Going Gold: New Dimensions

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Going Gold: New Dimensions

Can 3D and motion controls push gaming forward as the graphical arms race reaches a stalemate?

Read Full Article

You know, why can't everyone push hard on things that could make games better, like having better stories.

I don't care if a game or movie has 3D, motion controls, or good graphics. If its not fun to play, and if the story isn't good, I won't buy it.

Maybe Avatar made so much money not because of 3D, but because it was, you know, good. Sure a lot of people don't like the movie, but it seems a lot more do. And from what I've heard 3D doesn't alter the overall experience much.

Personally, I'm very excited about the move to 3D. I've heard people say that a movie isn't worth seeing in 3D unless they have the really in-your-face stuff added in, but I haven't seen a film yet that wasn't improved with 3D (when it's done well, of course). Saying that some movies aren't fit for 3D is like saying that some parts of life aren't fit for 3D.

As long as the 3D looks realistic, I look forward to it eagerly.

Years ago 3D went away and except for a few tv double features (don't forget to get your 3d glasses at 7-11) nobody really thought of it again until we started seeing it at disneyworld, it looked much better, didn't have the two tone glasses, and that's basically the level it's still at.

The reason I think 3d will stay a fad for the time being is because of the glasses and the cost. I still know plenty of people who watch tv in sd and those who got an hd set only got it recently. I don't see these people replacing their recently acquired hdtv for a 3d set any time soon. And the glasses? Really? In the decades of progress since the sub-medium was introduced, we still have to use the glasses. I understand why, I just find it hard to believe that all those clever minds never found a way around it.

I think Ebert has a point. Cool as 3D is, it is still the cinematic equivalent of a pop-up book. Sure, you can do some cool things with them, but the only person who routinely gets a better experience from a pop-up book then a normal one is someone who cannot read.

If Hollywood continues its "zomg Avatar made billions & was in 3d, lets throw 3d arbitrarily into everything & print money" response, I don't see it lasting more than a few years unless the production houses get their act together & approach their new tech with some maturity. Should the gaming world approach 3D in the same way, I see no reason to expect a different result.

Cousin_IT:
I think Ebert has a point. Cool as 3D is, it is still the cinematic equivalent of a pop-up book. Sure, you can do some cool things with them, but the only person who routinely gets a better experience from a pop-up book than a normal one is someone who cannot read.

If Hollywood continues its "zomg Avatar made billions & was in 3d, lets throw 3d arbitrarily into everything & print money" response, I don't see it lasting more than a few years unless the production houses get their act together & approach their new tech with some maturity. Should the gaming world approach 3D in the same way, I see no reason to expect a different result.

I really like your analogy. So what you're saying is, gimmicks are for people who cannot understand the purpose of the medium.

Christian Ward:
Is 3D is a gimmick? Of course, it's a gimmick. But how is it any less a gimmick than, say, shaders, bloom lighting, 5.1 sound, facial motion capture or any of the other hundreds of visual and audio tricks developers have sold their games on for years? All of them are based on the idea of moving the experience closer to our perception of reality - just as motion controls and 3D are.

The thing about 3D I, and many of us, don't like is that it interferes directly with the experience. You have to physically put the glasses on your face, and besides their tendency to slip off your face (due to the "one size fits all" detail), the things can make a person's (or at least my) eyes hurt, and could give one (or myself) a headache.

Plus, 3D is biased towards people without glasses. People with glasses have 3 options: a) take off their regular glasses and put on the 3D glasses, b) put the 3D glasses on over the prescription ones, or c) get contact lens. None of the three options are viable.

Until 3D becomes more convenient, and can forgo the use of glasses, I will steadfastly oppose it. It just distracts from the actual experience instead of enhancing it.

Or just maybe, developers can just make better games instead of latching onto gimmick after gimmick. Technology doesn't matter as much as people think it does. You can take dated, primitive hardware and make a masterpiece if you know what you're doing. Conversely, you can put together a big budget game with top of the line graphics and end up with a complete disaster(Too Human, anyone?). This article tries to have an optimistic tone, but it just comes across as depressing. Are flashy gimmicks really all we have to look forward to in the future?

Besides, there are much better directions for the technology race to go in, like programming better AI or getting rid of loading times.

GonzoGamer:
Years ago 3D went away and except for a few tv double features (don't forget to get your 3d glasses at 7-11) nobody really thought of it again until we started seeing it at disneyworld, it looked much better, didn't have the two tone glasses, and that's basically the level it's still at.

The reason I think 3d will stay a fad for the time being is because of the glasses and the cost. I still know plenty of people who watch tv in sd and those who got an hd set only got it recently. I don't see these people replacing their recently acquired hdtv for a 3d set any time soon. And the glasses? Really? In the decades of progress since the sub-medium was introduced, we still have to use the glasses. I understand why, I just find it hard to believe that all those clever minds never found a way around it.

They have. But it'll take time. The prototypes for at least 1 system that would be viable to build have been around for about 3 years.
Although, I'll be surprised if we'll see real-world examples of it before 2015...

Holographic displays exist as working prototypes.
No glasses, and no half-finished 3d effect. Proper depth, much less headaches, and NO GLASSES.

The technology is there, but needs a few more years to work on.
In the meantime, we are left with the half-hearted attempts we have now, and the glasses...

It's difficult to get right, but I like the potential in 3-D. Avatar would be a good example, seeing how big the production values were in that, they really nailed the effect I feel, it really helped in the sense of scale. It'll be a while before it's essential though, but I'm pretty sure it;s here to stay.

scifidownbeat:

Cousin_IT:
I think Ebert has a point. Cool as 3D is, it is still the cinematic equivalent of a pop-up book. Sure, you can do some cool things with them, but the only person who routinely gets a better experience from a pop-up book than a normal one is someone who cannot read.

If Hollywood continues its "zomg Avatar made billions & was in 3d, lets throw 3d arbitrarily into everything & print money" response, I don't see it lasting more than a few years unless the production houses get their act together & approach their new tech with some maturity. Should the gaming world approach 3D in the same way, I see no reason to expect a different result.

I really like your analogy. So what you're saying is, gimmicks are for people who cannot understand the purpose of the medium.

More that 3D as is only significantly improves the viewing experience for those who either lack the imagination, or have a short attention span, to be held captivated by something unless it jumps out into your face & tells you whats going on/make's you take notice of it. Personally, I would not be surprised if in 5-10 years we are back to the only 3D films being kids films like Spy Kids 3D etc, because imo children are the only ones for whom 3D for its own sake is enough to routinely justify the added expense of the tickets & hassle of the glasses.

Cause, yanno, those motion controls worked GREAT for the Wii. SURELY 3d and Natal and all these other technologies that the companies are trying to bring to everyone will produce quality, immersive, and intelligent games for us all to enjoy. After all, it's been almost 4 years since the Wii was released and we've had tons of great motion control games for it! Games like..umm...well...shit, never mind.

I tried RE5 in 3d at PAX last year, and my impressions were pretty bad. I abso-fucking-lutely refuse to wear those glasses (and this is coming from someone with a dedicated TrackIR hat) and the actual 3d effect just was not that impressive or immersive. It was blatantly obvious that what I was looking at had no real depth to it and it actually started to annoy me after a couple minutes.

If that's the wave of the future then count me out. If they can do 3d without the glasses, then hoorah, otherwise screw it.

Irridium:
You know, why can't everyone push hard on things that could make games better, like having better stories.

I don't care if a game or movie has 3D, motion controls, or good graphics. If its not fun to play, and if the story isn't good, I won't buy it.

I can agree largely with everything written here. The technology is in place that allows a game designer to realize just about any vision they may have. It's time for them to start doing that.

---

As an avid gamer, I want to say, right now, that I do NOT. Repeat, DO NOT want games to become reliant on this new-fangled 3D technology at all. Ever. At least, not in the foreseeable ever. Simply watching a movie with it causes no end of eyestrain and headaches. Games on their own, even with newer technology, are already a strain on the eyes sometimes and the sheer density of action at times and the information one needs to assimilate at the same time would be a terrible strain under 3D viewing conditions.
Not to mention the glasses. As a four-eyed member of society, I agree completely with another member who mentioned this as a point of concern. When your only options are a blurry movie in 3D because you really can't wear glasses, or a blurry movie in 3D due to stressed contact lenses, it's lose-lose. Wearing both at the same time is simply not an option. It increases the headache and strain factor exponentially. Also, add in a headset for communication, and we're halfway to needing to go entirely bionic every time we sit down for a quick play.

Not digging it at all.

And don't even get me started on this whole "motion control" nonsense...
A great idea in theory, a horrible frustration in practice.

In short, I for one don't want to see "3D" or motion control as standard in games until I'm standing on a bloody holodeck.

I'm on the side that says 3D won't really find widespread adoption until it drops the need for glasses (powered or otherwise). All of the other new and fancy things that have come out (Color, Surround Sound, DVD, HD, etc) may have offered minor improvements that were hard to justify to the majority at the time, but none of them required that you do anything other than upgrade your equipment. You could still sit on the same couch, with your remote, or watch from in the kitchen, without issue. 3D, with the glasses, is putting additional burden on the viewing experience itself, instead of on the purchasing experience, like everything that came before. Want to have a large group of people over to watch something? Better have enough spare pairs of glasses.

Gaming, compared to film and TV, has a better chance of succeeding with 3D, because increasingly people play on screens by themselves (see: the slow, sad death of splitscreen gaming), and the content is often natively in 3D to start with (reducing the increase in development costs compared to film and TV which are captured right now in 2D). But... HD was enough to make me WANT a new TV. Avatar, and any game which adds depth only to likely give me motion sickness? Not so much.

Irridium:
And from what I've heard 3D doesn't alter the overall experience much.

I completely disagree with that. I found 3D movies to be far more immersive than regular movies. Obviously this is a subjective experience, but that is precisely my point. I don't think you should judge the worth of 3D viewing based on what others think, it's worth trying out for yourself.

As for the need of glasses everyone in this thread has brought up, I don't like it either. I think it's okay for the cinema, but not too great for the home. Luckily, there are alternatives ... unfortunately, they won't be readily available for some unknown amount of years.

What I do know is that when glasses-less 3D in the home does arrive, I'll be first in line. I can only imagine how awesome an FPS or racing game will be with binocular depth perception.

scifidownbeat:
Plus, 3D is biased towards people without glasses. People with glasses have 3 options: a) take off their regular glasses and put on the 3D glasses, b) put the 3D glasses on over the prescription ones, or c) get contact lens. None of the three options are viable.

I don't see why option (b) isn't viable. It works with protective glasses (e.g. the ones you wear during a chemistry experiment), why wouldn't it work for 3D glasses?

unoleian:
snip

It may have been me who brought up the whole "glasses on top of glasses" thing. I too wear glasses, and I sympathize completely. There may have been others who brought this up, but I haven't seen anyone else but me mention it.

Ravek:

Irridium:
And from what I've heard 3D doesn't alter the overall experience much.

I completely disagree with that. I found 3D movies to be far more immersive than regular movies. Obviously this is a subjective experience, but that is precisely my point. I don't think you should judge the worth of 3D viewing based on what others think, it's worth trying out for yourself.

As for the need of glasses everyone in this thread has brought up, I don't like it either. I think it's okay for the cinema, but not too great for the home. Luckily, there are alternatives ... unfortunately, they won't be readily available for some unknown amount of years.

What I do know is that when glasses-less 3D in the home does arrive, I'll be first in line. I can only imagine how awesome an FPS or racing game will be with binocular depth perception.

scifidownbeat:
Plus, 3D is biased towards people without glasses. People with glasses have 3 options: a) take off their regular glasses and put on the 3D glasses, b) put the 3D glasses on over the prescription ones, or c) get contact lens. None of the three options are viable.

I don't see why option (b) isn't viable. It works with protective glasses (e.g. the ones you wear during a chemistry experiment), why wouldn't it work for 3D glasses?

For your first point: I've only seen 1 3D movie, and that was a while ago. What I remember is massive headaches and having a horrid experience. I wore glasses back then as well, and my options were to take them off, which would make the movie blurry and cripple my experience, put one on over the other, which is massively uncomfortable and is a strain on the eyes, or not wear them, which at the time meant I had to watch the whole movie with a blue/red outline and it gave me a headache.

And for your second point when you ask why "b" isn't viable. Its because some times its goggles that have a strap that goes around your head, lessening the irritation. And if they are the glasses type of goggles, we endure since the chemicals could be dangerous, and its better safe than sorry.

Ravek:

scifidownbeat:
Plus, 3D is biased towards people without glasses. People with glasses have 3 options: a) take off their regular glasses and put on the 3D glasses, b) put the 3D glasses on over the prescription ones, or c) get contact lens. None of the three options are viable.

I don't see why option (b) isn't viable. It works with protective glasses (e.g. the ones you wear during a chemistry experiment), why wouldn't it work for 3D glasses?

Because of the way glasses and 3D technology currently works. Try and imagine wearing two pairs of glasses, its hell. I am physically incapable of watching a 3D movie for more than 30 minutes before it becomes unbearable. Until the technology no longer requires trickery on the human vision and processing it'll never be viable for the whole population.

GonzoGamer:
Years ago 3D went away and except for a few tv double features (don't forget to get your 3d glasses at 7-11) nobody really thought of it again until we started seeing it at disneyworld, it looked much better, didn't have the two tone glasses, and that's basically the level it's still at.

Started seeing it as Disneyworld?

I was a little kid when I fist saw that Capitan EO short at DisneyLand looking pretty much the same as current 3D movies do. That was before the mini 3D craze in the nineties. This recent rash of 3D movies is due more to a few taking a risk on it and it working out then any new technology or technique. The Capitan EO movie debuted in 1986 in case you where wondering, and even then all you needed was a special set of glasses that only looked slightly tinted.

Christian Ward:
There will be a lot of crap to wade through, sure. But hasn't that always been the case?

That's a telling statemnt though, isn't it? Is that something we should be readily willing to accept as gamers? Rather than expeting Game developers to produce quality products, we should accept that all games will dick around with pointless new technologies rather than drive at improving the art in some way? That we should be willing to accept hundreds of gimicky, garbage titles because a few of those gimicky titles might happen to not be trash?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Ebert was right uin one point he made, which is that movies (and video games) are already in 3D. Our brains account for the perspective, and add the depth.

In a movie where 3D is used subtly (coraline, avatar), you stop noticing it pretty quickly, because it's just replacing a function your brain was doing anyhow, and after about 10 minutes it's adding nothing to the film.

In a movie where it's used as a gimmick (virtually everything else) it's jarring, silly, and damages the film's merit as a vehicle for storytelling. It's no longer about telling a compelling story, or showcasing the performances of A-list actors, it's about seeing how many times you can make the audience jump out of their seat.

In previous generations, (up to this one, frankly) there have been marked increases in the graphical quality of games. We've reached levels of realism and detail that weren't possible even 5 years ago. There was legitimate purpose served by pursuing these technological advances. They allowed for more immersive, believable, and diverse game worlds.

Having reached that point of diminishing returns we should be looking now at how to improve and innovate those issues that have been identified with the game technology we have, looking for better ways to use the medium to convey story, bringing character acting more in-line with the calibre you would expect in film. Overcoming the hurdles of gameplay and camera issues. Working to perfect the art, and reduce the amount of trash just trying to part you from your money.

The problem is that doing so is expensive, and doesn't promise the kind of returns that adding another flaky technology for people to buy does.

I want to weigh in on the side of people who consider games to be art. I really do. And I have no problem with making great art for profit, even michaelangelo painted the cistine chapel and carved the statue of david for a contracted fee. But this is straight up trying to force people to buy different, and more expensive technology with no inherent benefit to the art itself because it's a money-maker. It's easy, it's lazy, and it's bad for the art form.

-m

However, the simple fact is that the graphical arms race is at a stalemate. We're well past the point of diminishing returns when it comes to graphical quality - it's no longer profitable to improve sheer graphical quality of a console to the point where it gives a clear advantage over the opposition.

I'm not so sure about that. We'll just have to see what happens with the 8th gen consoles.

As long as we can move away from those silly glasses (that don't work for me anyway since I'm half blind...they just turn everything blue XD), I think 3D could ultimately succeed. I wouldn't pay more for a 3D enabled TV, but the way things are going that will probably be my only option before the decade is up. So meh. Just as long as we ditch the glasses.

What, Ebert's column on 'games are not art' was good? Seriously? Regardless of whether or not I agree with what he says, he said upfront that he never found a video game worth playing (so he's never studied the subject he's talking about), only examined some videos, and then defines games as something based on 'points' and 'end goals', which excludes everything from Spore to Dwarf Fortress. I'm not saying that point can't be argued, I'm just saying he argued it exceptionally poorly. The only reason that his column rose to fame is that we gamers love being butthurt and complaining about how misunderstood we are.

OT: I agree with Ebert's take on 3D. His notion that it goes against the way traditional filmmaking has to shove attention to the foreground or background by using good editing/camera/etc. is pretty spot-on. 3D just ruins this subtle element of filmmaking, and I don't think much is gained in exchange for it.

I am particularly not too keen on believing one element or other will completely change how a medium works. Books have been around for millenia and even if now we can download them onto our thingamabobs and read them on the go, it doesn't mean they're more than words after words, plus drawings if it's Breakfast of Champions. It's still the same thing they've been since the Odyssey. If movies truly are the seventh art they shouldn't be so fickle to change. If even color movies didn't have that much effect, what else will?

As for its impact in gaming, the attempts to deliver graphics that are continously but not noticeably improving is bringing the costs of game development through the roof. If 3D becomes the next big thing it just might be the final nail on the modern game industry's coffin.

I find critics like Ebert or Yahtzee most curious beings. On the one hand, they offer truly valuable insight in the fields they choose that you would very rarely get from other 'reviewers'. However they almost always crash and burn spectacularly when addressing issues that are not their area of expertise. Hearing Yahtzee quip about gaming webcomics? Fine. Having him go on a personal attack against a specific webcomic (which he had slagged off thrice on his personal blog) and having him weakly try to defend himself, that if we recognize a certain webcomic it says more about us than him? I call bull on that. Same with Ebert mentioning videogames briefly as opposed to what he instead chose to do - going off on a pointless rant about them, which spawned from a single event that he watched over the damn television to begin with. Both instances are quite beneath them both in either case.

That being said 3D is a topic for both videogames as well as movies. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out wether it will crash and burn or if it's the next big thing. Ask yourself this - what does 3D give us that is fundamentally different from what we have seen before? I've asked myself this question as I watched Avatar in the cinemas and the answer was, funnily enough, the same as that of Yahtzee about 2009's E3 Natal presentation. It's just another little cocktease in the end. It's as if it taunts you to 'step into' the world itself, but bottom line is that you will still not AFFECT that world. So unless movies actually want to become more like videogames, I don't see how far it'll go there.

But within videogames? The prospects are slightly higher, because you can actually affect the 3D world with your gameplay choices. However, once again, what type of game would offer the most amount of gratification for those kinds of choices? It depends what you would be after I suppose. The most logical answer would be RPG, but some people just want to speed through their game or imagine that they're really flying in the air or so forth.

Bottom-line, videogames actually *do* have an advantage over promoting 3D moreso than movies, quite simply because the audience can fulfill a part of what the 3D gimmick offers to them with its very existence. To 'reach out and touch someone', heh.

I am and have always been interested in stereoscopic 3D. I'll definitely be jumping on the 3D bandwagon whenever it stops being horrendously expensive.

Get rid of the glasses and people will start to get interested. I wonder how the 3DS is going to work without needing glasses?

I've yet failed to see the importance of 3D. Maybe it's because I don't really capture anything truly three-dimensional; it all looks more like a paper theater to me... The trick of perception only makes my head ache after a long long time (I'm looking at you Avatar). I've talked to other folk, and some feel it too, others don't.

Another problem this technology seems to be having, is the gimmick-y feel attached to it. Like Mr. Ward said, many things that sell graphically are gimmick-y, but when you go to see Clash of the Titans 3D, and everyone gets the feeling the 3D part was just to rob you of some more of your valuable money, then you have a problem. It adds no beneficts, and it ends up being more expensive... I'll pass that one up.

It'd be like having a very crappy game advertising mainly about Advanced Shadows. Sure, I love that the shadow of my character doesn't resemble the one cast down by a tree, but if that's all you're going for, it doesn't seem too strong a case. (Especially since shadows are the first thing I turn off so the games can run more smoothly in my ever-aging pc).

Furthermore, there seems to be some health problems as well. A portuguese newspaper (I won't provide the link because, well, it's in portuguese), claims that SAMSUNG already issued a warning regarding some issues that may arise when using their new active 3D TV, which include dizyness, nauseas, loss of consciousness .... and it can even cause a STROKE! So they recommend that old people, pregnant ladies, those under the influence of alcohol or who didn't have a good night sleep do not use the system.

So, if this ammounts to be true, I'll use a potentially lethal piece of technology, so my brain can be tricked into believing that a football (soccer) player is standing up on the field or something? Ohh yeah sign me in! I'm all up for Russian Roullette...

For now 3D is as important to my immersion in gaming/movies as the brown palette is for realism (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=224)

I get the idea that mr. Ebert deals too much in "can'ts". Games can't be art. 3D can't add anything meaningful to movies.

Sounds to me more like the stubbornness of an old man than the insight of a respected critic.

3D has been a gimmick since the 40's or 50's, and until we get proper force feedback with motion controls, that is going to stay a gimmick as well.

Instead of publishers/developers trying to crowbar features into games for all these stupid gadgets made to try and cover the fact GPU companies have pushed the visual envelope to the point it's stalled, they could.. I don't know... work on making the games better and more fun to play instead of continuing with the current short "graphics demos" with the game part tacked on as an afterthought

I really hope it won't become accepted norms

one, I can't see 3D and I work long hours and last thing I want to do is flail around...

Every few years, everybody gets pysched about 3D. Then people just forget about it, It'll be similar this time.

Personally, I'm not excited for anything 3D or motion controlled.

I went to see Avatar in 3D for the experience and to figure out if all the hype surrounding it had any truth. I found that the cheap 3D glasses (sitting uncomfortably in front of my own glasses) gave me a headache, slight nausea, and distracted me from the movie. The actual 3D reminded me too much of a pop-up book... a really, really... really long pop-up book. I feel that 3D took away from the overall experience.

As for motion control... well, it's simply something I do not enjoy. My Wii stands alone, collecting dust, the neon sign that read "Motion control, oh my!" having burnt out long ago...

I love how mentally stimulating, yet physically relaxing video games are. I really don't want that to change. I do hope that, regardless of whether or not 3D keeps up, companies would put a little less effort into getting our attention, and a little more into creating an immersive, lasting, and enjoyable gaming experience.

CrystalShadow:

GonzoGamer:
Years ago 3D went away and except for a few tv double features (don't forget to get your 3d glasses at 7-11) nobody really thought of it again until we started seeing it at disneyworld, it looked much better, didn't have the two tone glasses, and that's basically the level it's still at.

The reason I think 3d will stay a fad for the time being is because of the glasses and the cost. I still know plenty of people who watch tv in sd and those who got an hd set only got it recently. I don't see these people replacing their recently acquired hdtv for a 3d set any time soon. And the glasses? Really? In the decades of progress since the sub-medium was introduced, we still have to use the glasses. I understand why, I just find it hard to believe that all those clever minds never found a way around it.

They have. But it'll take time. The prototypes for at least 1 system that would be viable to build have been around for about 3 years.
Although, I'll be surprised if we'll see real-world examples of it before 2015...

Holographic displays exist as working prototypes.
No glasses, and no half-finished 3d effect. Proper depth, much less headaches, and NO GLASSES.

The technology is there, but needs a few more years to work on.
In the meantime, we are left with the half-hearted attempts we have now, and the glasses...

Then they should've waited to try and get it into people's homes until they perfected it. Who's going to buy a 3d TV you need to wear goggles for and warm up for a half hour if holographic sets will be on the way... well, I guess it'll be the same people who bought 8track, laserdisc, and hd-dvd formats.

That is pretty cool though.

manaman:

Started seeing it as Disneyworld?

I was a little kid when I fist saw that Capitan EO short at DisneyLand looking pretty much the same as current 3D movies do. That was before the mini 3D craze in the nineties. This recent rash of 3D movies is due more to a few taking a risk on it and it working out then any new technology or technique. The Capitan EO movie debuted in 1986 in case you where wondering, and even then all you needed was a special set of glasses that only looked slightly tinted.

Yea EO, that's what I was talking about. That was 86? Older than I thought.

That's what I mean. The last time I saw a 3d movie, I was wearing the same kind of thing that came out 25 years ago.

All I'm saying is that it took them less time to put sound and color into film then to get 3d goggle-less.

Irridium:
Maybe Avatar made so much money not because of 3D, but because it was, you know, good.

HA!

Sure a lot of people don't like the movie, but it seems a lot more do. And from what I've heard 3D doesn't alter the overall experience much.

HA HA!

Avatar was good, yes, but I don't go to see a good movie three times. I go to see a spectacular phenomenon three times, and I went to see Avatar three times so I could see it in all its permutations - 3D, IMAX 3D, and 2D. When it's used correctly 3D adds a whole new dimension something completely new and refreshing to an already great cinema experience. I think 3D will be a big hit with gamers once they become accustomed to it because its primary benefit is to immerse the viewer in what they are viewing, and I know as a gamer that's right up my alley.

As for Ebert being stuck in his old fashioned ways, that die was cast long ago:

GonzoGamer:

CrystalShadow:

GonzoGamer:
Years ago 3D went away and except for a few tv double features (don't forget to get your 3d glasses at 7-11) nobody really thought of it again until we started seeing it at disneyworld, it looked much better, didn't have the two tone glasses, and that's basically the level it's still at.

The reason I think 3d will stay a fad for the time being is because of the glasses and the cost. I still know plenty of people who watch tv in sd and those who got an hd set only got it recently. I don't see these people replacing their recently acquired hdtv for a 3d set any time soon. And the glasses? Really? In the decades of progress since the sub-medium was introduced, we still have to use the glasses. I understand why, I just find it hard to believe that all those clever minds never found a way around it.

They have. But it'll take time. The prototypes for at least 1 system that would be viable to build have been around for about 3 years.
Although, I'll be surprised if we'll see real-world examples of it before 2015...

Holographic displays exist as working prototypes.
No glasses, and no half-finished 3d effect. Proper depth, much less headaches, and NO GLASSES.

The technology is there, but needs a few more years to work on.
In the meantime, we are left with the half-hearted attempts we have now, and the glasses...

Then they should've waited to try and get it into people's homes until they perfected it. Who's going to buy a 3d TV you need to wear goggles for and warm up for a half hour if holographic sets will be on the way... well, I guess it'll be the same people who bought 8track, laserdisc, and hd-dvd formats.

That is pretty cool though.

manaman:

Started seeing it as Disneyworld?

I was a little kid when I fist saw that Capitan EO short at DisneyLand looking pretty much the same as current 3D movies do. That was before the mini 3D craze in the nineties. This recent rash of 3D movies is due more to a few taking a risk on it and it working out then any new technology or technique. The Capitan EO movie debuted in 1986 in case you where wondering, and even then all you needed was a special set of glasses that only looked slightly tinted.

Yea EO, that's what I was talking about. That was 86? Older than I thought.

That's what I mean. The last time I saw a 3d movie, I was wearing the same kind of thing that came out 25 years ago.

All I'm saying is that it took them less time to put sound and color into film then to get 3d goggle-less.

8-track where introduced in the late 60's and stuck around until they where abandoned as a recording formate in the mid 80's. They lasted as long as DVD's did. Laserdisc failed less because there was something better in the works, and more because the format was horrible and VHS tapes where many times cheaper less cumbersome to handle. Even then Laserdisk stuck around as an elitist option until DVDs started making an appearance. HD-DVD was out pretty much at the same time as Blue-Ray and is a superior format in some regards, it was the encryption available on Blu-Ray that won over the various industries that eventually backed it even more so then the increased capacity (which is not needed for a HD movie, a well encoded movie still looks incredible compressed enough to fit on a DVD. New techs rarely fail because something better is around the corner. Unless they are actively campaigning the product. Probably because people are either jaded or disinterested in what-ifs when it comes to technology. They are interested in what they can see and demo. After all there is always something better 10 years away.

Holographic displays have been just around the corner for over a decade. They are still trying out various techniques and technologies in an attempt to find something that actually works, and works well. This is still a technology that is at least "10 years" away, and will be for some time, unless they make some major breakthroughs. http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/27/toshiba-mobile-display-touts-21-inch-glasses-free-3d-hdtv-raise/ That is something to actually watch. A scaled up autostereoscopic screen. Nice.

3D is a nice idea. I mean, sure, i can live with it. And quite honestly, I bet I'd get a bit whoozy when glassless 3D starts to roll around the place. But I bet that's kinda like what people back when films started to appear might of felt. I remember getting a bit whoozy after a few minutes of play in my early years because I saw movement. I imagines it. But there was none.
Same analogy could be applied to 3D. It'll make you go "urgh" for a while, before you get used to it.

That being said. I don't like 3D as a gimmick. And to me, watching Avatar in 3D was interesting, but ultimately redundant since they had incorporated one important thing into the movie. Depth.
Don't have a clue what I'm talking about? Ok, make a gun with your hand, index is the barrel, thumb is the hammer. Put the tip of your thumb at your nose, index pointing up. Now loot at your index.
Everything beyond blurs out (I wasn't trying to make you feel sick, trust me). That's depth. In movies, they make some parts of the scene sharp to indicate, and automatically lead your eyes to look at, important parts. The parts the director wants you to see, not the background noise.
3D, simply put, borderlines the important parts a bit more. Simulating the effect of you concentrating on that something you are looking at.

3D in games would be a nice add. But should not be an integral, important thing. It should be more like, anti-aliasing. People who had the tech needed can benefit from it, those who don't, can still play the game, but simply with one less graphics option turned on.
Actually, from my experience, Depth Perception (that is an option in some games, sometimes with other names) is basically a cheaper version of 3D and, well, it works. You know what is further and what is closer from the thing you are looking at.

If they come up with something that really works. YAY! If not... no harm done.

scifidownbeat:

Plus, 3D is biased towards people without glasses. People with glasses have 3 options: a) take off their regular glasses and put on the 3D glasses, b) put the 3D glasses on over the prescription ones, or c) get contact lens. None of the three options are viable.

Is it really? Most of the people I know who enjoy 3D most are those who WEAR glasses. Most of us put them on over our normal glasses just fine, not being gibbering morons.

Most of the people who don't like it I know, don't likle it due to the fact they have to wear glasses, which they find uncomfortable.

If the stadard cinema ones annoy you, find an old pair of sunglasses poke out the lenses andreplace them with cut to size ones from a set from the cinema, making suer not to rotate them, and using the lenses for the same side.

The home sets tend to be adjustable, and even have differnt nose pieces.

The crucial thing with making 3D games or films ,is to make it pretty much as if you weren't.

Soemthings a gimmick when its trying to be noticed for the sake of being noticed, and is used to prop up something thats otherwise poor, Surround Sound, HD, Colour and Widescreen all suffered to differing degrees from this.

Avatars big breakthrough in 3D was that it didn't go out of its way to make things pop out at you like most of its mainstream 3D predicessors did.

The is a second force behind 3D this time and thats sport broadcasting. This is actually has alot of potential benifit, as the extra depth and perspective can clear up alot off issues.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here