Remove the need for glasses from the equation, and then we'll talk. As it is right now, 3D is more or less now what it was back then. A fancy gimmick that gave you a negligible positive for a steep negative (in price, performance, and quality).

Besides, I just don't want to wear bulky glasses for a small bonus to "immersion".

Though 3D lovers should be rejoicing soon enough, because Sony has made a 3DTV that doesn't require glasses. So I'm sure that technology will make its way down to computer monitors soon enough.

I think that 3D technology works best in the film industry, especially when paired up with an already visually appealing movie. With games, and especially with RPG's, the biggest draw for me is a) the storyline, and B) character progression. On a sidenote, I often find that I am less able to be drawn into something when the glasses that I am wearing serve to remind me that what I am viewing is not real. Besides, I don't need to see 3D foliage to enjoy a game.

I'm not a fan of 3D, but on the other hand, I see that it might be potentially useful technological advance. In the end, I'd support it in general, although Skyrim in specific might be too large of a project to experiment with fancy gimmicks.

you need a nvidia driver in order to run a game in 3d, it will probably support it, I mean it is really nvidia that has the code for it

Anaglyphic is free and has no performance hit as far as I can tell, while active shutter 3d requires no more than the glasses (which are around $150 from Nvidia) and a 120Hz monitor, which are becoming increasingly common.
In movies it might be a fancy gimmick, but for games it's actually really really good to look at. Trust me, one play of Just Cause 2 in 3d and you'll be hooked.

This is wrong, you've been misinformed - it's just that nvidia have produced their own drivers and branded shutter glasses and sell the gear as a package, whereas AMD have gone the open source route so you use a third-party 3D driver (iZ3D or DDD for example) with an ATI card and it's a bit tricky at the moment to work out which monitors are compatible for shutter 3D glasses with an ATI card because at the moment monitor manufacturers are only confirming their suitablilty for use with nVidia cards - I predict that will change over the next 6 months though.

And you don't need any expensive gear or a particular monitor, nor do you need an nVidia graphics card or nVidia drivers to play games in anaglyph 3D. I'm using a 6 year old low res monitor, an ATI card, free iZ3D drivers, and a pair of cardboard framed anaglyph glasses that came free in newspapers for a week of 3D television last year.

Pointless its a waste of time and resources.

By who, Nvidia?

yeah well...thats where the entertainment business is going...but it really doesn't matter does it?...it could have optimal support for 3D in case you think its cool again

For bethesda.

Thats funny, because even with absolutely no 3d support Oblivion looks pretty damn good in 3d.

some games are good in 3d some are.........horrible I wouldn't mind the option through and its not because of avatar I have never seen avatar so no influences there

Well then same goes for Skyrim.

I don't see the problem of adding support for it. Simply put, all you have to do is avoid certain traps or shortcuts that makes it not work or just bad. Typically the 3D screen will work for 3D displays right out of the box with some tweaks (provide a profile), but things like hud/crosshair (maybe 3D support is the driving force for removing hud?) often have a tendency to "go bad" - where do you put it, in the front or in the back? The other problematic area are overlays and post processing effects which needs to be dealt with differently. We tried a few games on a professional NVidia driven system (several projectors, blending, 48 seat cinema etc), but it was so so... What worked was excellent, no complains there. It was the rest, like HUD and DOF.

But if programmed with support in mind, it shouldn't be a big issue to make it work (I think). No, it's not something I'm gonna use myself, I still get stutters in OB.

How about freelook, i.e. by holding alt while you move? Would that be something to consider (I'm expecting a roaring yes on this one)? Then why not expand it to Free-Track and TrackIR? Would probably add a lot of immersion for those that have it. I have TrackIR, but I find it awkward to use on foot, but I know many like to do it.

So because Avatar was in 3d that suddenly makes 3d gaming not cool. FAIL. If you don't like it, don't use it.

I have had 3d vision from Nvidia for about 2 years now and absolutely love it. Oblivion looks awesome and that's just converted to 3d. This is the type of game that is perfect for 3d and I think that building 3d options in to the game could really enhance the player experience. I know when Oblivion released I shut the lights off and played like that for hours at a time almost like flipping a switch between Tamriel and the real world. When I got my 3d monitor and 3d vision kit I started again and can honestly say the immersion in to the game was deeper in 3d.

Either way this game is shaping up to be great and whether compatible or 3d ready I'll be turning my glasses on.

You are wrong. Many people enjoy 3d and resources used for gaming are minimal compared to film.

In the hub update interview Todd said he wasn't a big fan of 3D gaming and 3D movies so I thinking it is out.

If you have Nvidia 3d Vision glasses for your PC, most (all?) games using DirectX already have 3d capability to an extent.

But as for full '3D Vision Ready' capability, I don't think most games in 2011 will have 3d, because I don't think the XBox has 3d capability. I know PS3 recently got a 3d update, and PCs have had 3d for a while.

Having said that, I'm playing Oblivion in NVidia 3d now and it adds to the immersion immensely.

I'd love Bethesda put a little effort into making Skyrim more fully 3d compatible so the little annoyances disappear for those of us who use the technology and those who might replay the game in the future if/when they get 3d capability.

My personal crystal ball tells me that the next generation of consoles will have 3d out of the box, and all non-indie games from that point on will be fully 3d ready. (Disclaimer: My crystal ball also told me my footy team would win the comp last year and we came 12th)

Welp, this thread is now pointless concerning Todd Howard doesn't care much for 3D, meaning it's not going to be in Skyrim until NVIDIA drivers or iz3D drivers support it on their own.

Sorry. Perhaps next game? :shrug:

I wish this 3-D fad would die. Everyone wants 3-D in there products and im sick of it.

I guess no one else saw that but you and me. I'm just surprised it took until page 3 for someone to mention that. There won't be 3d support because Todd isn't interested. The interview came out like 3 days ago.


PS... for anyone who's sick of 3d, go blame sony.

Well, specifically for gaming, you *are* already rendering the scene once, all 3D requires is another render. Adding support for it is fairly trivial.

Anaglyphic methods of creating three dimensional pictures have one big disadvantage: You will experience a lot of color distortion.
Unfortunately there is no way to solve this problem with anaglyphic methods.

Thats why shutter techniques are so popular.

Yeah, making it look nice and immersive is so overrated, it's such a fad yeah? When will cRPGs get back to their pure root of being text based only?!
This topic keeps cropping up over and over and over again. People, take note, the 3Dvision tech for games DOES NOT mean regular non-3D is not supported. Most, if not all, of the work to support it comes from nVidia, NOT the games developer. If the developer wanted to keep 3D in mind whilst making the engine, then it would need slightly different code, not many many more man hours.

If you do not want, like, agree with or get the benefits of stereoscopic 3D, fine, don't feel pressured to go out an buy the kit. Just stop suggesting that games should be purposely coded so that nobody else can have the option of using it when it'd be supported by default, just like nearly every 3D game for PC from the last decade.

Something that's also important is making sure that everything you render has some sort of depth information associated with it, so that the video drivers can render it in 3d. That's where most games that don't work in 3d fall down. The HUD is at a mad depth so you see it double, that nice reflection on the blade of your sword is flat on the screen while the sword's beyond the screen, the surface of water is an upright sheet facing you, not a flat surface stretching into the distance...

Plus, if you have whole screen pixel shaders they're not going to work in 3d. Lot's of blur, HDR lighting or fog effects could muck up, depending on how they're implemented.

Support for 3d is perfectly possible, but the right decisions have to be made at the beginning, and some effects might be much faster to render and quicker to implement if they're done in a 3d unfriendly way.