Originally Posted by Technosponge
I would agree that its best 3D game I've seen. But just to pose question. If the effect (3D) is good, does it ultimately matter what technology was used? I'm trying to understand pre and post processing argument relevance especially in a game composed entirely in digital realm. Can anyone shed some light on this?
The only example of a "post processed" 3d game I've played is Crysis 2. It did have some depth but zero pop-out. Even the depth was a bit weak. So basically it wasn't very good 3d. That's why it mattered whether it was "real" 3d or "fake" 3d. The end result wasn't very good in comparison to a true stereoscopic 3d game.
I would imagine that soon someone will develop an excellent method of post processed 3d (not sure if that's the right term). Stereoscopic 3d takes double the processing power, whereas fake 3d, such as on Crysis 2 took a lot less. That will be a great day for 3d gamers!