I'm not easily impressed but....

[Deception]

I'm just hoping Guild Wars 2 in 3D will be nice too

 

[Gregster]

I still keep going back to Trine 2 for 3D. Someone said "visual sex" and I completely agree.

Just stunning.

 

[gronf]

Really looking forward to getting 3D kit later this year. Saving up!

 

[Gregster]

Really looking forward to getting 3D kit later this year. Saving up!

You won't regret it. NVIDIA certainly know how to do 3D.

 

[gronf]

^So I've come to understand Already got many games that I've heard nothing but glowing praises for, like Trine 2 as you said. ..Can't wait!

 

[jkkc313]

looks like thats something for me to play with tonight

 

[Rusty0611]

I got Trine 2 for PS3 (for free though) so not gonna buy it again for the PC unless it's super cheap?

 

[Secret_Window]

L4D2 in 3D is immense. One of the better games that uses 3D tech well.

Metro 2033 is another really good one. Crysis 2 is amazing also but very demanding to run in 3D.

 

[RobSmith]

Could a 580 (1.5gb) handle 3D, and is it worth getting two monitors?

 

[Arcane]

I heard Metro was good in 3D but isn't it a bit of a crap game though?

It's about the best 3D i've come across in a game, along with The Witcher 2.

 

[MoRT489]

I heard Metro was good in 3D but isn't it a bit of a crap game though?

no it's a great game, a little linear but really atmosperic and great graphics. I haven't tried 3D but i have a 3D capable monitor so maybe one day...

 

[Arcane]

Yes, great game, rock hard on the hardest setting though. It managed to kill my framerate with all the options enabled in 3D, turning a couple of settings lower and it played well with gtx580 SLI.

 

[Rusty0611]

Worth getting for a fiver then?

 

[durbs]

I heard Metro was good in 3D but isn't it a bit of a crap game though?

Noooo! Far from it, was one of the best games I played last year I reckon, I really enjoyed it (and thats in 2D), would be superb in 3D.

 

[ALXAndy]

Could a 580 (1.5gb) handle 3D, and is it worth getting two monitors?

A 580 will do things like L4D2 quite comfortably. I wouldn't be expecting to max out games like Metro or even Crysis. With Crysis though I found it's simply the game as usual that prevents it running very well.

If you are prepared to turn down some settings then go for it. L4D2? you shouldn't have to touch any of the settings, it should be fine

And you'll love the experience. It really is absolutely immense.

Two monitors though? not sure why you would want to do that. Not only do games not stretch across them but adding a second stops your card down clocking itself and it will be hot all the time.

If you want the cheap option? go passive 3d. I use a LG D2342 and they only cost around £140 or so with two sets of glasses. And it's literally ready to go for that.

3D vision you are looking at more like £250 for the monitor and glasses.

3Dvision is stronger though.

Worth getting for a fiver then?

That's what I paid for it. Just for the graphical details it's worth a look tbh.

I bought Avatar last night for £4.95. Really looking forward to that now

 

[TAC4U]

Its very very good in 3D.
Its also a good game. Don't listen to the whiners, the fact you are enjoying 3D vision shows the whiners aren't always right. 3D vision is slated by a lot of people on these forums.

GTAIV was pretty bad. The gameplay was fun but the graphics were appalling, the performance terrible and a lot of aspects were really annoying (all the weapons sounds are ridiculously repetitive, the autosave system is appalling, etc).

Just a quick question... don't you need 120fps for 3D to work? Because GTAIV still runs like crap, even on a GTX680. I ran the benchmark and didn't even get 60fps. And the game looks terrible - no anti-aliasing, washed out textures, low polygon environments. People aren't "whiners" for pointing out that the PC version of GTAIV was a terrible port and the gameplay certainly doesn't make up for it. Adding an extra dimension isn't going to fix all the issues with the game, least of all the performance. Mafia II might have been a lot more restrictive but it was 10x the game - superb graphics, strong plot, great performance, good port, etc.

 

[ALXAndy]

GTAIV was pretty bad. The gameplay was fun but the graphics were appalling, the performance terrible and a lot of aspects were really annoying (all the weapons sounds are ridiculously repetitive, the autosave system is appalling, etc).

Just a quick question... don't you need 120fps for 3D to work? Because GTAIV still runs like crap, even on a GTX680. I ran the benchmark and didn't even get 60fps. And the game looks terrible - no anti-aliasing, washed out textures, low polygon environments. People aren't "whiners" for pointing out that the PC version of GTAIV was a terrible port and the gameplay certainly doesn't make up for it. Adding an extra dimension isn't going to fix all the issues with the game, least of all the performance. Mafia II might have been a lot more restrictive but it was 10x the game - superb graphics, strong plot, great performance, good port, etc.

For Nvidia 3Dvision you need a 120hz monitor yes.

OEMs call them 3d monitors but they are no such thing. All they are is a 120hz monitor that's capable of displaying 3d graphics.

A true 3d monitor has a passive filter built into the screen. When you load up a game it looks like this.

Then you basically put on a pair of polarised sunglasses and it tricks your eyes and they put the image back together.

Active 3d (120hz) works differently. The glasses basically do all of the work, opening and closing shutters in front of your eyes to trick them.

Before any one pays for anything 3d related PLEASE test 3d out at one of the crappy stores you can go into.

There are a couple of conditions people have with their eyes that can prevent them seeing 3d at all. So it would be a very costly mistake to buy it without making sure you can see it first.

 

[Rusty0611]

Cool cheers Andy. Just bought it now for £5.45 including delivery

 

[no_1_dave]

GTAIV was pretty bad. The gameplay was fun but the graphics were appalling, the performance terrible and a lot of aspects were really annoying (all the weapons sounds are ridiculously repetitive, the autosave system is appalling, etc).

Just a quick question... don't you need 120fps for 3D to work? Because GTAIV still runs like crap, even on a GTX680. I ran the benchmark and didn't even get 60fps. And the game looks terrible - no anti-aliasing, washed out textures, low polygon environments. People aren't "whiners" for pointing out that the PC version of GTAIV was a terrible port and the gameplay certainly doesn't make up for it. Adding an extra dimension isn't going to fix all the issues with the game, least of all the performance. Mafia II might have been a lot more restrictive but it was 10x the game - superb graphics, strong plot, great performance, good port, etc.

I thought the graphics were ok and tbh I never had a problem with the performance. I really enjoyed the game & can not understand why people are always slating it. You do not need 120 fps for 3D, you just need a 120Hz monitor, fps is irrelevant. Even if running at 50fps you will still get the 3D effect, it is only the Hz that matters.

 

[Gregster]

I thought the graphics were ok and tbh I never had a problem with the performance. I really enjoyed the game & can not understand why people are always slating it. You do not need 120 fps for 3D, you just need a 120Hz monitor, fps is irrelevant. Even if running at 50fps you will still get the 3D effect, it is only the Hz that matters.

+1

I loved the game even though it was a bit of a lazy port IMO. GFX were decent and speed was also. Think I may need to re-install it, if it is good in 3D