Not really... Now we just have pointless stuff popping out at you in slow-mo that totally ruins movies and most likley games.

Should have been a pole.


No ty I'd rather they work on story, gameplay, etc.

Its been said a thousand or so times.

I recently saw http://www.maxishine.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14243 on a tech forum I go to. The bezels on the monitor are huge, but it's the first consumer 3D monitor not requiring glasses. It's a step in the right direction. Also it's worthy of noting, while I have never seen 3D Vision myself, people seem to describe it as giving the game more depth of field, not really making it pop out at you. I don't think it would be very intrusive and I believe it would only add to the immersion.

I can deduct from that sentence that you have no f...g idea what the hell it means to get 3D gaming.

Yet, I've played 3D games. They were lackluster. Either pointless crap is popping out, or the foreground and background don't match up and look stupid. All in all its not worth it until they invent a Holodeck.

But it's new and shiny and we must has it.

Ok, I'm done now :whistling:

It's really not that much work to make a game 3D Vision Ready. Most current 3D (as in 3D engine) games are already mostly 3D (as in glasses) compatible by default, because most of the information needed for the 3D glasses is already in the 3D engine. The main changes they have to make are usually around things like shadows and 2D effects and UI, which generally don't have 3D spatial data and need to be tweaked to work right.



Well of course it will be made better and cheaper in time. That's what technology does. The people getting on board now are the early adopters, and then as prices come down and displays get prettier, I'm sure it will catch on. But thinking that it is doomed and will just go away is a little unrealistic. As for it being a "gimmick", I think that word is just a word people use for things they don't like. Lots of Xbox and PS3 fans liked to say the Wii is a "gimmick", but it still sold millions, and now both Xbox and PS3 have their own version of the "gimmick" as well, which is being embraced by their respective console [censored].

Ok, so I lied, I'm not done. What can I say, I like a good argument

Most games now are 3D "compatible" but since most of them aren't really made with 3D in mind, they don't look the greatest when translated.

Just because something sells well, doesn't mean it isn't a gimmick. It just means its a gimmick that a lot of people like. You know how many people bought snake oil back in the day? (Goofy comparison, I know, but its a similar concept, just because something sells doesn't mean its good). I'll admit that I got a Wii, and thought it would be amazing, and then was underwhelmed. Kinect and Move look similar, and I'm no longer interested. I view 3D the same way I view motion-sensing in games right now; it attracts a lot of attention and may be fun/interesting for a lot of people, but games would be of a better quality if developers took less time trying to make things like this and spent more time on story/atmosphere/mechanics/any number of other things. They both have the potential to be put to good use, in serious games, but the overall tone of these technologies is just cheap gimmicks that sell well. There have been a couple of really good games that have taken advantage of motion controls; the vast majority of them have been horrible or would have been nearly the same without them. The same thing is happening with 3D.

Pretty much...3D, motion controls, all gimmicks until proven otherwise, which they haven't yet.

Agree with all of that. I don't have any modern 3D hardware yet (I have an ATI GPU capable of doing stereoscopic but am waiting for a bigger range of monitors/glasses to have been tested and confirmed for 3D use with ATI cards) but playing Oblivion in anaglyph 3D using a third-party anaglyph driver is just a totally amazing and immersive experience, even taking into account that with anaglyph you lose a bit of colour definition. I'm a complete convert, the only big compatibility issue is that you can't focus on the crosshair and your foe at the same time because they aren't at the same depth, you have to turn it off (meaning that you lose the sneak icon) and use the crosshair supplied with the driver. I am a complete convert to 3D gaming. Like you I'm a lifelong gamer (39 years old and gaming since the Speccy!)

Also 3D is not a gimmick or a passing fad, it's been a fascination since the advent of modern visual media - it became really popular in the late 19th Century even before the advent of motion pictures (stereoscopic viewers for lithographs and early stereoscopic photographs were highly popular), and the only thing that has quelled that enthusiasm periodically in the time since has been the technological difficulty and expense of implementing it in popular media - well that is now changing and I predict that 3D is very much here to stay, especially in PC gaming where it is fairly easy to implement and the hardware to use it is not prohibitively expensive.

ETA: For those with eye problems that mean they cannot use 3D, you will still be able to play a 3D ready game (and I expect you already have, if you bought any new releases in the last year), because all it does is tell the 3D drivers (which are not part of the game) at which depth to put things like the crosshairs, shadows, sky etc. for 3D viewing, it does not change the game in the slightest for non 3D use.

I don't have full use of my legs, but I don't demand that everyone else has theirs chopped off to level the playing field, so please at least find out what being 3D ready means and understand that it won't effect your ability to play the game without 3D in the slightest before making demands about it.

I updated my original post to try and clarify what 3D Vision ready actually means.

I stalwartly oppose 3D. And don't even call me some oldtimer who hates newfangled technology. I'm quite young and I can say without a doubt that 3D is far too flawed of a format to be enjoyable. Back before 3D died the first time, you were stuck staring through red and blue lenses. Now, you have clear lenses but everything just gets too blurry to be entertaining. It's a gimmick that the media is exploiting to make money. Unlike Audio and Video formats that improve quality and capability with innovation, 3D only seeks to diminish my picture quality in exchange for "Oooh, it's almost like it's there." Looking at it too long, it begins to hurt my eyes. When it gets to the point where my eyes start straining, there is something wrong. When I have to constantly wear those ridiculous 3D glasses, there is something wrong. When 3D without 3D Glasses is too flawed, then it's not good enough for use. And who knows how likelier blindness becomes as a result of these? People still question whether listening to music though a headset will make you go deaf, but when I'm in a situation where one of my senses actually hurts, I know I should stop.

Absolute virtual reality is the only thing I will accept for the future of gaming.

i think 3d would be tight, im jus weary about eye health concerns

So many people that have vision problems are against 3d, I understand that in cinemas, it could mean you can't watch the same movie your friends / family are watching, but in gaming you can turn it off any time and it isn't a problem at all, but adds a lot for those that can watch 3d, let them enjoy it.

Besides, 3d adds more market lifetime for games. I'm currently playing lots of old games like devil may cry 4, fear 2, Assasins creed etc that I didn't have time to play when they came out but they work great in 3d and I recently bought them and enjoying them a lot in 3d, more revenue for developers. If you add 3d to your game, as 3d adoption grows, you will keep selling your games for those that want to try old games in a different way.

About 3d being just a gimmick that will go away, I doubt it, 3d movies have never been this popular and they have given new life to cinemas ( http://blog.boxofficespy.com/2010/03/3d-movies-spike-box-office-revenue-3d.html ), where 3d make up for 33% of this year box office ( http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Films-Make-Up-33-Of-2010-s-Domestic-Box-Office-18045.html ), Avatar is now the highest grossing movie ever ( http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2010/01/26/2010-01-26_avatar_ends_titanics_reign_as_highest_grossing_movie_ever.html ) with 80% of the revenue in US coming for their 3d version, and there's even remakes of old movies like Titanic or Star Wars coming in 3d. Electronic arts, one of the world biggest publishers, says that all is content is going to be 3d ready from now on ( http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=273384 ). Since they own Bioware, it means that Mass Effect 3 will be 3d ready, and it will probably hit retail side by side with TES: Skyrim by the end of next year, and thus for Skyrim not being 3d could be a disadvantage by then. Also, more than 50 games are going to be 3d ready for the ps3 next year ( http://www.geek.com/articles/games/ps3-to-get-over-50-3d-games-next-year-20101124/ ) , and the Nintendo 3ds,is going to be huge no doubt, and so on, it doesn't look to me like 3d is going away anytime soon, instead it looks like the 3d market is growing incredibly fast.

Just because it makes money from sheep, doesn't mean its not a gimmick. 3D will come and go until we achieve some sort of photo realistic virtual reality. A lot of crap makes money.Pet Rocks made money, Swatches made money, 3D has made money...doesn't mean anything. 3D has yet to show that its more practical or preferable over 2D perception.

3D glasses svck to wear. Until some genius invents a way to where we can have 3D without the dorky glasses, I say "nay".

Do you have ANY good reason to say "no do not make TES V 3D friendly for those of us that have the material to activate 3D mode"? Because all I see is "I don't like how it looks and don't want to use the glasses so nobody should have the option to use it"

The point of the request was to ask the developers to make the game 3D Vision ready. That just means that it will render correctly for the people running it in 3D. It will not make any difference for those that do not. It seems some people are just jumping into the thread posting variations of "3D SUXX" or "3D IS A GIMMICK, NO TNX" without even knowing what the request is about in the original post. Of course, some people just like to rant for no real reason but that is the way the the internet I suppose.

I updated the list of 3D Vision ready games that I am sure a lot of people here have played at least one of without any detriment to their gaming experience because it was a 3D Vision ready:

Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Dead Rising 2
Just Cause 2
Metro 2033: The Last Refuge
Resident Evil 5
Trine
Civilization V
Lost Planet 2
Mafia II

Well you got a point there. The option to have it should be available.

The majority of posters, it seems, have a baffling hate towards 3D technology in general, dismissing it as a bad thing no matter the implementation. In my opinion, disregarding every possible use of a technology just because it does not suit your own preference is childish and ignorant.

I imagine when television was invented the reaction was similar. Anyone can argue that books and newspapers are more valuable sources of information than the TV, but experience shows that there is demand for each of these media, and they can coexist without the need to get rid of one thing in favor of the other one. It's all about options.

Right now, I wouldn′t want Bethesda to waste time on this, wearing the needed glasses while playing is just annoying. When the time will be right for 3 d-monitors that work without glasses I′d be totally for it, but I′m not a fan of the current technology.

well.... i don't mind if they do it but it shouldn't be a priority. For true RPG fans you don't need a 3d vision or ultra top notch graphics.

Hello folks,

Long time since I have signed in to these forums to post, I lurk a lot but rarely am motivated to actually post...

But this is a subject I feel very strongly about.

3d monitors for PCs have been around for years now and the fact they have been largely ignored by developers until recently is a great shame. The difference they make to games like Oblivion is almost impossible to put into words. I was utterly amazed when I got my first 3d monitor a couple of years ago. The difference playing oblivion in stereoscopic vs normal is like night and day. Anyone who has an opinion on this who hasn't tried it simply doesn't know what they are talking about. And by tried it I don't mean they have seen a 3d film at the cinema or has put on a set of 3d glasses for 10 minutes in a shop.

The sense of actually being there you get playing on a 3d monitor in a dark room is so engrossing and convincing in an RPG that it is the only way I can play them now. I think we have become so used to flat 2 dimensional tv screens that we forget how much different an object looks when viewed stereoscopically. When you actually try it for an extended period of time (and there is some adjustment time required to get used to the effect and to be comfortable ramping the depth up) I don't see how you could fail to be impressed.

Now I am on the fence as far as 3d TVs go because of the issues with them, not least the fact that you sit far back from a TC. But a monitor is another story, you are right there in front of it it, and wearing some 3d specs when sitting in front of a screen at a desk is no real problem. The most annoying thing I find is that it can be difficult to get larger 3d specs (like the Nvidia active shutter glasses) to sit nicely with headphones. But there are other options out there and its a minor irritation at worst.

I still vividly remember the first night I had my 3d monitor I fired up Oblivion (which works great except shadows, some issues with incorrect depth on things like the skybox and some minor ghosting) went into a dungeon and was just utterly blown away by the sense of solidness of it all, I spent time just looking at rocks and stalactites and I almost jumped out of my skin when a zombie came around the corner.

So seriously, please if you don't have proper experience with this technology then do yourself a favour and give it a try. As far as gaming goes I think it is as big a leap as the invention of 3d cards or the original soundblaster cards compared to PC speaker bleeps and blops.

Before saying anything, I'd like to ask:

How much time do they need to make it 3D Vision ready?
Do they have to modify the graphics to make it 3D vision ready? Or just add a bunch of codes?

I understand that "3D vision ready" is not the same as "works best in 3D" (the way it's meant to be played anyone?). However, if it requires MORE work for everything rather than "add some codes and forget", then I advocate no. 3D vision can render not-3D-ready games, so making it 3d-ready is not really required (although it will make it better when actually fired up in 3D)

Heyas,

it makes me sad to see some of those uninformed and negative posts here.

3D Vision (stereoscopic 3d in general) is simply mind blowing - one cannot understand it without trying though, unfortunately. Even more unfortunate, perceiving stereoscopic 3d is a trained skill - you get better, much much better with it by practice. It literally opens up a new world of immersion. Especially in games like TES that are mainly about immersion, stereoscopic 3d brings an immense improvement of the game experience. This is not just about occasional things popping out of the screen, it is about your monitor becoming a window into a miniature world on the other side. A world that extends through the wall behind you monitor into the room next door and through that room into the park outside...

I can undeerstand people being sceptical without experiencing it first hand. What I do not understand is that medieval "the world is flat" attitude with the torch already raised up to burn those heretics who tell you teh world is actually 3d, a globe that is.

Please, Bethesda, commit yourself to full stereoscopic 3d support. This is a two sided market - the more stereoscopic users, the more it earns to make a 3d compatible game. The more 3d compatible games, the more stereoscopic 3d users. It just has to start somewhere to gain momentum. A top franchise like TES can initaite that momentum.

Besides that, if TESV would be my baby, I would as a developer just for myself want to see it in 3d glory.

Best wishes

Neil75