I voted for the patch option, at least for the PC. All they would need to do is to make sure that the user interface for the PC version looks acceptable in 3D. Anything they missed could be fixed in a patch. My graphics cards support 3D (I am considering a monitor that will at some point), and the control panel has a list of games. Oblivion is listed as good with complaints about the crosshair and objects at wrong depth. Has anyone with the full setup actually tried Oblivion?

Voted "immediately". It's not something you "do" as such, it's more of a mindset of staying away from known traps that will cause problems for it. If you do this early on, there is really no development cost to it. The data is already there. The 3D and Z buffer is already available for the 3D output to use. All you have to do is prevent certain stuff from working in 3D, such as setting a crosshair or gui to have infinite distance. There are other "rules" as well, the point is being aware of them so you don't code stuff that you know will break 3D output.

It is likely to cost a lot more time trying to fix problems late, like in a patch, than be aware of the traps early on. It's not something I'd use myself, other than trying it out in a 3D movie theater we use. Did try some other games there, and yeah, was kinda cool, but not the kicker I expected. But if someone likes it, then why not? I'm not using 3rd person either, I think it's a gimmick, one that destroys gameplay even. But I'm not gonna deny it to others.

YES I TOTALLY WANT THAT. There are already plenty of 3d games comin out soon and i think Skryim shuld do it to assure its spot as numero Uno. Omg playing on my 50 inch 3d tv high def...oh my gosh looking at the dragons. i dont think most people ever had one but it enhances images so much. a dragon in 3d wuld off the bat give them game of the year haha. 3d video games are great. I would be playing it all the time in 3d.

No, stereoscopic 3D is every 3D technique that uses a separate image for each eye. You are referring to anaglyph 3D.

I would really like to see Skyrim supporting 3d. Every RPG i played got much much more immersive this way.
After a little while you feel like being completely svcked into the world.
All feelings about space and danger are multipled many times.
With a cheap dlp projector everyone is able to get this experience without things like ghosting on a really big screen.

Just my 2 cents

These.

Besides, I really don't see 3D sticking around until they fully remove those costly and bulky, or cheap and flimsy, glasses from the equation. I'd rather not have to take off my glasses that help me see to put on some glasses which are a pain to wear and make things harder to see just to get a relatively small positive bonus to "IMMERSHUN." If anything, wearing those glasses made me feel less immersed in the world.

EDIT: Also, I know they're now starting to make TVs that have 3D without the glasses, but until the prices of those sets become relatively affordable, and the 3D effect becomes applicable on the computer monitor level (again, having to become relatively affordable as well), I don't see it sticking around.

The cost to make Skyrim support 3D well is so SMALL it'd be a shame not to do it. I must remind everyone here that nearly all the work for 3D is done at the driver level. Supporting 3D for a game means making sure the floating user interface elements don't do funny stuff like feel far away and get drawn in front of a wall 2cm from you or making the crosshair and mouse cursors rendering distance to be dynamic with the world (they should feel as far as the item they are pointing). Except from such small details, there "might" be a shader or two for some water reflection and the like that need some tuning but not all games need to do it.

Those changes are all be completely invisible for someone not rendering the game in 3D mode and the only performance cost is for the crosshair/mouse cursor thing but only if you want to be pedantic about it, it shouldn't be noticeable at all unless something is VERY wrong in the game.


If the game supports those small tweaks now, you'll be able to use it painlessly in 3D mode later when the hardware becomes much more common (if it happens), if not you'll need a patch which will probably not happen Better make the tiny tiny tiny effort to make it work now for Bethesda

3D for immersion? I don't get this with immersion. If a game is fun, but lacks immersion, does it matter? It's still fun.
Also, no to 3D in general. At least by the standards 3D are at now. Seems like a pointless, but fancy thing to throw at anything, a gimmick.

3D is no gimmick and i think people need to get used to the idea because its gonna stay. I'm not sure how Skyrim would be anything but amaizing in 3D. And i'm a little confused as to how so many are into the whole visual thing on these forums with the graphics and textures etc, but turn down 3D so quickly.

Pretty much every television set released now is 3D ready, BluRay 3D players, Sky 3D. You think this is just a phase? People are mentioning that consoles would struggle with 3D also? Sony are leading the way with 3D games this year. I really think that (some) PC gamers need to start considering the future of games before knocking the console users every chance they get. Consoles do not struggle with 3D,

I personally would love to see Skyrim in 3D, but unfortunately i am pretty certain Todd isn't a fan of it, and it wont be a feature in Skyrim. In addition, 3D could be easily implemented with a simple toggle on/off option, like how it is for every other game that features 3D at the moment.

Very good point.

I believe that 3D is a gimmick and that it will in fact NOT stay. It seems like every few years, movies/games/technology feels the need to focus on 3D, and then it goes dormant, just to arise again 5-10 years down the road. We are just in one of those time periods where EVERYTHING seems to be in 3D.

And yes, many of us are very concerned and wrapped up in the graphics and textures of the game, but IMO 3D does not make it any more immerse or better. I actually think that 3D can take away from the look and feel of the game/movie.

You should add to the poll a question about how many people here have even tried 3D games. I'm willing to bet its a low percentage since there are really no options currently available.

I remember when games made the leap from 2D to "3D" back in the TurboGrafix16 days and everyone said that was a gimmick too. Now it's industry standard. The first stereoscopic 3D game that comes out and makes a critically acclaimed success will redefine gaming forever. It's a clear fit for gaming. Period.

Furthermore, anyone who says that they don't like a fundamentally new gaming technology such as this should be ashamed to call themselves a gamer. Anything that offers a new experience or a new way to look at games is a good thing for the industry and for gamers. It keeps the industry fresh and moving forward. Discounting stereoscopic 3D games before there are on the market is like saying "why should we make the NES 16bits instead of 8? I think 8bits is fine, I can use my imagination". Well guess what, even if you don't do it, you can be damned sure your competitors will.

No. Because I personally watched so many 3D movies, and I have never ever saw a single 3D thing. And it sometimes causes me a headache too.

As Todd noted on the Game Informer podcast, it's pretty unlikely you'll see 3D support. I believe he likened the chance of it happening to when Jim Carrey says, "So you're saying there's a chance?!?" in Dumb and Dumber.

Something worth noting -- while we didn't officially support 3D for Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I checked out both games in 3D at an NVIDIA booth (at QuakeCon) using NVIDIA 3D vision -- they looked pretty good.

So basically eventhough we have a Dumb and Dumber chance of having (official) 3D support for Skyrim we could still see (unofficial) 3D support such as with Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

So you're saying there's a chance?!?

Really don't care either way about 3D, but I'm always excited for any possibility of a new experience.

I don't care about 3D and anyway I will never be able to spent 100+ hours in front of a 3D screen...

No.. I really don't get much out of 3D

I dont think this is a phase this time. It is not a case any more of adding green and red to a screen. Movies are purposely being made for 3D. And it is a far cry from Jaws 4! They realised then that it wasn't good enough, but its back again and this time looks amazing. IMO it looks so, so good when done well...

It will not fade away again... it is here to stay and will be a springboard for things to come. Do you think you will just carry on plodding along playing games on normal TV/Monitors for years to come... thats changing for good. 3D TV will be ￡400 for a 42" screen within a year. Its the tech of 3D that will change, as soon as glasses are done away with it will take over.

Again i see "its a gimmick"... strait away. It is a massive visual difference. How is 3D a gimmick and yet things like Ambient Occlusion is not?? I hear so much about that and wether Skyrim will have it....

There is a full list of 'gimmicks' on the side of the latest graphics card boxes, yet i here nothing about those.

3D is a gimmick that will fade away. After all, the 3DS isn't absolutely and completely sold out all over the world yet

Pretty high chance. It's not hard to do given the nature of the worlds being rendered in 3D anyway. Nvidia has done it for Oblivion, so there's no reason they won't do it for Skyrim. Just don't expect it on the consoles.

Right.

It's kind of funny that Todd sort of poo-pooed it, but in the end it's going to be available in 3D anyway.

Like I said before---a company can choose not to do something, but had better know damned well that some competitor will.

I don't think it'll change their sales at all though. It's not worth bothering with. And from a lot of peoples opinions around here (no offense meant) it could possible damage it if people that are ignorant of 3D see a 3D sticker or see it advertised, they may not want to buy it even though they may not have a 3D TV. People that actually want the 3D have a way to do that through Nvidia, and though unofficial it works pretty well, and doesn't cost BGS anything.

Umm...the 3DS hasn't been released yet so how would it be sold out??

Given the high praise in previews of the 3DS, the strong support from third parties, and the outstanding success of the current gen DS, it would be foolish to expect this to fade away. Sure Nintendo had some questionable forays into gaming technology in the past as with the Virtual Boy, but they've learned from those mistakes. The Wii is a perfect example of 'gimmicky' technology (motion control) that is now setting the bar for console makers (Kinect and Move).

I predict that next gen consoles will all be 3D capable and that it will eventually become the norm for gaming. As soon as there is a successful game that really pulls it off well, all of the current naysayers will be out buying 3D tvs. It's just like Apple and the mp3 player. They didn't invent it, they just did it really well with the iPod and redesigned the industry. It will only take one company to do a 3D game really well and the industry will change forever.

Agreed it doesn't cost them anything other than the opportunity to reinvent the gaming industry and set a new bar for the next gen of gaming. I'm not sure how much additional work goes into making a 3D game since they're already renedered in 3D, but my guess is that Beth isn't focusing on it due to the risk of supporting a gaming technology that is yet to be proven in the marketplace, rather than the difficulty of implementation.

I think the future of 3D games rests largely on the success of the 3DS. If it does really well (which I think it will), companies will be scrambling to get into the space. Nintendo is great at taking these kinds of risks and pushing the envelope in the industry. The next big hurdle will be for the TV manufacturers to get rid of the need for special glasses.

Ok, than I'm saying that it would be useless... 200$ for a Paire of glasses? I mean, c'mon! It's to expensive.