QOTD: Do You Want True 3D Graphics for Games?

I want a VR helmet that weighs less then an ounce and be wireless, lol. I am not sure glasses and expensive monitors are the wave of the future, but I am often wrong.

I dont/wont care about 3D. I've tested it, and honestly I'm not extremely excited about it. Factor that in with the extreme price and the clunky annoying glasses, and it rates about a 0.001 on my give a damn-o-meter.

If they can make a light implementation of it, and it works easily and looks great, then sure It would sure bring some new life to games most people don't think of as 3d, like RTSs. I'd like to see support for other applications like AutoCAD as well though. I consider it just as important that it be flexible.

Has anyone every seen a 3D movie on a 22" monitor? The screen is just too small to make the effects, well..effective. It's like watch a movie through a pipe. For this to work well your gonna need a big screen, like 42" big, and how many gamers have the cash for that.

I'm with Blessedman; light weight, wireless, VR helmets with built in sorround sound are the way to go.

I had a 42" inch TV hooked up to my PC before I moved to Japan (boy do I ever miss it), but even with that I still wouldn't be too excited about true 3d. As for the glasses, I would be interested to try but ultimately I think they would not be comfortable enough for every day use, and I still have a lot of doubts as to how good they actually are.

I really don't care about stereo glasses and games and that is not a good thing for your eyes and brain when used too many hours... I guess the bill with healthcare at the ophtalmologist will rise a lot if this massifies!

Nope. I'll be perfectly happy to go from 2-D images to visual cortex stimulation.

so far "true 3D" is a waste of time and money. what's the point in running "true 3D" when framerates are almost cut in half. I mean its not like we get 100fps in crysis and we want to see it see it in "true 3D" furthermore you're stuck to the so called gaming monitors who are prices to rip you off. if you want to see it on 40+ inches you're out of luck, because even if a lot of hdtvs out there can do 120hz, they don't support their technology because their 120hz is not "true 120hz" and so the 3D effects will be lost. you'll have to buy a gaming projector for that and well those are not exactly bargains either.. i think ill stop here

so far "true 3D" is a waste of time and money. what's the point in running "true 3D" when framerates are almost cut in half. I mean its not like we get 100fps in crysis and we want to see it see it in "true 3D" furthermore you're stuck to the so called gaming monitors who are prices to rip you off. if you want to see it on 40+ inches you're out of luck, because even if a lot of hdtvs out there can do 120hz, they don't support their technology because their 120hz is not "true 120hz" and so the 3D effects will be lost. you'll have to buy a gaming projector for that and well those are not exactly bargains either.. i think ill stop here

I sure care for it, but from what reviews i have read so far the bad (non-existant) support in games makes it a mediocre experience. The hardware side is catching up (120 Hz monitor is not so expensive, and cards can take the performance hit in a lot of games), so i think this shouldn't be an issue... after all, lotta people ar bound to glasses anyho and they seem to survive

I think:
1- The simple Red-blue glasses will probably not be the best choice;but there is a variant used with eye doctors that look just like regular sun glasses.
2- Any kind of helmet to play 3D games will absolutely suck wearing it (it'd look goofy,and people these days are very picky on what they put on their head).
3- Any glasses with internal monitor build in will probably lack resolution. Many games are nice when played in at least 1024x720 pix, while many 3D glasses only support 640x480 to 800x600 pix.

Besides, the 3D glasses don't have that large of an appearance of screen;and 3D sun/blue-red glasses probably might pose problems on LCD screens if LCD screens need to display the alternate image (for the other eye) every other frame.
despite having a 1ms lag, I fear some artifacts might not come out nicely with glasses.

I'm quite excited by the potential to be playing in stereo 3d within a couple of years. However, for that to come to pass, prices on the required technology will need to drop significantly. If in a couple years' time there are good, reasonably priced monitors or flat-panel TVs that support the required refresh rates, I'd be more than willing to invest in the glasses. In all, I think the technology has great potential if the prices come down to a realistic level and there is adequate implementation and support on the software side.

3D glasses aren't true 3D, and if it's anything like IMAX (which is not bad, just not worth the extra money), then there's no point. It's the developers job to imerse the player in their "3d" environment. Whether it's true 3d or not, it will satisfy the player. For now, my games look so damn good with my 8800gt and 19" samsung that I am very satisfied. So I could care less about 3d glasses.

Meh...

I have the edimensional glasses and used to run games off a 21" CRT. I only bought them to test the technology but the driver issues were nothing short of a nightmare and many a game wouldn't work properly so in the end I stopped using them.
But properly set up and while working well with a game the effect was just about completelly real. The immersive feel blow my mind. So much so that the games that worked well with it started to feel very boring and uninteresting without it. I'm currently reserching what monitor or TV would be best in combination with nvidia's solution and I'm definatelly buying those in the near future but with something considerably bigger than a measly 21" (20 effective) CRT because that size really strained my eyes. Brilliant effect!

I would take a longer ,better games any day over eye candy.

The potential is great, but the implementation is not there. Right now D3D movies resort to gimmicks to use the 3d. "oh the giant balls rolling towards me. wow..."

I agree that it'll probably take a true headset to make this work, and it has to make the experience more immersive, and not just be a gimmick, which I think is all it will be.

Yes, give me 3D. But, I would prefer special HD goggles with the HD screens built in. I would like a wide actual field of view (say over 90 degrees). I would also like the goggles to track head motions -- so I could look around. In other words, I want a virtual world.

I think it is feasible. I would pay a lot ($1000) for that capability if it supported a lot of games.

Do I want? Yes.

But I don't want to have to wear anything special in order to experience "true" 3d. The technology should work just like watching regular TV.

ooooo, loooks fun. i wanna try this in dead space!!!!

I'll wait until Holographic display technology.

Ok, 1st, its not red/blue lenses in these, its micro-shutter tech - means your refresh rate is cut in half. I, fortuantly, can and have baught a 120HZ TV, but am waiting to build a machine that will actually drive games fast enough to use it. Overall, support for the tech is lackluster atm, but I am sure it will take off. In some games (WoW being one main driver), the 3D effect is actually quite stunning, with dragons seeming to come out of the screen at you. Yes, this tech is pretty much useless on small monitors, 30" an up at LEAST. But games need to be coded for it as well.

So in short, excited? Very. WIlling to drop money in the short term? Yes. Expecting a revolutionary change out of the box? No, not at all. But then, I also dropped money on the OCZ NIA and thats even more obscure in use and scope, so perhaps I'm not a very good example of the average consumer.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Convergence and separation must be set correctly for the stereoscopic effect to be evident in games. Correctly configured, the effect is awesome. Incorrectly configured, you will be underwhelmed and wonder what the fuss is about. CONVERGENCE AND SEPARATION MUST BE CONFIGURED CORRECTLY.

I have used stereo3d extensively and I think it adds greatly to the immersion. Try it out, but make sure it is set up correctly before you draw any conclusions about the merits of stereo3d. IMAX movies are a passive experience in comparison to a 3D game in which you can move about and manipulate your environment.

I'm not worrying about true 3d until they find a way to start using those hologram cubes or the likes for computer monitors. And even then it'd need to have the picture quality improved drastically as well as price and refresh rate would be an issue below a certain level.

There's a lot of work that needs to be done before they're viable... but the time is coming.

The new lcd shutter tech is getting to the point where the glasses are light enough that they're not annoying anymore... but you still lose half your image intensity, which may be a problem in bright rooms.

Normal game rendering has all the information required to render 3d, but interfaces need to be standardized to eliminate the driver and compatibility problems (nvidia might be a big help there).

Compatible screens can't cost much more than any other screens... it's just not enough of a value add to justify a big price difference.

I've always thought the "Holy Grail" of display tech would be a 3d headset with eye tracking and targeted rendering. We know a lot about how the eye works now, and with precise eye tracking, systems could be designed that render only the information the eye needs. That means lots of detail where you're looking and a lot LESS detail (maybe only rendering edges) near the periphery of your vision. Right now GPU's spend a lot of time rendering detail that's wasted because you're not LOOKING at it.

That would allow game makers to render at quality levels that are an order of magnitude higher than they are today (I suspect it would get us to photorealistic)... without adding any more horsepower.

It could be done with eye tracking glasses and a normal monitor... but would be even better with a high resolution panoramic headset (full wrap around, maybe 2500x1200 res). That would seriously kick ass.

If they could just figure out the niggling details like accurate (and predictive) eye tracking, lightweight ultrahigh res. non-planar displays, and non-uniform (targeted) rendering.

Probably a decade away still... sadly.

This would be cool if it truly worked.. I would try it if the price was right and the quality was there. Why not make a curved screen like a half moon would be cool. It could give the illusion of being in the game with view of the sides..

How many of you guys complaining about this have actually tried it? i played Left4Dead for a few hours at my friends house and that game KICKS ASS in 3d. He is got a Q9550+GTX260 and it runs like butter. If they could get all games to play as well as this one title does, I would definitely throw down the money for a system to play 3d.

I really rally want to get some of these...unfourtunately the monitors are only in size 22" and I have a 28" so it would be a major step-back, but once high Hz monitors or even big LCDs become standard, I'm deffinitely gettin me a pair of these. You can actually test out what it would look like if you google cross-eyed pictures of the game you want to play. I'f you can cross you eyes than you can see certain pictures that are made for cross-eyed view in 3D on a simple 2D screen!!!

Man the price just killed it for me...

I currently use this setup and it is nothing short of amazing. It does take some education and getting used to, however. Without the correct depth and convergence settings, it's easy to understand how someone could get turned off of the technology. Left 4 Dead and WoW are great on this! Hopefully Nvidia sets up some store kiosks so people can actually experience stereoscopic 3D. Unless you've experienced it properly set up, you don't know what you're missing!