Legacy Titles, 'Good' Games: Work with 3D, but hardly Flawless

The most common problem in older titles was that crosshairs rendered at screen depth. Two titles where this really stuck out were Battlefield Bad Company 2, and to a lesser extent games running Valve’s Source engine.


This crosshair in Day of Defeat: Source renders at screen depth sometimes, deep 3D other times

To be fair, NVIDIA offers the ability to enable a 3D Laser Sight for certain games, which replaces the distracting normal cursor in some games.

In general, it’s distracting when things are being rendered at screen depth. A good example is how in games like TF2 or DOD:S, kill notifications in the top right, chat text, weapon selection, and players names all render in 2D at screen depth. You can get used to it, but it looks out of place. There’s also the occasional bit of content that just isn’t 3D as well.

When you fire up a title, NVIDIA gives you an overlay in the bottom right with information about the game’s compatibility, as well as what settings should be enabled or disabled for optimal 3D quality. The interesting bit about 3D is that you can really get a feel for when game engines are doing hackety things like rendering HDR at screen depth instead of in 3D - all these little flaws show in 3D mode on older titles.

The other problem is simple - hold a weapon up to a wall, and you’ll get the perception that your gun is going into the wall, which is actually closer to you. This is that age old clipping problem rearing its ugly head, now in 3D. It’s impossibly difficult to describe, but  weapons will appear to dive into materials that they can’t. In the past, with 2D, this wasn’t a problem, but the result just looks off in 3D.


See how the MG42 goes into the wood? It's even weirder when it appears to have depth.


The reality is that Excellent and Good rated titles work very well, but just haven’t been designed for 3D. The result is that while the game content is 3D and looks beautiful, things like menus, crosshairs, and information all on the edges makes the experience a bit jarring.

NVIDIA 3D Vision Ready: Play These in 3D

But what about NVIDIA’s 3D Vision Ready titles? New games designed for 3D? I decided to try a little experiment. I decided I would play Metro 2033 through, beginning to end, entirely in 3D. I would then repeat the same thing in 2D and see what I thought.

I want a 120Hz 3D monitor and kit of my own now.

The difference in the 3D experience here compared to ‘good’ or even ‘excellent’ titles is mind-blowing. What makes Metro 2033 a particularly good example is how everything is 3D. The initial menu screen is 3D, everything is 3D. There isn’t a jarring difference between content that obviously was never intended to be viewed in 3D and the rest of the game - in Metro 2033 it just works.


Metro 2033 in 3D: Everything is 3D in this menu

Things like dust are entirely volumetric, not just 2D speckles. There’s depth and detail on weapons, objects, and textures. The game is just completely immersive in a different way. It’s difficult to explain just how much more engaging this game feels in 3D compared to 2D. Suffice it to say things like the very final level where you’re running on floating platforms or in a maze away from the dark ones, or up in Ostankino tower, are amazingly different and trippy. Honestly, Metro 2033 in 3D is close to if not entirely NVIDIA 3D Vision’s killer app. 3D vision does exact a considerable price on framerate though. With Metro 2033 I settled on 1680x1050 on High with the DX10 codepath to get playable framerates. Pushing the GTX 470 much further reduced FPS too much.

The only caveat which remains is the same as found in other 3D systems - you do lose some brightness, and you’ve got to wear glasses, which is annoying if you already wear glasses to correct your vision.


Losing brightness through the shutter glasses

As I’ll show in a second, the VG236 is indeed a very bright display, but you really need every last nit to keep things lit up when in 3D mode. Just by nature of using shutter glasses, everything gets dimmer. I wouldn’t say it was a problem when playing 3D games, but I did increase gamma in Metro 2033 just a bit because it’s such a dark game most of the time.

For me, the bottom line is this. Virtually every game is going to benefit from a 120Hz panel because you won’t get visible tearing until your framerate is over 120 fps. In older games where even on maximum everything you’re well over 100, it’s nice to actually see some of those frames. To that extent, games do appear smoother to me visually. For 3D content, 3D Vision Ready titles are a whole different level of immersion compared to older titles that - while they do work - have distracting 2D elements. With time, hopefully more games will be developed with 3D in mind and lose the distracting bits that otherwise diminish the experience.
 

NVIDIA 3D Vision - Part 1 Analysis: Color Quality
Comments Locked

121 Comments

View All Comments

  • mino - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link

    .. reasonable 1920x1200 ..
  • dingetje - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    I will immediately get one....when 1920 x 1200 models are available.
    A 1920 x 1080 screen is just not acceptable for me, even when it's 120hz goodness.

    Looking forward to more 120hz screen reviews....thx
  • Taft12 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    How long can you hold your breath? I don't think 1920x1200 is coming back on the market ever again.
  • ZoZo - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link

    You may have to wait a long time.
    It appears that 16:10 is being abandoned.
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link

    For now, yes but if there is a market for it it will hopefully return. The 23" 16:9 we have at works is just too wide for me; the 1920x1200 24" my father have is really much higher, it can fit an entire Windows 7 double-sized task bar and a ribbon menu more than 1080.
  • martin5000 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    16:9 is absolutely horrible for computers. Its so disappointing that this is the current trend.

    Glossy is also terrible, maybe the colours do look a bit more vibrant, but at the cost of not actually be able to see the screen unless you're in the perfect light conditions, no thanks!
  • medi01 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    I second that. Basically it's all about marketing:

    1) glossy screens probably look better in shops
    2) X inches monitor with 4:3 ratio has 12% more pixels than 16:9 => it's cheaper to produce
  • Mr Perfect - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    I imaging that being able to put "FULL 1080P HD!" on the box doesn't hurt sales either.

    So, to recap, change this into a 16:10, matte finish, IPS panel.
  • BansheeX - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link

    You're both nuts. No aspect ratio inherently gives more resolution than any other. Case-in-point, 3200x1800 is a 16:9 resolution that is much higher than 1600x1200 (4:3) or 1920x1200 (16:10). The reason 1920x1080 is so common for 16:9 is mainly the result of established manufacturing processes and 1:1 scaling of HD material.
  • Quidam67 - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link

    I genuinely don't understand why some people are showing such a strong reaction against 16:9 monitors. I must be missing the point, or is it really just the slightly different aspect ratio + slightly less pixels that has them all worked up?!?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now