Following recent comments from Ninja Theory that 3D tech will be limited on the PS3, it should perhaps come as no surprise that the recently reported "3D treatment" for Killzone 2 will not be coming. According to The Gamer Access, who originally reported the story, the news came about as the result of a misunderstanding.
"Unfortunately, our feature did not make it clear that the 2D game footage was included for demonstration purposes only," explains Sony. "We apologize for the erroneous inference that 3D versions of LBP, Wipeout HD, Killzone 2, Gran Turismo 5 or Super Stardust HD are in production."
So there you have it. Of course, it seemed very odd that Killzone 2 would be coming in 3D so soon, especially considering how good that game looks. It would have required significant visual downgrades or an entirely new system to work properly. Sorry if any of you were hyped for that, but it just goes to show that skepticism is king when it comes to this 3D fad.
Killzone 2 Not Going 3D [The Gamer Access]
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
38 comments | showing # 1 to 38
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
11:00 AM on 04.04.2010
| 
FSDGSFHSFD
And I hope your explanation isn't about how it's only visually simulating 3D because that would be some pedantic bullshit right there.
Haha, you are so funny and clever.
you are talking about 3d graphics in terms of how we view games now.
a zbuffer is not used for 3d gaming with glasses.
Secondly, they could add red/blue or active shutter3D instantly. NVidia's hardware does it right now. Just by starting a game on my PC (as long as it uses DirectX) any NVidia card of the 8x00 family or newer goes to red/blue 3D because it's done in the hardware. It's a simply check-box in the driver.
If I wanted to fork out for a 120 Hz monitor, I could use their active shutter technology and forego the red/blue. But games like "Microsoft Flight Simulator X" look incredible, even in red/blue as long as you have glasses of the proper tint.
So, I say it again, get over yourselves, especially because 3D is optional, not required.
So, this 3D fad is too big to fail? Funny how things that fit that description often fail.
Theatrical-style 3D is nothing more than a glitzy gimmick used to lure the gullible into the purchase of new television sets, and the affluent into purchasing movie tickets for 15 dollars a head.
If anybody needs to get over themselves, it's the electronics corporations who believe they can shovel any old crap at the consumer and said consumer will purchase the item given the proper marketing hype. Then again, maybe they're correct in this assumption.
So now I'm curious why you're so against 3D. Is it because you don't think you can afford it, it's not going to be available on your platform of choice, or because your hero Jim Sterling told you to hate it? Or do you only have one eye?
Just because something is "sweet ass" as you put it, does not mean it isn't a gimmick.
Not to come off that I hate 3d in general and don't think we should progressing to it, but the fact is all this news is just developers jumping on the bandwagon. And who could blame them? Sell a copy in 3d for a "premium price" (just like theaters do with 3-d movies) and cha-ching! extra cash for a tiny bit of work. It doesn't change the actual game or provide anything beyond a potential boost in enjoyment. It is no different then motion in terms of gimmick-ness
I do not experience 3D as being special and think its benefits are marginal (a moving pop-up book) while its drawbacks are numerous (reduced apparent brightness, focus on 3D over other gameplay/cinematic elements, increased development time, stupid accessories required for an optimal experience, etc..).
I believe this current 3D technology has its place (just as the waggle technology has its place), but many industry executives would have you believe it's the *only* place for future game development and home entertainment.
This marketing hype may damage the industry if it forces smaller developers out of the picture in favour of larger developers and publishers who can afford to cater to the latest gimmick.
In addition, the limits of this current 3D technology place restraints on gameplay, reduce apparent brightness if used with glasses and increase the cost of development as well as the minimum specs of a machine needed to run the game. Those who desire to incorporate the technology into their games should realise the drawbacks and create a compelling reason to build a game around it rather than just throwing 3D in as an afterhthought.
There's a reason no one stands around staring at 3D pictures in books. Optical illusions are fun for awhile, but they tend to get old rather quickly.