Why does anyone play games without 3D glasses?
I am an early adopter of Nvidia stereoscopic drivers with third party glasses (Doom 3 and Half-life 2 in 2004). I came to the conclusion that once experiencing a first person atmospheric environment in 3D, there is no point playing it any other way. The immersion gain is just way too significant (close to an order of magnitude over 2D), that anything else feels artificial. Consequently, although an infrequent gamer by then (waiting 3 years for Id tech 4 to arrive before purchasing a 6800), I had no desire to play games when high refresh CRTs were replaced with low refresh LCDs (which didn't support 3D glasses). I remained interested however in the adoption of 3D technology (knowing personally that I could never go back to 2D), and enjoyed the growth of early 3D movies before they were sabotaged by fake 3D. Having recently been involved in VR development, I encountered a known limitation in this technology. VR tech works great for simulations and slow moving first person experiences (barring centre of FOV pixelation/resolution problems, which will be solved over time). Likewise, the immersion gain over stereoscopic 3D is again something to be awed at. However, fast moving first person experiences while remaining highly immersive result in VR sickness. I wanted to test stereoscopic 3D against VR directly, so I just purchased an ASUS VG248QE and some second hand 3D vision kits (to reduce delivery time). Incidentally, I noticed that the second hand kits are quite expensive, and the IR emitters are in extremely low supply (probably because they weren't necessary/didn't come with 3D vision ready laptops), meaning a lot of people want them. What I found was that stereoscopic 3D is still way more immersive than 2D, and is certainly better than VR for fast moving first person experiences. I therefore don't understand how or why anyone would attempt to experience immersion in first person games without 3D glasses. Immersion factor --- Technology 1 ---------------------- 2D 5 ---------------------- Stereoscopic 3D 10 --------------------- Virtual Reality I recognise a common criticism might be the additional computational resources required to render stereoscopic 3D, or post processing artefacts (that don't render independently for each eye; caused by 2D centric game design). However, low resolution stereoscopic 3D still looks way better than high resolution 2D. For example, Doom 4 in stereoscopic 3D at the very lowest graphics settings (120FPS 1280x720) looks way better than in 2D at high settings (60FPS 1920x1080). The same principle applied when stereoscopic 3D first came out. Regarding the artefacts; Helifax's corrections appear to work really well.
I am an early adopter of Nvidia stereoscopic drivers with third party glasses (Doom 3 and Half-life 2 in 2004). I came to the conclusion that once experiencing a first person atmospheric environment in 3D, there is no point playing it any other way. The immersion gain is just way too significant (close to an order of magnitude over 2D), that anything else feels artificial. Consequently, although an infrequent gamer by then (waiting 3 years for Id tech 4 to arrive before purchasing a 6800), I had no desire to play games when high refresh CRTs were replaced with low refresh LCDs (which didn't support 3D glasses).

I remained interested however in the adoption of 3D technology (knowing personally that I could never go back to 2D), and enjoyed the growth of early 3D movies before they were sabotaged by fake 3D. Having recently been involved in VR development, I encountered a known limitation in this technology. VR tech works great for simulations and slow moving first person experiences (barring centre of FOV pixelation/resolution problems, which will be solved over time). Likewise, the immersion gain over stereoscopic 3D is again something to be awed at. However, fast moving first person experiences while remaining highly immersive result in VR sickness.

I wanted to test stereoscopic 3D against VR directly, so I just purchased an ASUS VG248QE and some second hand 3D vision kits (to reduce delivery time). Incidentally, I noticed that the second hand kits are quite expensive, and the IR emitters are in extremely low supply (probably because they weren't necessary/didn't come with 3D vision ready laptops), meaning a lot of people want them. What I found was that stereoscopic 3D is still way more immersive than 2D, and is certainly better than VR for fast moving first person experiences. I therefore don't understand how or why anyone would attempt to experience immersion in first person games without 3D glasses.

Immersion factor --- Technology
1 ---------------------- 2D
5 ---------------------- Stereoscopic 3D
10 --------------------- Virtual Reality

I recognise a common criticism might be the additional computational resources required to render stereoscopic 3D, or post processing artefacts (that don't render independently for each eye; caused by 2D centric game design). However, low resolution stereoscopic 3D still looks way better than high resolution 2D. For example, Doom 4 in stereoscopic 3D at the very lowest graphics settings (120FPS 1280x720) looks way better than in 2D at high settings (60FPS 1920x1080). The same principle applied when stereoscopic 3D first came out. Regarding the artefacts; Helifax's corrections appear to work really well.

#1
Posted 11/28/2017 01:46 AM   
I don't think you are going to get anyone who disagrees with you in here :) But on a serious note, most people don't want to be bothered with glasses and also trying to make things work when it doesn't go well out of the box. I however personally agree with you, I cant play in 2D anymore. I too was an early adopter around 2000 when elsa introduced this with the revelator. Anyway, like I said, I don't think anyone here will argue with you....except those couple of trolls that wander around every once and a while.
I don't think you are going to get anyone who disagrees with you in here :)

But on a serious note, most people don't want to be bothered with glasses and also trying to make things work when it doesn't go well out of the box. I however personally agree with you, I cant play in 2D anymore. I too was an early adopter around 2000 when elsa introduced this with the revelator. Anyway, like I said, I don't think anyone here will argue with you....except those couple of trolls that wander around every once and a while.

Intel 7700k @ 4.2Ghz / 32GB @ 3200
Asus Z270 / 2 x Evga 1070
4 x Samsung 840 Raid 0
4 x Samsung 850 Pro Raid 0
Samsung 950 Pro
Epson 5040UB 3DTVPlay

#2
Posted 11/28/2017 01:55 AM   
I'll argue, and I ain't no troll! 1. It's a game that isn't about immersion - especially one with a lot of reading. The Civilization games are my go-to example there. Civ 5 worked beautifully with 3D Vision right out of the box, if I remember right. I looked at it, admired how cool it looked, then turned it off. In a game like that, the cool factor wasn't worth the bother. Torment: Tides of Numenera would be another example where 3D Vision wouldn't be a good idea. It's isometric already so there isn't much immersion and there's tons of text to read. 2. Targeting. Sometimes the NVIDIA sights can fix this. Sometimes the Shader Gods can put the sights at a reasonably distant depth and they'll work pretty well. Sometimes, though, the sights just can't work. Worse yet are games where you need to actually select something with the mouse in the 3D world. 3D mouse pointers do happen on rare occasion but mostly, like in Dragon Age: Origins, you've got to turn off 3D to make your selection then turn it back on again. (Still good for taking 3D screenshots, though!) 3. Darkness. 3D Vision glasses act a bit like sunglasses, turning dark rooms into pitch dark rooms. This one is getting to be less of an issue, though, with modern monitors kicking up the brightness when 3D turns on. 4. One you can't argue with: it isn't a 3D game! http://photos.3dvisionlive.com/Zloth/image/53291546cb8577106000008e/
I'll argue, and I ain't no troll!

1. It's a game that isn't about immersion - especially one with a lot of reading. The Civilization games are my go-to example there. Civ 5 worked beautifully with 3D Vision right out of the box, if I remember right. I looked at it, admired how cool it looked, then turned it off. In a game like that, the cool factor wasn't worth the bother. Torment: Tides of Numenera would be another example where 3D Vision wouldn't be a good idea. It's isometric already so there isn't much immersion and there's tons of text to read.

2. Targeting. Sometimes the NVIDIA sights can fix this. Sometimes the Shader Gods can put the sights at a reasonably distant depth and they'll work pretty well. Sometimes, though, the sights just can't work. Worse yet are games where you need to actually select something with the mouse in the 3D world. 3D mouse pointers do happen on rare occasion but mostly, like in Dragon Age: Origins, you've got to turn off 3D to make your selection then turn it back on again. (Still good for taking 3D screenshots, though!)

3. Darkness. 3D Vision glasses act a bit like sunglasses, turning dark rooms into pitch dark rooms. This one is getting to be less of an issue, though, with modern monitors kicking up the brightness when 3D turns on.

4. One you can't argue with: it isn't a 3D game! http://photos.3dvisionlive.com/Zloth/image/53291546cb8577106000008e/

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

-- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil"

#3
Posted 11/28/2017 03:53 AM   
[color="green"]Why does anyone play games without 3D glasses?[/color] - this is the question i ask myself everyday and is making me suicidely depressed. I'm playing games in 3D for more than 8 years, and i can never go back to 2d. The immersion is so great, even a game with shitty graphics is an amazing experience, you get to appreciate every little detail of the game and it just feels real and alive. I mostly play RPG's and my sweetspot is 70% separation and character focused convergence for the perfect amount of toyification. It's harder and harder to play games because most if not all new games come out broken in 3D because the developers simply don't care and it's killing me inside. They always have the same recipe for disaster, things that even this community can't fix: MMO RPG: 2d HUD Shooter: 2d HUD, 2d crosshair, overly separated weapon The 2d HUD is a huge 3D killer since you will constantly see nameplates everywhere and there is no workaround them, and lowering separation/convergence is defeating the purpose of the 3d. I recently installed a game i used to play in 2003 (Lineage II) just for nostalgic reasons, with super outdated graphics and it still feels graphically superior in 3D then modern graphics in 2D. But of course it had 2D nameplates and HUD so i can't even play it. What is making me sad is that people don't even know what they are missing, and is because of them game publishers ignore 3D, and is making me hate people for no reason.
Why does anyone play games without 3D glasses? - this is the question i ask myself everyday and is making me suicidely depressed.

I'm playing games in 3D for more than 8 years, and i can never go back to 2d. The immersion is so great, even a game with shitty graphics is an amazing experience, you get to appreciate every little detail of the game and it just feels real and alive.

I mostly play RPG's and my sweetspot is 70% separation and character focused convergence for the perfect amount of toyification.

It's harder and harder to play games because most if not all new games come out broken in 3D because the developers simply don't care and it's killing me inside.

They always have the same recipe for disaster, things that even this community can't fix:

MMO RPG: 2d HUD
Shooter: 2d HUD, 2d crosshair, overly separated weapon

The 2d HUD is a huge 3D killer since you will constantly see nameplates everywhere and there is no workaround them, and lowering separation/convergence is defeating the purpose of the 3d.

I recently installed a game i used to play in 2003 (Lineage II) just for nostalgic reasons, with super outdated graphics and it still feels graphically superior in 3D then modern graphics in 2D. But of course it had 2D nameplates and HUD so i can't even play it.

What is making me sad is that people don't even know what they are missing, and is because of them game publishers ignore 3D, and is making me hate people for no reason.

i7-6700K 4.0GHz, GTX 970, 8 Gb DDR4, SSD

#4
Posted 12/01/2017 01:13 AM   
[quote="richardbaxter"]....or post processing artefacts (that don't render independently for each eye; caused by 2D centric game design)....[/quote] @richardbaxter It seems that you might not be aware of the Stereoscopic compatibility fixes made by members of this forum, that solve a lot (if not all) game issues. Be sure to check out http://helixmod.blogspot.com/2013/10/game-list-automatically-updated.html PS: Be sure to tell your friends as well ;)
richardbaxter said:....or post processing artefacts (that don't render independently for each eye; caused by 2D centric game design)....



@richardbaxter

It seems that you might not be aware of the Stereoscopic compatibility fixes made by members of this forum, that solve a lot (if not all) game issues. Be sure to check out http://helixmod.blogspot.com/2013/10/game-list-automatically-updated.html

PS: Be sure to tell your friends as well ;)

#5
Posted 12/01/2017 03:50 AM   
[quote="Zloth"]Torment: Tides of Numenera would be another example where 3D Vision wouldn't be a good idea. It's isometric already so there isn't much immersion and there's tons of text to read.[/quote] The problem isn't the isometric view. It's that the game only uses 2D prerendered backgrounds. Even if 3D worked, all you would see would be 3D characters on top (or behind) those backgrounds. Or at most, manually tilting the backgrounds so the characters feet are on them :p. It would be funny to see. About mouse cursors, now it's possible to have them in 3D thanks to recent 3Dmigoto changes (for DX11 games). Although they require a lot of work. For ARPGs with more or less fixed camera angles, it's possible to do it in a more static way that is stil close to perfect, like what I did in Grim Dawn.
Zloth said:Torment: Tides of Numenera would be another example where 3D Vision wouldn't be a good idea. It's isometric already so there isn't much immersion and there's tons of text to read.


The problem isn't the isometric view. It's that the game only uses 2D prerendered backgrounds. Even if 3D worked, all you would see would be 3D characters on top (or behind) those backgrounds. Or at most, manually tilting the backgrounds so the characters feet are on them :p. It would be funny to see.

About mouse cursors, now it's possible to have them in 3D thanks to recent 3Dmigoto changes (for DX11 games). Although they require a lot of work. For ARPGs with more or less fixed camera angles, it's possible to do it in a more static way that is stil close to perfect, like what I did in Grim Dawn.

CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws Z 16GB 3866MHz CL18
GPU: Gainward Phoenix 1080 GLH
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Speakers: Logitech Z506
Donations account: masterotakusuko@gmail.com

#6
Posted 12/01/2017 07:16 AM   
Yeah, the static way works for a lot of games. Alice: Madness Returns jumps to mind as an example. (That game already has great artwork - making it 3D is just awesome!) Even if Tides got perfect 3D Vision working, I don't think it would be good to play in 3D. You're camera is up in the air with no references around it and you spend a [i]lot[/i] of time simply reading text anyway.
Yeah, the static way works for a lot of games. Alice: Madness Returns jumps to mind as an example. (That game already has great artwork - making it 3D is just awesome!)

Even if Tides got perfect 3D Vision working, I don't think it would be good to play in 3D. You're camera is up in the air with no references around it and you spend a lot of time simply reading text anyway.

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

-- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil"

#7
Posted 12/02/2017 01:26 AM   
Scroll To Top