is 3d gaming worth it?

veryrandom101

veryrandom101

veryrandom101

Associate
Joined
22 Dec 2009
Posts
175
Location
bugle, cornwall (yay)
I was wondering how good 3d gaming actually is, and if it is worth the extra bit of hard earned cash.
For me, i have an HD 5870 (when and if it eventually comes back from RMAing at XFX), which means i cant use it for 3d :( which will mean a heck of a lot of cash, or downgrading my card which will also cost a shed load to experience it.
How does it compare to 3d movies? As those are pretty good themselves, i cant imagine what it would be like sitting in front of your monitor instead of so far away like the cinema.
I have also heard that it hurts your eyes and can give you headaches, is that true?
 
I keep reading about a number of people who keep getting headaches.

My friend has it and although I haven't seen it yet he says it's because people aren't correctly positioned when using it.
 
See thats where one of the problems could come in. Some games i get so addicted to, and end up playing for ages, and getting a headache after awhile could ruin the fun.
But like my op said, is it really worth all that extra money? How many people here are using it, because i would like to hear your opinions on what the experience is like. All i can do is imagine games like F1 2010, Crysis, COD etc.. (if they are compatible) in 3d and its driving me insane, because it might just be incredible
 
veryrandom101 said:
How many people here are using it, because i would like to hear your opinions on what the experience is like. All i can do is imagine games like F1 2010, Crysis, COD etc.. (if they are compatible) in 3d and its driving me insane, because it might just be incredible
Click to expand...
It is incredible, when it works. The vast majority of games were never designed to be viewed in stereo so 2D elements such as your HUD, aiming reticule, etc often get rendered at 'screen depth', ie. on a 2D plane, part-way into the scene. Depending on your depth and pop-out settings this can either look pretty cool (UI as a transparent layer in front of your game) or horrible (UI as a transparent layer intersecting half-way into your game).

If the game you're playing has frequent FOV changes (such as GTA IV or some FPS sniper rifles) you may find your 3D effect compromised as depth and convergence settings are effectively static so must be configured to be an average "one size fits all" solution for all camera FOVs. Once games become 3D aware and tap into the API to control the 3D camera this will become a non-issue.

Also, quite often you'll notice that special effects like dynamic shadows, water reflections, etc aren't 3D-aware and just look.. wrong. It's usually wise to turn these off.
As you can see by my sig I've not got an uber machine so haven't tried any really high-end titles but shooters running on the Unreal and Source engines look great (horrible 2D skybox problem in Source excepted) plus the few racing games I've tried are fantastic. Burnout Paradise is phenomenal in stereo 3D :)

veryrandom101 said:
But like my op said, is it really worth all that extra money?
Click to expand...
If you're considering splashing out on an expensive new monitor and glasses I would personally advise waiting to see if stereo 3D gains traction and more titles are specifically coded to take advantage. Right now the most popular 3D solutions are essentially driver hacks and it's a wonder they even work as well as they do IMO.
I bought my 3D kit as I was set on buying a projector and the price difference between 2D and 3D DLPs in my price bracket was negligible. Had I bought a brand new monitor to replace my perfectly useable 2D display I'd probably be significantly less impressed. Besides, the 3D effect works much better on the big screen ;)

Edit: I don't notice eye strain on long gaming sessions unless the convergence settings are cranked to unplayable levels where objects start to appear literally "too close" to focus.
 
Last edited:
As far as I'm aware Black Ops is 3d compatible, however, I'm not sure how good it actually is, personally if you upgrade your monitor I think it may well be worth getting one that is 3d compatible, however I'm not sure it's worth upgrading just for the sake of upgrading, if you see what I mean?

If you're going to upgrade anyway, it might be worth spending the extra £50-100 on a 3d monitor, if not, I'm not sure it's worth the £200-300 it will cost you for a monitor

kd
 
Personally, I'd spend the extra money on a really good 2D solution- a high-quality monitor in 2D should do the trick.

So few games support 3D, and it costs so much to upgrade, that there's no real point.
 
Hey guys, thanks for the replies, thats just the information i needed to know.

@sean: very nice information there, i should have realized that now 3d is becoming a major thing that it will only get loads better in the future. (Hence like most upgrades its always better to wait isnt it :P)

So far it doesn't seem to be too worth it unless you do have the money, and after the amount i spent on this machine i guess waiting is the best option.
As for the monitor i have its a 24" 1080p so it should hold me out until that decent monitor upgrade. 32" is something to look forward too haha i think i'm a bit reckless.
Also i think it was watching 'those scenes' ;-) in piranha3d that got me all jumpy.
Cheers for the help guys, much appreciated
 
Personaly I think 3D is a waste of money. Not only are the shutter glasses very bad for your eyes, they make the picture/display look like total crap for a number of reasons.

Wait roughly another year or so when autostereoscopy (viewpoint 3D) is mass market. It will be cheaper, no bad effects on your eyes, no glasses to wear and a hell of a lot cheaper, Oh and all of todays 3D tech will be outdated and useless.
We should see it come into play with the Nintendo 3DS due in january ;)
 
Love mine, but don't game in 3d that much just because i can't wear my headset and glasses comfortably.

stopper said:
Personaly I think 3D is a waste of money. Not only are the shutter glasses very bad for your eyes, they make the picture/display look like total crap for a number of reasons.

Wait roughly another year or so when autostereoscopy (viewpoint 3D) is mass market. It will be cheaper, no bad effects on your eyes, no glasses to wear and a hell of a lot cheaper, Oh and all of todays 3D tech will be outdated and useless.
We should see it come into play with the Nintendo 3DS due in january ;)
Click to expand...

Might be quite a few years till we can TVs and Computer Screens that use it though.
 
seekdestroy said:
Might be quite a few years till we can TVs and Computer Screens that use it though.
Click to expand...
Oh I think it will be around sooner than you think, Dreamworks and a few other big movie producers/publishers have signed to make 3D films for the N3DS, then Capcom and a few other big publishers have signed to make games for it. So it shouldn't be that long until Panasonic, Sony, LG etc follow suit, because there is no doubt this will be a huge success.

For those who don't know it, here is an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYnyBxVhK_c
 
stopper said:
Personaly I think 3D is a waste of money. Not only are the shutter glasses very bad for your eyes, they make the picture/display look like total crap for a number of reasons.

Wait roughly another year or so when autostereoscopy (viewpoint 3D) is mass market. It will be cheaper, no bad effects on your eyes, no glasses to wear and a hell of a lot cheaper, Oh and all of todays 3D tech will be outdated and useless.
We should see it come into play with the Nintendo 3DS due in january ;)
Click to expand...

agreed, the bad thing is people, like me, who have and need glasses, its kind of annoying havnt to place the 3D glasses over them, and it does feel really uncomfortable.
 
seekdestroy said:
Love mine, but don't game in 3d that much just because i can't wear my headset and glasses comfortably.



Might be quite a few years till we can TVs and Computer Screens that use it though.
Click to expand...

sorry for double post but im pretty sure some chinese or japanese company made a 17 or 20 inch television which was 3D without the need for glasses? ill try find a link :)

EDIT: Linky - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1317736/Toshiba-unveils-worlds-3D-TV-glasses.html

Also....the use of 3d gaming without glasses would be the Nintendo 3DS :) should be revolutionary, all we need now is the Xbox 360 portable with glasses free 3D vision and a new PSP :D
 
Last edited:
i did find a pair of anaglyph glasses, and tried minecraft and trackmania which both natively supports it, and i found the 3dness incredible (specially mincraft) apart from the colour. am going to try that iZ3D thing and see how that goes.
This isnt helping though because it makes you itch for 3d more haha
Just imagine a good viewpoint 3d screen (eventually a projector size screen) and a kinect-like controlling.. omg
 
Ah, i was getting incredibly confused here. I thought there might have been an issue that i wasn't aware of that meant some 5870s couldn't render in 3D... step back in time 20 years there :p

Anyway, personally - 3D isn't really worth it at the minute. Well, for me at least - have far more peripheral vision in one eye than the other. Anyway, i would suggest waiting until it's more mainstream and a lot cheaper (similarly to SSDs) unless you're loaded and have nothing else to spend money on :)
 
sean said:
Do you have a source for this or is it just wild speculation? Not a dig, I am genuinely curious, having extensively used both anaglyph and shutter glasses.
Click to expand...
To be quite honest it's common sense.
Alternating 2 different images to each eye at different times, causes your eyes to strain unnecessarily by doing a balancing act with each other, which in turn can cause nausea, migraines and bad eye sight.
Remember all those years your mother told you not to sit close to the (CRT)TV or watch it for so long? All because of the flashing display, now there are 2 alternating displays.

If you watched a movie or 2 per week or some thing then I doubt it would have had much of an effect, if you bought a 3D kit to game with all the time then I would use it wisely and not sit at COD for 8 hour sessions.

But if you really need a source take a look at this.
http://www.webmd.boots.com/news/20100422/is-3dtv-bad-for-you

That article has a quote from Samsung's own instruction manual, which I highly doubt anyone has fully read through :eek:
"Some viewers may experience an epileptic seizure or stroke when exposed to certain flashing images or lights contained in certain television pictures or video games. If you or any of your family has a history of epilepsy or stroke, please consult with a medical specialist before using the 3D function.”
On page 2 of the article a Dr expresses his concerns on 3D also.

Right now though the tech is still pretty new and hasn't had long enough to take its toll on its users, give it a while and we will start to hear reports of how bad it really is.
 
I've always thought that 3d gaming would vary greatly for player experiance based on the game. Stuff like warcraft where its a fixed char position and yuo dont need to aim would be best. Stuff like Batman AA too. But for fps games I cant see it working that well cause aiming is pinpoint and I would be too used to moving straight to a target, the depth would throw me off. Racing games I can see the appeal. RTS might be good if done right with the buildings and such.
Maybe I just look too much in to it. Wish local stores had the set ups to show off 3d gaming.
 
stopper said:
Remember all those years your mother told you not to sit close to the (CRT)TV or watch it for so long? All because of the flashing display, now there are 2 alternating displays.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll give you that. If you're fatigued by flickering displays or suffer photosensitive epilepsy you should probably stay well away from frame-alternating shutter glasses (and probably RealD 144Hz cinemas, too!).
Apologies if I came off wrong but like I said, I wasn't having a go. I'm genuinely interested in the technology but from my research all 3D technologies rely on the same core trick of coaxing your eyes into falsely converging so will all have the potential to cause eye fatigue, nausea, migraines and so on. Even the much-vaulted autostereoscopic screens.
I just totally forgot about the flicker issue as from my experience of the nVidia system over the past 10 months it's been a total non-issue for me or anyone who's used it. But then, I always take regular breaks and never play excessively, even in 2D.

oxygene said:
But for fps games I cant see it working that well cause aiming is pinpoint and I would be too used to moving straight to a target, the depth would throw me off.
Click to expand...
FPS games are actually some of the best to play in 3D IMO. The nVidia drivers have an option to enable a laser sight but ironsighting in 3D is just awesome :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom