I understand it

with a game using directx, the image is built using direct3d calls so all polygons have x, y and z coordinates for their vertices

so from now on the game has done it's bit and directx takes over image generation from this model, directx then has a 3d model which it then renders as a 2d image by basically working out what's in front of what from the user perspective and only displaying stuff you can see, it's a lot more involved than this but that's the idea

to get a 3d image from this directx needs to generate two images from viewpoints separated by the average eye separation distance and display them so they can be viewed using the appropriate viewing system

so as long as a game uses direct3d calls to create the display rather than work out what to display based on what's in front of what itself producing 3d imaging should be fairly easy

Direct3D has been bundled in directx since version 2.0 so pretty much any fps type game from the last 10 years should be capable of 3d output

it depends on how it was programmed

so having the capability for 3d display should have a minimal impact on game development

it will however make more demands on your machine

however my understanding could be completely wrong on this

check http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/GeForce_3D_Vision_3D_Games_uk.html for a list of 3d compatible games
That's the short version, but otherwise spot on. Although I seriously doubt that only Direct3D is capable of 3D, it should be just as easy with OpenGL. Essentially it's just rendering the image from two points of view instead of one (mimicking stereoscopic vision).

I'm not sure if I'd sacrifice half of my game performance when I first play Thief 4, though, just to get some awkward pseudo 3D effect. Perhaps when the technology has advanced enough to render pseudo-3D without the need for glasses (and without all the flaws there are currently in goggle-free solutions), I'll give it another go. I'd rather waste computer power on eyefinity or graphic detail, though.

Still, "Geforce 3D Vision" sounds suspiciously similar to the exact same technology over a decade ago. Granted, it may work somewhat better, but it's essentially no different. Back then I would've thought we would be better able to do 3D without glasses by now.

I'd never buy nVidia GPUs again, at least not with their current (meager) offering at ridiculous prices, and "3D" certainly isn't a selling point for me, more like a gimmick (as it was years and years ago).

[DarknessFalls]

At least the 3-D now isn't just red and blue colors.

[bambini]

I'm still not convinced on 3D in film (I sawa Avatar in 3D and it was still a pile of doo doo), but I think that it could potentially come into its own in gaming. The big question I have is whether 3D is really going to add a great deal to my gaming experiece. I've not played any games in 3D yet, but I've not really come across a situation in which I've not felt sufficiently immersed in a game unless the game itself is a bit rubbish.

All I need is a good enough plot and interesting levels to pull me into a game, so for me the idea of 3D is perhaps a bit gimmicky. I'm not expecting it to massively improve my gaming experience, but who knows? I could play a game in 3D and be totally converted. At the very least it would be interesting to see how T4 would look in 3D.

The big question though is whetehr the technology is ready yet. I'd hate to see T4 turn out to be a game which showcases some technology and loses out in plot. Like Tron :)

[esme]

That's the short version, but otherwise spot on.
you mean I was right ? well a bit right ? cool :D

with films I'd rather watch a really good 2D movie where the budget went on story and acting than watch a mediocre 3d movie with the same budget that relies more on 3D effects like an boulder coming out of the screen straight at the viewer

[bambini]

with films I'd rather watch a really good 2D movie where the budget went on story and acting than watch a mediocre 3d movie with the same budget that relies more on 3D effects like an boulder coming out of the screen straight at the viewer

Agreed. Would The Godfather be a better film in 3D? I don't think so.

[minus0ne]

you mean I was right ? well a bit right ? cool :D
You sound surprised! :D
with films I'd rather watch a really good 2D movie where the budget went on story and acting than watch a mediocre 3d movie with the same budget that relies more on 3D effects like an boulder coming out of the screen straight at the viewer
Exactly. Potentially stereo 3D could be used to really immerse you in the environment, but I suspect as long as the stereoscopy/depth is "inside the screen" as opposed to "around you" and as long as goggles are required 3D will probably never really take off, or only as periodic fads.

[bambini]

We've discussed in these forums before about the (theoretical) possibility of fully 3D sound (I think it's call binaural sound) - footsteps that actually sound like their coming closer, and being able to pinpoint the direction they're coming from. That's one of the few technological advances that I really think could make an improvement on the Thief experience. 3D wouldn't really add that much for me, and I wouldn't have thought that flashy new graphics would have that much of an impact (for me at least).

[esme]

You sound surprised! :D
I was kind of expecting to be shot down in flames by a much more knowledgeable person who would tell me at great length why what I posted was utter drivel, that does tend to happen on public forums a bit, so yes

[Secondary]

I'm still not convinced on 3D in film (I sawa Avatar in 3D and it was still a pile of doo doo)

i thought the 3d was one of the only good parts of that movie
as long as its used to create the illusion of depth and not to make gimmicky "ooh duck it popped out of the screen" moments im fine with it, it thought it was pretty cool

i think that giving a more realized feeling of distance, especially in 1st person, would really add something to the game

[jtr7]

Go buy goggles and try it out, and see if it's worth $200. ;)

[DarknessFalls]

I'm still not convinced on 3D in film
I think people either like and appreciate the 3-D vibe, or it doesn't do much and they could care less. I don't understand how 3-D doesn't impress, but I also don't understand why some people want an open world Thief game. So I'll just chalk it up to difference in tastes/opinions that I'll never understand, and vice versa.


The big question though is whetehr the technology is ready yet. I'd hate to see T4 turn out to be a game which showcases some technology and loses out in plot. Like Tron :)
The tech is ready. The question is: are gamers willing to spend the money on 3-D goggles when they could get three whole 8-hour long mediocre games for that price? (All the sudden, $200 doesn't sound so expensive in that context.)

Or maybe we just wait for WiiThief, lol ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw . Pretty cool tech, without the need for glasses. Though, I don't think it'd really work for immobile PC gamers who sit at their desk to play games. Still interesting, nonetheless.

And I think you're confusing Tron's acting and dialogue issues with the plot. The plot was actually ahead of its time and interesting when it was released. Before the mainstream internet. Before the Matrix. Before mainstream anti-virus, etc.


with films I'd rather watch a really good 2D movie where the budget went on story and acting than watch a mediocre 3d movie with the same budget that relies more on 3D effects like an boulder coming out of the screen straight at the viewer
Me too. Good thing the boulder-coming-out-of-screen effect hasn't really been used much in the 3-D movies I've seen. I think you're more thinking about the Vegas and Disney movie-based rides, or maybe some made-for-children animations. Have you seen very many 3-D films or documentaries?

[esme]

not of the current crop I have to admit, my experiences are based around those awful cardboard red green glasses from many years back that used to give me vile headaches and even then 3D was a gimmick to sell a crap movie

I can't even remember the last one I saw it was so unmemorable, but I remember the headaches

oh and channel 4 did a season of 3D recently, for which you needed the new differently coloured cardboard glasses, that wasn't much fun either, it got to the point where I watched without the glasses to avoid the headaches

I've no doubt the tech has improved to the point where I don't get blinding headaches, and it actually looks 3D but I still don't see how 3D will improve my movie experience, "oo look that bits further away than this bit" doesn't really make up for a substandard plot and as I already become immersed with 2D what is 3D going to bring to the table to make this better ?

..Though, I don't think it'd really work for immobile PC gamers who sit at their desk to play games...

am I the only one who leans forward or to the side in my chair so I can see over the edge or round the corner then ;)

[minus0ne]

I was kind of expecting to be shot down in flames by a much more knowledgeable person who would tell me at great length why what I posted was utter drivel, that does tend to happen on public forums a bit, so yes
Fair enough, cynicism comes in handy on the internet :p
I think people either like and appreciate the 3-D vibe, or it doesn't do much and they could care less. I don't understand how 3-D doesn't impress, but I also don't understand why some people want an open world Thief game. So I'll just chalk it up to difference in tastes/opinions that I'll never understand, and vice versa.
It's not that 3D doesn't impress, it's that we're talking about pseudo-3D. The bottom line is that it relies on a method of visual trickery which doesn't particularly agree with fast motion (that's a major limitation itself when it comes to games) and has lots of other flaws.
The tech is ready. The question is: are gamers willing to spend the money on 3-D goggles when they could get three whole 8-hour long mediocre games for that price? (All the sudden, $200 doesn't sound so expensive in that context.)
The tech was ready over 10 years ago. Shutter-based pseudo-3D is nothing new, far from it. 120Hz will make little difference, and I don't see why $200 isn't better spent on three whole excellent games or a new/additional GPU.

All in all, it's just cashing in on a fad for the third time (there have been a couple of these 3D-gaming crazes over the years in case you don't remember). I can't say I'm impressed with "GeForce 3D Vision" compared to the exact same thing (minus the 120Hz) a decade ago, and at the end of the day, you're still required to wear goggles.
Or maybe we just wait for WiiThief, lol ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw . Pretty cool tech, without the need for glasses. Though, I don't think it'd really work for immobile PC gamers who sit at their desk to play games. Still interesting, nonetheless.
Pretty cool indeed, however the problem is still that it's just a virtual window, there's no real depth, and as you say, it has only limited applications in gaming for obvious reasons. This is perhaps more like it: http://www.physorg.com/news188550483.html Although that's still some way off and it has problems of its own (even if it is miles ahead of anything with shutters/goggles).
And I think you're confusing Tron's acting and dialogue issues with the plot. The plot was actually ahead of its time and interesting when it was released. Before the mainstream internet. Before the Matrix. Before mainstream anti-virus, etc.
Wasn't he referring to the recent videogame based on Tron, not the movie itself?

Me too. Good thing the boulder-coming-out-of-screen effect hasn't really been used much in the 3-D movies I've seen. I think you're more thinking about the Vegas and Disney movie-based rides, or maybe some made-for-children animations. Have you seen very many 3-D films or documentaries?
Have you? :nut:

[DarknessFalls]

Have you?
Yes, I've seen my fair share of 3-D movies and documentaries over the last 7 or 8 years. Space Station 3-D, Aliens of the Deep in 3-D and a U-2 concert at the IMAX... and maybe a couple other documentary style ones there. For movies, Avatar... and a Harry Potter film had elements of 3-D... and a couple others I can't recall at the moment. Space Station 3-D was my first introduction to the "new" 3-D being used in film about 8 years ago. I was amazed. Felt like you were right there -- whether it be in the crowd waving the astro-/cosmo-nauts goodbye... or on the beach where a lady was walking... or on the space station. I knew 3-D would be the future of video when I saw that... it wasn't like the old school 3-D, and it wasn't filmed as if it was a Disney ride. James Cameron's Aliens of the Deep was my second experience of the "new" 3-D, and I was also amazed by that. You can tell he drew a lot of inspiration from that movie for his plantlife and some animals in the Avatar film. The conert also made you feel almost like you were there. But these are just my perceptions and feelings. I don't think everyone has the ability to "lose themselves" in the visuals, forget they're wearing glasses, and live in the moment as well. Before this recent batch of movies, I saw old red/blue 3-D movies on TV in the '80s, and had a poster that used those glasses, etc. Also, in the mid-90s, I saw some 3-D movie thing at the Luxor hotel in Vegas, as well as maybe at Disney... thus, my boulder-popping-out-of-screen experiences.

it's that we're talking about pseudo-3D. The bottom line is that it relies on a method of visual trickery which doesn't particularly agree with fast motion (that's a major limitation itself when it comes to games) and has lots of other flaws.
It's not like visual trickery is anything new ;) The very presence of video games is a form of visual trickery. It's not really the real world we're playing... :D Why is visual trickery so bad if it is effective at achieving what it's trying to? Red/blue glasses visual trickery = not so good... but it worked for the time. The new 3-D trickery = works a lot better and is much more acceptable.

I don't think this 3-D gaming wave will be anything like the former ones. It only if people can't afford the new techs; which may happen... which is fine. I know economics might not allow it to. But I hope it does.

The technology is finally here to have the framerates, graphics and displays needed to more fully exploit the tech. It would've been cool to have 3-D for Pitfall on the Atari 2600, or Defender of the Crown on the C64, or Flight Simulator on the IBM PC, Jr., or Faery Tale Adventure for the Amiga 500, or Turok for the N64, or Thief 1/2 for the PC. But at least the first 4 or 5 would've been in the archaic red and blue vision, and rough on the framerates. The last two would've been respectable, but I look forward to the more detailed and realistic environments of today being in 3-D. T4 in 3-D would be so much more immersive for me than 2-D. I should look into T1/T2 in 3-D like it was mentioned earlier.

Regarding Tron, oh he may have been referring to the game. But Tron 2.0 was the name of that game. And the only new tech I remember in that was nVidia's glowing circuitry lines, which was pretty cool. I think he was more referring to the movie, but it's hard to say.

esme wrote: not of the current crop I have to admit, my experiences are based around those awful cardboard red green glasses from many years back that used to give me vile headaches and even then 3D was a gimmick to sell a crap movie
I hope you give the current crop a shot sometime. It's nothing like the old red/blue ones. I struggled with red/blue ones as a kid... I wanted them to be so much more. Watching Creature from the Black Lagoon in that old style is nothing like today's stuff, imo :) I recommend watching one of the aforementioned documentaries in 3-D, or Avatar I suppose if it looks remotely interesting to you.

I like this topic. It doesn't stress me out as much as the open world and other threads :) Mainly because I'm okay with either 2-D or 3-D, I just think it'd be cool to have a 3-D option. Whereas with the other topics, I fear open world, female protaganist from T3, no Stephen Russell, Assassin's Creed like movement, lackluster gameplay, short game, etc.

If nVidia's contraption can do that perfectly by shifting X, Y, Z coordinates, then great, I may be okay with that. Especially if ATI builds a solution, too. It just seems like EM might be able to have slightly different puzzles or things to uncover if they build with 3-D in mind.

[minus0ne]

Yes, I've seen my fair share of 3-D movies and documentaries over the last 7 or 8 years. Space Station 3-D, Aliens of the Deep in 3-D and a U-2 concert at the IMAX... and maybe a couple other documentary style ones there. For movies, Avatar... and a Harry Potter film had elements of 3-D... and a couple others I can't recall at the moment. Space Station 3-D was my first introduction to the "new" 3-D being used in film about 8 years ago. I was amazed. Felt like you were right there -- whether it be in the crowd waving the astro-/cosmo-nauts goodbye... or on the beach where a lady was walking... or on the space station. I knew 3-D would be the future of video when I saw that... it wasn't like the old school 3-D, and it wasn't filmed as if it was a Disney ride. James Cameron's Aliens of the Deep was my second experience of the "new" 3-D, and I was also amazed by that. You can tell he drew a lot of inspiration from that movie for his plantlife and some animals in the Avatar film. The conert also made you feel almost like you were there. But these are just my perceptions and feelings. I don't think everyone has the ability to "lose themselves" in the visuals, forget they're wearing glasses, and live in the moment as well. Before this recent batch of movies, I saw old red/blue 3-D movies on TV in the '80s, and had a poster that used those glasses, etc. Also, in the mid-90s, I saw some 3-D movie thing at the Luxor hotel in Vegas, as well as maybe at Disney... thus, my boulder-popping-out-of-screen experiences.
I'll give you that it can enhance certain film experiences, namely nature documentaries which have stunning visuals already. I'm not sure if I can attribute that to 3D or simply seeing a documentary on the big screen. Although that's a totally different technology (which incidentally also has problems with fast motion), and we're talking about 3D gaming. But whereas cinematographers can limit the impact of these flaws or cover them up, it's virtually impossible in videogames (which also demonstrates another point: it shouldn't consume an unreasonable amount of added game development, and in no way should it actually begin to limit developers).
It's not like visual trickery is anything new ;) The very presence of video games is a form of visual trickery. It's not really the real world we're playing... :D Why is visual trickery so bad if it is effective at achieving what it's trying to? Red/blue glasses visual trickery = not so good... but it worked for the time. The new 3-D trickery = works a lot better and is much more acceptable.
If you'll re-read what I wrote, you'll see I don't have a problem with visual trickery (well duh) but with visual trickery that doesn't work well. I'm not talking about the ancient red-blue glasses either, I'm talking about the serious drawbacks of shutter-technology.

I don't think this 3-D gaming wave will be anything like the former ones. It only if people can't afford the new techs; which may happen... which is fine. I know economics might not allow it to. But I hope it does.
The price has little to do with it. I hope shutter-based pseudo-3D dies the early death it was supposed to back in the 1990s, and it'll make way for a much less crude approach. And it's certain to happen, as for example this tech (http://www.physorg.com/news188550483.html) already shows (and a dozen others like it). Now I'm not against early adoption, far from it (I was among the first to buy shutters back in the 3dfx days), but I can guarantee you 100% that you will get burned the second you buy into nVidia's current offering.
The technology is finally here to have the framerates, graphics and displays needed to more fully exploit the tech. It would've been cool to have 3-D for Pitfall on the Atari 2600, or Defender of the Crown on the C64, or Flight Simulator on the IBM PC, Jr., or Faery Tale Adventure for the Amiga 500, or Turok for the N64, or Thief 1/2 for the PC. But at least the first 4 or 5 would've been in the archaic red and blue vision, and rough on the framerates. The last two would've been respectable, but I look forward to the more detailed and realistic environments of today being in 3-D. T4 in 3-D would be so much more immersive for me than 2-D. I should look into T1/T2 in 3-D like it was mentioned earlier.
Well, you know my advice by now: wait for a real solution. And by that I mean simply stereoscopic 3D that adds to the visual quality rather than subtracting from it, like these crude toys (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/01/09/nvidia-geforce-3dvision-review/7) currently do. If you want an overpriced preview of tech to come, then go ahead, but don't be disappointed when something far superior is announced a day after you buy it (oh well, you could always return it to the shop and say it gave you headaches, which it probably will, although you can't do that with the monitor).

Considering the cost of 120Hz LCDs plus nVidia's toy I'd still say that's a pretty hefty sum considering the limited added value and the inevitable burn you'll experience when something infinitely more promising is released. By the time 120Hz monitors become mainstream, stereo-3D tech will be generations ahead of this, and most likely without shutter-glasses.
If nVidia's contraption can do that perfectly by shifting X, Y, Z coordinates, then great, I may be okay with that. Especially if ATI builds a solution, too.
But nVidia's contraption can't do 3D perfectly, this is my entire point. ATi is already launching a similar offering, but again they're just cashing in on the umpteenth 3D craze without having anything new to offer. Trust me, it'll definitely pay off not to be an early adopter of stereo-3D right now ;)
Not all games though get the same level of effect, which Tim and Harry say is a result of getting to the Z-buffer information during the game. Basically, if a game (usually an older one) doesn’t have a way to detect how deep into a scene a model should be then it can’t interpret that stereoscopically, though it doesn’t stop trying. The end result is usually that the whole screen looks 3D, yet too many objects appear at the same depth.

Certain parts of standard game design can cause a few problems too, namely the traditional Heads-Up Display. Most games tend to have a HUD, whether they are used to tell you how much armour you have, what units you have available or just to run a ticker of who has killed who. It works well when you’re rendering a 3D scene on a flat screen.

In stereo-vision though the reality of how a HUD works is bought home, with the whole thing leaping up to eye-level while the rest of the scene is left further away. It’s like having it all writ on a paper held just in front of your face, which can make it hard to get the information you need at-a-glance as you need to physically refocus your eyes.

For some games the HUD doesn’t pose a huge problem admittedly – Left 4 Dead is distracting at first, but you quickly get used to it and third person games are less of an issue (the Prince of Persia games work very well). Other games though can cause serious headaches. [...]

To be completely fair to Nvidia however, these problems aren’t actually the fault of the hardware or the technology. The shutterglasses are actually doing exactly what they need to do, they just happen to be doing it a little bit too well. Nvidia has gone some way to address these problems by including a stereoscopic laser sight that you can use instead of the in-game crosshair but we found that it didn’t really help all that much.

What’s really at fault in fact is the game itself, though they too can’t really be blamed for it as they were never designed to be played in stereoscopic formats. That fact does highlight the issue though that the 3DVision won’t really benefit players beyond the visual side of things. It’s a graphical toy; ironically not essential to playing any existing games the way they were meant to be played.
I think that pretty much says it all.
It just seems like EM might be able to have slightly different puzzles or things to uncover if they build with 3-D in mind.
:eek: Wait.. what? You go from not caring about it one way or another to this?

That said, I'm pretty sure in its current form there is quite literally nothing "3DVision" can add to the gameplay (in fact it'll more likely hinder it). What you're talking about, stereoscopic puzzles or something along those lines, require not only a wholly different and new stereo-3D technology, but also a completely different input method.

[CamRaiD]

I can guarantee you 100% that you will get burned the second you buy into nVidia's current offering.


I have used 3d vision for the last 8 months, and it has been INCREDIBLE.

I would never want to game in 2d again tbh... there is no comparison. And the tech is good.

(ps old thread resurrection i know;)

[DarknessFalls]

Nice! What games have you tried with them? Any glitches or issues? Is there anything that you think the developers could have or should have done before releasing the game to enhance or cater to the experience more, in terms of graphics, animation or level design, etc? Would they somehow also work with RTS games like Age of Empires, Civ IV, or 1706 AD, do you think? Have you also tried Thief 1, 2, or 3 with them? If so, how well did it work?

What are the pros?
What are the cons?

[DarknessFalls]

The game itself doesn't need anything extra in it for the 3D and goggles to work. Why is it believed otherwise?
You're just talking about PCs, though. At some point, we'll probably have to talk about the dreaded word: "consoles". To make 3D work well on Playstation 3, the developer would ideally probably need to do something special.

Of course, we're still only talking about retrofitting 3D, and Sony's big hope is that developers will code for the new format right from the start, resulting in visually richer and technically more efficient implementations. Hit the source for more. http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/23/playstation-3s-3d-implementation-explained-may-require-upscali/
You heard it, EM! :) I hope to play Thief 4 mastered for a PS3 when I get a 3D TV years down the road. Think in 3-D forward, not in 2-D backward. 10 years from now, you want your game to still be vying for gameplay time next to all the other games in full 3-D glory, right? Please do this, but release T4 in 2-D for the PC first (since we can apparently buy an nVidia contraption that lets us see it well in 3-D).

Build it perfectly there first and foremost, without even thinking about consoles. And then do your ports to consoles... without dumbing it down.

[jtr7]

Wouldn't the consoles--not EM--have to create the compatibility, support, and interface for the goggles to plug in? What does EM or Thief 4 have to do with it? It's the hardware and how the drivers are accessed, isn't it?

A quick Google search reveals...

XBox is ready and already running 3D games:
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/37115/Xbox-360-is-fully-3D-capable

PS3 is not yet ready:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1085581p1.html



For the heck of it, Wii not yet ready, either:
http://www.watchmojo.com/blog/video_games/2010/03/23/

[Platinumoxicity]

And if one thing is unavailable on some platform, that feature must be made unavailable on others too. We wouldn't want the version on the superior platform actually being superior to the ones on the inferior ones would we? That would make someone butthurt when the PC nerds' version has something that his doesn't have.

[DarknessFalls]

Jtr7, as the articles say, the PS3 is getting a firmware update soon to enable 3-D. Think it said summer. And they also say developers should make their games in 3-D to make the 3-D. Perhaps another reason PCs are better.

[CamRaiD]

Nice! What games have you tried with them? Any glitches or issues? Is there anything that you think the developers could have or should have done before releasing the game to enhance or cater to the experience more, in terms of graphics, animation or level design, etc? Would they somehow also work with RTS games like Age of Empires, Civ IV, or 1706 AD, do you think? Have you also tried Thief 1, 2, or 3 with them? If so, how well did it work?

What are the pros?
What are the cons?

I have played mainly new double A, or triple A titles... I havn't played any RTS games with them yet... I haven't experienced any major issues, they have been a great investment, the best gaming purchase one could make I could say...

It helps when the game is designed ground up in s3d, but its not necessary as the information is intercepted at direct 3d.

If your the type of gamer that stops to smell the roses and marvel at beautiful vistas or architecture, 3d is even more mind blowing. You can absorb a 'scene' to much higher detail and understanding. Its alot more dramatic. But should be noted that he 3d in the avatar movie for instance is a watered down mild version. Its infinitely better and stronger at home....

Cons might be that I found I lost a little bit of competitive edge in online gaming, ie BFBC2, as you have to re-focus your eyes on near or far objects... no biggie tho...
You lose some brightness to your eyes through the 'shutting' of the glasses....

Some people love rts games with them, they say "its like looking into a toy box, with little machines at war moving around etc"

[massimilianogoi]

Most players won't be able to experience it without dropping a lot more money, and one can buy 3D gaming goggles right now to play TDP/Gold, TMA, and TDS, without any code by LGS or ISA. It's a gimmick if it's a major selling point that the game can't sell as well without, not because of the player's feeling about it. It's not cheap and available to the majority, and the goggles and other hardware won't come with the game. The game itself doesn't need anything extra in it for the 3D and goggles to work. Why is it believed otherwise?

Hmmmm... permit me to doubt... Is not needed another camera point in the game to create that 3D-effect?

[Platinumoxicity]

So it doesn't consume any GPU resources to render the view from 2 angles and switching back and forth between them? When using the shutter goggles?

[jtr7]

The goggles' software creates the offset, and the GPU issue is a matter of framerate capability, as is the monitor's ability to refresh crisply from frame to frame. Once again, I tell you players have already done it with the older titles, most of a decade ago.

http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46154&p=501850&viewfull=1#post501850
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53324
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97157&p=1274125&viewfull=1
http://www.ttlg.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=61031&p=739252&viewfull=1#post739252
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98390
http://ttlg.com/FORUMS/showthread.php?p=1239392

http://www.edimensional.com/misc/games.htm

[andysonofbob]

I joined just to replay to this thread. I am a stereo 3D gamer and I am still blown away by it.

Frankly all Eidos need do is to provide stereo gamers with thorough options in the advance graphic settings. A good example of this would be the Bethesda graphics options.

@ EIDOS
Forget coding a 3D crosshair, simply allow users to disable crosshair if they choose; dont fret about shadows but provide more options for shadows so the gamer can choose to use dynamic shadows or just the maps etc; volumetric effects causing glitches, allow your customers to disable them; post processing effects causing grief... etc etc

Thanks!

[dsung]

Thief 3 can be in 3D using nVidia 3D Vision. So why Thief 4 should not?

http://www.eidosforum.de/showpost.php?p=837922&postcount=1 (with nVidia 3D Vision Discover)

[DarknessFalls]

Thanks CamRaiD and andysonofbob! You're making me really want 3-D glasses for my PC!!!

EDIT: Ack, not the red and blue kind like dsung posted, though. Surely red & blue = no good. I will stick with the full color ones if I ever do this.

EDIT 2: Here's a list of PC games, ranked with how well they work with nVidia's glasses. It seems that the game makers can probably do a few things to make the 3-D experience rank in the "Excellent" category. Otherwise, why would there be so many games listed in the "Fair," "Poor," and "Not Recommended" categories? http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_3D_Games.html

[dsung]

Thief 3 supports the true non-red-cyan-3D-graphics as well.

[andysonofbob]

Thanks CamRaiD and andysonofbob! You're making me really want 3-D glasses for my PC!!!

EDIT: Ack, not the red and blue kind like dsung posted, though. Surely red & blue = no good. I will stick with the full color ones if I ever do this.

EDIT 2: Here's a list of PC games, ranked with how well they work with nVidia's glasses. It seems that the game makers can probably do a few things to make the 3-D experience rank in the "Excellent" category. Otherwise, why would there be so many games listed in the "Fair," "Poor," and "Not Recommended" categories? http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_3D_Games.html


Mate! Well pleased you are considering going stereo. It was the best upgrade I have ever made. (I am not wealthy; literally saved £1 a day. I was going to get a new gfx card but choose 3D vision plus monitor instead. I am hugely satisfied with my purchase!)

Havent a clue about red and blue. Aparently you do get depth and popout but at the cost of significant colour degredation. However, pretty much every game which has 3D elements and runs in a Vista/W7 environment will work in stereo (full colour 3D vision / iZ3d / DDD or red/blue). I think they also need to be at least DX9 but I could be wrong there.

Games get rated poor for a number of reasons, which might include one or more of the following depending of seriousness:

- too many 2D elements. Not just things like mouse cursers or unit icons, you would be suprised how many 2D elements are superimposed over 3D elements. Crysis is a good example of this; the high shader settings appears to overlay additional 2D grass textures over the 3D grasses. Also bloom and HDR are sometimes 2D effects superimposed onto the scene...

- textures poorly rendered in 3D.

- messed up shadows.

- anomolies, like doubling of textures, caused by volumetric fog.

- seriously reduced performance.

Fortunately these glitches are far and few between and can be remedied by disabling one or more graphical settings. However some settings become obselete e.g. FOV and arguably shadows. Shadows may be contraversial but they are no longer required for depth. I'm British and shadows like those seen in games occur only occasionally - the blob like shadows of games of yore are far more lifelike in diffused lighting. Fortunately, games usually render shadows correctly in stereo.

I realise I havent painted a pretty picture but I frankly cant play games in mono any more because they sadly all look pants. Would you rather listen to music in mono or stereo?

[Namdrol]

Which monitor did you get?
I nearly bought the Samsung 22" 3d (TFT central rave about it) but got a 23" NEC instead because the black levels are so much better. (Thief all the way ;_)).
Neither of them are cheap though with the Samsung weighing in around £250 and the NEC at £300

[andysonofbob]

Which monitor did you get?
I nearly bought the Samsung 22" 3d (TFT central rave about it) but got a 23" NEC instead because the black levels are so much better. (Thief all the way ;_)).
Neither of them are cheap though with the Samsung weighing in around £250 and the NEC at £300

Got the Viewsonic. Very pleased with it.


Just installed T-DS and it is great in S3D - fairly flawless actually. Only quibble, you cant adjust convergence! I wonder why that is locked out? Also the text is at screen depth on the map page.

But that's it. If Thi4f is like T-DS, it's perfect already! :flowers:

Rope arrows! Rope arrows! Rope arrows!

[CamRaiD]

I realise I havent painted a pretty picture but I frankly cant play games in mono any more because they sadly all look pants. Would you rather listen to music in mono or stereo?

Hahaha, spoken like a true Brit! :) Yes, it could be considered a flaw, that if for whatever reason you cannot run the game in stereo, there is a feeling of not being satisfied...

It was an accurate picture though, and all that considered, its still such a rush to see games come alive like they do. The only problem is, is that you will constantly want to grab the nearest person to have them share in the many times you just, go... wow. By then you be longing for another pair of expensive glasses...:rolleyes:

Prices can only come down i guess though...

[DarknessFalls]

Awesome comments. Makes it easier to see why we can't just rely on the goggles to do the processing, as there might be some anomalies that they can't overcome. And so, if EM wants T4 to work well in 3-D... which I do... they'd have to apply some resources toward it :) Sorry Jtr7 and others.

[andysonofbob]

Awesome comments. Makes it easier to see why we can't just rely on the goggles to do the processing, as there might be some anomalies that they can't overcome. And so, if EM wants T4 to work well in 3-D... which I do... they'd have to apply some resources toward it :) Sorry Jtr7 and others.

I have loads of games and there are very few I cant play in stereo because of glitches. AND I have been called fussy on the nVidia pages, with other gamers happy to ignore the minor glitches I have issues with.

Nearly every game is playable, glitch free or with the occasional easily ignorable anomaly, if you are willing to lower the odd graphical settings or tweak the 3D settings.

eg games like Dragon Age :Origins and Prototype have 2D unit icons and curser (rendered at screen depth), this makes the cursers and unit icons double because you are looking far into the distance but the icons/ curser etc are focused where your monitor is. To compensate, I lower the depth and increase the convergence (popout) thus maximising the 3D range.
I consider both DA:O and prototype to be showcase games I like to blow my mates away with!

As I said before, if Thi4f is as S3D friendly as its imidiate predecessor, T-DS, stereo gamers are laughing because its suprisingly cool sneaking around in 3D! :cool:

[jtr7]

It still doesn't matter, DF. You wanna know why? PCs aside, it will be made to work with the tech of the day, and not necessarily work on the very next thing. Plus, having only one company's system work well still doesn't address having other goggles from other companies, having last-year's goggles, or finally getting goggles years later. Unless you own each specific piece of gear, there's only so much EM will be able to do, and really, they should just make the game. I don't want any time wasted (if it's not a waste, it wasn't wasted) on testing and debugging for each piece of gear for assured compatibility on something that is mostly a novelty which most gamers will not buy. For US $200, it had better be awesome, and not a novelty, and something to revisit again and again, and have some versatility.

[DarknessFalls]

Maybe nVidia and Sony will pay them lotsa money to be exclusive 3-D supporters. In which case, there'd be less of a need for EM to do a bunch of testing on a bunch of equipment from differet manufacturers. I can see the 3-D splash screen now: "3-D by (whispered voice: "nVidiaaaahh...")" LOL

[andysonofbob]

AFAIA, apart from direct X, stereo 3D has little to do with tech. It also doesnt matter what S3D solution you go for because they all seem to work the same. There are probably 4 games out there ATM which have been produced with stereo 3D in mind, but I have only one 3D game which that doesnt seem to activate the 3D - Warrior Kings. In fact part of the joy of going stereo is rediscoving your old games. Anyone remember Project Nomads in 2002? Sort of RTS/FPS where you flew islands about. You really feel the mass of the islands as you move them around in stereo.

As I mentioned in my first reply, all EM or any other software house need do is provide a good selection of graphics options (something most of them tend to do anyway) and they will have made a 3D friendly game.

Thief DS was made 6 years ago and it is arguably flawless. Only quibble is the sky drawn at the wrong depth. However it's still drawn at a distance so it is no biggie. Convergence works fine BTW :whistle:

I realise my glasses will last as long as nvidia make cards but S3D will only get cheaper and more common place with time. If its a fad, it's a really enjoyable one, which seems to work with all my games.

[massimilianogoi]

Please tell me this game will be designed with us 3D vision owners in mind. Please???

Metro 2033 has been a mindblowing surprise in 3D and the developers knew this once they added the necessary support to their game. The immersion factor is increased exponetially in 3D mode. Thief TDP is my all-time favorite game. What a treat it would be to have this new installment be 3D-ready like Metro 2033 or Batman AA! :D

But neural suffering factor due to the bad exposition is increased exponentially too. Plus: lately I've watched more than one movie in 3D, at the cinema, and I must say that they aren't in a real 3D: they are just in 4 or 5 layer of different deepness, but any layer is flat, so it's almost like the old western puppets shows.

So I don't hope that Thief 4 will be in 3D, just because this technology is still too backward for having a decent result...

[Heavy Rain]

So I don't hope that Thief 4 will be in 3D, just because this technology is still too backward for having a decent result...

That’s not entirely true. I haven't the first hand experience, but I read positive reports about Batman: Arkham Asylum in 3D..even Morrowind!