I bet many don't know this but the first use of 3D technology in movies was WAY back in 1915. Every 10 years or so another film a bit better advanced came along. The dramatic jump in CGI has made this latest rash of 3D seem much more significant.... but its still just a fad.
Just like 3D for nearly the last century. It never catches on for long.

Well Minecraft has 3D too... you need the old glasses to use it though xD

I want 3D or some sort of depth to be achieved better than it is done today. 3D movies are subpar at best. 3D gaming- I haven't tried the latest generation hardware but just a few years ago was worthless.

For example: If no one has seen the head tracking someone did at home on their Wii check out this link- You get a 3D effect on Youtube without any glasses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x5ffF-0Wr4

I would take that in Skyrim. Imagine an arrow shooting past your head looking like it comes out the monitor into your room!

Otherwise, I would take even wearing a VR headset to display the gameworld in my perephrial vision so as to further pull me into the game world. Yes, I would look stupid with a dayum helmet or something over my head but if it makes it a more engrossing experience then sign me up.

I think you've misunderstood something. When 3D is properly set up, it doesn't force your eyes apart at all! When looking into infinity your eye convergence should be zero, i.e. looking straight ahead. So, if your eyes are (say) 3 inches apart, then the two images of a 3D object at apparent infinity on the screen should be 3 inches apart. For any object 'nearer' on the screen the two images should be closer together, causing your eyes to turn in toward each other, which is what they do naturally when you're looking at close objects.

The forcing your eyes apart happens when a 3D sequence adjusted for (for example) a 20 foot screen is projected onto a 40 foot screen, doubling the 'infinity' separation from 3 inches to 6.

If 3D ever forces your eyes to diverge, then it is just flat out being done wrong!

And you're sort of right about the 'out of focus' but I suspect not in the way you mean. What is happening there is that the 3D effect is reproducing the convergence-of-gaze that gives us depth information over long distances, but because the images are properly focussed on the screen the lenses in our eyes (which give depth information over short distances) have to focus at the depth of the screen and not at the apparent depth of the 3D image.

This problem is in fact really severe if you're using a monitor, which you sit close to. If you're watching on a widescreen TV or a cinema screen then it's hardly a problem, as lens focus only really kicks in closer than about 10 foot.

• Indifferent
  
• Indifferent

(My opinion might change for a non-RPG ~like Doom4 or Borderlands)

I noticed when I sat closer to the screen at the movies, the 3D had more depth (although still fuzzy), but it did begin to fatigue my eyes. So even if I liked the look of it, I don't think I would play for very long with those glasses.

No, I'm speaking from a purely biological standpoint, not in any sort of Primetime Live/3D PR speech. I know how depth perception works, I study biology in college. When you're viewing a "3D" movie with those big, honkin' glasses on, the convergence of the image causes your eyeballs to physically spread apart in your ocular cavity. It's minimal, not even more than a millimeter or two in most cases. The problem is, when that is drawn out over time, it causes your ocular nerves and muscles to stress the hell out, and your brain and muscles want to push your eyes back to their normal position. This causes incredible stress as the inner and outer stimulus is opposing. It's worse for people that wear corrective lenses (glasses, specifically, not sure about contacts).

But, whatevs. It's not like it matters. We're both basically saying that 3D as it is svcks. :shrug:

It's just wasting hardware really...
The current 3D is really bad... It's not comfortable at all, it makes you feel sick after some playing time, consumes hardware...

The only good thing is that you really see in 3D...
You see the depth, and you can notice the distance between point A and point B. But the game has got to be very well prepared for this...
A game like Skyrim wouldn't be bad with the 3D experience, because it's open-world...

But nowadays, it's better to focus on something more important... Not everyone can use 3D.
If you are using a console, you'd have to buy a 3D glasses, a 3D TV or monitor and a HDMI cable... And it's going to push the console to hard, consoles hardware are weak...
If you are using a PC, you won't be able to use it, unless you have a PC-Beast, with a 3D monitor and a 3D glasses...

Too much money for something you'll be able to use for 1-2 hours.

That is cool -- way better than the fuzzy partial depth glasses method. If something like that existed for Skyrim, I can see myself becoming interested in it.

How? Seriously, how does your gaze converging (or not) which it does all the time that you're awake anyway, cause your eyes to spread apart in your skull? And what does the size of the glasses matter? They're just polarising sunglasses. I've worn big polarising sunglasses for hours and my eyes weren't spread apart.

If 3D is done right, and is at a suitable distance away, then I maintain that it doesn't cause eyestrain.

I agree, 3D is very, very often done wrong, and when it's done wrong it causes eyestrain by forcing your gaze to diverge, or by confusing your brain with mis-matched convergence and lens focus. But there's no sense in muddying the waters with some garbled and unexplained stuff about it spreading your eyes apart. Where did this information come from anyway? Your college course?

Movie 3D and gaming 3D are quite different as mentioned somewhere above. Gaming 3D has superior scalability to movie 3D as the 3D is created on the fly at the viewers end but is handicapped in other areas by things such as: low frame-rate, the frame-rate is pretty much cut in half with 3D and many people have trouble with low frame-rates, experiencing things such as eye-strain and possibly nausea (sound familiar?); narrow field of view, the field of view in games is usually far smaller than in real life and a simulated 3D effect only worsens it; UI existing on a separate plane from everything in the game world, making your eyes shift between two depths quickly.

No, I don't give diddly squat.

Time after time after time these guys come out with a comment in an interview that makes me so happy and this time - was no different. I don't always agree with everything but most of the time I'm overjoyed that they are on the same page as me. Some day, 3D might be really awesome but it's not there and I hate the glasses too. We're going to have a 3D kind of view in our Skyrim inventories and that'll be nice but a 3D Skyrim with today's technology would be horrible...and I wouldn't buy it...and that would be a shame.

:tes:

I'm definitely proud of Todd and Bethesda on these matters... They focus on the true heart of the matter instead of these technological gimmicks.. :foodndrink:

Todd pretty much said no Skyrim on PSVita.

3d really bothers gives me a headache

It happens when the glasses convert the unfocused image on screen into a focused image. The goggles aren't just "polarizing sunglasses." And many larger theaters use "active" glasses that have in inner power source, which causes strain to be even more severe. I'm not entirely sure how the technology itself works, as I'm not an engineer. I'm explaining how, in the people it does cause migraines in (such as myself), it causes them. When you say your eyes are "diverging," what is it you think your eyes are doing? It isn't only shifting your focus apart (which will also cause headaches), but causing your brain and muscles to pull your eyes apart.

If it doesn't cause strain or problems with YOU specifically, that's fine. but there's still a significant (far too significant) portion of the population that is severely effected. It's information I got when I asked a biologist why 3D causes headaches. It was thus explained to me in more specific physical and biological terms than just saying "the convergence angle is shifting while focus is constant." That's the sussinct way of putting it, and accurate, but I wanted more in-depth. I'm a "why" kind of person.

To I its a gimmick.

lol sometimes a blunt approach is needed when some people just dont get it. good work todd telling it how it is and all that :icecream:

3D is a big fat

MEH for me, if its there great if not also great :shrug:

honestly movies and games are already in 3 dimensions XD

I like it on my handheld, I don't think I could take it on my much larger comp. screen.

And there's the problem. You don't understand the technology. You've picked up a confused and misleading impression of how it works, and either the biologist was confused because he didn't understand the technology either, or you simply misunderstood what he was saying.

No, the image on screen isn't unfocussed. No, the glasses don't 'convert it into a focussed image'. Yes, mostly they are just polarizing sunglasses, with the angle of polarisation in each lens at 180 degrees to the other, matching the different polarizations of the two projected images. The theatres that use "active" glasses are using LCD shutter glasses (which have the advantage of reducing ghosting of the image while having the disadvantage of increasing flicker - which is a cause of eyestrain).

Not being a biologist I'll concede that when the eye gaze diverges (as it does if the 3D is done wrongly) then as the eyes just aren't designed to do that then the muscles might be pulling them laterally in the attempt to make them diverge. But when the 3D effect is done properly, so that

• eye gaze only ever converges on apparently closer objects, and never diverges
  
• there isn't too much flicker
  
• the screen is a reasonable distance away

then it causes little if any eyestrain.

And yes, you're right it causes bad eyestrain and nausea in a lot of people, but that's because it's being done wrong. And to be honest, when an industry can't be bothered to get it right, it's best to avoid it.

First of all, I don't have a 3D monitor.
Second, I've tried out several games in 3D and it hurts my eyes after a period of time. It's cool the first couple of minutes but eventually you start getting confused and lost in what's going on, and it's such a relief to disable it. Ahh...sweet relief.

The answer is no, with the current technology I wouldn't use it.

Sony's putting way too much emphasis on 3D gaming. It's overrated and is already a dying fad. 3D works for movies because it's going to be 2 to 3 hours max that you're going to be wearing the glasses. You start to get a headache if you view things in 3D two long, and it's not good for your eyesight.

And like Todd said, it muddies up the picture and makes the game look less sharp. I hate it, and I would never use while playing a video game.

3D is just a gimmick, an expensive gimmick. Personally it adds nothing to my gaming experience other than a tension headache.