Ooh, ooh!

I played Assassin's Creed Revelations on my Dad's Toshiba 3D TV with those glasses. I thought it was genuinely brilliant. ACR has a massive amount of detail anyway, but everything on each building felt like it was on a different plane, running around the streets was excellent.

If I had the cash to blow I'd certainly get one, but it really is just a neat gimmick. Don't expect it to ever take off massively until maybe next gen. Interestingly, the game actually ran better in 3D, I noticed no V-Sync tearing at all.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Mainly, is it worth buying a 3D tv to play games?

No...

...though if you are in the market for a new TV then I'd say definitely get a 3D one. The current choice of 3D games isn't a great one but of those that are available most of them are good.

My first experience was with Gears of War 3 and immediately I knew that 3D was something I was going to be interested in, Wipeout HD is the most impressive 3D I've seen so far but there are other games where the 3D certainly adds to the experience Batman: Arkham City and Uncharted 3 being stand-out titles.

One interesting thing is that I found that 3D was a genuine improvement over 2D when playing GT5. Hopefully the extra processing power of the next gen will see a bigger take up of 3D in games.

It is handy having a 3D TV when it comes to BluRay as well, I'm glad that I watched Closer to the Edge in 3D as it added to the atmosphere of the film. I don't think anybody can really moan about getting 3D on any new TV they are planning on buying as the extra cost isn't really that much.

...parts of Back Ops was spectacular, the added depth to the guns was amazing as was the first time I used the crossbow!

SpaceGazelle wrote:

So is the impressiveness of the effect partly developer dependent, or is the 3D processing all done by the same technology? Namely, why is Wipeout better than any other supported racing game?

I'm not sure, on Black Ops the frame rate suffers whereas Wipeout HD doesn't seem to suffer from this? Also the games that are sequential 3D seem to be much better than side-by-side 3D. I suppose the sequential appears better because it is showing the game at the full resolution with alternating frames whereas the side-by-side is showing both frames at the same time but at half the width resolution wise?

I'm not that clued up on the inner workings so tbh I don't really know what the difference is. I do know that since the original thread in the old place I know a lot more people that now have 3DTV's...

Cut me Mick