You don't need a special TV for this kind of 3D. The two images are being displayed at the same time in separate color channels. But the quality is in no way comparable to frame sequential 3D (which requires a new 3DTV).
You have a hard time with it because anaglyph 3D is completely subpar. It messes up the colors and has tons of ghosting.
Yup, this is pretty hilarious. They discovered anaglyph images. ZOMG! Breakthrough! Can be watched on any TV but looks like azz.
I'll stick with Nvidia 3D Vision, thank you.
None of these seem to have motion actuators though like the D-Box GPH-120
I don't understand that whole trophy and achievements stuff, but what stops people from selling their game? You lose out on a trophy? How is that important? Is it worth something?
I'm certainly not going to buy me one of these plasticky XBoxes. It wouldn't fit in too well:
http://img22.imageshack.us/...
This game will be so awesome. I'll play through the first Mafia again right before Mafia 2 comes out.
So the PS3 costs less than $100 now?
The Heavenly Sword screenshots posted above are hilarious. Yup, clearly a similar level of detail and fidelity. That's the joke of the day.
'nuff said.
The article contains a number of strange statements.
"ATI is dominating the high-end GPU market"
Last I heard Nvidia Quadro cards had about 90% market share vs. 10% ATI FireGL. I believe it was Adobe who mentioned it when they announced that CS5 would only be GPU-accelerated by Nvidia.
You bought what, a gaming LAPTOP? Laptops are for productivity on the road, not for gaming. A mediocre 17 inch screen and a crappy keyboard don't exactly give you a good gaming experience.
I'd rather have kept the console to be honest.
While Epic's stance does seem a bit strange, a certain shift back to the PC will invariably occur as we approach the next console generation.
When PS4 and 720 come out in maybe two years, the user base of those new consoles will be tiny. And the games on the old consoles will look very out-dated. Which leaves the PC to step up to the plate.
This article makes no sense whatsoever. The PS3 has brought Blu-ray into peoples' homes, a format that is vastly superior to DVD.
And now we learn that resolution doesn't matter? If gameplay is what counts in games then the storyline is what counts in movies, right? So who needs HD? In fact, who needs DVD? You can follow the storyline on a video tape just as well. In fact, who needs color? You can follow the storyline in black/white just fine.
I stopped reading there as well. That's complete nonsense, and when the game is out and comparisons with Crysis 1 pop up, these journalists will eat their words.
I totally agree. I played Mass Effect 2 maxed out with 16x AA at 1920x1200, and the pre-rendered cutscenes were very blurry while the ingame scenes were extremely crisp.
Huge difference, made me wonder why on earth they pre-rendered when it ended up looking so much worse than ingame.
I game either in a fat leather armchair on a 30 inch monitor or on a leather couch on an 80 inch front projection. I've got PCs hooked up to both, and I don't own consoles.
That's hilarious. Do you even how the Cell processor works? It has more in common with a GPU than with a CPU. And modern GPUs smack the PS3 Cell silly in terms of raw computing power. Oh, and by "modern GPU" I mean anything above $100. Not $1000.
It's been quite a while since I bought a physical copy. Steam is so much more convenient.