GT5 in 3D, waste of time, yes or no?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GTRL_Junior
  • 124 comments
  • 14,862 views
This reminds me of GT4 when they squeezed in the HD option when relatively few people had HD TV's. Those of us with SD TV's had to watch those headache inducing jittering rolling starts at the beginning of every race.

It's funny you brought that one up. Right now when I play GT4, I only use the 1080 option on my HDTV. It's the sharpest and the best visually. Maybe, 5 years from now when 3D is neither an expensive nor a cumbersome proposition (no shutter eyeglasses required) and has indeed become common enough for most consumers to own one (or two) that you can still pull out your copy of GT5 when you need a change from GT6 (or GT7 depending) and still be amazed at how a 5 year old game can still be quite striking visually.
 
I wonder how many people are disappointed with 3D because they haven't / couldn't set it up "properly". I've not looked, but I assume the manual has some details on how to do so properly (although it is pretty poor in other aspects, e.g. sound settings.) Of course, a fully- or semi-automated system would be best for most users.

3D has a lot to offer in the context of gaming (arguably moreso than in movies) and it's a shame to see it shunned by the vocal technophobes / kainotophobes (though I don't believe in advocating it for the sake of it, either...) I don't own any of the hardware, but all my experiences with 3D have been great.

I agree that the glasses are a major hindrance, though. That's why I don't own the hardware; well, that and the cost :dopey:
 
I would never really bother with it ..let alone buy the tv
 
The question I have is this, the RSX gpu on our PS3, is it capable of doing full 3D or 2.5D? I know this gpu is shooting for movie quality graphics but 3D wise I doubt it!
 
3D is just a temp solucion for tv makers to keep on selling tvs since 2160P is too expensive to make for the general public at the moment so it's simpler to divided the refresh rate of 1080p for a stereo image. For the ps4 we should have 2160P & a better 3D refresh rate 1080P 60hz or 120hz. But at the moment 30hz on the ps3 doesn't do it for me. My eyes can't take it.
 
Last edited:
Also one major element is that we have the old 1.3 HDMI not the new 1.4HDMI correct? So that's a major blow as well for Sony. Now will they act and release a new PS3 with 1.4 HDMI compatible, will people buy or trade it? Or is it just wrong in doing it so?
 
I've played/play in 3D and it is a step up in immersion! I could almost tough the Lamborghini's dashboard and the corners have a great depth to them. It is a good addition. Need to play more but so far so good!
 
if you do some searching about GT5, 3D, Kaz, there's some quote of him saying something like "because the game was built to run at 60fps, adding 3D support was easy" and that converting a game that runs at 30fps is more difficult.


Except the game doesn't run at 60 fps. The tech analysis by Digital Foundry revealed that GT5 runs in the mid-40s to lower 50 fps range for most all tracks when in 720 or 1080 mode (but dips lower when other cars appear onscreen). In 3D mode, the framerate drops by half (averaging 22-25 fps) and even drops to nearly 10 fps at one point.

If PD didn't implement 3D, they'd be able to use V-Sync (to fix all the screen tearing), add better textures to all the standard cars, and possibly even have more cars per race.
 
I've got a 3D TV and GT5 is brilliant.Nothing comes out of the screen except the HUD but the cars themselves look 3D within the screen. if you get me
Not worth £1300 though lol
 
Lol at the people who once again are making judgement on 3d when they don't even have a 3d tv, this is no 3d from the past, get your facts straight. I think 3d is amazing on GT5 and is a great little touch to the game. Also what I don't know what 3d are you guys talking about since 3d mode don't activate unless you have a 3dtv.
 
Total waste of time in my opinion, 3D was crap in the 80's, crap in the 90's, and although it been improved, its still crap now.
As ever though, your going to get people who hate it,people who like it and people who are still undecided..

You just dated yourself.. (and me as I recall those crap early 3D fads) :lol: :rofl:

people said the same about:

-vinyl records

-photography

-radio

-cinema/television

-air conditioning

-internet

etc.

Don't be a geezer. It's so mind-bogglingly obvious that even if 3D sucks for the average consumer now, its not going to be long before its a new standard, even if its sitting side by side as opposed to replacing 2D.

3D is not "new" - it is just a rehash of the same stupid visual crap from the last 50 years. There is no new 'standard" - 3D steroscopic "toys" have been around for hundreds of years.

We already see in 3 dimensions, the answer is NOT for us to have to wear 3D glasses but for the television to display a mirror projected holographic image - that way all images produced by the TV are really in 3 dimensional space, not "faked' on the 2D screen.

It is a stupid pointless fad that will be out of fashion by mid 2011 just like every other time 3D appeared as a fad ;)
 
Yes we all know Sony pays PD to make the game the money comes from them but do you think that GT5 would have sold more if it didn't have 3D and maybe just maybe if they didn't have to change the date again do you think it would have sold more?
 
have any of you actually PLAYED THE GAME IN 3D?

and to the OP, i think you have a serious misunderstanding of technology.

1. 3D did not create the "pixel glitch", if you're referring to what I think you are (dynamic shadows, or the smoke->car interaction)
2. you do NOT need HDMI 1.4 to have 3D.
3. What the hell is "2.5D"? How did you even come up with that?
4. How does the 3D feature, which you have not enabled or utilized, made the rest of the game 'buggy'?
 
Sony is already forcing the whole market towards 3d..Watching the world cup in 3D was not bad for some, right ? :D

Anyways, it might be cool to play GT5 in 3d but not everybody has a 3D led yet/at the
moment but i would say at one point the majority will .... People thought that HD was a waste of time when the HD ready tvs came out but then a couple of years later boom most ended up having a Full HD LCD/plasma now right?,

To be clear for some....then the next step is 3d LED

Hd era in steps:

1- HD ready
2- Full HD
3- 3D led Full HD
4- .....Will find out in CES2011
 
Last edited:
Sony is already forcing the whole market towards 3d..Watching the world cup in 3D was not bad for some, right ? :D

Anyways, it might be cool to play GT5 in 3d but not everybody has a 3D led yet/at the
moment but i would say at one point the majority will .... People thought that HD was a waste of time when the HD ready tvs came out but then a couple of years later boom most ended up having a Full HD LCD/plasma now right?,

You dont need to wear glasses to see HD.

/thread
 
Bunch of negative minds in this thread.

I for one have a 3D HDTV so my input is validated as most here.

I have played the game in 3D but i still have not messed around with the settings since i would have to go all the way back into the menu to adjust it.

The 3D in GT5 is OK but not that great, it can improve.

I have time warner cable and we have free documentaries in 3D ( you must have a 3D tv with the glasses). My HDMI in my receiver is not 1.4.

I watched this 1 hour movie which shows the forest, ocean, beaches and mountains etc. This film was shot in like year 2004 or maybe 2002. The 3D was amazing, i even showed it to my friends and they agreed. It feel like we were there in the beach that we can touch the sand castles.

So it depends on how the 3D was made and how well it produces 3D. I am still waiting for nvidia 3d Vision for 3d HDTV's.
 
Don't be a geezer.

Haha, oh man does that word not work in that context. It reminds me of the times I hear Americans reply with "Oi" in response to "Hey". Just isn't right.
 
Lol at the people who once again are making judgement on 3d when they don't even have a 3d tv, this is no 3d from the past, get your facts straight. I think 3d is amazing on GT5 and is a great little touch to the game. Also what I don't know what 3d are you guys talking about since 3d mode don't activate unless you have a 3dtv.

Played it at a Sony Style store that had a whole bunch of 3D stuff. 3D cameras, 3D TVs, 3D games, etc. etc.

I am not impressed...And I played around with all these gadgets for a while!

I won't judge those who buy this stuff, but I can't see myself spending any of my money on what seems like a gimmick.
 
Haha, oh man does that word not work in that context. It reminds me of the times I hear Americans reply with "Oi" in response to "Hey". Just isn't right.

Wasn't trying to sound "british, mate". Geezer as in "old man".
 
I have a Sony 3DTV (46HX903) though it wasn't bought for 3D, it's 3D capable and after paying for the TV, it was a relatively inexpensive upgrade to add the glasses & transmitter. (actually I bought a 3D kit with the TV, and after selling the parts I didn't want/need, it actually lowered the cost of the TV)

I really do think that playing in 3D adds a lot to the game. The sense of speed is better, elevation changes (something GT has always been great at) are more apparent, I feel that I can judge distances better - I'm far less likely to go into the back of another car, find it easier to judge whether or not I can fit through a gap when overtaking, can hit the apex of a turn better.

It also lets me better appreciate the work that went into the car models in the game. Small details that you might have overlooked in 2D stand out in 3D.(the fact that lots of rivets,bolts etc are actual 3D models rather than painted-on textures) Rather than just being a static 2D image, when you watch it in 3D it's like you're looking at a model car and you realise just how much work went into it.


That's not to say that it's perfect though. The framerate takes quite a hit at times, though I can't say it's ever felt like it's been down as low as 20fps. I'd say on average it's more like you're playing a 30fps racer than a 60fps one in 3D, and when you're playing in 3D, framerates seem like less of an issue. I can't really explain why that is. Aliasing can get pretty bad in 3D though. ('jaggies')


The biggest issue with 3D right now though, and this applies to all displays, is crosstalk. The greater the depth is with 3D, the more of it you get, and crosstalk is basically ghost images of what one eye should see in the other. How you set up the game (there are a couple of settings for 3D) determines how much of it there is, and after a while with 3D you do stop noticing it most of the time. You learn to just focus on the 3D image and mostly ignore the crosstalk. Some 3DTVs are better for it than others, but they all suffer from it to some degree. (Panasonic's plasmas have the least crosstalk right now, but are not really suited to gaming in my opinion)

It's so bad with the in-car view that it's basically unplayable in 3D for me though. (but I never use it anyway) The other views aren't too bad, but for some reason the in-car view is just awful.

If anyone is playing in 3D, I would recommend changing from the default settings as well. Turning up parallax to 10 maximises the amount of depth (though I would use lower numbers if you use in-car view) and somewhere between 70-85 seems best for convergence depending on the view you use. I have settled on 85 for now, which will put the convergence point right on the back of the car in the exterior view which seems best, and keeps almost all the depth inside the screen rather than having things pop out at you. (though particles like dirt/smoke/grass getting kicked up do sometimes come out of the screen a bit) I really hope that polyphony add the ability to change the parallax & convergence settings from the pause menu in a future update rather than having to quit out to the options screen.


I don't know that I would recommend someone rush out and buy a 3DTV just to play the game in 3D, and I've yet to see anything that convinces me that it's worthwhile to watch films/television in 3D but if you have a 3D capable screen, or are looking to buy a new TV and it's not much extra money to get a 3D capable set, I think it's definitely worthwhile for games.

The technology is certainly at an early stage right now. I do think it will become more prevalent in the next few years, and hopefully improve quite a bit as well. (I can't wait until 3D OLED displays are widely available and affordable)

I will say though, that it took me a while to get used to playing in 3D and it's not something that a quick 10 minute demo in a store is going to give a good impression of. (especially if the game is at the default settings with a low amount of depth and the convergence set far too low) I also don't play in 3D all the time - sometimes I just want a more laid back experience and don't bother with it, just like I will sometimes use the dual shock even though I have a DFGT wheel in here, and how I don't wear my prescrption glasses every waking minute.
I wonder if it was a waste of time to make GT5 in 3D cause they way I see, people really don't care about this feature at all, people won't be willing to spend the extra money for a new TV and set of glasses and not only that, I personally think Sony really forced PD to make GT5 in 3D and to be quite honest with you I think it made the game very bug due to have a 3D mode. am I the only one? I mean the time that they wasted making GT5 in 3D could have gone into making the standard cars better. I still think there is a major glitch with GT5 due to having 3D mode, the pixels on the cars are bad at times.
It's relatively trivial to add 3D to a game, especially if you just use a 'brute force' method and simply have the game render another viewpoint without making any other changes... which seems to be exactly what GT5 does. As far as I can tell, the graphics are basically the same in 3D (textures, car models etc. all kept the same) which suggests that it didn't take up too many resources to add to the game.

If they had spent a long time optimising the game for 3D to get it running near 60fps all the time, then it would be another matter. (and I personally think it would have been worth it if they did)
You dont need to wear glasses to see HD.

/thread
I'm pretty sure the number of people needing vision correction is over 50% in most countries now. (I seem to recall reading numbers over 70% in some places) A large number of people do need to wear glasses to see HD.

I can't say how good or bad other 3D glasses are, but I have no problem wearing the Sony ones for extended periods of time. They're big, but they're relatively light for their size, and the weight is distributed evenly which helps a lot.

It's much more noticeable going from wearing no glasses at all to wearing my prescription ones than it is going from wearing glasses to putting the 3D ones on top.
 
GT5 in 3D, waste of time, yes or no?

Answer: Yes

I have 3D tv, and tested it only 1 time, just to see. And then turn off 3D and I'm happy with 2D, 3D hurt the eyes for long exposure.
 
3D is not "new" - it is just a rehash of the same stupid visual crap from the last 50 years. There is no new 'standard" - 3D steroscopic "toys" have been around for hundreds of years.

)
except that its not the same as what you say its rehashing...

If the technology hadn't improved, it would have never have been "rehashed". There is an enormous difference in performance and eye strain from cheap red-blue stereoscopy to current and forthcoming techniques.

Like I said, just because it WILL become a standard, it won't replace anything, it will stand beside it. So there really no reason to get all defensive about 2D as its not going anywhere...neither is radio. That's just it. Its starting to reach its limit, there's no need for super high resolutions greater than 1080p for most people, as they wont have the space for a TV that can actually make use of the higher resolutions. The only way to advance, for better for worse, is to stop faking depth of field.
 
This reminds me of GT4 when they squeezed in the HD option when relatively few people had HD TV's. Those of us with SD TV's had to watch those headache inducing jittering rolling starts at the beginning of every race.


UGHHHHHHHH...THE PAIN.

I remember this well, it seems like it was so long ago... which it was.

Thanks for the 8 year hiatus PD, really impressed with what you have done in nearly a decade :yuck:
 
except that its not the same as what you say its rehashing...

If the technology hadn't improved, it would have never have been "rehashed". There is an enormous difference in performance and eye strain from cheap red-blue stereoscopy to current and forthcoming techniques.

Like I said, just because it WILL become a standard, it won't replace anything, it will stand beside it. So there really no reason to get all defensive about 2D as its not going anywhere...neither is radio. That's just it. Its starting to reach its limit, there's no need for super high resolutions greater than 1080p for most people, as they wont have the space for a TV that can actually make use of the higher resolutions. The only way to advance, for better for worse, is to stop faking depth of field.

Its a fad.

The idea of casual TV that requires special headgear that can and will get damaged, broken and fail has no chance of success.

Over the years I have tried and dabbled in all sorts of 3D gadgets for TV and PC's - even spent silly money of "virtual reality" headsets and goggles and video card addons and other gizmos ands doodads... they all looked great for a week until the novelty wore off.

You walk into a room turn on the telly plop down and watch a movie/TV show. No special prep, tools or equipment needed.

3D with special head gear is a fad, and until the display device takes care of all the processing and presentation that is where it will remain.

;)
 
Last edited:
I just played gt5 3d the other day on my friends brand new plasma with $200 glasses and it was horrible. I had a hard time not laughing. If you're a hardcore GT fan you will never play 3d by yourself.
I will say it has a cool factor for about 5 mins then you're dieing to take the glasses off
 
I actually think Stereoscopic 3D is more realistic than real life 3D
 
Its great they made GT5 a 3D game... when people finally upgrade to hardware that can play in 3D they will realize ITS NOT AS CRAP AS THEY THINK. I used to be on the sideline about 3D until one day i decided to buy a 120hz monitor and the Nvidia 3D vision kit... For the first week of use it was pretty much jaw on the floor mind blown kind of stuff. After a week or 2 you can play hours on end with no strain on your eyes... Its just the same as playing in '2D'. Batman/Fallout in 3D are absolutely incredible. I regularly play BC2 and Black OPs in 3D and enjoy both more in 3D than 2D. GT5 isnt the most impressive title to be displayed in 3D but nonetheless its quite enjoyable and i would rather play it in 3D than 2D since i can.

I hear so many people say 3D is a joke and i read in forums people saying its useless but im yet to find a single person who has purchased a Nvidia 3D Vision kit and not loved it to death. Also most people quote money as being the reason why its 'not good'... If you cant afford it and haven't spent extensive time with it dont knock it, grow the hell up. CD's were considered a fad once as were color TVs. I would rather have 3D than AA/AF/Any other graphics enhancing feature as it brings you into the world more than anything else i have ever experienced.
 
no, It was a good waste of money!!! I am addicted!!!
 
If PD didn't implement 3D, they'd be able to use V-Sync (to fix all the screen tearing), add better textures to all the standard cars, and possibly even have more cars per race.

What evidence is there that says any of this is true? Is the 3D mode not separate from the "2D" mode? People keep wanting to make excuses for why the game isn't perfect. This newest one is it isn't perfect because they "wasted" time adding 3D, while no one knows except PD exactly how much time that really took. Again, I've seen quotes from game developers saying 3D support is fairly trivial to add. I bet adding 3D support to Killzone 3 won't impact the graphics of the game in 2D... it'll still probably look better than Killzone 2. If they purposely gimped the "2D" part of the game so that 2D didn't look miles better than when the game runs in 3D than yea, that's pretty retarded.

I think the simplest explanation of why the game doesn't look like what we all wanted is that they maxed out the PS3 and we've seen all that it can do. It's probably one thing to have awesome shadows, awesome textures for all cars, awesome backgrounds, awesome lighting, etc. in tech demos, but probably a whole other thing to finally package everything into one game. If PD is at fault for anything it'd be showing us what's possible to do on the PS3 in demos before realizing that it can't be pulled off in a final release. All of that is just my opinion.
 
Back