Wii U Forum

Topic: Wii U games in stereoscopic 3D

Showing 61 to 80 of 84

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

61. Posted:

@skywake
I know 3D content is lacking, but not on a software level. There's already tons of 3D games on Wii U(RE:Revelations, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, Injustice, CoD, AC3). That's why I'm saying that 3D should be accessible on an OS level similarly to the 3DS. You don't go into settings to turn on 3D on the 3DS. The slider is right there and can swith back and forth as you choose.

The way they program these games is already in 3D, so basically every 3D rendered game technically already has a 3D mode as long as it's implemented. Those games I listed above alreasy have the option, but that's why I think it's important to do that from the system itself instead of going through menus, which is how things are being done now.

That brings me back to why Nintendo should/could make a device(or not, if it's not required), so that people can play games in 3D without buying a 3D TV. They'd be making a jump ahead of the market where 3D isn't very popular otherwise. Just my 2 cents.

If every single piece of content is 3D on Wii U by default, by choice, it makes sense to make sure that people can utilize those features. If you want things done right, you got to do those things yourself, and 3D TV manufacturers are not doing things right.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

eviLaTtenDant

62. Posted:

Depends on the price and the quality of the 3D. If it'd be really good i'd probably pay about 90 bucks for it.

Edited on by eviLaTtenDant

Number 2? Says who? >=o]

Nintendo Network ID: LTD_2112

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

63. Posted:

@SCAR392
But you weren't saying it should be accessible in settings rather than it being an in-game option, you were saying there should be a piece of proprietary hardware. Frankly I would think unified settings would be a good idea but I don't see it happening and I really don't care anyways. The truth is that I'm not alone, people have voted with their wallets don't really care about 3D so it's a feature that people aren't really demanding. So pushing it isn't high on anyone's agenda right now.

Plus, if you remember, the Wii U launch hype period was surrounded by Nintendo making a song and dance about glasses-free 3D. They identified that 3D was being pushed hard btut people didn't want the hassle of 3D. They milked that for all it was worth. So it would have been odd for them to go out the very next year and rant about how great 3D glasses were. Also again the fact that nobody really cared anyway.

As for your other comments fine. You've had your 2c multiple times now and we all get it. It still doesn't make it a good idea. TV manufacturers? They are doing it right at least this time. They pushed 3D as hard as they could and competed amongst themselves on who's 3D display was better. Even making songs and dances about how their particular implementation was better. What happened was that nobody cared. I can't stress enough how little people actually care about this when push comes to shove.

If people DID care then we'd probably have seen some sort of unified and standardised 3D setting across all systems and a concentrated effort to make great 3D content. As it is they simply allow it because it isn't worth the effort but all of the tech is there already. Nintendo more than anyone has pushed 3D games, if things had played out differently you can guarantee that their Wii U titles would have been all 3D heavy. However it didn't so they're not.

end of story

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

64. Posted:

@skywake
The situations are different, though.

The only people who had a chance to 3D game, were considerably wealthy. If 3D TVs would have been as accessible and affordable as regular HDTVs back in 2010 or so, we wouldn't even be discussing this right now. 3D TVs are just barely making it down to $400+ dollars. That's too late for alot of people who probably would have bought one, otherwise.

HDTVs were $600-1000. 3D TVs were $2000. It isn't just an extra feature if they were charing that much for it, years ago. Getting a 3D TV in 2010 basically upped the ante by double, in favor of 2D HDTVs. That's hardly fair, as you claim, when people "voted". That would be like saying only the people that live in the White House are able to vote on country wide decisions.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

65. Posted:

and in 2006 to 2008 the same was true of HDTVs in general but there was mass adoption there. So much so that Nintendo's then brilliant decision not to go HD in 2006 was starting to look like less of a good idea come 2008. The first HDTV I got was a 32" Samsung at $1300AU in 2008, for about the same price now ($1500AU) you can get a 60" LED backlit 3D TV from Sharp with a bunch of smart TV features. There was a premium for 3D TVs when they launched but it was nothing new and the price drop since then has been across the board. Plus there's the fact that the premium didn't last long at all, it was only about a year before 3D was just a nice thing that sometimes comes with it.

Then there's the fact that it is affordable now and people still don't care. They did buy LCDs and Plasmas, they did upgrade for HDTV and shiny 1080p gaming. They didn't buy 3D at all and they still don't. So it's fair all right, nobody has it so there's little point in creating content for it. That's how the world works. If nobody buys the thing you like people don't create content with it in mind. I thought this would have been an obvious thing to someone talking on a gaming site.....

And no, your whitehouse example is nonsense. If it was like anything it would be like someone not making content for platforms that don't sell. That's all that it is. If the platform doesn't sell because it's too expensive then that's just a reason why it doesn't sell. Especially when it does become affordable and still doesn't sell.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

dumedum

66. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

@skywake
I know 3D content is lacking, but not on a software level. There's already tons of 3D games on Wii U(RE:Revelations, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, Injustice, CoD, AC3).

Are you saying I can play these games using my 3D TV glasses?

"Dubs Goes to Washington: The Video Game".

Nintendo Network ID: Del_Piero_Mamba

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

67. Posted:

dumedum wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

@skywake
I know 3D content is lacking, but not on a software level. There's already tons of 3D games on Wii U(RE:Revelations, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, Injustice, CoD, AC3).

Are you saying I can play these games using my 3D TV glasses?

No, I'm saying you SHOULD be able to. AC3 is the only game that has a 3D option, the the other games have a 3D option on at least one other system, which is why I'm wondering why it's not on Wii U.

3DS games were built in 3D and games like Injustice and CoD have a 3D option on PS3 and Xbox 360, but it's not there for Wii U. Nintendo plans on supporting 3D, eventually, so I'm wondering when or possibly how they will.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

68. Posted:

They won't and probably didn't because these companies almost certainly have user data about which features are used and which ones aren't. Why would you bother implementing a feature if, for example, you knew that only 1% of people actually used that feature?

I mean even you wouldn't be using it if it was implemented. You're going around wishing for some sort of accessory that enables 3D on your non-3D TV. I don't care about it either because I'm in the same boat but unlike you don't really care either. Ontop of that the people who do have 3D happen to not even know that it was an option in AC3. So why push something people don't care about and won't use?

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

69. Posted:

@skywake
I would be using it if it was implemented, though. That 3D video wizard in my thread post allows me to get anaglyph 3D from any 3D content. It's not ideal, but I can play games in some sort of 3D.

So ya, I actually would be playing Mario 3D World in 3D, even if the colors were a bit off. The effect is what matters most. I can deal with a bit of color inaccuracies.

Besides, I'm pretty sure more than 1% of people have a 3D TV, at least in NA.

EDIT: The 3D box I have is actually pretty laggy, but this sort of technology isn't exactly fully developed. That's why I would think it can be. Movies would still look good, though. I could buy Beauty and the Beast 3D and watch that in 3D if I really wanted to, and I don't even have a 3D TV.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

70. Posted:

I was talking about the number of people who actually used it in game not the number of people who could in theory use it. Also your 3D implementation sounds just about as bad as I said it would. Your argument is sounding less and less compelling by the second.

Cool story bro

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

71. Posted:

@skywake
I'm not arguing, so... I'm just saying. We can't exactly rule out the possibilities, here. You're basically saying, "It's impossible, so give up".

Nintendo has data on how many people have 3D TVs, so the amount of people that can potentially use it is more important than you just said it was.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SofaKing

72. Posted:

actually i can play all my games on the Wii U in 3D. I found this out today actually. My tv has an option to turn anything into 3D. My guess is that it wouldn't be as good of 3D as something built for 3D but all i have to do is push a button on my TV and it gives me three different options for 3D. Side by side, top bottom, and the one that looks like a blurry image you find with traditional 3D nowadays. I have yet to use the 3D on my TV because I dont have the right glasses but i wonder how it looks. So it goes to say that if my TV has an option to turn on 3D and use it on anything ranging from regular tv chanels to DVDs to my Wii U, Id say that there would most certainly be a way.

Nintendo Network ID: Mitsudude

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

73. Posted:

@SCAR392
We can rule out impossible things and say that bad ideas are bad. I'm sorry that you wasted your money on a 3D hack that produces a poor result but please don't try and justify your purchase on here. I won't let you try and convince others to make the same mistake that you did. You've made your pitch and it didn't sell, move on.

@SofaKing
Those options are alright but it's nowhere near as good as proper 3D. I would also suspect that that sort of option would introduce a lot of input lag. Unless you're particularly into 3D movies already pre-made 3D content I wouldn't bother with it. There isn't enough demand for companies to bother to produce enough content. Plus frankly when I want to play games on my TV it's often a social experience even when single player. I can't see people putting on their glasses on and getting themselves comfortable for things that aren't movies.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

74. Posted:

@skywake
You're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying to buy the machine I did. It's an example, for crying out loud. I made that clear in the OP.

EDIT: @Sofaking
That's what the machine I have does, except it's in anaglyph.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

75. Posted:

Pretty easy to miss a point that doesn't seem to exist. You seem to think that they should push features nobody wants using accessories that aren't necessary to produce an effect that's bellow par. Worse yet you seem to want it to work in a way that is as-of-yet undescribed and undiscovered if not in the worst possible way. And for me calling you out on that you seem to think I'm ruling out possibilities. No, I'm just being realistic.

As for you not spruiking and trying to justify your bad choice of purchase, you just did it again. So what more needs to be said for this to be clear to you?

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

supermario182

76. Posted:

if they wanted to push 3d with the wii u, they should've made the gamepad have the same kind of 3d screen as the 3ds. i'm sure we'll see more officially supported 3d titles as time goes on if 3d tv's get cheaper and more abundant. nintendo waited a generation to go hd because of how many people actually have them. i wouldn't be surprised if we don't see much true 3d content till next gen.

"Be excellent to each other." - Bill S. Preston, Esq.

AuthorMessage
Avatar

MikeLove

77. Posted:

I've owned a new Samsung Smart TV with 3D for about 4 weeks now and it took me up until a day ago to even put on the glasses and see what 3D looked like. Of all my hundreds of cable channels, only one is 3D, and it just runs a handful of 3D demo clips and music videos over and over. I looked at the screen for a minute, thought 'that's interesting', took the glasses off and put them away, and will likely never use them again.

Your average consumer doesn't care about 3D and will never use it. 3D TV peaked a few years ago when some tv shows and sporting events were broadcast in the format, but now they don't anymore. It's dead. Move on.

MikeLove

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SofaKing

78. Posted:

^ @FutureAlfaMale, willing to part with those glasses if you don't plan to use them again?

Nintendo Network ID: Mitsudude

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

79. Posted:

@skywake
You're still not getting it. Like I said earlier, not enough people have had the chance to have such features to ride it off. It would be like saying that Ferraris are a faiure of a car company, because no one can/could afford them 4 years ago, so they shouldn't make an affordable model, now.

I don't even care who makes 3D accessible. It's not a pointless feature. It's literally just as "important" as HD itself. If you don't like it, that doesn't make it any less important. It would be like saying, " This food tastes like crap, so I'm not gonna eat it". Then you starve and die.

@FutureAlphaMale
Wait so you have a 3D TV and can't/won't use it?

Back when I was gaming on Xbox 360 and PS3, I would have been playing on a 3D TV non-stop, if I had one.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SofaKing

80. Posted:

3D tvs are actually coming down in price because the technology is now much more affordable then it was when it was first introduced. Much like the reason the Wii U was able to get better technology then the 360 or PS3 and still cost less at launch then both systems did. And actually not all modern hdtv TVs are able to use 3D out of the box and not even 4K or UltraHD TVs are able to use 3D out of the box. They do need to add in the hardware to be able to produce that effect. The technology behind 3D nowadays it much easier to produce and a lot cheaper to make. Refresh rates do matter actually because while using active refresh 3D glasses all glasses are set to a standard. If that standard in refresh in lower on the TV, that TV will be out of sync with the glasses. This causes "Flicker" if its too low. The higher the refresh rate the less flicker is noticed. This is why TVs with a refresh rate of 120hz or higher is common to have 3D. This is not saying though that 3D isn't offered at 60hz as the Active 3D technology requires you to get at least 60 FPS (frames per second) which is its refresh rate. Passive 3D uses inexpensive polarized glasses, like what you get at most movie theaters. The TV has a special filter that polarizes each line of pixels. This filter (a Film Patterned Retarder is one type) makes the odd lines on the screen only visible to the left eye, and the even lines only visible to the right. Without the glasses, the TV looks normal. Active 3D uses battery-operated shutter glasses that do as their name describes: they rapidly shutter open and closed. This, in theory, means the information meant for your left eye is blocked from your right eye by a closed (opaque) shutter. All that's required of the TV is the capability to refresh fast enough so each eye gets at least 60 frames per second. They've been able to do this for a while.

Nintendo Network ID: Mitsudude