By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Killzone 3 in 3D was a huge disappointment.

JamaicameCRAZY on 16 June 2010
nightsurge said:
JamaicameCRAZY said:
nightsurge said:
BBH said:

Wow.

Most major gaming sites have been saying that KZ3 3D is absolutely amazing, however other titles such as Motorstorm don't cut it.

Have you tried any other 3D titles yet to compare?

Is it good fun at E3 btw? :)

I heard that the Motorstorm in 3D was crap so I didn't try that.  GT5 I also saw a noticeable hit in graphics, but the 3D effect was a quite a bit more noticeable than the Killzone 3 in 3D.  Still not what I would call amazing and no where near comparable to a 3D movie.

E3 is amazing!  Check out my other thread I just made for more reasons why I love E3! Lol!

How big of a hit exactly? These games your talking about are potentialy the new graphical kings of their genre so they can afford to take a hit.

Big enough to take away that title.  It was kind of like the graphical level of Resistance 2's online component.  Probably a bit better looking than that still, but very noticeably worse than the 2D versions of the game.

Ok i still have to see for myself but thanks for the feedback. And 3d we all knew was going to be a graphical downgrade but the 2d will still be there for the graphic whores. Also there is always time to refine it.



EVERY GAMERS WORST NIGHTMARE...THE TANGLING CABLES MONSTER!

            

       Coffee is for closers!

Around the Network
disolitude on 16 June 2010
Cross-X said:

 

So I guess you mean some games just aren't suited for a full immersive 3D experience?

Like Comparing Avatar's 3D effects to Clash of the Titans 3D effects where one was so great with 3D and the other wasn't?

Kinda like that yeah.

Its like a a difference between a movie like avatar which is based around being 3D, a movie like Transformers, which if it was 3D would be way too hectic and nausiating for viewer to enjoy, and a movie like Sex and the city being in 3D, which would be compltely pointless.

Same goes with games...some are cut out for it and some are not.

3D games don't have to be big budget games too to look great. An example is a game called 3D Infinity. Its an Xbox live indy game you can buy for 5 bucks. The game type, engine used and 3D implemented is all top notch...better than Bioshock 2...which has "native" 3D support on the pc.



BBH on 17 June 2010

http://e-mpire.com/content/359-Killzone-3-in-Steroscopic-3-D-Blows-Away-Polarized-Avatar 

I dunno what to believe. Wish I was there to see for myself!



Munkeh111 on 17 June 2010

I have heard more positive previews from places, so I guess it varies from person to person, but I don't think it is worth the investment in a 3DTV yet



V-r0cK on 17 June 2010

I think im going to still enjoy this game in 2D.  I feel 3D takes away the overall appeal.  When watching 3D I find myself more looking forward to the 'pop out' things rather then observing the fine detail and texture of the background behind or the material of clothing the character wears etc.



Around the Network
disolitude on 17 June 2010
BBH said:

http://e-mpire.com/content/359-Killzone-3-in-Steroscopic-3-D-Blows-Away-Polarized-Avatar 

I dunno what to believe. Wish I was there to see for myself!

So wait...he is comparing a movie polarized 3D quality to a games shutter 3D?

If so this guy is a complete whacko... 2D film images VS 3D polygons in 3D. Duh!

Everyone knows that for "gaming" properly set up polarized 3D blows away shutter glasses in quality. However shutters  have a cheaper entry price point since 2 projectors silver screen dont come cheap. But people with active shutters end up paying a lot for glasses down the road



loy310 on 17 June 2010
BBH said:

Wow.

Most major gaming sites have been saying that KZ3 3D is absolutely amazing, however other titles such as Motorstorm don't cut it.

Have you tried any other 3D titles yet to compare?

Is it good fun at E3 btw? :)

I was going to say the same exact thing, I had a job at a movie theater about 2 years ago, and from what i learned, no matter how good the movie is, 3D is a huge hit or miss for people. Not to mention that the game was in pre alpha, so i will wait for other opinions.
 3D have to be experienced first hand to tell if you will like it or not. The TC falls in the miss pile.



Sharky54 on 17 June 2010

It isn't meant to have a pop! Avatar had no pop in at your face sort of thing. Thats a gimmick. It is meant to add depth to it and make it feel more real while playing. I rather see this for myself. Everything I have read says it is done very well. And will set the standard for 3D.



Slimebeast on 17 June 2010
disolitude said:
BBH said:

http://e-mpire.com/content/359-Killzone-3-in-Steroscopic-3-D-Blows-Away-Polarized-Avatar 

I dunno what to believe. Wish I was there to see for myself!

So wait...he is comparing a movie polarized 3D quality to a games shutter 3D?

If so this guy is a complete whacko... 2D film images VS 3D polygons in 3D. Duh!

Everyone knows that for "gaming" properly set up polarized 3D blows away shutter glasses in quality. However shutters  have a cheaper entry price point since 2 projectors silver screen dont come cheap. But people with active shutters end up paying a lot for glasses down the road

So as a technology polarized is better than shutter glasses? As in better quality, yes?



disolitude on 17 June 2010
Slimebeast said:
disolitude said:
BBH said:

http://e-mpire.com/content/359-Killzone-3-in-Steroscopic-3-D-Blows-Away-Polarized-Avatar 

I dunno what to believe. Wish I was there to see for myself!

So wait...he is comparing a movie polarized 3D quality to a games shutter 3D?

If so this guy is a complete whacko... 2D film images VS 3D polygons in 3D. Duh!

Everyone knows that for "gaming" properly set up polarized 3D blows away shutter glasses in quality. However shutters  have a cheaper entry price point since 2 projectors silver screen dont come cheap. But people with active shutters end up paying a lot for glasses down the road

So as a technology polarized is better than shutter glasses? As in better quality, yes?

Its essentially the same 3D effect, but polarized glasses tech has less issues.

- Shutter glasses make everythign really dark and dim which forces you to turn up the screens brightnes

- they use IR for syncing up with the Tv and that has a range of like 15 feet and is very prone to interference when everything goes out of sync.

- the shutter glasses need batteries and cost 100 bucks a pop...vs 5 bucks a pop for polarized

- No LCD image ghosting for polarized displays

etc