Poll: 3D: gimmick or godsent?

[Skotte]

to me 3D will only be viable when it can be done without the need for wearing glasses but I haven't seen evidence that is possible just yet.

[Pyrosocial]

i dont think it would be possible without spending 15k on a tv with multi layered screens....

[ub3rman123]

I liked Avatar without the 3d. I think it's more of a gimmick. It doesn't seem to add that much to the games. It also hurts my eyes, and I couldn't imagine trying to work the CS with 3d on. I'd be rubbing my eyes every 15 seconds.

[JimboUK]

I guess it's fine in the cinema but I wouldn't really want it at home unless they found a way to make it work without the glasses. On a more practical level a awful lot of people can't see the 3D or it gives them headaches, this will be a problem in a home environment when someone in the household can't watch it. It gives my other half a headache so watching 3D films/TV together isn't going to happen. As for games I think they should concentrate more on decent animations, gameworlds that make sense and believable characters, they will do more to add realism to a game than 3D ever will.

[DonKnotts]

I have played F.E.A.R. 2, Metro 2033, Burnout Paradise, Deus Ex and Hitman Contracts in 3D. If you have an nVidia GPU and some anaglyph glasses you can try it. F.E.A.R. 2 had moments that looked absolutely amazing in 3D, especially the weapons, which looked like you could reach right out and grab them. Metro 2033 also looked pretty damned good. The frayed strings around the gloves, and the wrist watch looked very real. If you think of gaming as more than just a hobby, I recommend you get a decent nVidia card, a 3D ready monitor (anything 120hz) and the nVidia 3D Vision kit.