The Official AVS 3D Console Games Topic! - Page 24

It looks like the is a new show on the Sky 3D network called "3D Game Reviews," hosted by a Eurogamer reviewer. Has anyone seen this, and does anyone know if it's available to watch online?


http://www.challenge.co.uk/shows/3d-games-review.html

Great info! I was recently wondering about the importance of the TV size setting for 3D on the PS3, specifically as it applies to watching 3D blu-ray movies (as opposed to gaming).

Do you think your experiments and findings apply to movies as well, or are specific to 3D gaming? Someone recently posted that, according to Oppo, the TV size is passed to BD Java for proper depth and placement of the 3D menus and popups and not related to the 3D processing for the movie itself (if I understood them correctly).

Can you explain what procedure you use to determine what the ideal setting is for each game? I'd like to try it and see what I get on this end.

Also is there a way to directly edit the TV size setting on the PS3? The only way I could find to change it is to run the Automatic settings for HDMI under Display Settings and then move the slider from the default of 50 each time.

Thanks!

Good site for 3D game reviews and all gaming news actually
http://****edupgames.org/

For the PS3:

1. Uncharted3
2. Arkham City
3. Cars 2
4. Super Stardust
5. Avatar: Game (best 3D in any PS3 game for far, but game itself just 'ok')

Top 5 PS3 Games: http://3d-tv-gaming.blogspot.com/201...s-for-ps3.html

How can you put avatar (which does have good 3D) above Killzone 3, Motorstorm Apocalypse or Ucharted 3
Especially Uncharted 3 which IS the best 3D game to date period

hey no prob! as far as movies go i'm 99% sure that the way 3d blu-rays are currently authored, changing the display size setting has no effect at all (though perhaps this may change in the future). from my tests on this it didn't even change this depth/pop-out effect of the java menus either, though i actually expected it to, but then again it seems like it would come down to how the discs are authored (why else would they have screen size settings in sony standalone 3d blu-ray players then???)

the procedure i used for for finding the "ideal" depth setting for my display is non-scientific, i just messed around with the levels/variables till what i found to be most reflected of the 3d visual experience in real life. for example, if you are looking in a room (say in house of the dead overkill), and the room looks longer than it should be given the in-game art and familiar objects (bookcases, sofas, windows, doors etc), then the setting is too high, and if things feel like they are too crunched together (though they still may retain some 3-dimensionality) then it's too low. the clearest example i can think of is in god of war origins collection, when kratos is climbing the side of a wall or building and goes around the corner, the camera would place the edge directly sticking out of the screen. the ideal to life setting would have the corner seem to be a perfect right angle, if the angle is over 90 degrees (seemingly flatter) then the depth setting is too low, but if the angle seems less than 90 degrees, the setting is too high. however another thing to take into account is the style of that game, which with god of war, a slightly exaggerated depth setting complements the design. but with a game like gran turismo (which is a simulator), any deviation from a realistic sense of depth would be detrimental to the experience.

ONE THING i must say is, that when you find the "ideal" depth setting for the game, it will NOT look like the game in other 3d settings. this is a subjective thing. if the depth setting is too low, yes things will look 3-dimensional (but perhaps paper cut-out-y), but when you get a true to life depth setting, for me it feels like all the gimmicky-ness of the image "melts" away (that's the best way i can put it), and it just looks like you're looking through a window in real life. you know you have found the ideal setting when it "locks in" like that, and it's hard to mistake the wrong settings for it. unfortunately, it seems like most games do not let you achieve this quality by default, even when depth is set to max in-game...you have to use the display settings trick if the game incorporates that factor. also, when there is too much depth (or spacing between the eyes, forgot the term for it), it gets uncomfortable FAst. and yeah, i don't think there's anyway to manually change the display size setting without having to auto-detect it every time first...kind of annoying but at least it works!!

I agree 101%. Blu-ray discs have the left and right 1080 images set before you ever put it into your device and set the display size. There's just nothing that can be done about that, unlike games in which the left and right images are produced on the fly.

This whole discussion got me curious to mess with the screen size on my PS3 even more. Per Airion's prior suggestion, I had set screensize to 50" and it really improved the 3D on Uncharted 3. Last night, I put it all the way down to 10" and HOLY ****!!!! I just finished playing the entire campaign on Uncharted 3, so I am "familiar" with its 3D. Putting screensize to 10" was like looking at an entirely different game!! EVERYTHING pops now. In fact, I had to put the 3D slider down a bit - about two notches.

Thanks for the input on this. Now I want to play the game all over again. It not only increased the 3D-ness of the game, I feel the sharpness increased as well - at least I felt it did. That could be a side effect of the increase depth/pop. I also tested Super Stardust HD and it appeared to be the same as before. Killzone 3, same story. No big deal as the games already look amazing. Motorstorm Pacific Rim 3D also appeared to have an improvement in 3D from the 10" setting.

I threw in a bunch of movies, and can confirm it makes no difference on 3D movies.

Great stuff!!!!!!!!!

Interesting, I'll have to try that in Uncharted 3. In fact when I first got the game I set the PS3 to 10", which made the cutscenes look great, but once gameplay began all I could see was severe double vision! I should try it again though, maybe an update tweeked it, or maybe my eyes just weren't cooperating that day.


I think there's something to this by the way. The more depth/pop there is, the more separation there is between the left and right images. The greater the separation, the more each eye has a unique angle on the scene. These the left and right images are the same resolution of course, but the fact is you're seeing two different images with 3D, so the amount of detail is potentially doubled. The more different the two images are, the more you're seeing basically.

Consider a rounded object in the foreground like Drake. With very little left/right separation, both eyes are basically looking at the same thing: his back. Increase the separation and now the left eye is seeing additional details on the left side of Drake, and ditto for his right side in your right eye. In both cases (low vs high depth) Drake is the same resolution in both eyes, but with more depth the pixels are more different, so you're getting more detail. Not fine detail of course, but just more raw visual data for your brain to process, which I think is perceived as sharper or a higher resolution. It works for whatever is behind objects in the foreground as well, you're more able to see around objects with greater separation. For example, look at the left edge of your monitor and close your left eye. Now close your right eye and open your left. Notice how you're able to see more of what's behind your monitor. This is one of the benefits of 3D, and you'd see less of it if your eyes were closer together.

Just a note, this only applies to true stereoscopic games of course. Games with reprojection post processing 3D (Gears 3, Arkham City, AC: Revelations) don't have this benefit because they're building depth with only one view of the scene.

completely agree with what you're saying here about getting a seemingly higher resolution when the left and right views are more disparate. in essence in true stereoscopic 3d with the proper settings you aren't losing any resolution at all even if the 3d is being rendered at sub-hd. uncharted 3's 3d res is almost if not exactly half 720p, so when you add the two views together, you get the same rendered pixels as the 2d version (though some of the level of detail in the models and environments have been dropped). also on top of that, your brain works to "fill in the blanks" so the perceived resolution would even be higher than the numerical sum, it is the same effect that is demonstrated in many optical illusions...and even in reprojection games like arkham city the perceived resolution would be slightly higher, as long as the game is being rendered in 3d in the same resolution as it would be in 2d. and also for uncharted 3, i agree that the ideal setting (for my 135" screen size), is 11" and not 10" with the in-game slider set to max, or like was mentioned, set to 10" and the in-game slider turned down 1 or 2 notches. however, the best setting for other screen sizes much be tested on a case by case basis i would think.

also per super stardust hd, the correct 3d setting for this is the actual screen size, i tested it at 10" and it was slightly worse, because like gran turismo it seemed like the entire "scene" was pushed back slightly into the tv with less pop-out, but at 135" it had a better balance of in-screen depth and pop-out. for killzone 3, i didn't notice much if any difference at all for whatever screen depth it is. don't remember what pacific rift looked like but for motorstorm apocalypse it is a MUST to put it at 10" because it looks so much better at that, but in my opinion could use even more slightly exaggerated depth than that haha

Awesome, I'm glad someone else gets what I'm trying to say! I think this advantage of 3D is rarely talked about and rarely understood.


Here I disagree though, as I feel the 3D in these games just confuses your brain with artifacts which undercut the otherwise high resolution, transforming a clean consistent 2D image into a messy 3D one. But that's just me, and I think different people react differently to resolution vs 3D accuracy, so I don't want to discourage those who like these games that use reprojection.

Arkham City first impressions

The motion blur is awful, the game image looks way out of sync whenever I pan or am fighting.

The depth is insanely subtle, despite max settings and display size cheats and playing on a 65 inch DLP TV.

And don't get me started on the usual reprojection artifacts.

Uncharted 3 final impressions

There is much less to complain about in UC3. It takes a resolution hit like any other visually demanding game, and some of the cutscenes were shot a little flat.

The 3D came in handy when judging jumps and for triggering awe at the sense of scale of the large environments and detailed world geometry. The dynamic depth and focus adjustments were nearly seamless, and the 3D crosshair never gave me problems like Resistance 3's did.

I'll have more impressions, from ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and God of War in the coming weeks.

ok, i'll half agree with you here, because it really does depend on how well the reprojection programming is done, even when it is based on the same tech. for example, both arkham city and gears of war 3 use trioviz, but in gears 3 the artifacts are WAY more horrendous. the close edges in it are stretched drastically and the horizon/floor does not look straight at all, but very curved. and on top of that, the objects in the distance (like you say) aren't any clearer at all, and for me in fact are harder to even decipher, though this may primarily be because of the resolution drop since it uses side-by-side 3d. but for me arkham city (on ps3) is a HUGE improvement over this, and while it's not jaw-dropping 3d like uncharted, i have to say that the image looks just like the 2d version, except with a reasonable amount of (more accurate) depth perception. and on top of this, the "brain effect" in this game i was more referring to was that even though there is no anti-aliasing in the game at all, i have NEVER perceived a jaggie in 3d mode (on my true 720p projector), but in 2d they are everywhere...perhaps that is biggest "improvement" for me. however i must say that it just seems a tiny bit sharper too when i was comparing them a while ago (though obviously no real new visual information is there).

I finished ICO tonight and I had a great time with it. There is an encounter near the end that is perfectly suited for 3D, it looks incredible. It's one of the neatest things I've seen, and yet so simple in terms of graphics.

I've only played Gears 3 and AC:Revelations, so I should have reserved judgement for Arkham City if you say it's different. It's on my list of games to get to, hopefully I'll agree with you! What I've seen of reprojection has left me very pessimistic though.

So, is Resistance 3 really this bad?

I tried the demo the first day I set up my projector. It looks low res, blurry, washed out, and seemed very tiring in 3D. It almost seems like I'm playing through an eye hole. It was very difficult to explain, but just completely unfun for me. I chalked this up to being a 3D projector noob.

I've had my setup now going on two months. I have calibrated/re-calibrated. Tested and re-test all manner of material. I now feel I have my projector dialed in to the very best quality 3D I am going to get out of this 720p baby. Movies look amazing, games look spectacular - everything is substantially better than my first couple weeks with the projector. I saw the Resistance 3 demo on the Playstation store again, so I thought I would give it another shot. I redownloaded it expecting an improvement like I have seen with 99% of all the other games and movies I have thrown up and it still sucks ass.

Am I alone here? This is, hands down, the WORST 3D I have come across. I think Sly Cooper gets the award for least noticeable 3D, but R3 is just craptacular. Muddy, washed out, low-res garbage to me. I find this unfortunate as I actually enjoy the franchise and was looking forward to another solid 3D experience.

I don't know whats upwith your setup. But i havd the Optoma HD66 and 3D-XL and using Optoma ZD101 glasses (not ultra clears or VIP 3D glasses as they wash out the picture)
and Ressiatnce 3 is awesome in 3D, in fact it was the game that made me buy other 3D games. Its great
I would suspect your setup and or glasses. I hate the look of the Optoma ZD101 glasses but the image quality is awesome. I purchased DLP Link Ultra Clears and VIP 3D Glasses and both of these have a greenish tint and make the image look washed out. They are terrible when compared to the Optoma glasses
My top 3D games are

Uncharted 3
Killzone 3
Resisatnce 3
Halo CE

Terrible 3D are
Gears Of War 3

It is odd. Seriously everything else has looked spectacular on my setup. I do have Ultra Clear DLP Link glasses with an Acer 5360 and Viewsonic convertor. As for the glasses, I have not seen a greenish tint at all. The ultraclears are my only glasses to date, and I may buy one high-end pair just for myself, but it's not the glasses here.

i played the entire arkham city story in 3d and wouldn't have it any other way, but for gears 3 i switched to 2d. but yeah honestly it's really the only re-projection 3d that impressed me. crysis 2 and socom 4 are just ok...not bad but not impressive either, those in 2d you're not really missing much.

ALSO i have to agree, the ultra-clear dlp glasses are not that good, there is a green tint and if you ask me it either doesn't block the entire dlp flash correctly or just washes out the blacks. also it has slight ghosting issues. if you don't really see too much bad about it then don't worry about it, but the optoma zd101 are virtually perfect...the color is much, much better when compared, but they're a bit heavy too. i'm primarily using the zd101s with an optoma hd66 btw, and have a few ultra-clears for when people come over.

So, would you say it's worth grabbing a pari of zd101's for myself? I honestly have had no issues with the Ultra Clears, but I'm always willing to try something out if it's better.

well i actually am not sure how much better it would be on your acer projector, because optoma most probably tuned the glasses for use on their own systems...i haven't seen or used any 3d dlp projector other than my own. but that said, there is a very noticeable bump in quality with the zd101s, and if you're willing to buy one to test it out (and at the least return it if doesn't perform noticeably better) than yeah i'd say it's worth checking out if you're looking for the possibility of a better experience. also the ultra-clears i have have uniformity issues, where's it's kind of a faint, large cross-shaped blur going across each of the lenses when the shutters are on. the zd101s don't have this, even tho it's not TOO noticeable on the ultra-clears when watching something.

I started Shadow of the Colossus today and it's the best 3D I've ever seen in a game by far. When you're on your horse and the land is going for miles behind, it's both aesthetically striking and also incredibly informative. Same when you're encountering a colossus- timing jumps going forward into the screen becomes effortless because I know where in space I am relative to my target.

Gears looked great on my TV (63" Samsung PN63C8000). While there was definitely a drop in resolution, the game's art style really hid it well 95% of the time and I actually played thru the entire game in 3D. FWIW, I have my 360 set to 1080p and have read that doing that can sometimes help with side-by-side 3D games since each frame is rendered at 960x1080 rather than 640x720. Going 3D also did not affect the controller sensitivity at all and I still found my shooting to be very accurate.

Conversely, Killzone 3 looked absolutely terrible in 3D on my rig with a really nasty drop in resolution and visibly more sluggish control. There were times when the screen was such a blotchy mess that I couldn't even make things out. One of the biggest disappointments for me given how much Sony hyped it.

Not sure what your issue with Killzone 3 was

But year Gears Of War 3 takes a huge drop in resolution and on my 120" screen.. its really noticeable that its not enjoyable to play. It makes the game appear like a standard def game and not HD at all its so bad. And the 1080p output setting, thats funny. Because i read that Gears Of War 3 is 720p and setting your xbox360 to 1080p is just forcing the Xbox360 to upscale the image (of course i could be wrong, dunno.. either way after playing that game that was the last step that pushed me over the edge to sell the xbox and go PS3 and haven't looked back since)
and I'm not the only one either, check out this 3D review
"http://****edupgames.org/category/3d-reviews/"
obviously substitute the "****" for the 4 letter F word

I think the setup/display has as much to do with the 3D presentation as the game itself. I tried Gears on my rig and at 100" it looked fine. It wasn't nearly as spectacular as Uncharted, but it was pretty solid. In fact, I think Gears looks miles better than Resistance 3. Too bad that is what made you decide to drop the 360, but to each his own. I'd take Gears in 2D any day over Killzone, Resistance, or even Uncharted 3 in 3D.

Also, just to confuse the point, I think Killzone 3 looks great as well.

I agree completely. I think the 3D amplifies the sense of scale and complements the game perfectly. I've already played through it 2.5 times in 3D. 1.5 times by myself, and once in a 7 hour marathon session with a friend.

Thanks for the info! I haven't heard of it. Is this the game? http://www.walmart.com/ip/ICO-Shadow...ion-3/15061046 I did some searches and it seems there is a title with "HD" on the end that is not out yet - is that a sequel?

Also there is a version for the PS2 I keep coming up against. Just trying to figure out which game you guys are talking about exactly and if there is a newer version on the horizon. Thanks!

Just finished Crysis 1 and 2 on the PS3 in 3D, and thought they were 2 of the best looking 3D titles on the PS3. They recently released Crysis 1 on the Playstation store for $19.99 but did not mention anywhere in the listing it had a 3D option. I think the 3D really added to the scale and immersion of the game, and the graphics were super sharp. My only complaint was you had to manually set it to 3D after starting the games in the options every time you play. I have heard they are both 3D on the 360 as well, but SBS, not Frame Packed. Can anyone confirm that and has anyone compared the two versions?

I have played a number of 3D titles on both systems, I agree the 3D on Gears 3 was not very good, for me it looked fake and took away from the resolution. On the PS3 Motorstorm Apocalypse and Resistance 3 also seemed to be a bit sketchy and muddled in 3D. Socom 4, GT5, Tron, and Wipeout HD on the other hand all looked fantastic. I found Killzone 3 on the PS3 and Halo Anniversary on the Xbox 360 somewhere in the middle, good 3D, but with some trade offs.

that one at walmart is the correct version. and only version! there is is also a god of war collection that supports 3D which i will get to playing soon. a demo is/was on the psn store if you're interested.

Great, thanks. The demo supports 3D too I take it?