The only way gamesas will attempt to specifically design compatibility is if they believe it will increase sales. Of course, None of us have the data on such a thing. So why has no one started a poll in community discussion about whether or not people would be more likely to purchase a game if it's 3d?

Or if they have TESV in nvidias TWIMTBP program....cause then they get nvidia tech people, and $$ to do it.

3D is just like a fad and it is only ok in the theatres and to be honest should stay there. All these new products coming out compatible with 3D to me are just pointless. I couldn't see myself playing Skyrim for hours with those goofy uncomfortable glasses on my face.

I'd rather see TrackIR support than something awful like 3D vision. And I don't even own a TrackIR device!

I vote yes, and that's because although I don't yet have a good enough monitor for 3D, I understand enough about it to know that making the game 3D ready will not affect me, or the game, or my ability to play without 3D in any negative way whatsoever. I think a lot of the naysayers have missed the point, no-one is asking for the game to be made in 3D so that everyone will have to play in 3D, just able to work with 3D drivers, so that for example, the crosshair doesn't go awry in 3D.

It would be a bit like me saying "my monitor can't handle high res, so I don't want the developers to waste a second of time making the game in any higher resolution than my 8 year old flat screen can handle." That would sound like a childish complaint, no?

As it is, I will almost certainly be in the market for a new monitor next year, and will almost certainly be getting a 120Hz monitor - they are becoming the standard anyway, and of course I will be trying out all my games in 3D when I get one!!!

I think it would be nice to have the option. That way those with the necessary hardware can play in 3D, and that don't can just play it normally.

I'll try to clear up a few misconceptions that are floating around here. Please feel free to correct me if I made any errors.

1. 3d hardware is too costly and most can't afford it, so it shouldn't be an option
Somebody mentioned needing a $4000 T.V. I needed a new monitor a few months ago and so bought a monitor with NVidia 3d Vision kit (including glasses) for $A400-$A450. I already had a decent graphics card (GTX480) so I was set for 3d. Yes, it cost more than a monitor without 3d capability, but, as with any computer component, it's up to each person to decide if it's worth spending extra to enhance their experience. Those who don't won't be punished. I never felt punished by having to play games for years on medium settings, but I certainly didn't want all games to only be scalable to what I personally could afford.

2. Too much of a performance hog
Of course this is an issue. But, seeing as the XBox 360 and PS3 aren't upgrading hardware in the next year, and a good computer can currently play Fallout: NV in 3d comfortably, my guess is a good computer for 3d will be a lot cheaper in October next year than it is now, and therefore more affordable to many more people

3. Too much of a gimmick and will make the game look bad for people without 3d
Bethesda won't change the game to make lots of cheesy stick-in-your-eye effects. The graphics card does the job of depth for the 3d. The 3d effects largely aren't pop-out effects, they're depth effects. It's much easier to judge how far away things are and adds a lot of definition to the graphics. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's very hard to explain how it looks without seeing it, but that's the best explanation I can come up with.

4. Will take too much dev time to implement, and other factors will suffer
I've played Morrowind in 3d, and it looks great. 90% of the 3d information is already there - they certainly didn't take 3d Vision into consideration when making that game in 2002.
Also, Civilization V is 3d ready. I seriously doubt Firaxis spent a lot of time optimizing that game for 3d, as it doesn't add anything to the experience IMO, and they certainly never advertised it as 3d ready to try to get sales

The only things Bethesda need to look at, if the engine is similar to their old ones, is to add 3d information where it was previously not taken into account. The only problems I've found in previous Bethesda games are:

The sky is too low - There's a mod to fix this for all games but Morrowind;

The water reflections look weird - fixed by turning off reflections;

Shadows are too high - fixed by turning off shadows - I never had the shadow problem in the Fallout 3 engine games, so it probably won't be an issue in Skyrim either;

Interface is at screen depth - I had to turn off the crosshair and use the one provided by the NVidia driver, which works fine, but Nvidia's crosshair doesn't change if sneaking, etc - Also, the tooltips in Morrowind aren't in the right place due to being placed at screen depth instead of the depth of the item it's describing

These problems shouldn't be too hard to fix, and all you need to do when developing is test how they're rendered in 3d and adjust accordingly - it would just be another graphics option, which I imagine would be similar to testing different resolutions and other graphics options, like shadows/no shadows.

I'd think its because anyone who plans to buy Skyrim will do so regardless of 3d compatibility. So the growing niche of 3d users vote "Yes I'd be more likely", and the vast majority of people (whether they're disgusted at the thought of upgrading, have heard the horror stories of headaches, or just wish 3d to go away and stop bothering them) will vote with a with an overwhelming no. That gives the decision makers a justifiable reason to say "screw 3d!", which ends up with the 3d vision people not getting a boost to their gaming experience, and the non-3d vision crowd gets...well...they lose the option to give Skyrim a try in 3d without any unwanted visual artifacts.

This is all assuming making the changes wont impact/detract on/from the core gaming experience currently planned.

Just a few notes for people talking about cinema-3d, headaches
1. Cinema 3d is not adjustable for each user, its basically set to "High" for everyone watching it, and some people experience the eye-strain/headache because of it. Everyone is different and has a optimal level of "3dness" their eyes are comfortable with.
2. Head/eyeaches can be avoided with the PC implementation by adjusting the settings to what your eyes are comfortable with.

The majority of posters are dismissing previous constructive contributions and just stating their dislike of the "3d fad". There seems to be no willingness to accept the compromise of a win-win scenario where the developers only implement the 3d-changes if it doesn't detract from the game in any way. All were getting is brick wall of negativity from a new generation of technophobes. It just seems so illogical to be against something optional that won't affect your gameplay experience just because you don't like it.. It's like getting upset over the option to enable letter-box mode for wide-screen users. Though these last few posters give me hope for the future of forumkind! Excelsior!

Nope, its not worth the dev time its something that like motion controls will probably fade out in the next generation

I suspect most the no's are actually if then statements based around this one "misconception" .

If it does not take any appreciable development time then I doubt anyone gives a crap that it is a bit more 3d fine tuned, if it does take development time though then most people will say no put that time to other more important things. That obviously being a qualitative statement based on most the people not having or caring to have 3d.

And given that no one here has claimed to be in the business no one really knows if this is a misconception or not. So if it does not take development time then I don't care, if it does I do care and want that time spent on other things.

Depth setting=how "deep" the scene is, i.e. far back the scenery goes into the screen.
Convergence setting=Getting things to pop out.

3d-gaming is not about just getting things to pop out, its about making your brain believe the landscape can go on forever.


SPONGE!??!! Can a sponge do this!!!! *punches wall*

This is probably an accurate assessment of the psychology involved.

Personally, I don't give a rats ass about 3d compatibility, as I'm doubtful it would work with my misaligned right eye.

I for one remember the days when I was forced to upgrade my PC every 6 months in order to run new releases - it was like a runaway train, and components used to be ridiculously expensive - it was easy to find yourself sinking a month's pay into a new graphics card just so that you could play Morrowind - yes I did just that. Can you imagine the whining if that were still the case? Yet people are complaining about something that would be completely optional and wouldn't in any way affect their ability to play the game without 3D hardware!

Exactly. It makes the game world feel much larger and more realistic. Thus adding more depth.

Depth =/= always "deep." Depth can also refer to how engrossing something is, or even how immersive.

Something along these definitions:
: the degree of intensity ; also : the quality of being profound (as in insight) or full (as of knowledge)
: the quality or state of being complete or thorough


Do you think I'm really that stupid? :shakehead:

I don't give a crap about it either because as I said earlier it looks bad IMO. To me it looks like blue screen effects(and I use blue instead of green to illustrate a point) where the people cars etc are not part of the background they are in. But hey everyone is different not all visual tricks work with everyone, I may be in the unlucky group that does not perceive 3d correctly. But end of the day if it doesn't hurt the game by stealing development time I don't give a crap if it is there or not because while I wont be using it, it isn't hurting my gaming in any way.

Ah the good old days, remember the voodoo cards! and the Geforce3 ti series! Sadly how I played morrowind was by turning everything to minimum, the draw distance was a few feet infront of my character! I guess that added to the atmosphere of the game, as I literally had no idea what might happen down the road. I wish I could go back to those days where games completely captivated my imagination. The closest I've gotten to that feeling was playing with 3d-vision, thinking I'd killed all the deathclaws in new:vegas, turning around and seeing these 2 enormous arms fly at me. Terrified me!

@"Rahu X" From your initial post that I quoted, you indicated that having things pop out more is also known as having a "bit more depth". When stereoscopic 3d users refer to the depth setting, they are referring to how far away the most distant objects appear on the screen. The convergence setting is used to increase how much the objects pop out. I realize by trying to explain depth by using the word "deep", I may have sounded patronising, however my intention was to clear up the misunderstanding of 3d, depth, and pop-out. Often people post questions asking why things look flat even though they have set the depth to maximum. Forgive me.

This, I dont need or even want ３ｄ。

3D is terrible, hurts your eyes, gives you headaches, is a gimmick, ok that's enough. What I'm trying to say is that it svcks and is a waste of time.

Please DO NOT waste any time in the development cycle on this. Patch it in later if you must. 3D is a gimmick that will only detract from the rest of the development process.

Whats the point. Im sure someone has said this, but only the PS3 has 3D. Thats one system. Its not worth making the game 3D compatible for one system.

It has been said before, but it amazes me how easily people just strawman arguments and decry something like 3d. Not the mention the ridiculous amounts of slippery slope arguments. I hate to be pedantic, but I see no other route when people act so illogically.

Whether or not 3D is a good idea depends on roughly 3 things (arbitrary number, just choosing main points)

1. whether it adds anything to the game
-will the game be more immersive to some people (assuming it is optional, gasp, you might not have to use it)
-will the effects look better
-will it keep the game current in 4 years time when people will complain if it isn't there

2. Whether it will detract in some indirect way
-it has been pointed out that this wouldn't take a lot of development time at all, only minor changes to get rid of bugs. I read through a couple of pages and was just appalled at the level of logic being presented. I understand this is Skyrim and all, and we are talking mountains, but slippery slopes should best be left to game developers. Spending a couple of hours fixing bugs will not ruin the single player experience. If this is the amount of time it takes, why not give it to people who enjoy it? If you don't enjoy it, don't use it.
-just because some 3D movies were just based on hype and spent a ton of money on it, it doesn't mean game development is the same. It is a faulty anology. The development suggested by anyone advocating 3D isn't something huge.

3. A response to the people saying the new tech is pointless, and barely better
-people who for some reason don't want the newest tech like to say it's no better than the old stuff, so why waste time on it?
-everything builds in itself. dx 11 is barely better than dx 10, which is barely better than dx9 etc. Over time, these differences are noticeable.
-just because each incremental step is small doesn't mean we should keep graphics at morrowind level.
-I also note that a lot of people are giving a disproportionate amount of hate to something really arbitrary. I think there are 2 reasons for that:

a)people want to seem intellectual and above anyone who appreciates eye candy.
-Ex: I care about immersion, anyone who cares about graphics is stupid
-Ex 2: I seem cultured if I don't care about about things as base as visuals, I care about artistry of the story
-note: I am not suggesting that story isn't important, but you don't have to insult another pleasure in order to justify your own.

B) People who haven't tried 3D / aren't capable of running it on their rig and don't want to upgrade
-it was mentioned before, but if you don't know what what it is, or whether it would add to your experience, why the &%^$ are you posting as if you have knowledge?
-people who can't run it can't bear the thought that they can't get the maximum value out of the game. In other words, if they aren't the bottleneck, it's bad. People will deny they think like this, but it is really obvious in a lot of replies. Get over yourself.
-if you've tried it, don't like it, then don't use it. So long as they don't sacrifice the game as a whole in pursuit of 3D, it isn't a problem. Net change of 0 for you.

last thing in wall of text, I don't have any 3D hardware, likely won't choose to get any (technically have the money, but I can't justify spending it), and my current rig likely will be playing the game on reduced resolutions and low medium settings at best. I just think it's really pathetic to hear a bunch of people whining without even considering what they are saying.

Summary: if Beth can do it without compromising another aspect of the game (couple hours of dev time), go right on ahead, and best of luck to the 3D adopters. Don't spew hate at people who are enjoying the game in a new way just because you don't like it, or you can't afford it.

I think some people don't understand how 3D gaming works on the PC and just disapprove of it being supported on this game because of that.

To enable 3D on the PC with 3D Vision you have to install the 3D Vision drivers and then enable 3D in the control panel. Yes, since the driver is having to enable 2 images at once the performance does take a hit. But remember, this is only if you are running the game in 3D. If you don't have the hardware, and therefore, don't have the 3D Vision drivers installed, it has no impact on performance for you whatsoever.

I think most people assume 3D gaming works the same as 3D movies at the theater and that is not the case.

Do it without the glasses, then we'll talk.

I ain't wearing two pairs of glasses at once just to play a videogame.

BTW I am currently playing Oblivion in anaglyph 3D using free drivers and a pair of old fashioned cardboard framed yellow/blue 3D glasses and it's completely fantastic. It will do me until I can afford the hardware for even better 3D.

I wouldn't use it, but options are a good thing for people.