Killzone 3 in 3D was a huge disappointment.

[Slimebeast]

disolitude said:

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

But polarized basically needs a dark room rite?