3D gaming - Is it good, bad, not worth it? Y is it not out there completely?

[Grooveriding]

It's a gimmick / marketing fad.

I've used it; 3D vision, and was not impressed. It's cool in some games, but is not comfortable for long stretches. It's worthless for any competitive online multiplayer games as it's a hindrance in those games.

The image looks dark and washed out, in many titles the 3D is way overdone. Haven't tried lightboost, also not interested in being a $700 beta tester for it either. I also have a rig that could crush any 3D Vision title, but have no interest in it. Whether it be nvidia's 3D or AMD's HD3D.

Per your question on running it through your 3D HDTV, you certainly can with some software. I think it is called 3DTV play, remember that this will not deliver the same 3D you get from a 120hz 3D computer monitor. HDTVs are not true 120hz displays and can't deliver the same experience a real 120hz monitor will.

It's farcical for anyone to suggest to you you're in the wrong place to ask these questions and get fair opinions. You're in the perfect place. The last place you should be going for a subjective opinion is on the forum of the company that makes the product. Speaking to people who have bought the hardware and obviously are enamored of it.

The small adoption rate of 3Dvision speaks volumes about its appeal.

My advice, find a place to try it out. Don't just use it on the games that are being used to demo it at a demo station. Try to play the games you play on it, then see what you think.

The one thing 3D Vision has going for it is you will have a 120hz monitor, which is really nice in my experience for fluidity of motion when gaming. Something that is only apparent when using it in 2D though! With a cost like $700 for the current lightboost 3D monitors, I still think you'd be better served getting a 27" 2560x1440 IPS for that price.

Also make sure you are not one of the people who get nausea and headaches from using it. They're quite a few people with those experiences.

 

[Idontcare]

Welcome to the forums Anoop Parwani!

Y is it not out there completely?

The short answer here is $

Unless you are buying a brand new rig, across the board, then you probably have your existing LCD screen(s) which you intend to recycle into the new build.

I desperately want to migrate to 3D gaming, but 5 yrs ago I sunk ~$1000 into dual 24" DELL 2407 LCDs and they still work just fine.

How do I justify to myself setting aside perfectly good functioning LCD screens just so I can spend another $200-$400 on a nice 120Hz LCD?

And I will also have to replace my 460GTX with something a lot beefier (and more costly) in order to maintain reasonable framerates. Plus the additional cost of acquiring the glasses.

So you can see how the step-up cost associated with becoming 3D-capable is a not so inconsequential amount of money.

That same money is competing with CPU upgrades, mobo upgrades, ram, SSD's, and the purchase prices of the games themselves.

I want 3D gaming, but it isn't a high enough priority to me (yet) that it compels me to forego upgrading other components first. (I recently upgraded my Q6600 to a 2600K, for example)

My reasons are not unique to myself, many gamers and enthusiasts are faced with the same issue.

If and when my LCD's die and I am forced to spend the money to replace them I suspect that is when I will bite the bullet and buy a 3D-capable LCD and finally get into it. Until then there are far too many other things competing for my limited hobby budget.

 

[SirPauly]

The small adoption rate of 3Dvision speaks volumes about its appeal.

They sold over 500,000 3d vision glasses.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4966/nvidia-announces-3d-vision-2-and-3d-lightboost-technology

 

[Lonbjerg]

They sold over 500,000 3d vision glasses.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4966/nvidia-announces-3d-vision-2-and-3d-lightboost-technology

3D is here to stay.
When Martin Scorsese makes 3D movies...you know it's here to stay.
And some of the "dislikes" of 3D are quite funny.

I have heard people whine over that 3D glasses makes them look "goofy"...like a 40 year old man sitting playing games on a PC looks "hot" lol

And yes this forum is full of anti-3D trolls..most I gather havn't even tried 3D.

 

[SirPauly]

Welcome to the forums Anoop Parwani!



The short answer here is $

Unless you are buying a brand new rig, across the board, then you probably have your existing LCD screen(s) which you intend to recycle into the new build.

I desperately want to migrate to 3D gaming, but 5 yrs ago I sunk ~$1000 into dual 24" DELL 2407 LCDs and they still work just fine.

How do I justify to myself setting aside perfectly good functioning LCD screens just so I can spend another $200-$400 on a nice 120Hz LCD?

And I will also have to replace my 460GTX with something a lot beefier (and more costly) in order to maintain reasonable framerates. Plus the additional cost of acquiring the glasses.

So you can see how the step-up cost associated with becoming 3D-capable is a not so inconsequential amount of money.

That same money is competing with CPU upgrades, mobo upgrades, ram, SSD's, and the purchase prices of the games themselves.

I want 3D gaming, but it isn't a high enough priority to me (yet) that it compels me to forego upgrading other components first. (I recently upgraded my Q6600 to a 2600K, for example)

My reasons are not unique to myself, many gamers and enthusiasts are faced with the same issue.

If and when my LCD's die and I am forced to spend the money to replace them I suspect that is when I will bite the bullet and buy a 3D-capable LCD and finally get into it. Until then there are far too many other things competing for my limited hobby budget.

Imho,

I suppose many gamers that own a 3d platform like showcasing their platform to others and for the friends and family that did play around --- enjoyed it -- they have an odd smile, hehe! Discussed the limitations, showed them -- but the key distraction was, indeed, the added costs.

For me, it was money well spent because I was at the time for a monitor upgrade anyway -- and now have the flexibility of 3d stereo depending on application. But, the key for me is to see the limitations be improved upon so when gamers do make the move to 3d stereo they have less limitations than early adopters.

The effect is certainly worth improving upon.

 

[apoppin]

How do I justify to myself setting aside perfectly good functioning LCD screens just so I can spend another $200-$400 on a nice 120Hz LCD?

Because a quality 120Hz LCD is SO MUCH superior for fast-shooters that your current 60Hz LCDs are a blurry mess. You should upgrade just for the better tech and superior IQ that you don't know you are missing.

After that, the active shutter glasses for $80 is a cheap upgrade for 3D. Less if you go the HD3D route with passive polarized glasses.

The image looks dark and washed out, in many titles the 3D is way overdone. Haven't tried lightboost,

Then you don't know how to set it up properly.

i am getting Light Boost 2 in time for Batman. It can only be better and 3D Vision is already a great experience.

The small adoption rate of 3Dvision speaks volumes about its appeal.

More than 1/2 million sold in the two years that 3D Vision has been on the market - and many more improved/cheaper 3D Vision 2 kits are on the way.

The price has dropped and good tech is getting better. Word of mouth is pushing S3D because it is cool - whether you personally like it or not.
:whiste:

 

[zebrax2]

Because a quality 120Hz LCD is SO MUCH superior for fast-shooters that your current LCDs are a blurry mess. You should upgrade just for the IQ that you don't know you are missing.

After that, the active shutter glasses for $80 is a cheap upgrade for 3D. Less if you go the HD3D route with passive polarized glasses.

Aside from response time and refresh rate his current monitor would probably destroy the current 120hz LCDs in every other metric.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Because a quality 120Hz LCD is SO MUCH superior for fast-shooters that your current LCDs are a blurry mess. You should upgrade just for the IQ that you don't know you are missing.

After that, the active shutter glasses for $80 is a cheap upgrade for 3D. Less if you go the HD3D route with passive polarized glasses.
Then you don't know how to set it up properly.

i am getting Light Boost 2 in time for Batman. It can only be better and 3D Vision is already a great experience.


More than 1/2 million sold and many more on the way. The price has dropped and good tech is getting better. Word of mouth is pushing S3D because it is cool - whether you personally like it or not.
:whiste:

I take exception to the bolded part. I can plug in my monitor, load up a game and wow it's looking decent right? WHy do I have to fidget with 3D? WHY!? Set up properly? Yeah...if I'm going to invest almost a grand on the tech, it should not need settings messed with to look half way decent.

I played on a 3D Vision rig, complete with SLI 580s, 4.7Ghz 2500k, 16GB Memory and it was running through an Asus monitor (I do not know the model). I played for an hour and tried a lot of different games. Shooters were junk on it because it was distracting and not as clear as I would have liked it. Tried racing games and while it seemed better fir for that type of game, sometimes in motion I got ghosting if that's what you call it. Maybe shadowing...whatever term you use to describe an afterimage on fast motion.

Anyway I was not impressed by it enough to want it for myself. None of the textures looked as good as when I turned 3D off and ran 2D. I don't get headaches or anything, but I expect trying to wear 2 pairs of glasses has an effect on the quality of the image presented to the user, not to mention the discomfort of long sessions with this setup. I cannot wear contacts either. Maybe it's just not for me.

The last issue I have is standards. Why does Nvidia and AMD have different standards for 3D? Why is there not some API that the game could use and bam, works on any video card that has the right drivers and is hooked into a proper monitor? That would make more sense.

 

[apoppin]

Why? i assume that you also set up a PC game and start playing without adjusting anything - whatever the game sets up for you as "default", including resolution.
--In that case you have a right to gripe and S3D is not for you.

Oooh .. you played for a whole hour?
You must be a 3D expert now.


No wonder you hated it. i spent 6 months with it and had none of your issues.

Explaining a 120Hz LCD's superiority in 2D gaming is like trying to explain color tv to someone with B&W

 

[SirPauly]

I take exception to the bolded part. I can plug in my monitor, load up a game and wow it's looking decent right? WHy do I have to fidget with 3D? WHY!? Set up properly? Yeah...if I'm going to invest almost a grand on the tech, it should not need settings messed with to look half way decent.

Since when does a performance or enthusiast gamer not mess with settings to improve the experience for their eyes? Very unusual.

Because, eyes differ and there are different tolerance levels to many areas -- and that is why some tweak to find the right balance for one's eyes in 2d or 3d.

For me, it was about adding some convergence, that really made the experience much better -- not a lot of convergence-- just a bit to add convergence focus for my eyes. When I discovered that setting, really helped a lot.

I can load a game in 2d and doesn't look right -- can add some AA or filtering, hybrid modes, transparency AA, digital vibrance; to get the right balance for my eyes; why wouldn't I try to do the same thing with 3d stereo?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Not everyone can afford a sli rig and a 120hz monitor

 

[apoppin]

Not everyone can afford a sli rig and a 120hz monitor

That's true. However, one should not sour grapes it solely because of that issue.

SLI is not necessary to play in 3D Vision. Something like a GTX 9800 is minimum. Your framerates will take a hit of approximately 50% by enabling 3D Vision if you do not make any adjustments to the detail settings and AA (and you should lower some for the best 3D effect).

A 120Hz display has advantages *other* than 3D. Once you play a fast paced shooter on one, 60Hz LCDs look really blurry in comparison.

 

[Grooveriding]

I take exception to the bolded part. I can plug in my monitor, load up a game and wow it's looking decent right? WHy do I have to fidget with 3D? WHY!? Set up properly? Yeah...if I'm going to invest almost a grand on the tech, it should not need settings messed with to look half way decent.

I played on a 3D Vision rig, complete with SLI 580s, 4.7Ghz 2500k, 16GB Memory and it was running through an Asus monitor (I do not know the model). I played for an hour and tried a lot of different games. Shooters were junk on it because it was distracting and not as clear as I would have liked it. Tried racing games and while it seemed better fir for that type of game, sometimes in motion I got ghosting if that's what you call it. Maybe shadowing...whatever term you use to describe an afterimage on fast motion.

Anyway I was not impressed by it enough to want it for myself. None of the textures looked as good as when I turned 3D off and ran 2D. I don't get headaches or anything, but I expect trying to wear 2 pairs of glasses has an effect on the quality of the image presented to the user, not to mention the discomfort of long sessions with this setup. I cannot wear contacts either. Maybe it's just not for me.

The last issue I have is standards. Why does Nvidia and AMD have different standards for 3D? Why is there not some API that the game could use and bam, works on any video card that has the right drivers and is hooked into a proper monitor? That would make more sense.

There really isn't much fiddling you can do. You can basically adjust the depth, which either dramatizes or diminishes the effect of jump-out. The other issue is in some games the effect is way over-done, like it is in some movies, every bloody thing is jumping out of the screen - overkill. It really has a lot of the 'ooooh shinies' effect going on, tries to get you oohing and ahhing at first - as you usually first try the titles where it works well. Then it wears off and you start to see all the flaws.

As far as washed-out colours and dimness you can do nothing about that, short of cranking up the brightness of your monitor. Something many users say they have to do. The new lightboost monitors are basically a monitor that automatically turns up the backlight periodically to diminish the dim effect.

It's just another tech in its infancy. One that could easily dissapear or stay but end up being something completely different to what it is today from AMD and nvidia. HDTV makers are having a huge challenge trying to convince buyers to get 3D TVs. They are not selling and the prices are dropping. People are happy with their 2D HDTVs and the 3D TV market is struggling.

Even here on a tech enthusiast site where we all spend more money than most on our PCs, I see three people in this thread who have even bothered to buy it.

Like I said it is cool in a few games, but significantly more games are better without it, so that makes it become a challenge of desk space, cumbersome swapping and a hassle.

Because 3D monitors are low quality apart from their refresh rate, it would only be useful for playing in 3D and after that I would want to use my 30" IPS. So swapping back and forth is a huge hassle. If there were some variety in 120hz monitors, right now there is next to none, it would go a long ways to being more useful. But looking at a 1920x1080 27" TN panel monitor costing $700; I shudder to think what a 30" 2560x1600, 27" 2560x1440 or 24" 1920x1200 IPS 120hz monitor would cost.

Even 3D LCD HDTVs are using IPS screens, home consumers would not accept the poor IQ of a TN panel. But the PC variants are all TN.

It's one of those things right now where they want you to buy and over-pay to help subsidize development. If you are die-hard for 3D go for it. If the tech does last, it certainly will wind up as a non proprietary standard that likely does not even need glasses and hopefully with support for quality monitors. In a good few years.

My original suggestion to the OP stays. This is something you must try before you buy and try in the games you play. It's a very subjective experience and a lot of people do not enjoy it. I have a friend who loves it and bought three of the screens and another whose 120hz monitor is now a paper weight that sits in the box. He uses his PC for work, didn't like the 3D and has gone back to a large monitor.

 

[apoppin]

There really isn't much fiddling you can do. You can basically adjust the depth, which either dramatizes or diminishes the effect of jump-out. The other issue is in some games the effect is way over-done, like it is in some movies, every bloody thing is jumping out of the screen - overkill.

Now i am beginning to think that you haven't played any games with 3D Vision at all.


The way you describe it is ridiculous and has nothing to do with any reality 3D Vision owners experience

 

[Grooveriding]

Now i am beginning to think that you haven't played any games with 3D Vision at all.


The way you describe it is ridiculous and has nothing to do with any reality 3D Vision owners experience

So what adjustments are there ? Tweaking the convergence and the like ? Isn't that what is supposed to be taken care of in the provided profiles from nvidia ?

I understand that you are taken away with 3D. Not everyone is, no need to be so dramatic because not everyone likes it who has used it.

As I said earlier it is a very subjective experience and the OP would be well served to try it himself, not listen to anyone's subjective opinion on it. No sense in him spending $700 to find out he doesn't like it.

 

[apoppin]

So what adjustments are there ? Tweaking the convergence and the like ? Isn't that what is supposed to be taken care of in the provided profiles from nvidia ?

I understand that you are taken away with 3D. Not everyone is, no need to be so dramatic because not everyone likes it who has used it.

As I said earlier it is a very subjective experience and the OP would be well served to try it himself, not listen to anyone's subjective opinion on it. No sense in him spending $700 to find out he doesn't like it.

You have never played a game in 3D Vision at all. You describe it completely wrong. No one has the experience that you posted.

 

[Grooveriding]

You have never played a game in 3D Vision at all. You describe it completely wrong. No one has the experience that you posted.

Thank you for calling me a liar.

Shill for 3D some more.

 

[apoppin]

What else can i call this made up nonsense?

There really isn't much fiddling you can do. You can basically adjust the depth, which either dramatizes or diminishes the effect of jump-out. The other issue is in some games the effect is way over-done, like it is in some movies, every bloody thing is jumping out of the screen - overkill.

 

[Grooveriding]

What else can i call this made up nonsense?

I asked you to explain the depth of tweaking available beyond customizing the profiles that are already provided and spinning the wheel for depth.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for 3D driving you to think someone's take on it being different meaning they must be lying.

Adding you to ignore, much like I did your poor video card review conclusions long ago.

:whiste:

 

[Carfax83]

I wish there was somewhere I could go to try out 3D Vision 2. I've long considered migrating to a 3D set up, but I need to try it out before commiting to buy, and I've never had that chance.

I also have concerns about the image quality of those TN panels. Coming off a high end 30 inch panel to a "low rez" 1080p TN panel is a fairly dramatic down grade in more than one area.

 

[SirPauly]

Isn't that what is supposed to be taken care of in the provided profiles from nvidia ?

The profiles, from my understanding, are for some of the compatibility issues that nVidia may be able to solve or improve for their customers. Sometimes titles improve their rating over time.

There are areas to tweak, from depth, gamma, convergence, brightness, contrast, with newer monitors having LightBoost.

I do agree, 3d stereo may not be for everyone but sometimes some end-users don't give 3d stereo a chance to be a feature for someone to like.

 

[SirPauly]

You can basically adjust the depth, which either dramatizes or diminishes the effect of jump-out.

What the wheel does is actually create more depth or jump-in effect but what convergence does is help create more jump-out or pop-out effects. Usually, for some, there needs to be a nice balance of both.

 

[apoppin]

I asked you to explain the depth of tweaking available beyond customizing the profiles that are already provided and spinning the wheel for depth.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for 3D driving you to think someone's take on it being different meaning they must be lying.

Adding you to ignore, much like I did your poor video card review conclusions long ago.

:whiste:

Your posts are already the subject for discussion at ABT forum.

You have provided nonsense as an example for the 3D Vision experience and your post flies wrong in the face of every 3D Vision review that there is.

If i feel that you have not experienced 3D Vision, why would i attempt to explain the difference between depth and convergence? You have them mixed up.

 

[NIGELG]

Your posts are already the subject for discussion at ABT forum.

You have provided nonsense as an example for the 3D Vision experience and your post flies wrong in the face of every 3D Vision review that there is.

If i feel that you have not experienced 3D Vision, why would i attempt to explain the difference between depth and convergence? You have them mixed up.

LOL....I enjoy your forums where other forum banned fanatics of BOTH ATi and Nvidia Video cards,3D and physX hang out.It's a good read to see trolls,shills and haters.

I used to respect you...you put Rollo in his place... but lately your posts seems out of balance.

As for 3d....I will buy it eventually for sure.In fact my only problems now are the high cost of entry,the glasses...I hate wearing glasses and also the fact that I just bought a nice IPS monitor.

But I'm sold on 3d based on the testimonies of many respected forum members' opinions...it sure sounds nice. I also listen to people who tried it and didn't like it.I can't try it myself because no one here sells 3D in stores and I don't know anyone who has it.

What I can't stand are fanatics who are starting to get obnoxious and crap on other people's experiences or skepticism.They are getting annoying like MAC fanboys....LOL.

 

[SirPauly]

Am going to use an example of how I like to play World of WarCraft in Stereo3d: I like my player to be about about half out-of-screen and when the enemy attacks and lunges, like an insect, their legs go out-of screen. Totally different experience.

Someone offered in this thread how things get blurry but, for me, it is the polar opposite and will use World of WarCraft as an example again:

Stormwind was being attacked by the Horde, with literally hundreds of participants of human and computer models. In 2d, it is a mass of color confusion and one can't make out what is really going on but with 3d stereo; each player and effect is defined with shape and form from each other and the surrounding environment; and could decipher what was being seen and very, very clear. It was quite frankly, incredible to see how the magic effects, coupled from the many players all at once. It was a totally different experience than 2d. And that's the key I was seeing a 3d accelerated game on a 3d plane instead of a 2d plane.

Just a ride with my Paladin offered a unique experience in Stranglethorn Vale when a Tauren flanked me and came out of screen -- nearly fell out of my seat. Totally different experience.

I've been playing games with just resolution as the only step to improve monitor immersion for over a decade and about time 3d stereo has come back as an option. If you don't like it -- hey you don't like it. I'm glad its back, evolving and maturing, so there may be less limitations for future 3d stereo gamers.