79 réponses à ce sujet

[Babli]

Daewan wrote...

Seriously?  Again?
Let me summarize how this thread will go for the next few days before it gets locked:
Majority: We don't care.
Gaxe: But 3D is awesome!
Minority of people who actually understand how it is supposed to work: It's not ready yet, it's just a gimmick.
Gaxe:  Nowai!  3D is so much better than it used to be!  Everyone should want it!
Majority: But we don't care.  We just want the game.
Gaxe: 3D is too awesome to ignore!  If you don't like it, you're not a real gamer!
Moderator: Again?  *thread is locked*

We hope this summary has been useful to you.

Also, we don't care.

Dude was right!
Only moderator is missing.

[ak4115]

3 kinds of ppl frequent the 3D threads here,



1. the 3d supporter , is here for obvious reason

2. the fanboy, somehow beleives his PC power will be put into use. Will be disappointed, but fanboys are strong, can take many kicks.

3. the e-thug , here to troll



so, don't try to reason , won't work.

[DJBare]

"I'd pay $79.99 for Mass Effect 3 if it was 3D ready. "



Simple, make it an addon and you pay the extra bucks.

I truly enjoy Bioware games, but would rather not encourage them to increase prices "further"; I feel the same about any gaming company, I'm all for supporting future development, but only in game content and not snazzy addons.

[SalsaDMA]

Mister Mida wrote...

Assuming that's some kind of graphics card for the PC, no I haven't. I wasn't planning on playing ME3 on PC when I've played the previous games on XBox 360. Neither am I gonna spend a 1000+ euros on a new tv for the sake of 3D.

But my experience with 3D is that you'll eventually forget about it very fast. So if I need to make the choice, I'll take more/quality content over 3D. So far I've read Sony and others had some interesting plans concerning 3D, but I guess those won't be seen by the public for at least until after ME3 got released.

It's not a gfx card as such. It's an accessory you can add if you already meet the requirements to use that accssory.
The requiements are basicly summed up as: a 120 Hz monitor and a Nvidia gfx card of a model that is not too old (My old gfxcard was ver 2 years old and met the requirements for it)

I was in need of a new monitor last year, so I figured I might as well get a 120Hz monitor since I already had a nvidia card capable of running 3d. I cherry picked the one I had read the best results from in speed at the time (Acer GD245HQ) and it costed me about.... 375 euros. (rough curency estimate on the side of making it sound more expensive than it actually was). I do't know where you got your figure of 1000+ euro, but I can only take it as being hugely mis-informed data.

As for the immersion and quality it brings to gaming, I consider it as a bigger leap than back when 3dfx launched their first 3d gfx chips, so people could suddenly see '3d objects' in the games, rather than relying on 2d sprites or hogging the CPU to portray the stuff in the games. I take it you thought that was a 'fad' too, back then?

[Mister Mida]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Assuming that's some kind of graphics card for the PC, no I haven't. I wasn't planning on playing ME3 on PC when I've played the previous games on XBox 360. Neither am I gonna spend a 1000+ euros on a new tv for the sake of 3D.

But my experience with 3D is that you'll eventually forget about it very fast. So if I need to make the choice, I'll take more/quality content over 3D. So far I've read Sony and others had some interesting plans concerning 3D, but I guess those won't be seen by the public for at least until after ME3 got released.

It's not a gfx card as such. It's an accessory you can add if you already meet the requirements to use that accssory.
The requiements are basicly summed up as: a 120 Hz monitor and a Nvidia gfx card of a model that is not too old (My old gfxcard was ver 2 years old and met the requirements for it)

I was in need of a new monitor last year, so I figured I might as well get a 120Hz monitor since I already had a nvidia card capable of running 3d. I cherry picked the one I had read the best results from in speed at the time (Acer GD245HQ) and it costed me about.... 375 euros. (rough curency estimate on the side of making it sound more expensive than it actually was). I do't know where you got your figure of 1000+ euro, but I can only take it as being hugely mis-informed data.

As for the immersion and quality it brings to gaming, I consider it as a bigger leap than back when 3dfx launched their first 3d gfx chips, so people could suddenly see '3d objects' in the games, rather than relying on 2d sprites or hogging the CPU to portray the stuff in the games. I take it you thought that was a 'fad' too, back then?

True, there 3D tv's that don't go past the 1000 euros price tag, but there plenty who do.

I've never talked about immersion of some sorts so I don't know why you brought that up. Concerning the 3D FX thing you brought up; I have no idea there was a precursor to the current 3D trend. That's how much I care about 3D.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Some people like me have to wear glasses to see I can't stand wearing 2 pairs of glasses at the same time. If they invent a 3D system that doesn't use those damn glasses I would be all for it, but as it currently stands, I'm not really wanting to play a game in 3D anyway.

The glasses fit outside regular glasses.

I use glasses/contact lenses, and I have no issues using the 3dvision glasses when I'm using my glasses instead of lenses.

I saw Avatar in Real 3D and I don't like wearing 2 pairs of glasses at the same time. For me it's extremely annoying.

[SalsaDMA]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

I saw Avatar in Real 3D and I don't like wearing 2 pairs of glasses at the same time. For me it's extremely annoying.

Glasses you get in cinemas for 3d movies are not the same as the 3dvision glasses.

3d vision glasses are better, and even got differet fittings included that you can use, to customize how they sit on your nose.

I wouldn't want to use a pair of cinema 3dglasses on top of real glasses either, tbh.

[Ulous]

Gaxe wrote...

I'd pay $79.99 for Mass Effect 3 if it was 3D ready.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

[Xerxes52]

I wouldn't use it, 3D gives me a headache.

[SalsaDMA]

Mister Mida wrote...

True, there 3D tv's that don't go past the 1000 euros price tag, but there plenty who do.

I've never talked about immersion of some sorts so I don't know why you brought that up. Concerning the 3D FX thing you brought up; I have no idea there was a precursor to the current 3D trend. That's how much I care about 3D.

If you want to cover your entire wall with a sceen, then I guess there are in that 1000+ price range. But don't start claiming extragavant 'needs' like that is a basis for a discussion about standard prices. It just makes you look un-informed. When I buy a gaming-testwinner screen for far far less than what you come out with as an initial figure, it just shows that you have no real knowledge of the real prices of those products.

As for your '/care' comment, you care enough to post in a thread discussing a graphical innovation in the gaming industry, which 3dfx was at the time too. If it hadn't been for 3d models being handled by a dedicated graphic-card chip, none of the games you play today would have looked anywhere near what they look like now, or might not have existed at all.

[Ahglock]

Phaedon wrote...

Why is 3D a bad thing?

It's an add-on, unnecessary for most people, that would make the game more enjoyable for other people. So, what's your problem against it?

I also am not sure I get the hate.  I don't use it. But if it takes as little development time as some people claim, eh who cares if it is 3d ready.  I won't enable it, but it wont hurt my games in any way. 

[Pedro Costa]

Ahglock wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Why is 3D a bad thing?

It's an add-on, unnecessary for most people, that would make the game more enjoyable for other people. So, what's your problem against it?

I also am not sure I get the hate.  I don't use it. But if it takes as little development time as some people claim, eh who cares if it is 3d ready.  I won't enable it, but it wont hurt my games in any way. 

As long as I don't get charged for a thing I won't use (and neither will the vast majority of Mass Effect players, as it seems) and don't have resources that could be spent on gameplay and story diverted into such feature, I won't oppose it either.
But as per this topic's premise, I won't agree to it. Being charged 20$+ for what is, currently, a pretty gimmick? No, thank you very much.

[SalsaDMA]

I think his 20$ tag claim is just followin his trend of exagerations. I think anyone sane with 3dvision gear would just do a facepalm if a publisher claimed they wantd to charge 20$ more for making the game '3d ready'

[marshalleck]

I certainly would not pay $20 more for gimmicky 3D which I wouldn't use. If it doesn't delay the release and it doesn't raise the price tag then of course I wouldn't care.

Modifié par marshalleck, 26 décembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[Mister Mida]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

True, there 3D tv's that don't go past the 1000 euros price tag, but there plenty who do.

I've never talked about immersion of some sorts so I don't know why you brought that up. Concerning the 3D FX thing you brought up; I have no idea there was a precursor to the current 3D trend. That's how much I care about 3D.

If you want to cover your entire wall with a sceen, then I guess there are in that 1000+ price range. But don't start claiming extragavant 'needs' like that is a basis for a discussion about standard prices. It just makes you look un-informed. When I buy a gaming-testwinner screen for far far less than what you come out with as an initial figure, it just shows that you have no real knowledge of the real prices of those products.

As for your '/care' comment, you care enough to post in a thread discussing a graphical innovation in the gaming industry, which 3dfx was at the time too. If it hadn't been for 3d models being handled by a dedicated graphic-card chip, none of the games you play today would have looked anywhere near what they look like now, or might not have existed at all.

Well, it's not like anything I said concerning the prices isn't true, but I'll give you that one. And concerning your response about me 'caring', I guess you can say that to everyone on this forum who's not interested in ME3 to be 3D ready (which is a lot of people it seems).

And since it sounds like this conversation is gonna end up in a discussion about semantics, I'm gonna leave it with this final post on this thread and stick with eating popcorn form now on. Good day.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 26 décembre 2010 - 06:23 .

[The-Broken-One]

Cant get any use out of 3d with only one working eye so fail to see why i should be forced to accept a higher price tag on a game just to please a couple of early adapters to a tech that probably wont catch on till they make it work for everyone irrespective of visual ability and without stupid glasses/goggles.

Modifié par The-Broken-One, 26 décembre 2010 - 06:41 .

[sinosleep]

Can't wait for the 3D fad to die it's second and hopefully final death.

[SalsaDMA]

sinosleep wrote...

Can't wait for the 3D fad to die it's second and hopefully final death.

Tbh, I can't help but feel pity for people making comments like the quoted one.

I also have a feeling that some people are going to be very disapointed, based on what they seem to think compared to how things really are.

[FUNGOLE]

 Stereoscopic is a joke to input in videogames, seriously.

For all of you non-educated nerds, Mass Effect runs a modified version of the almighty powerful Unreal Engine 3.
Which, by the way, has been retrofitted to power an iPhone game... Now everybody's gonna agree that there is a considerable hardware gap between an XBOX/PS3 and an handheld, amirite?

Now, if the engine doesn't weight that much, and the producers are probably considering 2-3 discs for the final game, they can poor in as much texture work, highres model and sets as they want in their game AND still have 3D...

Why? Because 3D is the actual real-time render rendered twice (left/right side, progressively) with a different depth shader on each frame giving you the 3D illusion. I'm sure they can find a way to output it in 720P unlike Call of Nerdrage Black Ops, since the hardware SUPPORTS it AND most EA games will be coming out in stereo... they'd be foolish not to take the advantage of it, the market is dying to have new content, and ME3 will be a smash it.

And YES you can turn on or turn off the 3D effect if youre still playing on a 1974 tube télé. It won't affect the performance. So for any of you broke basement dwellers that are playing on pentium III's or cavemen tv sets that doesn't give a slight damn about 3D, you won't even notice it. 

Modifié par FUNGOLE, 26 décembre 2010 - 07:38 .

[Pacifien]

Leave out "non-educated nerds," "Call of Nerdrage" and "broke basement dwellers," and you could have had a reasonable post. Now you just get a moderator warning you that insults are not allowed on these forums.

[nicks1171]

If you can buy Mass Effect 3 for 79.99, then I'm sure you are willing to pay 129.99 or even 299.99 better yet, lets make the price 999.99 plus shpiipng and handeling. Plus dont forget the Cerberus Network, thats 1200 m.s. points

Modifié par nicks1171, 26 décembre 2010 - 08:13 .

[jojon2se]

Daewan wrote...
...
Minority of people who actually understand how it is supposed to work: It's not ready yet, it's just a gimmick.
...

This is where your summary falls down, I'm afraid.
If you actually understood the principles, you wouldn't have an issue with developers keeping stereoscopic views in mind, when making their products and then you would truly not care and consequently remain silent. As it is, you obviously DO care quite a lot; enough to belittle others out of mass ignorance/paranoia.

[Hellspun]

You don't need 3d glasses to see that this thread is LOL! I am a 3dvision owner but in no way does stereo3d "support" make or break a game purchase for me. I laugh at the gamer that already spent the extra money for 3dvision or stereo3d hardware and is ready and willing to schill out even more money for it! As the old saying goes fools and their money are soon parted... If a game does not cooperate with stereo3d all I have to do is push a single button to turn off. There is barely a performance hit anymore, thanks to the drivers maturing. The truly important factor for me is if the game is fun or not. If it is stereo3d optimized that is just a bonus, but a bad game optimized for 3d is still a bad game!

In regards to people wanting stereo3d to "die" a second death and go away for ever... don't hold your breathe. Stereo3D hardware has made huge leaps and bounds as well as color depth and image quality. This is true in both games and cinema. Cinema is not using the same stereo3d that games utilize btw. 3dvision uses shutter glasses - cinemas use polarized glasses - the two cannot be compared beyond the fact that both try to create a 3-dimensional effect.

To all those that only have 1 eye, or are stereo blind - sucks to be you. Gaming Darwinism will deal with you within the next 5 - 10 years leaving you unable to enjoy content in it's fullest. Games like Burnout, Resident Evil 5 and Batman Arkham Asylum were optimized with 3D kept in mind. Did that mean the games were lacking in anyway? In my experience the exact contrary was true! Properly executed stereo3d heightened the immersion, enjoyment and overall awe factor that I experienced playing those titles. Just be happy that game mechanics have not adopted stereo3d as a necessity... YET. As it stands now stereo3d optimized games are few and far between - most games require some graphical tweaks to get the stereo3d working smoothly.

TLDR version: 3d movies and stereo3d do not use the same methods so if you have only watched a movie in 3d you cannot judge 3dvision or other stereo3d game devices off your experience. Games are starting to be designed with stereo3d kept in mind, but the good games do not require it. A bad game optimized for stereo3d is still a bad game!

Modifié par Hellspun, 26 décembre 2010 - 10:23 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Gaxe how many threads about this are you going to make? Stop acting childish and spamming the forums with your griping about 3D. If it has it, it has it. If it doesn't, who cares? 3D doesn't make or break a game. It's simply a luxury.



-Polite

[PoisonTea]

I support 3D and I wouldn't mind paying extra to get a bioware game with full 3D support. That would just be the most amazing thing ever.