Printable View
LittleBigPlanet 2 will not be compatible with 3D, it has emerged.
Speaking to a user on the PlayStation Blog, SCEA marketing manager Mark Valledor confirmed that it will not support the feature.
Earlier this year Sony announced that the game would be part of its 3D lineup, but has not mentioned it since.
Source: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/n...gplanet-2.html
eh dosnt matter lbp2 in 3d in my opinion might suck a destroy some levels so i dont see the point in 3d lbp2.
I didn't even consider it to be 3d in the first place. can't see what it would add to the game anyway.
I'm sure the 4 people who own a 3D capable TV and are interested in LBP 2 will be very disappointed.
There was never an official announcement that "Little Big Planet 2 will support 3d", however there was a video in which Alex Evans, I believe, said that there had been some testing done with 3d in LBP2 and that it looked quite cool, but it was nothing more than just that; tests.
Don't be too bummed. As you've seen in other games, 3d drastically cuts down on the amount of stuff you can have happening on screen at once due to the fact that the PS3 has to calculate everything twice (not a perfect explanation, but it's what I've heard before.) LBP2 already pushes the hardware pretty hard, and putting 3d in would mean either a graphical cut or a huge thermo drop.
However, I would not be all too surprised if 3d support was added later in the game's lifespan.
On a similar note, I believe people have been experimenting with using red and blue holographic material in the attempt to create the old red-blue 3d effect using the old glasses. Just something to keep you're eye on.
Eh. It's not like it was to make a huge difference anyways. *puts glasses on* ......I don't get it...... *takes glasses off* *walks away*
I remember hearing about someone who got the chance to play an early version of LBP2 and they were amazed at how much it added in terms of depth and defining layers and whatnot.
It would've been a neat feature for those with 3DTVs, but I'm sure it means nothing to most people lol.
I really hope the 3D gimmick dies altogether.
It don't need to calculate everything twice, for example physic can be calculated once for both eyes. Also if there be something cutted due 3D it only will happen if 3D is on, for example in GT5, game switches to 1080p to 720p but only if we got 3D turned on
3D is gimmnick? For me is cool thing and it's just one step to make holograms, TV manufactures already thinking to eliminate glasses. Either way you will end up with 3DTV sooner or later same as people ending up with HDTV
In Gran Tourismo 3 or 4 (can't remember which) on ps2, there was supposedly a feature where you could have three tv's displaying the front view, and the right and left side views so you could almost get a sort of virtual reality thing going. The catch was that you needed 3 ps2's running the game in system link to pull it off. I'm not sure if the feature made it into the final game (it was something I read about before the game came out), but regardless, it demonstrates that you have to get that extra video processing power from somewhere. In a lot of splitscreen games, detail is reduced, sometimes severely, to accomplish the screen splitting. So yeah, adding a second camera would mean you'd need to get the image processing power from somewhere: resolution or detail or something would need to be compromised, which is one reason that so few games on ps3/360 have split screen support (the other reason is that devs realized that by omitting split screen, you and all your friends will each have to buy a system and a copy of the game to play multiplayer and this way they won't have to code multiple levels of detail).Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_murk
As for the 3d gimmick, I'm all for it... but no way I'm buying one of those TVs with the $100 glasses. I'm no expert on display technology, but it seems to me that active shutter glasses were the worst possible way of implementing 3d. The 3DS uses double horizontal resolution with each image only visible from a specific angle. Obviously, that wouldn't work for a tv (only one person in the room would be able to see the 3d) but I would think a similar approach could be accomplished by using double horizontal resolution viewable from all angles and using polarized glasses. LCD screens are already polarized, so all that would need to be done is to turn the polarization of every other column 90 degrees and bam. Polarized glasses similar to those in theatres would work now and they'd probably only cost around $3-5 each.
There may be reasons this is impractical: doubling the horizontal resolution of an hdtv might be quite a bit more difficult than I make it sound, and there may be a reason that the lcd manufacturing process doesn't allow polarizing every other column perpendicular to each other, so if I'm completely wrong with this idea, forgive my ignorance.
I personally don't really like the 3D we seem to be getting everywhere these days. I've seen a movie in 3D and it looked pretty cool at some parts but at the same time it was harder to focus, which isn't a good thing at all. Most of the scenes were way too blurry. It may be because I need glasses to see perfectly but judging from that I don't really want 3D until it works so that there is nothing to complain about it.
I'm pretty sure 3D games and movies are pretty much the same after all, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well I dont have 3D TV so.... yea :p
PS3 using 3D over HDMI and sends 2 frame for each eye unchange, what way it will be displayed depends on TV it self. So one day there might be glasses-less TVs and they will be compatible with PS3.
I talked to Alex in October and he told me they werent making lbp 3D. :p I never knew it was even discussed! Alex can't see 3D properly so if he does the programming for it people have to tell him if the code is working. He said they might make a 3D game one day. He also said that developers use little tricks for 3D to work. FOr example, Killzone 3 had a lower picture quality. Alex said that if they made a 3D game he would eliminate the depth of field. That just sounds odd to me, but at least it shows he has thought about it! :D
-_- Really? They were actually considering to make LBP 3D?? That's Non-sense... Its a 2D game... What was that post by Silverleon like 3 Months ago about this anyway? I recall it covered it very well.
@Foofles, yes, 3D is just really annoying now, its not worth switching over too, and considering I already wear Glasses anyway (There Cool BTW :p) its kind of hard to wear the funky Looking things they give you... Really Glad they didn't even put it in the 3D category. :p
3D > Move.
But it would be impractical.
Of course they'd eliminate depth of field when using 3D, 3D will be your depth of field!
I agree with it being hard to see the effect. I remember seeing a few movies in 3D, including Avatar, and didn't really get much out of it. The effect is only noticeable in a few instances and the whole movie just seemed blurrier since the cameras already imparted a depth of field onto the scene without the 3D effect. Poop.
When we get displays with true depth (which do exist in very early prototype form) then the 3D will make sense. And it will be implemented entirely differently than this little split image hack. Yes, it's a hack. It depends on shortcomings in human vision to work.
The whole stereoscopic "3D" thing is a stupid gimmick and looks meh to boot. I'll take a sharper image over 2 or 3 truly apparent layers of "3D" depth any day.
How would 3D even work for LBP2? It makes no sense to me.
It would be cool, just put a blue and red holo together and you get a nice 3D effect. :)
But it doesn't matter, since i don't have a 3D tv..
Who wants to watch the TV for hours with those stupid 3D glasses? Let the 3D TV's without the need of glasses come out and I'm sure everyone will be a little bit more interested.