NVidia 3D Vision Review

I'm quite the prolific blogger, aren't I?  July, December, pretty snazzy if you ask me.

On a whim, I bought a new monitor and 3D glasses, so here's my review.

This be the monitor I bought:




It's a Viewsonic VX2268WM 22-Inch 120 Hz 3D-Ready Monitor with 1680x1050 Resolution and Stereo Speakers - Black.  


I was actually most excited about the refresh rate and brightness, and it hasn't disappointed.  My Dell 19 inch flat panel that I replaced was no slouch, but this monitor just "feels" smoother, kinda like those disturbingly clear TV's at CostCo where the blockbuster movies look fake because they're so clear.  It's funny, people spend absurd amounts of moneys to get those 120/240 hz tv's and to me movies look more fake.  I'm sure it's something due to the algorithms they use to smooth the speed, but I get pleasure out of seeing people spend gobs of money to get something that ends up looking unnatural.


But on games, that smooth motion is pretty fantastic.  I'll come back to this thought after the 3D portion of the review.


To get 3D, I had to buy this little kit:

At $99 it was a fairly good deal.  I immediately threw out the game code as I hear the Duke Nukem game is garbage, installation was amazingly easy (USB plug and play, if you have a modern nVidia card you're good to go on drivers).  If you're running ATI graphics no need to apply, it won't work.

Glasses on, fired up Battlefield 3, and

Holy cow.  The only time I've been impressed with 3D in a movie was Avatar, despite the terrible acting/plot. The feeling was the same here, that "this isn't a gimmick, I can really focus in and out on different things" feeling.  It took a good 15 minutes to really get used to, aiming down a gun at someone and remembering to focus on them vs. my iron sights was odd.  I absolutely love playing co-op and campaign in 3D now.

Skyrim is equally amazing, things just look much more real with the added depth.  Throwing lightning at an enemy in all 3 D's is fantastic.

HOWEVER, I find myself not using 3D at all when playing BF3 multiplayer anymore.  The multiplayer relies on UI and text much more than co-op or campaign.  With the attention required to that, I find it harder on my eyes to play, you look out "into" the world while playing, but have to look closer (12" from your face) to read anything.  Try reading your monitor then looking out the window then back at the monitor then back out the window every 2 seconds.  Gives you a bit of a headache, doesn't it?

The 3D also taxes the graphics card a bit more than normal.  And by a bit I mean up to twice as much.  Frame rates roughly halve on the more intense parts, and still drop some on faster scenes.  In Skyrim I don't notice it, but in BF3 I can definitely feel a bit of a stutter.

Part of that could be that you're also running at 60hz in 3D (60 for each eye) vs. 120 when doing 2D.  The smooth action helps a lot in multiplayer BF3.

All in all, if you've got $200 to toss around (monitor upgrade required for the brightness and faster cycle speed plus the nVidia 3d hardware) I recommend trying it out.  If you like it like I do it's well worth it.  Otherwise go back to petting your cats and reading AOL News.

Game Betas - The new "demos" (and why they're a terrible idea)

A little background: I'm basing my comments off my experience playing a few game betas on Playstation Network. Perhaps that alone makes me biased, but as long as we're all biased together, we can make the world a better place.

My first real experience with a game beta, as far as I can remember, was playing the MAG beta. I remember popping in and thinking "hmm, this is kinda fun! There are way more players than I'm used to, the battlefields are massive, there's potential." Something in the back of my mind squashed the critical thoughts I had, things like how the controls felt "wrong" somehow, and how the games seemed more often than not to stalemate over one or 2 control points. Because of MAG's squad focused play, I tended to respawn in the same spot, or with my squadmates, always around the same control flag area. Sometimes 45 minutes would go by with an eventual win by one side or the other because they defended through then entire clock or team's "lives" or whatever. The effect of this was that a player like me had just played for 45 minutes, in the same game area, with the same people.

Pictured: a scene that would absolutely never actually occur in MAG.

So even though MAG was this massive game, the game's setup funneled play into zones where certain squads focused, and it ended up being just like playing a normal shooter game. With poor controls. And lots of lag. And lackluster visuals. And absolutely zero nudity.

I forgave a lot of this and kept playing, getting excited for the launch of the game, trying to convince myself that IT WOULD BE BETTER, because of how much beta testing they'd done.

Then it came out. Reviews echoed exactly what I had felt playing the Beta. It hadn't seemed like the developers had been taking anything from the playtesting, the only changes seemed to be bugfixes and small meaningless "balance" changes. I realized I'd been bamboozled. The whole beta process was basically a giant demo, the end game being no different, just with more levels. You know, like a demo.

In the last couple of years it seems like a lot of the big game studios have gone the "super extra exclusive beta" route, allowing everyone and their grandmothers into second rate bug ridden quagmires of mediocrity. I believe they're trying to build hype for their game, but to me all it does is expose the problems with it earlier enough to dissuade anyone from pre-ordering except for 13 year olds who will pre-order any game with a gun plastered on the cover. Hence the multi billion dollar video game industry.

In this lowly blogger's opinion, the time and effort that goes into a beta would be much better spent just making a better game. In MY day, games succeeded or failed based on how fun they were to play. I don't remember a bit of marketing/demos/betas/or cocaine and hooker promo parties for Perfect Dark, but it still stands out as a beacon of happiness in an otherwise dismal fog of middle school memories.

It appears this has once again turned into nothing but a rant against marketing, a theme I tend to be gravitating towards lately.

Coming soon: if Apple had released Google+...

My thoughts on advertising.

So when commercials come on, I experience what can only be compared with road rage (or indigestion). My heart pumps, my eyes narrow to slits, and before long I'm throwing a tantrum that would make a 3 year old stand and applaud. And then mess themselves. "HOW DARE YOU INTERRUPT MY GOLDEN GIRLS MARATHON?!??? I'M GOING TO GO TO WAL-MART RIGHT NOW TO DESTROY EVERY BOTTLE OF FEBREEZE I CAN GET MY HANDS ON!!" Luckily, once they're over I rarely remember anything at all, and always seem to end up with extra air freshener the next time I shop.

I think most of what bothers me with said commercials are the fact that they're 90% lies, exaggerations, and emotional manipulations. I'm told the only way to get attractive girls to make google (©) eyes at me is to drink cheap beer, and that every white guy in any office setting is invariably the office dunce: always selecting the expensive service, or doing things the hard or clumsy way. I'd call racism/sexism on it if it weren't true. Then there's the classic cool vs. uncool message in advertising. If you use our products then you're in, but if you don't then you'll be bullied by the cool jocks. Nothing illustrates this concept of advertising lately better than the Mac vs. PC ads. An actor that Apple thought was hip looking squares off against Mr. Nerd. They have a short and very productive discussion on the topic of deep operating system mechanics, and come to the realization that Mac is the way to go, unless you're still living with your parents. Also, I think there was a bit of an off-screen romance developing, did anyone else pick up on that vibe?

Pictured: The original PC guy. They had to replace him when he asked for more burritos in his contract.

Since most of these commercials are so distorted or just downright bewildering, it would seem that an O'Reilly type is needed, to cut through the BS and create a No-Spin zone.

Today, you get the lovely service of my advertisement interpretation, free of charge. (also free of any educational or entertainment value for a limited time only).

AD: Apple says if you don't have an iPhone, you don't have the "appstore", the ability to use your phone as a boarding pass, or pay for your coffee with your phone.

Translation: We as a company ignore the fact that there is any competition. We'll even go so far as to use examples of things that Android and Windows Mobile phones can do instead of actual iOS exclusive apps. We enjoy baiting the fanboy wars, then sitting back and watching the Youtube broadsides go back and forth, while sipping on our wine coolers as we get manicures.

AD: Motorola, in their 1984 themed Superbowl 2011 commercial, showed us that by using the Xoom you'd be separating yourself from the pack of white earbud sporting cult themed joggers out there.

Translation: The best way to rage against the machine is to show a device that looks almost like its main competitor, and show an everyman doing things on it that can also be done on the iPad. Editing movies, using maps on the go, sending emails, all of this somehow makes said everyman to be breaking the mold, playing by his own rules, and in the process woo a moderately attractive cultish jogger, presumably so they can go buy black hoodies, black earbuds, and totally rebel.

Next up, Motorola again, with their Droid line of marketing. Specifically, I'm referring to the commercials where a guy will start to watch a movie on his little 4 inch screen, and nanobots somehow invade his eye socket and start to assimilate him, Borg style. Shortly before his tragic and extremely painful death, he looks like quite a badass, which I suppose is the enticement to buy the phones? If I remember right, Zooey Deschanel and Jeff Bridges had an intimate scene somewhere in there as well.

Translation: well, I kind of wrote my translation into the description above. Honestly, it's been a while since I've seen them, and so I'll just wrap it up by saying that every tech company needs to take a deep breath, re-evaluate what they're trying to say with their ads, then try to fornicate themselves with pine cones.

First Post!!!1!!1

Welcome one, welcome all, to yet another tech blog. I felt there was a bit of a niche I could fill. I've been following technology company and news for years now, what with being a tech obsessed geek and all, and I've noticed that the oft-mentioned "reality distortion field" doesn't merely follow Apple around, but has permeated the entire industry. I'm aware that the companies are in competition, and the underlying need to sell product and hype your stuff while bashing theirs is fundamental, but that doesn't mean I can't poke fun, dammit. A lot of amazing hypocrisy goes on, and it will be my duty (family guy would make a joke here) to point it out.

So without further ado, let's dive into the magical world of the technology companies, where little devices can be "magical" and every other company makes gear fit for nothing but swine (or John Hodgman).

Executives to me are like circus presenters. They're supposed to draw attention to the chick on the tightrope so that people won't see the elephant smothering the midget under a mountain of excrement. As long as no one sees it no one gets sued, right?

On a related note, here's my favorite latest example of a lovely exec trumpeting an ideal that their company follows, then pulling a 180 less than a year later.

Andy Rubin Oct 2010 (via Twitter):

the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

Pictured: my favorite images search result for "Open Source"

I keep trying that command and it's not working for some reason, although maybe that's because I'm trying to get Honeycomb source code (the new Tablet version of Android OS that Google is not open sourcing). Also, I'm just putting it in Notepad and dropping it in my startup folder. That's how scripts work, right? Someone tried to teach me once, but they were using something called Lynn-Ex, and I'll never switch from beautiful beautiful Windows Vista.

On a related note, at last year's google keynote one of the presenters talked about the horror of a draconian company that allowed one man to control everything. I think he was talking about Newman's Own food company.

Just recently it's been announced that Google "is now demanding that content partnerships and OS tweaks get the blessing of Andy Rubin before proceeding."

Source: Businessweek, @arubin, the YouTubes, your mom.