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

  • user72 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    I have some molecular modeling programs that use OpenGL QuadBuffer for 3D rendering. Do you know if this monitor is compatible with QuadBuffer? Thanks!
  • Sp12 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    Until I can get 120hz IPS technology I'm unimpressed. 120hz is in no way worth it for the dithering and inconsistent colors TN brings. Especially if it comes at a premium like that.

    I may be waiting forever until blue phase or autostereoscopic displays come around.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Phase_Mode_LCD

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopy
  • Soldier1969 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    1080 monitors suck after having 1920 x 1200 since Jan of 2007 I will never go backwards in resolution. When they make a 2560 x 1600 LED backlit 120hz panel I'll get one but these 1080 ones cater to the poor folk.
  • Daeros - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    This review just highlights why I still use a pair of HP 1230 21" crt monitors. Sure, they weigh about 70lbs each, but they are like 6 years old and have no problem running at 2048x1536 @ 110Hz . Show me any lcd that can do that. And don't even get me started on gamut or black levels.
  • Zok - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    Well, without getting into the old CRT-LCD argument too heavily, my desk can't handle a 30" CRT - size or weight.
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link

    1536x110hz = 169Khz horizontal frequency. That is amazing.. I thoght my lacie electronblue22 III was good at 1440x85hz :)
  • Luke212 - Sunday, August 22, 2010 - link

    yeah its a nice story but his crt can only do 91hz at that rez.
    (140k/1536)
  • adonn78 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link

    I think its over priced for a 23 inch monitor. I'd rather get a larger screen than one with features I'll never use such as 3D.
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link

    It's not just the 3D. 120hz give you a much smoother Windows experience, and the lack of RTC artifacts is also good.
  • SunLord - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link

    Any monitor over $300 isn't worth buying even fi its 120hz and the newest gimmick to get stupid people to pay more

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now