Topic: Wii U games in stereoscopic 3D

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.

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?

@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.

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

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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?

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.

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.

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

@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.

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.

@SCAR392
No you're not getting it. 3D is accessible and has been for a while but people just don't care. Most of the life of a TV is spent casually watching broadcast TV so it's easy to understand why a feature that, when turned on, makes that virtually impossible didn't take off. That didn't stop virtually every TV manufacturer from trying to push it as hard as they possibly could. The idea that 3D wasn't given a chance to become mainstream is ridiculous. It was pushed harder than LED backlit screens were and they definitely became mainstream.

And again your analogies are all over the shop. Me saying that it didn't sell well despite the amount that it was pushed is not like a ferrari or me starving to death. I don't even know how you thought those analogies made any sense. If there was an analogy to what I was saying it would be more along the lines of 3DTVs being phones with physical keyboards or DVD Audio. Those things were pushed and pushed hard, they had more than enough time to become a thing and in the end price wasn't a barrier. However it isn't a surprise that they're not supported and manufactured as much as they once were given that they didn't take off.

Also I should add that I don't mind 3D, I quite like it. I just don't see any reason to chase after a feature that has such little support. If I was to get it I would get it in a new TV but right now I'm happy with the set I have. However I could have got it when I was hunting down my current TV for just a tiny bit more. That was right in the middle of the "3D bust" so the extra I would have paid over the standard-priced TV was fairly minimal. However given the fact that there wasn't much 3D content I went feature and spec shopping with 3D basically off the table as a nice extra. Came out the other end with a non-3D LED backlit 46" Sony with low input lag and some rudimentary "smart TV" features @ $800AU. Years later and I'm only just now starting to see better deals than that. So don't assume that I personally have a thing against 3D, I just don't see what the point is when it has been given a good shot and has still failed to catch on.

@skywake
From my perspective, 3D TVs have been pretty inaccessible until just this year. I suppose 3D TVs could catch on more now than a few years ago. It's just kind of off-putting that not that people like 3D when it really is a good feature, when implemented correctly. That's why I'm saying that it would be cool if Nintendo made everything 3D compatible on their system, because that lack of content wouldn't be there anymore, just like the 3DS.

What you did is basically what I did, except I had less money. I spent roughly $400 for a 39" Insignia(Best Buy brand) 1080p HDTV with ARC and low lag. I didn't even buy it based on lag, but I ended up finding out it was one the lowest lag sets available last year. This year's HDTVs look a bit more sleek, but mine actually performs better, so I can't complain. The only improvements from last year to this year were strictly cosmetic, unless you made the jump to 4K.

Soo, I went and got some glasses and tried the 3D, its fun to do but I dont think Its something I'll do "all the time" but I was able to use it on everything. Kind of a neat feature. playing the wii u in 3D was fun too lol

@Sofaking
2D to 3D conversion isn't that great, but it does work somewhat. Native 3D content is always better, which is what I'm hoping Nintendo does with the Wii U on more content.

I would play video games in 3D all the time, if I could.