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

[Thraxen]

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.

As some others have already said, I waited a while before jumping on the surround sound bandwagon. I also think it's more useful than 3D. 3D is a visual trick that doesn't really add anything to gameplay beyond maybe a bit of immersion when it's not actually destroying immersion due to the diorama effect. Surround sound can be used for fairly accurate positioning of sounds. Just the ability to distinguish between sounds that are in front or behind me in a game is useful. And let's not forgot that it doesn't require me, or anyone else in the room, to wear anything to get the effect.

 

[EightySix Four]

I like the tech, and the look isn't bad (it does degrade some picture quality IMO), but damn I have serious headaches from it. I have depth of field issues in some games as well though.

 

[BD2003]

So, I got a chance to check out a 3D TV on display at best buy. Very, very impressed. I was hoping they would have a PS3 up, but alas they had only a few blu-ray demos.

The TV was a plasma, panasonic I believe. Ive heard that the 3D effect was better on plasmas, which makes sense, because there would be potential ghosting issues on a 3D LCD. On the plasma, there were none. There was even some ghosting on the CRT shutter glasses back in the day, but here, there was simply none. Zero. The 3D image was absolutely rock solid.

The glasses were VERY light. I was expected them to be several times heavier due to the battery and all that, but they were about as bulky as the passive 3D glasses you get in the theater. They fit over my prescription lenses just fine, and they were light and comfy enough to forget they were there.

I also looked away a few times, and I didnt experience any desynching issues or anything like that. Overall, the 3D effect was quite excellent. It had just enough depth, it wasnt flying out of the screen or anything. Much more felt like there was depth into it rather than having it scream out at you. It wasnt subtle or over the top, it was just right. They had some scenery of rome playing, and it looked absolutely marvelous - you could really see the depth in everything, the fountain was particularly spectacular.

It was on a plasma, so black levels were already pretty good, but there was an added bonus that I hadnt anticipated - with the glasses on, the black levels were EVEN BETTER. It makes sense when you think about it - the TV is struggling to output as little light as possible for black, and with the glasses effectively working as sunglasses, the lowest level of black you perceive is even lower. Black was basically pitch black, and I'm a real stickler about black level, so this really impressed me. There was no shortage of brightness either, since most TVs nowadays put out enough light to burn your retinas out.

So yeah, I'm extra excited right now. In the theater, the 3D effect had some ghosting, and perhaps its due to the size of the screen, but in the theaters, the 3D is just so in your face. I can see that being a turnoff to a lot of people, but there simply wasnt any of that on the plasma.

Cant wait for the next round of consoles with this stuff really baked in from the start. By then, I'll be just about ready to buy a new TV.

 

[Terzo]

To echo a common concern, I believe 3d in gaming will be a gimmick like motion controls are now. Sure, a few games will use it to excellent effect but most will probably poorly implement it.

 

[BD2003]

To echo a common concern, I believe 3d in gaming will be a gimmick like motion controls are now. Sure, a few games will use it to excellent effect but most will probably poorly implement it.

Thats such a poor comparison though. The 3D doesnt change the game at all. It's like HD vs SD - it's still the same game. Motion controls completely and utterly change the fundamental game, and what types of games you can make.

There's almost nothing that can be done with 3D glasses that can't be done in 2D. It's so ironic that people are fighting so hard to jump on the bandwagon of hating 3D, of wanting to continue to play "3D" games in 2D. It's sheer, utter madness.

I know the glasses are a pain in the ass. I rather they didnt exist, but its exponentially harder to do 3D without the glasses. The first few gens of autostereoscopic TVs, which are already years away, are probably going to be extremely poor, with huge tradeoffs involved in making that 3D image on a 2D screen.

Look at it this way - I think we can all agree that color TV is better than B&W. What if you had to wear glasses to see the color though? You probably wouldn't watch the news or the football game in color, but you'd certainly put them on for a few hours to watch a good movie or play a few games, because it's so much more immersive, so much more like real life. We see in 3D just like we see in color...I can believe it's taken this long to get 3D TV, and now everyone's hating....it's crazy. And so much of it has to do with not having seen it - I've seen it and I'm a believer, it was like looking into a window onto the world. I was expecting to be impressed, but I came away more impressed than I thought I'd be, especially with the black level.

Next step is to try to convince people that 24 frames per second is actually worse than 60+ frames per second. Something tells me we'll STILL be watching 24fps movies in 40 years....sigh!

 

[BoberFett]

I suppose you think a painting is inferior to a photograph as well?

 

[BD2003]

I suppose you think a painting is inferior to a photograph as well?

How exactly does that follow from anything that I said?

 

[BoberFett]

You said that 2D is inferior to 3D and that 24fps is inferior to 60fps. Is a photograph also not technically superior to a painting? People used to paint because cameras had not been invented. Now that we have cameras, why does anybody bother painting?

How is it "sheer utter madness" that I don't care about playing a 3D game on a 2D screen? Because there's one less D? Is the next shitty made-for-TV Disney movie better because it's 60fps?

 

[BD2003]

You said that 2D is inferior to 3D and that 24fps is inferior to 60fps. Is a photograph also not technically superior to a painting? People used to paint because cameras had not been invented. Now that we have cameras, why does anybody bother painting?

Well, depends what you're going for, doesnt it? Art is a separate thing all together. You're just talking crazy now. People still paint because you can do things with paint that you cant do with photographs, or sculpture, or CGI or anything else.

When we're talking about making a portrait for posterity, photo is certainly superior to painting - I'm sure the market for painted portraits crashed once photos became available, because photos were superior for what it was trying to accomplish, which wasnt necessarily art.

In the future, I'd see no problem with using 2D as an artistic effect, just as black and white is employed in many types of media nowadays.

How is it "sheer utter madness" that I don't care about playing a 3D game on a 2D screen? Because there's one less D? Is the next shitty made-for-TV Disney movie better because it's 60fps?

Gaming is different though. You dont have to care, but to write it off as a gimmick is crazy. Take a FPS game, or a racer. It's literally working from your perspective. And unless you have only one eye, your perspective in real life is in 3D. So the game should be as well. You also see far in excess of 24fps, so ideally the game should be running as fast a framerate as possible. At as high a resolution as possible.

If hardware wasnt the issue, if you had it all for free, and the 3D was autostereoscopic and perfect, you really mean to tell me you'd rather play your games at less than 60fps? That you'd rather have no depth perception in your game at all?

Just as 1080p is by definition more lifelike than 480p, 3D is more lifelike than 2D. It's how we experience the world. I dont understand why people think it's a gimmick!

 

[Thraxen]

Well, 2D games already give us a form of 3D using perspective. I can gauge distances (e.g. for throwing a grenade, slowing for a turn, etc...) fairly well in the current 2D games. So in that regard 3D games don't really add much to gaming. However, I can see where it can help make things more life-like and thus help with immersion. Of course, that's only when immersion isn't being actively destroyed via the diorama effect and the annoyance of wearing the glasses.

Personally, I don't think it's fair to call it a gimmick, but I also don't think it brings enough to the table to warrant the price of admission. However, as I need to upgrade components I'll certainly ensure they are 3D-ready.

 

[BD2003]

Well, 2D games already give us a form of 3D using perspective. I can gauge distances (e.g. for throwing a grenade, slowing for a turn, etc...) fairly well in the current 2D games. So in that regard 3D games don't really add much to gaming. However, I can see where it can help make things more life-like and thus help with immersion. Of course, that's only when immersion isn't being actively destroyed via the diorama effect and the annoyance of wearing the glasses.

What exactly is this diorama effect? Is this some sort of uncanny valley type thing were now that things look more realistic, the flaws bother us more?

Personally, I don't think it's fair to call it a gimmick, but I also don't think it brings enough to the table to warrant the price of admission. However, as I need to upgrade components I'll certainly ensure they are 3D-ready.

I thought the glasses would be way worse than they were - they were super light. My prescriptions are way, way heavier, and even theyre a light frame. Ironically, the fact that I already wear glasses makes me care so little about having to wear another set on top of them. They would have bothered me if they were heavy or bulky, but they were way better than the throwaway ones you got in the theater. Perhaps I could even figure out a way to mount prescription lenses directly on them. They were also adjustable, and I couldnt really tell for sure, but it seems as if the lenses could flip up.

Honestly, the only thing stopping me from dropping my plastic down and walking out of best buy with that 3d plasma is the near total lack of content. And I'm really not expecting much of 3D out of this current generation of consoles because they simply dont have the horsepower to do 3D in HD. Right now, it absolutely does not warrant the price of admission, because there's really nothing to show. I'm expecting great things in about 2 years or so.

 

[Thraxen]

What exactly is this diorama effect? Is this some sort of uncanny valley type thing were now that things look more realistic, the flaws bother us more?

No. It's where everything suddenly looks small. So instead of feeling like you're immersed in the world of the movie it looks like your looking at a diorama. The best example I can think of is those old Japanese Godzilla movies where you could easily tell which shots were just miniatures.

I think it affects people differently, but I know I experienced it at least 2 or 3 times when watching Avatar. I was suddenly hit with the feeling that everything was tiny. It would only last a minute or two, but it was fairly jarring when it happened. I think it's caused by the way the 3D world collapses at the edge of the screen.

They would have bothered me if they were heavy or bulky, but they were way better than the throwaway ones you got in the theater. Perhaps I could even figure out a way to mount prescription lenses directly on them. They were also adjustable, and I couldnt really tell for sure, but it seems as if the lenses could flip up.

I've not tried any of the home active shutter glasses yet, just those passive polarized glasses that they hand you at the theater and then you return after the movie. It bugged me for a while, but I got used to it once I was a few minutes into the movie. I also felt like the double layer somewhat affected the image quality. I can put up with them for short periods and for that maybe I'll be OK with them for gaming, but I'd still prefer to not have them.

Honestly, the only thing stopping me from dropping my plastic down and walking out of best buy with that 3d plasma is the near total lack of content. And I'm really not expecting much of 3D out of this current generation of consoles because they simply dont have the horsepower to do 3D in HD. Right now, it absolutely does not warrant the price of admission, because there's really nothing to show. I'm expecting great things in about 2 years or so.

Content is one thing that's keeping me from investing, the price is the other. I'd need a new TV, glasses (pending if I got any with the TV), and a new receiver. My current receiver is only a couple of years old, but at that time there weren't any designed to pass 3D video signals. Maybe if the TV can pass the audio (complete with HD audio support) back to the receiver I can avoid that... but that's something I'd have to research further.

 

[Terzo]

Thats such a poor comparison though. The 3D doesnt change the game at all. It's like HD vs SD - it's still the same game. Motion controls completely and utterly change the fundamental game, and what types of games you can make.

There's almost nothing that can be done with 3D glasses that can't be done in 2D. It's so ironic that people are fighting so hard to jump on the bandwagon of hating 3D, of wanting to continue to play "3D" games in 2D. It's sheer, utter madness.

Considering the bolded, I guess I just don't see the need for 3d. When I say gimmick, I mean a feature that's added in purely to entice people, rather than to produce a better product. Take cinema today; it seems like every other release has a 3d version, which is added in at the end using computers or whatnot (I don't know). As far as I know, the only theatrical release that was intended from the start to be 3d is Avatar. Sure, a ton of people liked that, but there are also many who found the 3d to be a "gimmick" in that it added nothing to the film. Really, Avatar's story was nothing special, the movie was all about the 3d and visuals.

I don't see why games would be exempt from this pattern. I also wouldn't be surprised if 3d games end up costing more (after all, they had to put that extra work in to it). I don't like paying $10 to see a movie at theaters, much less the $15 or more that you can expect to pay at 3d showings.
In the same sense, I don't like (well, haven't) paid $60 for a new release and I damn sure wont pony up more money to get a 3d version.
Of course, I'm quite stingy and I don't see myself dropping down money for a 3d capable system in a long time; hell, I play my games (PC and console) on a 20" monitor.

To try and sum up my views, 3d gaming is a waste of time and money. I would simply rather have those resources spent on producing better gameplay.

 

[zerocool84]

Nope don't care about 3D games just like I don't care about 3D movies.

 

[BD2003]

Considering the bolded, I guess I just don't see the need for 3d. When I say gimmick, I mean a feature that's added in purely to entice people, rather than to produce a better product. Take cinema today; it seems like every other release has a 3d version, which is added in at the end using computers or whatnot (I don't know). As far as I know, the only theatrical release that was intended from the start to be 3d is Avatar. Sure, a ton of people liked that, but there are also many who found the 3d to be a "gimmick" in that it added nothing to the film. Really, Avatar's story was nothing special, the movie was all about the 3d and visuals.

I don't see why games would be exempt from this pattern. I also wouldn't be surprised if 3d games end up costing more (after all, they had to put that extra work in to it). I don't like paying $10 to see a movie at theaters, much less the $15 or more that you can expect to pay at 3d showings.
In the same sense, I don't like (well, haven't) paid $60 for a new release and I damn sure wont pony up more money to get a 3d version.
Of course, I'm quite stingy and I don't see myself dropping down money for a 3d capable system in a long time; hell, I play my games (PC and console) on a 20" monitor.

To try and sum up my views, 3d gaming is a waste of time and money. I would simply rather have those resources spent on producing better gameplay.

Everything you said about 3D could equally be said about HD. Have HD visuals held back the development of gameplay? Id certainly argue that they havent. You dont *need* HD visuals either, but it's certainly nice, aint it?

And the real crux of the situation here is that HD assets require a MASSIVE amount of work on the ends of the developers/artists, 3D is a piece of cake to implement, it just requires more horsepower, not more manpower. The whole "I'd rather have the resources spent on gameplay" is a bunk argument - 3D doesnt require much extra work, and developers actually are capable of doing two things at once.

 

[Terzo]

You're talking to the wrong person about hd. I don't even know what hd technically is. Doesn't my screen, at 1680x1050, count as hd? I also play older releases, so I'm not really sure if I've seen examples of HD in gaming. I've seen hd on a friends tv and it's great for hockey, but I'm not really the type of person to appreciate better visuals (right now I say ps3 is more than fine graphic wise, and if I had a ps2 when it was released I probably would've said the same thing).

You say that 3D is a piece of cake to implement. What is involved? I know with avatar they had to use special cameras, but for the other films it's magic, as far as I'm concerned. Post processing this or that. I dunno.
And even if developers are capable of doing multiple things at once, I don't see the need for one of those to be 3d. Might as well spend the time to write a better story, in games where it is applicable.

 

[BD2003]

I think it affects people differently, but I know I experienced it at least 2 or 3 times when watching Avatar. I was suddenly hit with the feeling that everything was tiny. It would only last a minute or two, but it was fairly jarring when it happened. I think it's caused by the way the 3D world collapses at the edge of the screen.

I think I know what you mean, but I didnt really have the same experience in avatar or on the plasma. At least not to the point that it bothered me. The one thing that really did bother me about avatar was that it was still shot at 24fps - thats what really broke the immersion to me. For some reason I can tolerate it in 2D, but when the 3D objects were stuttering around like that it really looked terrible.

I also had the same experience on the plasma, where I was really impressed by the image till people started stuttering around at 24fps...in 3D. Its such a strange effect, but it's really not an argument against 3D, it's an argument against low frame rates.

I've not tried any of the home active shutter glasses yet, just those passive polarized glasses that they hand you at the theater and then you return after the movie. It bugged me for a while, but I got used to it once I was a few minutes into the movie. I also felt like the double layer somewhat affected the image quality. I can put up with them for short periods and for that maybe I'll be OK with them for gaming, but I'd still prefer to not have them.

I was really expecting the image to suffer with the glasses on, but I came away so impressed with the active glasses on the plasma. The effect was much more solid than the passive glasses, and I didnt notice any artifacting on the edges like I do in the theaters. Black level boost was a bonus.

Content is one thing that's keeping me from investing, the price is the other. I'd need a new TV, glasses (pending if I got any with the TV), and a new receiver. My current receiver is only a couple of years old, but at that time there weren't any designed to pass 3D video signals. Maybe if the TV can pass the audio (complete with HD audio support) back to the receiver I can avoid that... but that's something I'd have to research further.

You could always route the video straight to the TV, and the audio straight to the receiver via digital. Its a little more complicated, but that's what I do currently with my 2D setup so I can have each input properly calibrated. Then I have a programmable remote with macros for switching inputs on both at the same time - required a bit more work to setup, but there arent any drawbacks provided you have enough inputs on the TV itself.

 

[BD2003]

You're talking to the wrong person about hd. I don't even know what hd technically is. Doesn't my screen, at 1680x1050, count as hd? I also play older releases, so I'm not really sure if I've seen examples of HD in gaming. I've seen hd on a friends tv and it's great for hockey, but I'm not really the type of person to appreciate better visuals (right now I say ps3 is more than fine graphic wise, and if I had a ps2 when it was released I probably would've said the same thing).

1680x1050 is most certainly HD, but its not just resolution. Along with the higher resolution, the current generation on consoles really pushed hi resolution texturing, post processing etc. Creating all that requires a TON more work than was involved in making PS2 games.

You say that 3D is a piece of cake to implement. What is involved? I know with avatar they had to use special cameras, but for the other films it's magic, as far as I'm concerned. Post processing this or that. I dunno.
And even if developers are capable of doing multiple things at once, I don't see the need for one of those to be 3d. Might as well spend the time to write a better story, in games where it is applicable.

Creating a 3D movie is very different than 3D gaming. Movies require special cameras and cant really be changed from 2D to 3D simply. They basically have to do it frame by frame if it was originally shot in 2D, and the results will probably still be lacking.

For 3D games, they just basically have to set it to display in 3D...because well, these are already 3D games! Its about as difficult as a resolution switch. Thats why you can buy 3D glasses for your PC and run all your old games in true 3D. There is some minor work involved in making sure the interface looks proper, but it's really trivial and is hardly a waste of resources. It's dead simple to implement it.

The real issue is that 3D requires approximately double the horsepower to run at the same resolution at 2D does. Or alternatively, it requires about the same jump between 720p and 1080p. It's simply not going to be done very well on current consoles. The next gen however, should be more than able to handle it.

 

[BoberFett]

Whatever. I still don't give a shit.

 

[mingsoup]

Yes.

 

[thescreensavers]

I hate 3d I hate 3d I hate 3d I hate 3d I hate 3d I hate 3d

say it a million times and the words you would have said a million times is? I hate 3d!!

 

[Dumac]

Everything you said about 3D could equally be said about HD. Have HD visuals held back the development of gameplay? Id certainly argue that they havent. You dont *need* HD visuals either, but it's certainly nice, aint it?

And the real crux of the situation here is that HD assets require a MASSIVE amount of work on the ends of the developers/artists, 3D is a piece of cake to implement, it just requires more horsepower, not more manpower. The whole "I'd rather have the resources spent on gameplay" is a bunk argument - 3D doesnt require much extra work, and developers actually are capable of doing two things at once.

The difference is that HD visual offer greater immersion.

All my experience with 3D (yes, I've been to best buy too) is WORSE immersion because the 3D looks so shitty. The visual quality decreases, and it is just generally unenjoyable.

Seriously, though, 3D is going to be the new motion controls, and I already fucking hate it. Just look at Nintendo, pimping their 3DS.

 

[Thraxen]

Seriously, though, 3D is going to be the new motion controls, and I already fucking hate it. Just look at Nintendo, pimping their 3DS.

As you can see from my comments above, I'm somewhat anti-3D myself, but I am fairly optimistic about the 3DS. The fact it doesn't require glasses and won't require spending several thousand dollars to get involved puts it above the home TV/console 3D right out of the gate. Of course, I'll still need to see it with my own eye to determine if it's going to be a good or bad thing, but I'm certainly not going to write it off yet.

 

[BD2003]

I'm starting to wonder how much of a role an individuals underlying visual perception is influencing this discussion. I know we all perceive visual stimuli different, perhaps this is a case where the effect works for some and just looks terrible to others?

For instance, I personally struggle with today's 30fps console games. It's so choppy and disgusting and looks nothing like what I normally experience in the world. Yet it seems to bother very few people. I hear over and over how some people just can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, yet I can take one look at a game and pretty much tell you the near exact framerate anywhere from 0-60.

So perhaps there's something working here where I can see the 3d effect and think to myself how much more like reality it looks, whereas other people are seeing something that just doesn't match up with their visual reality.

I'm also fairly optimistic about the 3DS, but I really need to see the screen for myself. I've never been impressed by autostereoscopic displays, there were far too many cavaets such as low resolution and ridiculously limited view angle, problems that don't exist with the glasses.

 

[Dumac]

As you can see from my comments above, I'm somewhat anti-3D myself, but I am fairly optimistic about the 3DS. The fact it doesn't require glasses and won't require spending several thousand dollars to get involved puts it above the home TV/console 3D right out of the gate. Of course, I'll still need to see it with my own eye to determine if it's going to be a good or bad thing, but I'm certainly not going to write it off yet.

The thing is, if it is successfully on the DS, then I bet big N will stick it into their next console. If that is successful, Sony and MS will follow suit, sticking some form of new 3D tech into their consoles. It will be motion control fiesta all over again, where everyone is focusing on a silly gimmick.