First Person Shooters & 3D Does it effect your performance?
2 / 2
[quote name='Likay' date='17 August 2011 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1313593969' post='1280579']
He and everybody else is talking about the increased reaction time when using 3d. However you actually have a small point about brightness/contrast issues. The lightreceptors in the eyes reacts faster on bright images and high contrast.
[/quote]
[quote]The term handwaving is an informal term that describes either the debate technique of failing to rigorously address an argument in an attempt to bypass the argument altogether, or a deliberate gesture and admission that one is intentionally glossing over detail for the sake of time or clarity. [/quote]
[quote name='Likay' date='17 August 2011 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1313593969' post='1280579']
He and everybody else is talking about the increased reaction time when using 3d. However you actually have a small point about brightness/contrast issues. The lightreceptors in the eyes reacts faster on bright images and high contrast.
The term handwaving is an informal term that describes either the debate technique of failing to rigorously address an argument in an attempt to bypass the argument altogether, or a deliberate gesture and admission that one is intentionally glossing over detail for the sake of time or clarity.
I think Likay's intuitions are right about 3D and performance, but I think you can practice yourself into being a quality gamer. Since it is a new context, it's just part of the learning process.
Roller11 is right though, the only way to get a picture of where one is with 3D, is to get some data that is measurable. Take some aggregate scores daily that can start to paint a picture of the gain or loss of performance with 3D, etc. And I also agree with him: the performance gap is only by dint of newness to the technology and can be mitigated with adaptation. On that score, it is fully worth the experience.
I think Likay's intuitions are right about 3D and performance, but I think you can practice yourself into being a quality gamer. Since it is a new context, it's just part of the learning process.
Roller11 is right though, the only way to get a picture of where one is with 3D, is to get some data that is measurable. Take some aggregate scores daily that can start to paint a picture of the gain or loss of performance with 3D, etc. And I also agree with him: the performance gap is only by dint of newness to the technology and can be mitigated with adaptation. On that score, it is fully worth the experience.
I don't feel 3D makes that much of a difference. Increased input lag is the real culprit for me, which is increased. In Battlefield games, im routinely at the top of the leader board when im focused on capturing flags. I have pretty high input lag right now with a Sony NX711 such that when encountering an enemy and trying to line up a quick shot, ill ride the mouse back and forth over the target "spraying and praying" 3 or 4 times, only to die since i can't keep on target. When I tried out a 3D Sharp LE835, which had lag lower than my old Dell monitors, i could snap to the guy's body and hold it there while moving, ducking, being hit and in full-auto. It felt almost unfair. A little bit of lag is almost realistic, which i see as a great thing.
If your talking about pro competition, i'd do some research, like Photios suggested. Otherwise, if you like the idea of virtual-reality and games being an "experience" rather than a traditional game, i'd go 3D.
I don't feel 3D makes that much of a difference. Increased input lag is the real culprit for me, which is increased. In Battlefield games, im routinely at the top of the leader board when im focused on capturing flags. I have pretty high input lag right now with a Sony NX711 such that when encountering an enemy and trying to line up a quick shot, ill ride the mouse back and forth over the target "spraying and praying" 3 or 4 times, only to die since i can't keep on target. When I tried out a 3D Sharp LE835, which had lag lower than my old Dell monitors, i could snap to the guy's body and hold it there while moving, ducking, being hit and in full-auto. It felt almost unfair. A little bit of lag is almost realistic, which i see as a great thing.
If your talking about pro competition, i'd do some research, like Photios suggested. Otherwise, if you like the idea of virtual-reality and games being an "experience" rather than a traditional game, i'd go 3D.
I agree with most of things being said, but I'd like to add a few points.
Projector option, I have the Viewsonic PJD6381 and I found this didn't work with FPS because of the low res I had to run it at, 1024x768.
Also the 'screen door' effect is distracting in this sort of game. Projectors on the other hand are excellent for driving games.
Another thing, a projector isn't practical outside of gaming for general computer use (eg internet), I would only use a project on a dedicated gaming machine, at current res options, for driving games.
(screen door effect is when you can see the small gap between the pixels creating a very slight but noticeable black horizontal and vertical lines between the pixels)
I've also have the Samsung 2233rz which I got as soon as it was available and I'm currently using the Samsung PS50C700 50" plasma.
My suggestion based on my experiences over the last couple of years, for what you want to do, is to get the largest 120hz computer monitor you can get, for instance the Acer HN274H which is 27".
In my opinion don't get a 22" screen, i found it to be too small.
The advantage of this is that it is great for both 3D and 2D.
Multiplayer FPS's. (these references are to my experiences in MW2 multiplayer)
Mostly play in 2D you'll get the advantage of a 120hz refresh (if your graphics card is keeping up), I found this to be a great advantage in 2D as the screen never blurred and I felt it gave me an edge in multiplayer FPS's.(yes their are considerations outside of 3D for getting a 120hz monitor)
It is possible to play in 3D but I mostly kept it to secondary weapons like shotguns and and handguns (akimbo G18's in free for all is a lot of fun). Primary weapons like M16's and sniper rifles I found awkward (This is because, like in real life, scoping in 2D has the advantage(the scopes on guns aren't like binoculars, instead their for one eye). It's also good in certain objective game types like capture the flag and domination where the game play isn't necessarily focused on getting the most kill.
The other version of FPS's where 3D is great is co-op like Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor, because you aren't playing against people the extra information your brain is processing from looking at a 3D image isn't a disadvantage, it also adds greatly the gaming experience.
The main problem I found with playing multiplayer FPS in 3D was spotting that guy in the corner of your eye that is camping.
Singleplayer.
Definitely, it really adds to the experience in my opinion.
Single player games I've played include Battlefield BC2, Medal of Honor, COD 4, MW2, Black Ops, F.E.A.R, Left 4 Dead, Far Cry, Serious Sam and Killing Floor.
(I highly recommend killing floor if anyone is interested in zombie co-op, far superior than L4D)
When playing in 3D FPS I suggest using the nvidia laser sight, activated using ctrl F12.
If you think the 27" is a bit expensive, take into consideration the idea that what you get you'll have to live with, ideally, for at least a few years, impulse buying is always something to take into consideration in-regards to an area you are learning, new too or excited about.
Hope that helps.
You can view my steam profile by searching 'echovoodoo', I have a bit over 1000 hours in MW2 multiplayer and about 800 in Killing Floor both of which I've spent numerous hours playing in 3D.
(I'm mentioning that to clarify why this post is bit, well shall we say long winded, but hopefully helpful)
I agree with most of things being said, but I'd like to add a few points.
Projector option, I have the Viewsonic PJD6381 and I found this didn't work with FPS because of the low res I had to run it at, 1024x768.
Also the 'screen door' effect is distracting in this sort of game. Projectors on the other hand are excellent for driving games.
Another thing, a projector isn't practical outside of gaming for general computer use (eg internet), I would only use a project on a dedicated gaming machine, at current res options, for driving games.
(screen door effect is when you can see the small gap between the pixels creating a very slight but noticeable black horizontal and vertical lines between the pixels)
I've also have the Samsung 2233rz which I got as soon as it was available and I'm currently using the Samsung PS50C700 50" plasma.
My suggestion based on my experiences over the last couple of years, for what you want to do, is to get the largest 120hz computer monitor you can get, for instance the Acer HN274H which is 27".
In my opinion don't get a 22" screen, i found it to be too small.
The advantage of this is that it is great for both 3D and 2D.
Multiplayer FPS's. (these references are to my experiences in MW2 multiplayer)
Mostly play in 2D you'll get the advantage of a 120hz refresh (if your graphics card is keeping up), I found this to be a great advantage in 2D as the screen never blurred and I felt it gave me an edge in multiplayer FPS's.(yes their are considerations outside of 3D for getting a 120hz monitor)
It is possible to play in 3D but I mostly kept it to secondary weapons like shotguns and and handguns (akimbo G18's in free for all is a lot of fun). Primary weapons like M16's and sniper rifles I found awkward (This is because, like in real life, scoping in 2D has the advantage(the scopes on guns aren't like binoculars, instead their for one eye). It's also good in certain objective game types like capture the flag and domination where the game play isn't necessarily focused on getting the most kill.
The other version of FPS's where 3D is great is co-op like Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor, because you aren't playing against people the extra information your brain is processing from looking at a 3D image isn't a disadvantage, it also adds greatly the gaming experience.
The main problem I found with playing multiplayer FPS in 3D was spotting that guy in the corner of your eye that is camping.
Singleplayer.
Definitely, it really adds to the experience in my opinion.
Single player games I've played include Battlefield BC2, Medal of Honor, COD 4, MW2, Black Ops, F.E.A.R, Left 4 Dead, Far Cry, Serious Sam and Killing Floor.
(I highly recommend killing floor if anyone is interested in zombie co-op, far superior than L4D)
When playing in 3D FPS I suggest using the nvidia laser sight, activated using ctrl F12.
If you think the 27" is a bit expensive, take into consideration the idea that what you get you'll have to live with, ideally, for at least a few years, impulse buying is always something to take into consideration in-regards to an area you are learning, new too or excited about.
Hope that helps.
You can view my steam profile by searching 'echovoodoo', I have a bit over 1000 hours in MW2 multiplayer and about 800 in Killing Floor both of which I've spent numerous hours playing in 3D.
(I'm mentioning that to clarify why this post is bit, well shall we say long winded, but hopefully helpful)
In BFBC2, I tend to swap between the two, depending on my mood, and whether I'm doing well or not.
With 3D, I have the tendency to get over excited, to the point where my aim goes out the window, and make rash decisions.
The fact the lads mentioned about; Scanning on near and far objects takes more time than "pixel watching" in 2D, is also true.
One is definitely more fun than the other, but if you have squad that cooperate, and move like a squad should, then you have plenty of time to scan and frag.
In BFBC2, I tend to swap between the two, depending on my mood, and whether I'm doing well or not.
With 3D, I have the tendency to get over excited, to the point where my aim goes out the window, and make rash decisions.
The fact the lads mentioned about; Scanning on near and far objects takes more time than "pixel watching" in 2D, is also true.
One is definitely more fun than the other, but if you have squad that cooperate, and move like a squad should, then you have plenty of time to scan and frag.
He and everybody else is talking about the increased reaction time when using 3d. However you actually have a small point about brightness/contrast issues. The lightreceptors in the eyes reacts faster on bright images and high contrast.
[/quote]
[quote]The term handwaving is an informal term that describes either the debate technique of failing to rigorously address an argument in an attempt to bypass the argument altogether, or a deliberate gesture and admission that one is intentionally glossing over detail for the sake of time or clarity. [/quote]
He and everybody else is talking about the increased reaction time when using 3d. However you actually have a small point about brightness/contrast issues. The lightreceptors in the eyes reacts faster on bright images and high contrast.
Roller11 is right though, the only way to get a picture of where one is with 3D, is to get some data that is measurable. Take some aggregate scores daily that can start to paint a picture of the gain or loss of performance with 3D, etc. And I also agree with him: the performance gap is only by dint of newness to the technology and can be mitigated with adaptation. On that score, it is fully worth the experience.
Roller11 is right though, the only way to get a picture of where one is with 3D, is to get some data that is measurable. Take some aggregate scores daily that can start to paint a picture of the gain or loss of performance with 3D, etc. And I also agree with him: the performance gap is only by dint of newness to the technology and can be mitigated with adaptation. On that score, it is fully worth the experience.
If your talking about pro competition, i'd do some research, like Photios suggested. Otherwise, if you like the idea of virtual-reality and games being an "experience" rather than a traditional game, i'd go 3D.
If your talking about pro competition, i'd do some research, like Photios suggested. Otherwise, if you like the idea of virtual-reality and games being an "experience" rather than a traditional game, i'd go 3D.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
Projector option, I have the Viewsonic PJD6381 and I found this didn't work with FPS because of the low res I had to run it at, 1024x768.
Also the 'screen door' effect is distracting in this sort of game. Projectors on the other hand are excellent for driving games.
Another thing, a projector isn't practical outside of gaming for general computer use (eg internet), I would only use a project on a dedicated gaming machine, at current res options, for driving games.
(screen door effect is when you can see the small gap between the pixels creating a very slight but noticeable black horizontal and vertical lines between the pixels)
I've also have the Samsung 2233rz which I got as soon as it was available and I'm currently using the Samsung PS50C700 50" plasma.
My suggestion based on my experiences over the last couple of years, for what you want to do, is to get the largest 120hz computer monitor you can get, for instance the Acer HN274H which is 27".
In my opinion don't get a 22" screen, i found it to be too small.
The advantage of this is that it is great for both 3D and 2D.
Multiplayer FPS's. (these references are to my experiences in MW2 multiplayer)
Mostly play in 2D you'll get the advantage of a 120hz refresh (if your graphics card is keeping up), I found this to be a great advantage in 2D as the screen never blurred and I felt it gave me an edge in multiplayer FPS's.(yes their are considerations outside of 3D for getting a 120hz monitor)
It is possible to play in 3D but I mostly kept it to secondary weapons like shotguns and and handguns (akimbo G18's in free for all is a lot of fun). Primary weapons like M16's and sniper rifles I found awkward (This is because, like in real life, scoping in 2D has the advantage(the scopes on guns aren't like binoculars, instead their for one eye). It's also good in certain objective game types like capture the flag and domination where the game play isn't necessarily focused on getting the most kill.
The other version of FPS's where 3D is great is co-op like Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor, because you aren't playing against people the extra information your brain is processing from looking at a 3D image isn't a disadvantage, it also adds greatly the gaming experience.
The main problem I found with playing multiplayer FPS in 3D was spotting that guy in the corner of your eye that is camping.
Singleplayer.
Definitely, it really adds to the experience in my opinion.
Single player games I've played include Battlefield BC2, Medal of Honor, COD 4, MW2, Black Ops, F.E.A.R, Left 4 Dead, Far Cry, Serious Sam and Killing Floor.
(I highly recommend killing floor if anyone is interested in zombie co-op, far superior than L4D)
When playing in 3D FPS I suggest using the nvidia laser sight, activated using ctrl F12.
If you think the 27" is a bit expensive, take into consideration the idea that what you get you'll have to live with, ideally, for at least a few years, impulse buying is always something to take into consideration in-regards to an area you are learning, new too or excited about.
Hope that helps.
You can view my steam profile by searching 'echovoodoo', I have a bit over 1000 hours in MW2 multiplayer and about 800 in Killing Floor both of which I've spent numerous hours playing in 3D.
(I'm mentioning that to clarify why this post is bit, well shall we say long winded, but hopefully helpful)
Projector option, I have the Viewsonic PJD6381 and I found this didn't work with FPS because of the low res I had to run it at, 1024x768.
Also the 'screen door' effect is distracting in this sort of game. Projectors on the other hand are excellent for driving games.
Another thing, a projector isn't practical outside of gaming for general computer use (eg internet), I would only use a project on a dedicated gaming machine, at current res options, for driving games.
(screen door effect is when you can see the small gap between the pixels creating a very slight but noticeable black horizontal and vertical lines between the pixels)
I've also have the Samsung 2233rz which I got as soon as it was available and I'm currently using the Samsung PS50C700 50" plasma.
My suggestion based on my experiences over the last couple of years, for what you want to do, is to get the largest 120hz computer monitor you can get, for instance the Acer HN274H which is 27".
In my opinion don't get a 22" screen, i found it to be too small.
The advantage of this is that it is great for both 3D and 2D.
Multiplayer FPS's. (these references are to my experiences in MW2 multiplayer)
Mostly play in 2D you'll get the advantage of a 120hz refresh (if your graphics card is keeping up), I found this to be a great advantage in 2D as the screen never blurred and I felt it gave me an edge in multiplayer FPS's.(yes their are considerations outside of 3D for getting a 120hz monitor)
It is possible to play in 3D but I mostly kept it to secondary weapons like shotguns and and handguns (akimbo G18's in free for all is a lot of fun). Primary weapons like M16's and sniper rifles I found awkward (This is because, like in real life, scoping in 2D has the advantage(the scopes on guns aren't like binoculars, instead their for one eye). It's also good in certain objective game types like capture the flag and domination where the game play isn't necessarily focused on getting the most kill.
The other version of FPS's where 3D is great is co-op like Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor, because you aren't playing against people the extra information your brain is processing from looking at a 3D image isn't a disadvantage, it also adds greatly the gaming experience.
The main problem I found with playing multiplayer FPS in 3D was spotting that guy in the corner of your eye that is camping.
Singleplayer.
Definitely, it really adds to the experience in my opinion.
Single player games I've played include Battlefield BC2, Medal of Honor, COD 4, MW2, Black Ops, F.E.A.R, Left 4 Dead, Far Cry, Serious Sam and Killing Floor.
(I highly recommend killing floor if anyone is interested in zombie co-op, far superior than L4D)
When playing in 3D FPS I suggest using the nvidia laser sight, activated using ctrl F12.
If you think the 27" is a bit expensive, take into consideration the idea that what you get you'll have to live with, ideally, for at least a few years, impulse buying is always something to take into consideration in-regards to an area you are learning, new too or excited about.
Hope that helps.
You can view my steam profile by searching 'echovoodoo', I have a bit over 1000 hours in MW2 multiplayer and about 800 in Killing Floor both of which I've spent numerous hours playing in 3D.
(I'm mentioning that to clarify why this post is bit, well shall we say long winded, but hopefully helpful)
With 3D, I have the tendency to get over excited, to the point where my aim goes out the window, and make rash decisions.
The fact the lads mentioned about; Scanning on near and far objects takes more time than "pixel watching" in 2D, is also true.
One is definitely more fun than the other, but if you have squad that cooperate, and move like a squad should, then you have plenty of time to scan and frag.
With 3D, I have the tendency to get over excited, to the point where my aim goes out the window, and make rash decisions.
The fact the lads mentioned about; Scanning on near and far objects takes more time than "pixel watching" in 2D, is also true.
One is definitely more fun than the other, but if you have squad that cooperate, and move like a squad should, then you have plenty of time to scan and frag.