Am I the only person in the world looking forward to 3D games?

[BD2003]

I've never seen an upcoming technology that's garnered such widespread hatred (in the press at least) as 3D gaming.

I personally had the shutter glasses like 10 years ago. For the life of me I cant remember the brand, but it required a fast PC and CRT that refreshed over 100hz. Even though the games werent even remotely programmed for it, it worked and it was awesome. It added so much to the game.

I dont understand why the press is so dead set on keeping their 3d games on a flat 2d screen. I'm not a fan of having to wear glasses either, since I'd have to wear them over my prescription lenses either, but I can deal with it because it was so immersive - and this was with quake 2 level graphics. But the hatred for it seems to go above and beyond just having to wear glasses. It seems almost to the point that the critics are so vocal about hating it and how stupid it is that no one wants to step up and champion it for fear of being ostracized.

Anyway, am I crazy? Or is anyone else looking forward to getting some games natively programmed for 3d?

 

[JoPh]

3d is old. waiting for 4d.

 

[RedRooster]

3d is old. waiting for 4d.

Werd. Holographics will be the poor man's 3D when 4D comes out

 

[fatpat268]

I've never seen an upcoming technology that's garnered such widespread hatred (in the press at least) as 3D gaming.

[snip]

I dont understand why the press is so dead set on keeping their 3d games on a flat 2d screen.

Most people don't like the idea of having to buy yet another TV after they've just upgraded all their TVs to HDTV (including me). Not only that, from what I've seen, 3D is a gimmick at best.

Stereoscopic vision just doesn't do it for me. It's probably because I have a weak right eye (20/20 in left, 20/70 in my right), but a 3D technology like headtracking is FAR more immersive than stereoscopic can ever be.

Do I need to see things "pop out" of the screen? No, that's a huge waste of time. What I do want to be able to do, is to see behind objects if I move my head in the correct orientation to do so.

 

[gorcorps]

3d is old. waiting for 4d.

Well... time IS passing as you're playing the game :awe:

Anywhoo, I'm not looking forward to it but I'm not writing it off as worthless already. I suspect it will be similar to motion controls where tons of games try to use them and fail, but a select few will use the new feature/gimmick very well. Either way, the price premium is way too high right now for such a thing but it might become worth it eventually.

 

[BD2003]

Most people don't like the idea of having to buy yet another TV after they've just upgraded all their TVs to HDTV (including me). Not only that, from what I've seen, 3D is a gimmick at best.

Stereoscopic vision just doesn't do it for me. It's probably because I have a weak right eye (20/20 in left, 20/70 in my right), but a 3D technology like headtracking is FAR more immersive than stereoscopic can ever be.

Do I need to see things "pop out" of the screen? No, that's a huge waste of time. What I do want to be able to do, is to see behind objects if I move my head in the correct orientation to do so.

I can understand not wanting to buy the new tv part. I'm in that boat too. But in a very short time, the premium on 3d is going to be near nothing. The dirty little secret is that the enabling tech is absolutely trivial - most screens are already refreshing at 120hz, whether or not that's 3d only changes what those 120 frames are. The only thing that needs to be added to a tv other than some software is an ir transmitter, and that's an incredibly simple part. The real tech is in the glasses, but even those are pretty simple nowadays. The extra cost of today's 3d tvs are just a tax on early adopters - before too long you won't be able to buy a non-3d set because the tech is so trivial. It's really just waiting on content at this point.

Regarding your vision, maybe it's time to see an opthamologist and get a single contact lens. There's no need for you to be walking around with poor vision and depth perception in 2010.

As far as the actual 3d goes, I agree that it is a bit abused nowadays - the great thing about those old school 3d shutter glasses for the pc was that you could tweak how far it popped out or in from the screen and find a comfy level for yourself. When you got it just right, it was incredible without being annoying.

I agree on the head tracking too - also something that's relatively trivial in hardware and just a matter of software. This will work without 3d, but would be downright magical combined with 3d. I almost certainly expect the next consoles to support this...it's a no brainer. Your head could be tracked using the same glasses you use for the 3d even.

 

[R Nilla]

I still have yet to see a movie or game in 3D so it's hard to get excited about something I have not experienced. The idea of wearing glasses does not excite me, though, and I can't help but think that the processing power (not to mention development time) used to make 3D happen in games would be better spent elsewhere.

It could be cool if it's used creatively, but if it's just Killzone 3 with dudes popping out of the screen, I'm not sure that's really worth it. I always thought the Wii head tracking tech demo was pretty neat but that's obviously limited to one person.

I do think it's interesting that the (vocal?) majority of gaming press are pretty down on 3D, though. You would think someone out there is excited about it but maybe they just haven't seen anything that goes beyond gimmicky yet.

 

[Thraxen]

As a person that wears glasses I hate having to use glasses for 3D. I'm not completely against 3D, but I'm not exactly chomping at the bit to spring for a new TV, new receiver (yes, many people will need this too), and multiple 3D glasses for the joy of being annoyed by glasses-on-glasses and having images pop off the screen that add little to nothing to gameplay.

The head tracking thing has a lot more potential. Standard stereoscopic 3D adds little by itself, but combined with head tracking you have the potential to produce images that will be similar to holograms with the ability to actually peek behind and around objects. The enormous flaw here however is that it will only work for one person. That's a fairly large buzz kill IMO.

 

[fatpat268]

Regarding your vision, maybe it's time to see an opthamologist and get a single contact lens. There's no need for you to be walking around with poor vision and depth perception in 2010.

I wish. I'm already wearing glasses and they make minimal improvement on my vision, and I've been told my eyesight isn't correctable by surgery. At any rate, I'm used to it and it doesn't bother me. I don't have any particular depth perception problems, I just don't see "3D" as well as most (I still see it).

 

[Dumac]

FUCK 3D! The stupid 3D trend is almost as bad as the motion control trend. Ugh.

 

[Beev]

3D is useless and I only see it as a gateway to virtual reality. Until something can be projected and look like it's really there, I don't give a damn about 3D.

 

[BD2003]

Damn, I had a feeling I'd be in the minority, but not that Id be literally alone on this. Maybe more people need to see it in action? I dunno how I'd feel if I've never seen it either, but I have and it was really sweet even with all the drawbacks back in the day.

 

[mb]

Sounds like it could be interesting but I'm taking a wait and see stance. None of your poll options really fit for me.

 

[Dumac]

Damn, I had a feeling I'd be in the minority, but not that Id be literally alone on this. Maybe more people need to see it in action? I dunno how I'd feel if I've never seen it either, but I have and it was really sweet even with all the drawbacks back in the day.

I have seen it in action. Shit sucks, just like motion controls. It adds nothing substantial, and draws attention from the core mechanics of games to some bells and whistles bullshit. Not to mention the technology sucks, and the loss of detail is unacceptable.

Ugh.

 

[Thraxen]

Damn, I had a feeling I'd be in the minority, but not that Id be literally alone on this. Maybe more people need to see it in action? I dunno how I'd feel if I've never seen it either, but I have and it was really sweet even with all the drawbacks back in the day.

Again, I'm not completely against implementing 3D, I just don't care for the current technology. I've gone to see a couple of movies in 3D and came away more impressed with current technology than with my experiences with older tech. But wearing glasses for the occasional 1.5-2 hour movie for $3 more than a regular ticket is a far cry from convincing me to accept this into my home for regular use and at a much higher price.

Sure, if I really needed a new TV getting one that supports 3D would likely be something I'd do. But I could easily ride the TV I've got for another 2-3 years. And as I mentioned before, I'd also need a new receiver. My current receiver functions as a switch box for all my components. It's only a couple of years old and works great, but at the time I bought it few, if any, supported the passing of 3D signals. So this pretty much puts me in the position of needing to do a simultaneous upgrade if I want to use my TV for 3D for both games and TV. And new TV + several pairs of glasses + new receiver adds up to some fairly hefty $$$. And that pain is amplified by the fact my current components are pretty good and I'd be getting rid of them in a shorter cycle than the components that came before them. And all of this is on top of the fact that I still hate the glasses.

The use of 3D that I am sort of excited about is the 3DS. Dropping a couple hundred on Nintendo's next portable that will be using 3D tech that doesn't require glasses is much less daunting and expensive proposition. Plus, portables by nature are single user devices so implementing head tracking in combination with the 3D screen doesn't leave other viewers out in the cold... it's just me anyway. I don't know if they'll be doing something like that, but at least the potential is there in a good way.

 

[RedRooster]

3D works nice for a large movie screen where your periphery is covered by screen as well, but on a little 50" tv in a living room, the effect is really ruined. It's like you're watching something in 3D through a tiny window, and its just not very cool at all(although I'm just talking movies, I haven't seen games yet).
The glasses, the need to sit head on, the small scale of everything taking away any sense of being there, there's too many cons right now with it.
Unless it does something that we haven't seen with the 3D movies, its a pretty limited and unimpressive tech.

 

[Anubis]

My main issue with it is they are throwing it at us when there are far more important things with TV tech they should be working on improving first

in no order. cost, black levels, motion blurring, color accuracy, power consumption, screen reflectiveness, dimming......

 

[Thraxen]

3D works nice for a large movie screen where your periphery is covered by screen as well, but on a little 50" tv in a living room, the effect is really ruined. It's like you're watching something in 3D through a tiny window, and its just not very cool at all(although I'm just talking movies, I haven't seen games yet).
The glasses, the need to sit head on, the small scale of everything taking away any sense of being there, there's too many cons right now with it.
Unless it does something that we haven't seen with the 3D movies, its a pretty limited and unimpressive tech.

Sounds like you're describing the diorama effect. I forgot to mention it before, but this is indeed another flaw with 3D and one I've experienced first hand at movies... even the large screen didn't completely prevent it. While I was watching Avatar, there were 2 or 3 times during the movie when the feeling that I was watching miniatures suddenly hit me. I went from feeling like I was there to feeling like I was looking a diorama and everything was actually tiny. Similar to how with those old Japanese Godzilla movies you could easily tell that the many portions of the movie were just miniatures, 3D movies produce this same effect at times. For me it only lasted a couple of minutes each time, but it happened several times and was fairly jarring each time. I think it has to do with the way the 3D world collapses at the edge of the screen.

 

[BD2003]

How do you guys feel about 5.1 surround sound then? A lot of what is being said about 3d can be said about it. It required new hardware, it can be inconvenient (running wires across the floor to mount speakers behind you). It only works properly if you're in a certain spot. And it certainly cost more, and the surround effect certainly doesn't mimic real life. And you could certainly make the argument that it was just a gimmick and didn't make movies and games any better.

 

[gorcorps]

How do you guys feel about 5.1 surround sound then? A lot of what is being said about 3d can be said about it. It required new hardware, it can be inconvenient (running wires across the floor to mount speakers behind you). It only works properly if you're in a certain spot. And it certainly cost more, and the surround effect certainly doesn't mimic real life. And you could certainly make the argument that it was just a gimmick and didn't make movies and games any better.

I'm sure most of us felt the same about surround as 3D... I know I did. I didn't immediately go out and buy a home theater with surround sound, I waited until the price came down and was then more useful then a gimmick. 3D is the same way in that it's expensive now and we don't know what will happen, and it could become affordable and useful or flop.

 

[RedRooster]

I could easily do without 5.1 Two big speakers and a sub is all you need.
But at least with 5.1, you can have 10 people over and they'll all experience roughly the same thing with no added cost.
I'd imagine they'll be pushing 3D tv next Superbowl really hard, as it'll be more mainstream by then. Imagine having 20 people over to watch, all with the expensive glasses and telling them they all have to look dead on or they won't see anything. Having to recharge their glasses at half time. What a mess.

 

[BoberFett]

No interest at all, too gimmicky.

 

[Dumac]

How do you guys feel about 5.1 surround sound then? A lot of what is being said about 3d can be said about it. It required new hardware, it can be inconvenient (running wires across the floor to mount speakers behind you). It only works properly if you're in a certain spot. And it certainly cost more, and the surround effect certainly doesn't mimic real life. And you could certainly make the argument that it was just a gimmick and didn't make movies and games any better.

I don't care about surround sound either. Half of the time, I use headphones.

Still, surround sound has a lot more merit than 3D gaming.

 

[BD2003]

I could easily do without 5.1 Two big speakers and a sub is all you need.
But at least with 5.1, you can have 10 people over and they'll all experience roughly the same thing with no added cost.
I'd imagine they'll be pushing 3D tv next Superbowl really hard, as it'll be more mainstream by then. Imagine having 20 people over to watch, all with the expensive glasses and telling them they all have to look dead on or they won't see anything. Having to recharge their glasses at half time. What a mess.

yeah, that would be a mess. I'm really only thinking about this from the perspective of a single user, and I'm not factoring price into it. I don't think it's worth running out and spending a few thousand on a new tv yet either. But I'm really looking forward to my next set a few years from now, with 2nd gen tech and glasses, and games with native support.

Then again, Ive also had 5.1 for like a decade. I can't imagine going without it now, it adds so much to the experience. It might be a gimmick too, but it's a pretty sweet one.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

I like the focus effect that I saw in the newest Stalker game. Is that a DX10 thing? Did Crysis do that too? I think it's a pretty sweet development and sorta defeats 3d.