3D is universally reviled online, but IRL people seem to dig it...

[BD2003]

You don't need to go very far to find a video game blogger or journalist who thinks 3D is a stupid gimmick that adds nothing to games. Many take every opportunity to slam it, or otherwise distance themselves from it even when commenting that it works well. Trailing not too far behind will be dozens of commenters in the same bandwagon, and it doesn't seem any more popular here either.

I'm the only person I know with a proper 3d setup, and of course everyone wants to check it out when they come over. Most are ambivalent or intrigued beforehand. I show them black ops and gt5 in 3d. And every single person has declared then and there that they're buying one as soon as they get the chance.

So wheres the disconnect? My friends are seriously average gamers, Im the tech nerd whos the odd man out. Although we're all of the age where we could afford it if we wanted it, so "it's stupid cause I can't have it" isn't an issue. Are the 3d hatred just a really vocal minority? Anyone else out there really having a good time with this stuff like me? I've been blown away by what I've seen so far.

Honestly, it's confusing to me. I see in 3d in real life, I want my games to be in 3d as well. By and large, the few games we have now in native 3d on the console pull it off pretty well, and this is just the beginning. The 3ds is really going to lower the barrier to entry. Is that going to be enough to stop the hate?

 

[artemicion]

I don't know anybody who "hates" 3D (except maybe the small percentage of people who get nauseous from 3D), most people just don't think it's worth it.

Admittedly, I've never gamed in 3D, but I don't have any plans to purchase a 3D set-up. I don't "hate" 3D per se, but I've seen it in movies, and I think of it as a "kind-of-cool-but-I've-got-a-million-other-things-to-buy-with-my-money" kind of thing. Opportunity cost and whatnot. Maybe the 3DS will change my mind.

 

[R Nilla]

I saw Tron: Legacy in 3D and I thought it was pretty cool, but I'm not about to invest in the technology for home use. I don't think 3D glasses are here to stay and I can't help but think the polarized glasses detract from the color accuracy of whatever media you are viewing. It's a neat effect but I'm fine with 2D and don't think 3D is the next step. There are plenty of films and experiences that I don't think stand to benefit at all from 3D.

I'd be interested in checking out some 3D games but 3D gaming is in its infancy. I will definitely be checking out the 3DS though.

Honestly, it's confusing to me. I see in 3d in real life, I want my games to be in 3d as well

This statement is confusing to me. The way 3D is used in games and movies is not at all representative of how we perceive 3D in real life.

 

[Thraxen]

I don't know anyone IRL that's even interested honestly. And any time I'm at Best Buy or somewhere else that has a 3D display set up there's usually no one there. 3D does have that immediate cool factor when you're just taking a quick look at it, but I think the fervor dies down for most people when they look at the prices of the TVs, consider having to wear the glasses all the time, and see the lack of compelling content.

As artemicion said, I don't think many people truly "hate" 3D, I think most just aren't that keen on its current implementation. Battery powered glasses are just lame. Passive glasses in the home may improve things some, but I don't think 3D really has a chance at mainstream adoption until good autostereoscopic displays hit the general consumer market.

 

[BD2003]

This statement is confusing to me. The way 3D is used in games and movies is not at all representative of how we perceive 3D in real life.

Sure, it's not volumetric where you could get up, walk around and see the side of something, but it's far more representative than flat 2d. You'd have to literally be walking around with an eyepatch for that to be representative. Stereoscopic is at least a step forward from that, I'm sure we'll get to holographic/volumetric in time.

Some find the 3d effect jarring at first, but after playing through black ops in 3d, going back to 2d was equally jarring. Everything was so flat, it was like looking at a painting vs looking out a window.

 

[Thraxen]

Some find the 3d effect jarring at first, but after playing through black ops in 3d, going back to 2d was equally jarring. Everything was so flat, it was like looking at a painting vs looking out a window.

Heh... I have issues with the diorama effect when watching 3D. Rather than appearing as if I'm looking out a window, I sometimes get the feeling I'm looking at a diorama and everything is tiny. It sort ruins the epic feel of movies when that happens. It usually only last few a seconds, but it's certainly jarring.

 

[BD2003]

I don't know anyone IRL that's even interested honestly. And any time I'm at Best Buy or somewhere else that has a 3D display set up there's usually no one there. 3D does have that immediate cool factor when you're just taking a quick look at it, but I think the fervor dies down for most people when they look at the prices of the TVs, consider having to wear the glasses all the time, and see the lack of compelling content.

As artemicion said, I don't think many people truly "hate" 3D, I think most just aren't that keen on its current implementation. Battery powered glasses are just lame. Passive glasses in the home may improve things some, but I don't think 3D really has a chance at mainstream adoption until good autostereoscopic displays hit the general consumer market.

I mostly agree on that. Most people I know are generally ambivalent, don't care enough to pay yet, but when it's show to them they really like it. The content is sorely lacking at this point, and the implementation could be better, but I'm not holding my breath on glasses free. The glasses don't bother me, but I already wear glasses, and I dont plan on watching socially in 3d.

It's just that contrast with the really vocal negativity I see online that's strange to me. I swear I think I may literally be the only person on the Internet willing to stand up for it.

 

[BD2003]

Heh... I have issues with the diorama effect when watching 3D. Rather than appearing as if I'm looking out a window, I sometimes get the feeling I'm looking at a diorama and everything is tiny. It sort ruins the epic feel of movies when that happens. It usually only last few a seconds, but it's certainly jarring.

Well that's cause everything IS tiny on a screen compared to real life. I find that turning all the lights off helps immensely, as there's no other visual size reference to confuse your brain. Also, then no one can see your glasses.

I guess there's some sort of uncanny valley effect going on, where the closer you get to recreating reality, the more little things become disturbing.

I know exactly the effect you're talking about, but the "flat effect" is equally disturbing after you've been watching 3d for a few hours.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I'm perfectly fine with 3D. I do like the effect because if done well, it adds to the immersion immensely, kind of like how amazing it was to play BC2 after trying it out on a surround sound system.

I don't mind the glasses at all.

One thing I'm actually interested in is the idea of making it so that instead of spit screen multilayer, you can actually modify the 3D tech so that our eyes receive every other frame, so you can have two guys playing the game on a full screen but they see completely different things.

That would be awesome.

 

[jdport]

What is required for a 3d gaming setup? A 3d tv and games specifically programmed to utilize it? I don't know anything about it. The closest i've come to 3d gaming was when I wanted to try Madden 11 with the doritos 3d mode enabled and ended up not being able to ... but that was just red/blue glasses type 3d.. I have to assume this is NOT what you're talking about.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

What is required for a 3d gaming setup? A 3d tv and games specifically programmed to utilize it? I don't know anything about it. The closest i've come to 3d gaming was when I wanted to try Madden 11 with the doritos 3d mode enabled and ended up not being able to ... but that was just red/blue glasses type 3d.. I have to assume this is NOT what you're talking about.

Your TV must have 3D and you need the glasses to go along with it. You don't necessarily need games with 3D because some TV's can do post processing 3D which usually looks bad.

The glasses aren't red/blue but are slightly thicker in the rims.

 

[BD2003]

Post processing 3d is worthless. The depth it adds has almost no relation to the image it's processing. Absolutely terrible.

You need a tv that can do 3d and games programmed specifically for it. There are precious few right now, black ops and gran turismo 5 are the really major ones right now, but there are a few others.

Split screen could be interested, but it's tougher to pull off than actual 3d. There is hardly any noticeable flicker from the active glasses on my plasma, but that's cause there's always one eye wide open. To do what you want to do with active shutter, the entire image would have to be blocked for each player half the time and it would cause serious flicker. Passive would prob work better but then you'd need a different polarization for each player instead of eye, and you'd prob see scanlines like it was an old CRT. it's an interesting idea but more difficult to pull off than 3d.

 

[Thraxen]

I mostly agree on that. Most people I know are generally ambivalent, don't care enough to pay yet, but when it's show to them they really like it. The content is sorely lacking at this point, and the implementation could be better, but I'm not holding my breath on glasses free. The glasses don't bother me, but I already wear glasses, and I dont plan on watching socially in 3d.

That's exactly why the glasses do bother me. I wear glasses so wearing a pair is perfectly normal for me, however, without having any prescription glasses when I go to the movies I end up wear glasses over glasses. That's not comfortable at all and results in some blurring if you don't get them situated perfectly. So at home I'd be facing the need to spring for what would surely be pricey prescription 3D glasses. And given that my wife also wears glasses this would be pricey indeed.

 

[Zargon]

most havent used it and dont wanna pay for the glasses

I thought it seemed silly till I played some 3d arma II, BC2, and grid.

 

[fatpat268]

I'm pretty indifferent to it. I'm pretty much 3d blind though. I see it a little, but because I have poor vision in my right eye, I don't see the depth that most do.

 

[AstroManLuca]

It's just that contrast with the really vocal negativity I see online that's strange to me. I swear I think I may literally be the only person on the Internet willing to stand up for it.

Heh, I think that says more about the internet than it says about 3D.

 

[BD2003]

That's exactly why the glasses do bother me. I wear glasses so wearing a pair is perfectly normal for me, however, without having any prescription glasses when I go to the movies I end up wear glasses over glasses. That's not comfortable at all and results in some blurring if you don't get them situated perfectly. So at home I'd be facing the need to spring for what would surely be pricey prescription 3D glasses. And given that my wife also wears glasses this would be pricey indeed.

That really depends more on the glasses themselves than anything else. The theater glasses don't fit too well on me either, nor did the panasonic ones. The Sony ones were AWFUL, they would literally fall off my face. The samsung ones I have don't bother me over my glasses at all though. I can wear them for hours and forget they're there.

 

[namtran512]

I think the issue has more to do with the fact that you are paying a huge premium for something that is really just a novelty more then anything.


The difference between 3D and 2D isn't that big. Sure it's a cool gimmick, but it is nothing like the difference between 480 and 1080p (to me anyways).

 

[Malak]

I don't think 3D is a gimmick. Seeing Killzone played with an actual gun and in 3D is a big selling point to me, even if the investment is big. I really, really want to play FPS games with a gun, 3D, and surround sound.

 

[BD2003]

I think the issue has more to do with the fact that you are paying a huge premium for something that is really just a novelty more then anything.

The difference between 3D and 2D isn't that big. Sure it's a cool gimmick, but it is nothing like the difference between 480 and 1080p (to me anyways).

This is kinda what Im talking about. When did depth perception become a novelty? Its as fundamental a part of our visual system as color. You can live your life just fine without color vision, but who wants to give it up that has it? Natural selection saw fit to give us two eyes for a reason.

Also, the premium is way overblown. The TV itself is basically nothing more than a really fast panel with an IR transmitter as sophisticated as a remote control. The speed of the panel is as important for 2D as it is for 3D, so the TV itself is basically just a good 2DTV. The glasses are somewhat pricey for manufacturer brand, but you can get generic ones for $50ish online, and most seem to be as satisfied with those as the stock ones. Theyll be as throwaway as bluetooth headsets in a year or two.

I'm certainly not surprised 3D is hardly taking off. There is still a high overall barrier to entry, and theres almost no content. I get that, I get why people dont want to wear glasses...what I dont get is where the perception that it's a gimmick or novelty came from.

 

[Ross Ridge]

Most of the criticism I hear about 3D stereoscopic technology these days is that people simply aren't buying it. Even taking account the price of the technology it just isn't selling well to high-end consumers. The same people who happily spent similiar amounts of money to buy flat screen HDTVs when they were new, very expensive, and had little content, haven't shown the same eagerness to do so with 3D TV. People shelling out the big bucks for watercooled systems with three card SLI/CrossFire graphics aren't spending the relatively little extra cash to get a stereoscopic 3D gaming system. While 3D technology might be pretty amazing, it's apparently not amazing enough to convince people it's worth the premium price.

If your friends who said they're going to buy a 3D TV, and all the necesssary related equipment, actually go out and buy it in the next few months, then you'd have a point about there being a disconnect. But if they don't, if they end up deciding that it's too expensive, or too inconvienent or they just want to "wait and see"... Well, then, I think the majority of criticism I've seen about the current wave of 3D technology is actually confirmed by your experience.

 

[Beev]

3D technology is not ready yet and thus should not be released to the general public. That is my problem. It's the same problem I have with motion gaming. It isn't where it should be and instead of real, great technology we get this half-assed bullshit that costs way more than it should, and delivers a fraction of the fun/value it should.

 

[Thraxen]

This is kinda what Im talking about. When did depth perception become a novelty? Its as fundamental a part of our visual system as color. You can live your life just fine without color vision, but who wants to give it up that has it? Natural selection saw fit to give us two eyes for a reason.

The thing is, I can tell where objects are in relation to one another in a 2D image because of perspective. So, for example, I don't have issues with throwing grenades in a FPS or knowing when to slow for a turn in a racer. Without adding any volume 3D often comes off looking like parallax scrolling... meaning it often looks like multiple layers of 2D objects rather than 3D as we perceive it around us IRL. I do think it can add to immersion when used properly, but it seems to fail at doing that just as often.

Also, the premium is way overblown. The TV itself is basically nothing more than a really fast panel with an IR transmitter as sophisticated as a remote control. The speed of the panel is as important for 2D as it is for 3D, so the TV itself is basically just a good 2DTV. The glasses are somewhat pricey for manufacturer brand, but you can get generic ones for $50ish online, and most seem to be as satisfied with those as the stock ones. Theyll be as throwaway as bluetooth headsets in a year or two.

The "premium" is coming from the fact that TV manufactures seem to be limiting 3D to their higher end TV models. Look at Samsung for example. Right now my current main TV is 55". I don't plan to go smaller than that in the future. When I go browse Samsung's collection of TVs I find that the cheapest 3D TV that's at least 55" is their 58" 8000 series plasma with an MSRP of $3000. If I wanted an LCD it's their 55" 7000 series for $3200. Their cheapest non-3D TV in that size range is the 55" 610 series LCD for $1700.

Yes, those higher end TVs are going to have better pictures and more bells and whistles, but when people talk about the "3D premium" this is where it comes from. You're often limited higher end models just to get the 3D. And before anyone point this out, yes, I realize you can buy TVs for much cheaper than the MSRP, but this applies to lower end models too, so it's usually a wash.

And this is before the rest of the stuff like buying extra glasses (possibly prescription) and even upgrading other AV equipment... maybe a new 3D capable BR player or even a new receiver. For example, my receiver is only a few years old, but that was before they had the ability to pass 3D signals. And since I use mine as an HDMI switch box this becomes an issue too.

And you have to love how all these bastards didn't settle on a true standard for glasses so now different manufacturers glasses may not be compatible with TVs from other brands. So it's not even a given that if you had friends coming over to play games or watch the Super Bowl that they could even bring their own glasses. Plus, they're locking down the slim content available too. Like how Avatar 3D, basically the 3D poster child for the masses, is only being sold packaged with Panasonic hardware for over a year!?! What kind of sense does that make? I'm sure Panasonic thinks it's great, but these idiots are missing the big picture and can't see that they're shooting themselves in the foot with these kinds of moves.

Honestly, the whole thing is a bit of a debacle when you really start digging into it.

 

[BD2003]

3D technology is not ready yet and thus should not be released to the general public. That is my problem. It's the same problem I have with motion gaming. It isn't where it should be and instead of real, great technology we get this half-assed bullshit that costs way more than it should, and delivers a fraction of the fun/value it should.

Thats a completely unrealistic outlook. Things need to evolve and improve over time. Youd never have the kinect or move if it wasnt for the wiimote, and youd never have the next evolution in motion gaming without the last. You cant get perfection from the start.

Other than the lack of content, 3D is a very real technology. The reason it uses glasses is because any other method is inferior ATM. They could do it on low end TVs, and the result would be half-assed and terrible. But today's high end TVs are tomorrow's low end. The barrier to entry will be completely gone before long.

 

[Beev]

Thats a completely unrealistic outlook. Things need to evolve and improve over time. Youd never have the kinect or move if it wasnt for the wiimote, and youd never have the next evolution in motion gaming without the last. You cant get perfection from the start.

Other than the lack of content, 3D is a very real technology. The reason it uses glasses is because any other method is inferior ATM. They could do it on low end TVs, and the result would be half-assed and terrible. But today's high end TVs are tomorrow's low end. The barrier to entry will be completely gone before long.

I agree. We can't have the uber technology without the lesser ones first, but why release them to the public and tout it as being "omg amazing!"? I know that's sort of the way it's always been for every industry. My rant is probably more broad than I am making it seem