Killzone 2 Getting 3D Update

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Killzone 2 Getting 3D Update



Sony's triple-A shooter Killzone 2 [http://www.amazon.com/Killzone-2-Playstation-3/dp/B000FQBF1M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1278693096&sr=1-1] will be getting the 3D treatment this summer.

Adding a third dimension to things is all the rage now, and Sony has no plans to be left behind. As well as a firmware update in June for the PS3 which will allow the console to display stereoscopic images; Sony will also update Killzone 2 to be compatible with 3D displays.

The information was revealed in the latest edition of PSN series Qore, and indicated that Killzone 2 alongside Gran Turismo 5 [http://www.amazon.com/WipEout-Online-Game-Code-Playstation-3/dp/B002N2YLDA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1278693117&sr=1-1] would be 3D compatible.

You will, however, need a 3D capable TV, so not everyone is going to be able to take advantage of this update. It's also worth noting that all the games mentioned are Sony-published titles, with no third-party announced so far. It's still early days however, and that could all change.

Source: MCV [http://www.mcvuk.com/news/38332/Killzone-2-getting-3D-update]


Permalink
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Seeing as graphics is all the game has going for it, I suppose trying to improve them by implenting the biggest gimmick since motion controls would be a great idea.
 

Sonicron

Do the buttwalk!
Mar 11, 2009
5,134
0
0
Couldn't they have given this kind of treatment to a game that's actually worth playing? Ehhh...
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
If this somehow interferes with the development of Killzone 3, then it's quite unfortunate.
If not, hooray, I guess.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
You will, however, need a 3D capable TV
And how do we know what TV's support 3D or not? I haven't seen any 3D able TV's advertised. Is it a feature or is it simply something that works with every TV that meets some certain requirements?

More information would be nice.
 
Dec 16, 2009
1,774
0
0
Hardcore_gamer said:
Logan Westbrook said:
You will, however, need a 3D capable TV
And how do we know what TV's support 3D or not? I haven't seen any 3D able TV's advertised. Is it a feature or is it simply something that works with every TV that meets some certain requirements?

More information would be nice.
If it means having to wear the glasses, I'm out
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Hardcore_gamer said:
Logan Westbrook said:
You will, however, need a 3D capable TV
And how do we know what TV's support 3D or not? I haven't seen any 3D able TV's advertised. Is it a feature or is it simply something that works with every TV that meets some certain requirements?

More information would be nice.
I think the fact that they're not released yet is why you know so little about them.. They're set for release this summer, and it's going to be a feature like HDTV, it will be advertised as fuck. You WILL know if your tv has it or not.

On the question about the goggles, I think you'll need them.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
You know, from the subject I thought they were updating the graphics.

Which would've been funny.

This is just... wow. "NOW BROWN POPS OUT AT ME!"

Also, wheres my 3D ultraporn?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/61391-hdtv-now-53-percent-us-homes.htm

So this time last year 53% of US homes have HDTV, I think by now it is as high as 70%, so great work Sony and others, all these HD-consoles and blu-ray and so many HD channels have convinced the majority to upgrade their SDTVs to expensive high definition version...

"HEY EVERYBODY!"

Who the hell are you?

"I'm a corporate douchebag, here to tell you that WE KNOW you just invested in HDTV thinking that standard would last as long as SDTV (about 50 years), well no you stupid consumers, now only 4 years after popular introduction there is a NEW standard for you to upgrade to to get ThrEeEeEeE DeEeEeEeE! All you have to do is throw that giant expensive HDTV you just bought in the trash and buy an even bigger screen that costs 10x more than the HDTV you bought!"

Fuck... you...

"oh yeah, and this technology is VERY annoying as you have to get the viewing angle and distance JUST RIGHT and even then the picture is a blurry mess and will only appear 3D if you get special glasses"

How much does each pair of glasses cost?

"Oh about $130 per pair, so for a family of five that's an extra $650 and these WILL break"

FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU!!!

"oh and for a significant portion of the population (about 1 in 4) 3D tech gives them headaches yet watching as a group... you can't just take off your glasses or the 3D effect is gone"

I hate 3D so much right now, I hope it dies an embarrassing death.

"oh but Avatar..."

I preferred it in 2D.
 

Outright Villainy

New member
Jan 19, 2010
4,334
0
0
3D is nowhere near developed enough to be a standard yet, particularly with glasses and stuff. Watching something like avatar, which had the biggest budget for anything, ever, even that took a good hour and a half to get used to it. And I've seen it twice, and both times it happened. I'll invest in 10 years or so maybe, when it's a bit more refined.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Hardcore_gamer said:
Logan Westbrook said:
You will, however, need a 3D capable TV
And how do we know what TV's support 3D or not? I haven't seen any 3D able TV's advertised. Is it a feature or is it simply something that works with every TV that meets some certain requirements?

More information would be nice.
Only the VERY LATEST HDTVs which conform to a certain standard and are VERY expensive are 3D capable. Of and for every person who wants to view 3D on the screen they need special glasses made SPECIFICALLY for that particular screen. There isn't an open standard for the glasses. So of course each electronics manufactures effectively has a monopoly to gouge giant wads of money out of your pocket.

So if you bought a HDTV about 3 months ago only... as far as 3D proponents are concerned you just bought a Dreamcast the day Sega quit the hardware business.

Trust me, 3D is OVER FUCKING HYPED and business wise it is going to Crash and Burn.

In fact anybody dumb enough to fork out for 3D TV is an idiot as the market is going to collapse and they are going to be left with a product that no one is making content for. Like buying a Dreamcast in 2001 only there isn't going to be a lot of 3D homebrew.

BTW, going to 3D is not "free" if makes the games much more "stuttery" (the frame-buffer is overloaded to frame rate must decrease). Killzone 2 already has a critically poor frame rate while Wipeout HD is a travesty if not at 60 frames/sec.

Shooting content in 3D is also a MONUMENTAL hassle and expense but still it hardly adds anything of real significance to the games or movies. it's an effect that at the worst of times is distracting and at the best of times where 3D actually works.. YOU DON'T NOTICE IT!
 

sneakypenguin

Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,804
0
1
Country
usa
Great so the 1% who have tvs for this can play with blurry 3d effect. Wonderful, but at least they are supporting it.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
My appologies to the management for the double post.

Do'h!

Treblaine said:
Only the VERY LATEST HDTVs which conform to a certain standard and are VERY expensive are 3D capable.
I suppose the people with too much money to burn on first-gen 3d TVs are exactly the ones who wasted their money on killzone, no?
 

Lamppenkeyboard

New member
Jun 3, 2009
927
0
0
Killzone 2 would be quite the spectacle in 3D. But I will wait off on getting a 3D tv until they find a way around the ridiculous glasses.

It is fine in the theaters, with over a hundred other people wearing them, but it would just be inconvenient at home.
 

Supernova2000

Shivan Sympathizer
May 2, 2009
240
0
0
brumley53 said:
Didnt they say every game would be 3D?
I hope not, because If I lose my 3D glasses, I'd have to watch black and white blur-o-vision.

Doctor Who, Mario, Alien vs Predator and now 3D, why is everything being recycled like this?
 

JaymesFogarty

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,054
0
0
3D gives some viewers migraines and headaches. The side affects are not yet known for prolonged exposure to the images, (which of course the frequent gamer will have) and also, glasses will have to be worn at all times, along with purchasing an expensive television. F this. This seems to be a even worse road to take than motion control. (I can't believe I just typed that!)
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
thiosk said:
My appologies to the management for the double post.

Do'h!

Treblaine said:
Only the VERY LATEST HDTVs which conform to a certain standard and are VERY expensive are 3D capable.
I suppose the people with too much money to burn on first-gen 3d TVs are exactly the ones who wasted their money on killzone, no?
I rented killzone 2... it's a solid 7.9/10 and I wouldn't call it a waste of money at the platinum/classics release price $30/£20

Still even $60 on a fairly entertaining 8 hour game and 15+ hour multiplayer is nothing compared to a 3DTV that can easily cost an extra $1000. I mean the move from SD to HD was ALL positive, wheras 3D gives fringe benefits, small applications and LOADS of negatives.

Worse than that, all TVs at the moment use the inferior 120Hz standard which is poorly compatible with feature films which are shot at 24 frames/sec (no common denominator) and only the 240Hz tvs have any kind of life in them and good luck finding a decent sized one for less than $3'000

And this is coming at a time when HDTVs are FINALLY at an affordable price with good quality. It seems some bad businessmen just haven't learned the lesson that "the customer is always right" and they can't get away with selling $3000 televisions forever.

TVs are an INVESTMENT, people buy them and expect to have them for 10-15 years, most of the market has moved to HD, most of the markets have just completed the digital switch-over to allow HD... it is too soon by about 20 years to introduce a new standard.
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
Isn't this going to absolutely murder the frame rate? The minimum requirements for Nvidia's 3d thingie involve dual video cards and if there's one thing consoles aren't known for it's their up to date hardware. And wasn't Killzone 2 only considered "good" because it's a ps3 exclusive, which always get heralded as the best game ever before being forgotten 2 weeks later?
 

Jark212

Certified Deviant
Jul 17, 2008
4,455
0
0
Now we can all go out and get one of those $9,000 3D T.V.s!!!
 

sneakypenguin

Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,804
0
1
Country
usa
chstens said:
bob-2000 said:
I hate 3D, it's so damn gimmicky.
The average American, ca. 1920: "I detest motion picture, it such an irritating fad!"
Thing is though 3d even with tech like avatar still looks blurry if your not looking where your supposed to be, or if your sitting off to an angle. And it just doesn't look "right" things stick too far out, or not enough. Until they fix the need for glasses and make it look somewhat natural then it shall be a gimmick imho.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
So much effort going into the appearance and technical aspects on an already technically great game. Such a shame it seemed like the games writers were trying to write a bland, self-aware semi-parody of a Michael Bay-esque action film in a foreign language before handing what they produced to a load of incompetent British translators who seem to think the whole thing is supposed to be a sincere war-is-hell drama, the translated script then being handed over to a gang of illiterate monkeys put in front of microphones, a confused Brian Cox standing amongst them, wondering where the actors are. Are they gonna release anything to make that aspect of the game actually bearable?






I feel like by making this comment, I have become the kind of raging nerd I despise...
 

EnzoHonda

New member
Mar 5, 2008
722
0
0
I haven't actually seen any movies in 3D, so I can't comment on how it is. However, I like the idea of a new technique that may make games and movies more immersive. It likely just needs some time to come into its own. And like all new technologies, I'm gonna wait for it to get cheap while other people pay the big bucks to have the latest thing.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
I was in the minority that apparently liked Killzone 2. I wonder why so many people hate the game.

The biggest complaints I have heard are over the sluggish controls. There is a slider in the controls menu that tweaks the sensitivity. Just wanted to put that out there for anyone who bitched about it.

And I liked that it actually forced you to aim. No lock on feature or sticky controls to guide your bullets. If you can't aim for shit, then you deserve to suck at the game.
 

chronobreak

New member
Sep 6, 2008
1,865
0
0
OMG GIMMICKS!

Nah, I can't wait for this idea to take off, it sounds really neat. If you're gonna hate on it, especially because you think it is just a "gimmick", well, whatever. Wait for the reviews, see if the technology is good enough, do your research and then figure out if you want it or not. Can't see why people would be so against something different. Imagine a game like God of War, with huge boss guys in 3D swinging stuff at you. Sounds pretty cool to me, but I guess I'm just a big old gimmick lover who can be sold anything under the sun.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
This is really making me want to play Killzone 2 now.

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the update(s), 3D is a nifty feature to have even if most people don't have a 3D compatible TV. I personally don't mind 3D, it can definitely work in some areas. And so long as it's optional to have 3D gaming, I don't see why you can't have it.

Meh, don't care too much, though at least it's there.
 

Mr. Mike

New member
Mar 24, 2010
532
0
0
Jumplion said:
This is really making me want to play Killzone 2 now.

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the update(s), 3D is a nifty feature to have even if most people don't have a 3D compatible TV. I personally don't mind 3D, it can definitely work in some areas. And so long as it's optional to have 3D gaming, I don't see why you can't have it.

Meh, don't care too much, though at least it's there.
Same here, makes me want to get back into it.

Also, I don't see where all the hate towards Killzone 2 is coming from. The campaign was enjoyable and immersive for the most part, and the online was fantastic as long as you didn't have noob tacticians who didn't know how to throw spawn points. It still has a fairly dedicated community too.

Off-topic question: do the people who still play use the map packs? Like, if I wanted to get back into it, are the DLC maps regularly played? Or is it nigh impossible to find a game with them?
 

AVATAR_RAGE

New member
May 28, 2009
1,120
0
0
I say go for it, I don't have a 3D TV but for those 3 of you out there with one I think you be amazed
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Mr. Mike said:
Jumplion said:
This is really making me want to play Killzone 2 now.

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the update(s), 3D is a nifty feature to have even if most people don't have a 3D compatible TV. I personally don't mind 3D, it can definitely work in some areas. And so long as it's optional to have 3D gaming, I don't see why you can't have it.

Meh, don't care too much, though at least it's there.
Same here, makes me want to get back into it.

Also, I don't see where all the hate towards Killzone 2 is coming from. The campaign was enjoyable and immersive for the most part, and the online was fantastic as long as you didn't have noob tacticians who didn't know how to throw spawn points. It still has a fairly dedicated community too.

Off-topic question: do the people who still play use the map packs? Like, if I wanted to get back into it, are the DLC maps regularly played? Or is it nigh impossible to find a game with them?
I dunno, I haven't played it for a long time. Though when I did buy the maps, nobody played them. Pissed me off >_< Never was really good at multiplayer games though. The multiplayer is fun, though the reward system is somewhat flawed. You have to play for a LONG time before you're even allowed to use the sniper rifle which I really wanted to use which put me off of it for a bit.
 

chstens

New member
Apr 14, 2009
993
0
0
sneakypenguin said:
chstens said:
bob-2000 said:
I hate 3D, it's so damn gimmicky.
The average American, ca. 1920: "I detest motion picture, it such an irritating fad!"
Thing is though 3d even with tech like avatar still looks blurry if your not looking where your supposed to be, or if your sitting off to an angle. And it just doesn't look "right" things stick too far out, or not enough. Until they fix the need for glasses and make it look somewhat natural then it shall be a gimmick imho.
And what part of what you just said can't be translated to the movie biz in the 20's?
 

bob-2000

New member
Jun 28, 2009
986
0
0
chstens said:
bob-2000 said:
I hate 3D, it's so damn gimmicky.
The average American, ca. 1920: "I detest motion picture, it such an irritating fad!"
I bet that the motion pictured didn't give them pounding headaches. Besides, the 3D presents no extra content.
 

SaintWaldo

Interzone Vagabond
Jun 10, 2008
923
0
0
Treblaine said:
Worse than that, all TVs at the moment use the inferior 120Hz standard which is poorly compatible with feature films which are shot at 24 frames/sec (no common denominator)
I'm sorry, but the common divisors for the whole numbers 120 and 24 are 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24. So, what was your point again?
 

sneakypenguin

Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,804
0
1
Country
usa
chstens said:
sneakypenguin said:
chstens said:
bob-2000 said:
I hate 3D, it's so damn gimmicky.
The average American, ca. 1920: "I detest motion picture, it such an irritating fad!"
Thing is though 3d even with tech like avatar still looks blurry if your not looking where your supposed to be, or if your sitting off to an angle. And it just doesn't look "right" things stick too far out, or not enough. Until they fix the need for glasses and make it look somewhat natural then it shall be a gimmick imho.
And what part of what you just said can't be translated to the movie biz in the 20's?
True, but 3d is going to need something completely different to have any sort of acceptance into the mainstream. (or at least to where ill like it lol) Your going to have to eliminate glasses, allow any angle/distance viewing, and somehow eliminate the "effect" gimmick of it. Every 3d movie i've been in from a regular digital 3d to a full iMAX 3d theater anytime you refocus it gets unnatural looking. Or the annoyances of depth misapplied.(ie things sticking out too far or not enough, such as something appearing 20ft out of the screen when it shouldn't be). But I'm just a bit cynical about 3d I suppose cause I havn't been impressed by anything that's been put out there with it.
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
USSR said:
thiosk said:
If Indigo were here, this would be a really annoying thread.
Shhhh!

..we dare not speak his name D':
Oh god don't remind me.

3-D is great thought! My dad's always going on about how it's just the latest fad. I still hope it'll stick.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,862
836
118
Avatar already gave me a headache.

3D gaming is going to squish my eyeballs like grapes.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
I actually cant see 3D properly due to a dead eye so for me its nothing...although, I hope for those who can it will mean something
 

Gladion

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,470
0
0
Danny Ocean said:
USSR said:
thiosk said:
If Indigo were here, this would be a really annoying thread.
Shhhh!

..we dare not speak his name D':
Oh god don't remind me.

3-D is great thought! My dad's always going on about how it's just the latest fad. I still hope it'll stick.
Hehe, funny, because my dad's always going on about how he went to 3D cinemas when he was a kid. :p

Jaredin said:
I actually cant see 3D properly due to a dead eye so for me its nothing...although, I hope for those who can it will mean something
Maybe you can make some good 3D movies? I forgot his name, but one of the directors who made 3D big back in the 50s actually only had one eye!
 

Mr. Mike

New member
Mar 24, 2010
532
0
0
Jumplion said:
Mr. Mike said:
Jumplion said:
This is really making me want to play Killzone 2 now.

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the update(s), 3D is a nifty feature to have even if most people don't have a 3D compatible TV. I personally don't mind 3D, it can definitely work in some areas. And so long as it's optional to have 3D gaming, I don't see why you can't have it.

Meh, don't care too much, though at least it's there.
Same here, makes me want to get back into it.

Also, I don't see where all the hate towards Killzone 2 is coming from. The campaign was enjoyable and immersive for the most part, and the online was fantastic as long as you didn't have noob tacticians who didn't know how to throw spawn points. It still has a fairly dedicated community too.

Off-topic question: do the people who still play use the map packs? Like, if I wanted to get back into it, are the DLC maps regularly played? Or is it nigh impossible to find a game with them?
I dunno, I haven't played it for a long time. Though when I did buy the maps, nobody played them. Pissed me off >_< Never was really good at multiplayer games though. The multiplayer is fun, though the reward system is somewhat flawed. You have to play for a LONG time before you're even allowed to use the sniper rifle which I really wanted to use which put me off of it for a bit.
Yeah that's the same thing with me, so I stuck it out and after finally getting the sniper, I loved it. His Spot and Mark ability is mad. The DLC maps are all in a fairly decent bundle now too.

Anyone who's still into KZ2 know whether people play the map-packs?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
SaintWaldo said:
Treblaine said:
Worse than that, all TVs at the moment use the inferior 120Hz standard which is poorly compatible with feature films which are shot at 24 frames/sec (no common denominator)
I'm sorry, but the common divisors for the whole numbers 120 and 24 are 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24. So, what was your point again?
Sorry, I think I was a bit misled on that, it seems I didn't fully understand the problem and it is not really anything to do with the refresh rate of any screen or projector... but the camera.

Ok, let me put it this way. One of the reasons I am really annoyed at 3D as being the "next big revolution in mainstream cinema technology" is why the hell are we moving on to 3D when we haven't even gotten 2D working properly?

For example, every single film since The Jazz Singer has been shot at 24 frames/second as standard (bloody talkies, ruined cinema if you ask me*) but have you ever played a video game where the framerate is only 24 frames/sec? It's horrible and juddery isn't it?

Well the same exact problem exists for film, panning shots have to be EXTREMELY slow or use other tricks like focus on an object that moves with the camera in the foreground in centre of view, the background judders but is out of focus and hopefully ignored.

The thing is for DECADES everyone blamed something called "3:2 Pulldown" which is an awkward name for the solution to where if you have 24 frames/sec of footage yet must refresh equally 60 times per second, the solution is to show one frame for 3 passes, then the next frame for 2 passes, then the next frame for 3 passes. Thought this does cause a certain type of barely noticeable judder, it doesn't cause the judder most often seen in panning or fast shots as the problem is in the very raw prints themselves that are not collecting data quick enough to smoothly update how the picture is changing.

All this talk of 120hz and 24hz playback are red herrings. The TVs and projectors aren't causing judder, it's just in the past their blurriness hid an INHERENT problem with cinema film. The idea that the essence of cinema is absolutely pure and wonderful and "as god intended it" is a lie.

Frame Interpolation attempts to solve this by basically looking at two frames of 24fps media and making up 3 "joining frames" based on how the next frame looks and though it looks smooth when it comes to panning shots, it looks like ass as 75% or more of the frames are literally made up on the fly by a computer algorithm.

Really, the next revolution in film should NOT have been this useless 3D crap but start filming stuff at 60 frames per second and playing it back at that speed in cinema and on blu-ray.

See that would REALLY change cinema as so much of filmography is just about keeping the shot as still as possible as if there is any big movement then it all ends up like an earthquake as people seem to teleport around a room. The camera would have a far more natural view and able to move fluidly and catch subtler smoother movements.

Only once THAT technology is pervasive, cheap and accepted throughout cinema and the home should they then try to get it working in 3D. But the problem is frame-rate is a hard sell to the mass market.

And the great thing about tech like this is... it can be rolled out TODAY for the consumers at NO EXTRA COST as every single HDTV and monitor is 60hz compatible, the HDMI cable can handle the bitrate and so can the blu-ray discs. The only slight problem is the capacity, with 2.5x more frames per second the a 20GB movie would be inflated to 50GB and many cinema films on Blu-ray are larger than 20GB on blu-ray when shooting at only 24-frames per second. But Sony are working on a way to up the blu-ray capacity even higher than 50GB that would be available with even a firmware update.

The problem is for the industry how the hell do you sell 'higher refresh-rate' to the mass market? 3D is an easily marketed gimmick, people don't care about annoying shit that they can't put their finger on, they just want someTHING they can say "oh, it's got this".

In fact, that is what I'd much rather have for Killzone 2: a solid 60 frames per second refresh rate with no screen tear, lower the controller latency (input lag) too.

Wipeout HD plays in 1080p60 and it REALLY benefits from that high res and high frame-rate and when there are too many explosions it lowers the resolution temporarily rather than the frame rate.


http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm
 

GodKlown

New member
Dec 16, 2009
514
0
0
Asehujiko said:
Isn't this going to absolutely murder the frame rate? The minimum requirements for Nvidia's 3d thingie involve dual video cards and if there's one thing consoles aren't known for it's their up to date hardware.
I think Asehujiko made an overlooked point about the hardware. Back oh so long ago, Microsoft and Sony probably weren't on the ball about the upcoming 3D innovation... my first 360 didn't even have an HDMI port on it from 2006, so I'm going to guess that it probably won't be up to the task of running 3D games.

I can't really see the advantage of 3D gaming in terms of the up-converting that Sony is talking about with previous titles. I can possibly understand LittleBigPlanet... the added depth would help in some FPS games, but I can't see this being good across the board. Maybe the industry will prove me wrong over time.
 

Fox242

El Zorro Cauto
Nov 9, 2009
868
0
0
Why on Earth would you try to update such a great shooter with such a stupid gimmick. Sure having such beautifully detailed Helghast soldiers poppng out at you in 3-D during an ambush would be cool at first, the whole effect would wear itself out after a while in my opinion. Plus, how do we know this will actually work?
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
Not G. Ivingname said:
Fox242 said:
Not G. Ivingname said:


Never forgot.
How could we? Alot of gamers' eyes were ruined by that damnt thing.
Then why are so many developers, this Killzone 2 update and NINTENDO AGAIN are trying to do it again?
It's completely different technology, but don't let that stop you from constantly saying that it's the same thing and getting your increasingly inane laughs.

That said it is completely pointless for Sony to do this if 3D compatible TV market penetration is barely there. Then again they thought HD was going to take off like a rocket when the PS3 first came out so it's not like they're good at understanding how the market functions.
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
AceDiamond said:
Not G. Ivingname said:
Fox242 said:
Not G. Ivingname said:


Never forgot.
How could we? Alot of gamers' eyes were ruined by that damnt thing.
Then why are so many developers, this Killzone 2 update and NINTENDO AGAIN are trying to do it again?
It's completely different technology, but don't let that stop you from constantly saying that it's the same thing and getting your increasingly inane laughs.

That said it is completely pointless for Sony to do this if 3D compatible TV market penetration is barely there. Then again they thought HD was going to take off like a rocket when the PS3 first came out so it's not like they're good at understanding how the market functions.
They don't seam to grasp that a flat screen can easily immerse a gamer for long periods of time. Why they think they need to add a third demension is beyond me. For Sony, it might be forgivable, since it looks like they are just applying the tech from Avatar and such films to gaming, but why Nintendo trying to make a 3D portable system when the virtual boy tanked, I can't even imagen (I am refering to the upcoming "3DS").
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Eh, it still wont make it a good game, just a terrible game...in 3D, god i hate killzone 2.
 

notyouraveragejoe

Dehakchakala!
Nov 8, 2008
1,449
0
0
This looks epic! Though I don't think I have a 3D TV which sucks. If I did then I'd definately check this out (I didn't catch it the first time round but witha 3D upgrade it would totally be worth it).
 

greenislegaming

New member
Sep 23, 2009
13
0
0
do you own a 3D TV?
if no STFU because you dont know what your talking about...

I own one and I can play my pc games on a 1080p 3D monitor and it is fucking amazing it makes a massive difference in COD4 online. you those prolems of bumping into stuff as you cant see where they are? All of that dissappers with 3D.

As for headaches i have played for 4 hours straight with no problems at all.

As my monitor is polozerised not the shutter tech is can be use for 3D console gaming as well

Avatar the game is sweet visuals in 3D (story and gameplay still suck thouggh)
 

Stylish_Robot

New member
Dec 29, 2008
139
0
0
I got my 3D glasses from the Coraline blu-ray so I'm set....

my TV can't even do 1080p let alone 3D so screw that
 

soapyshooter

That Guy
Jan 19, 2010
1,571
0
0
no third party because Sony doesnt really have any. Even Kojima is releasing the next MGS on 360. Sad...they let opportunities slip away. They are lucky they own so many devs
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Uh? What?

Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense. 3d is a basic feature that can be turned on and off in hardware;

I've seen it with my PC...

So what exactly are they doing to games? Tweaking? I suppose making the settings as optimal as possible would be worthwhile; it can be a little troublesome.

But, I'm not going to bother with 3d while it still involves glasses.

I'll stick to my PC and the 60 year old Anaglyph technology (red & blue filter glasses) for now, if I bother with it at all...

The glasses are insanely cheap, and, sure, you lose colour, but at least you don't need anything other than a reasonably fast graphics card and some drivers...

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for the jump from stereoscopic to holographic 3d... Like seereal's prototype displays...

That's going to be so much more comfortable in the long run, and you won't need those damn glasses.
Also, the effects won't have to be scaled down to reduce headaches, so...
Yeah.

But what does 3d actually accomplish for gaming anyway?
The only thing that comes to mind is first-person platforming.

Ever had to make difficult jumps in a shooter?
Played Mirror's edge at all?

One of the big problems with jumping in first person, is that it's highly dependent on depth perception. Without it, you can't judge the distance right, and usually get it wrong.
So... 3d... More games like Mirror's edge?

XD