this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2026
137 points (96.6% liked)
RetroGaming
30741 readers
117 users here now
Vintage gaming community.
Rules:
- Be kind.
- No spam, AI slop, or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nice, I didn't keep them.
But did you use wicked3d glasses? ๐
No, but I did buy (and still have) a GeForce 3 that came with 3D glasses (proper stereoscopic active glasses).
ASUS V8200 Deluxe, good oc.
Dang, I was happy 25 years ago.
Nice! Did that work with all games too? (in general, not perfectly)
Yes, it was api & driver level iirc (you adjusted the "difference between the eyes"/two different fov points), basically anything polygonal 3D worked I think.
But your PC also needed to produce twice the fps (for each eye a separate set ... so if your monitor could do 120Hz (I had a Samsung 959NF) & your card could do 120fps you got 60 frames per eye), ... so there was a limited number of games that had a playable fps even with a top pc (with home-made water loop!).
And this is "3D effect within the physical monitor" (unlike VR goggles that fake the 3D perception from close to your eyeballs) & most games dont really have 3D objects displayed close to you, eg in fps like Quake 2 the gun was noticeably 3D, but the rest (correctly) much less simply bcs of the fov/the distance.
Also CRTs weren't extremely bright & the glasses (with the LCDs "open") were still kinda dim so it was like playing with uncomfortable sunglasses.
Fun as a gimmick, still remember it fondly.
Yeah, the shutter hz/fps halving. I was on the 60 -> 30 route I think, which was still bearable to me, at least at that time.
But all in all until now I accepted that "3D" output will always be niche for a lot of reasons. But it pops up every 10 years or so.