3D--The next big thing, or gimmick?

[Dobie]

With all the E3 focus publishers and hardware manufacturers put on 3D as the latest greatest thing, obviously its going to be a big part of games for the forseeable future. Since I have not yet experienced 3D in a game setting, I have no real idea what this means. I picture all sorts of gimmicky "enemy flies out of screen and over your head" type of scenarios, but I'm sure there has to be more to it than that, right?

So my question is what does 3D do to move video games forward as a medium? What experiences are not possible today that could be with 3D? So far I haven't seen anything that immediately jumps out and screams "this is a better way." Perhaps I'm missing something. It is obviously early, and the games that have implemented 3D thus far were not designed specifically with 3D in mind, so I'm willing to give 3D a fair shake before casting judgement. Will we have to wait until the next generation of consoles (2-3 years or more) to see the full benefits of such a technology?

[Oldskool]

It might not be the next big thing right at this moment. But everything will eventually move to 3D. It's the way of the future man!

[jb143]

For one thing, the sense of depth tells you exactly where an object is in 3D space. My wife was playing a gamecube game the other day where you had to jump through rings floating in the air. She was getting a little frustrated because she couldn't tell exactly where they were, how far away they were etc...Usually a game makes up for this by placing a shadow on the ground but where these rings were you couldn't see the shadows. With a steroscopic 3D view, you would very natually know exactly where they are.

I see this as probally one of the only strengths. Other than that, I can't see it adding much to the gameplay itself; and the "coolness" factor will probally quickly wear off. Now, if you add in head tracking, then you're changing the game all together and you could probally introduce some cool new gameplay mechanics.

EDIT-
Also, I just wanted to add that unless you mount the TV on the ceiling, there is no way to see an object flying out of the screen and over your head.;)

[ScourDX]

If you can see through this image, you don't need 3d.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4829/3dchickn.jpg

[Dobie]

If you can see through this image, you don't need 3d.

Dang you, I could never see those. I was always the guy in the store staring at it for 30 minutes with a dumbfounded look on my face. Like the dude in "Mallrats."

[dendawg]

Until 3D displays that don't need glasses comes out, 3D will be nothing but a gimmick.

[garagesaleking!!]

Look how long it took for lcd tvs to catch on, blu ray is still struggling to attract demand, 3d will not succeed unless they stop trying to rape you with the cost and after a short amount of time make it affordable for the masses. So many people have nought new tvs over the past few years that dont plan on upgrading for a long time. And those were the people that held off for a long time to upgrade to flat screen to begin with. People are sick of buying new stuff.

[LiquidPolicenaut]

I just don't get why they decided to all of a sudden bring back tech that was big back in the frickin' 50's! I have no desire (or means actually) of playing PS3 3D games or viewing 3D movies because I HAVE to buy a 3D TV PLUS some stupid 3D glasses to wear on top of my glasses! For now, I just really don't care for it...

[Greg2600]

It's not the glasses or the cost, it's the fact that the human eye is not meant to view it. The brain already views the screen and images on it as "3D." Anything that is done to trick it is not the same as corrective lenses for reading. No, that is changing how light gets to your eyes. Polarized 3D tries to trick your brain. So many people get tired eyes, headaches, etc. from it. I saw a 3D TV at Best Buy the other day, and it used the same polarizing as the theaters do. I have 20/20 vision, no glasses, and I cannot take that kind of 3D for a very long time. My eyes get very tired, because you're having to focus so much. Your brain knows the TV screen is two-dimensional. No, the only way to get true 3D is with holograms, which might be decades away.

[jb143]

I saw a 3D TV at Best Buy the other day, and it used the same polarizing as the theaters do.

I'm not sure this is accurate. As far as I know, all the TV's use shutter glasses with alternating frames while movies use overlapping projections and polarized filters on the glasses.


the only way to get true 3D is with holograms, which might be decades away.
AS far as the hologram thing...they are just as much an illusion as the rest of the 3D stuff...and almost to the same exact degree. The difference of course being that you (and multiple viewers)can look around the scene. But the 3D depth you perceive is still an illusion of a 3D scene that only exists on a 2D surface.

I haven't looked too much into it, but I'd imagine that the reason some people get headaches is because either they are more unacceptable to flickering or because they may not view the screen with their head perfectly straight up and down. (Cocking your head slightly to the side will create a slightly distorted effect.)

[kupomogli]

PC already has 3d gaming, but not many people had the funding back then to purchase a gaming PC. Not only is gaming more mainstream now, but where I live at least, you can't find a new television that's not HD. If you want new, then HDTV is really the only option, so why not bring 3d to a more mainstream compatible device?

I didn't care for the idea of 3d until I read WCP's post about it. However, even now I don't care about it for anything but Test Drive Unlimited 2(Gran Turismo 5 will have to do since I doubt we'll see TDU2 in 3d) and Mirror's Edge. The only games I think will do well in 3d is anything first person or a limited amount of third person(think Resident Evil 4/5.)

Virtual reality is what I'm sure the ultimate long term technological goal, but in reality, 3d is the closest we will ever come to that as true virtual reality is fake and only exists in movies. So now we have 3d and motion compatible accessories to act like we're actually doing something in a virtual world.

[retroman]

gimmick...who wants to wear shit on their face....i dont.

[Smoke]

I hope it's the next big thing, i love 3D.

[alec006]

Maybe they should shine a laser at your eyes to make it seem like the image is 3D. Technology always goes in an upward direction and remember we are at the beginning of the decade so we will just have to see what 3D does in this decade before we can say anything about it,still waiting on flying cars Back to the Future promised them by 2015!!

[The 1 2 P]

I think it's a gimmick, the gimmick that keeps returning every 10 years or so. It's definitely not going to catch on right away because of the cost of 3D tvs, glasses and the discomfort that the glasses cause some people over time. Two years from now we will be on the next tech gimmick.

[Gameguy]

Anyone remember the Time Traveller arcade game? Did that technology become popular since then or was it forgotten?

[Oldskool]

Anyone remember the Time Traveller arcade game? Did that technology become popular since then or was it forgotten?

I remember that game, THAT was 3D. I don't think the technology like that ever became popular. Should have though.

3D will be cool when they can make TV's that are like the 3DS where you don't have to wear glasses.

[exit]

Anyone remember the Time Traveller arcade game? Did that technology become popular since then or was it forgotten?

Was that the hologram game with the weird set up? I vaguely remember playing that game and fighting Indians or something, the game suddenly ended and I wasn't quite sure what just happened. Other than the novelty, it was pretty forgettable, which is exactly how I feel about the sudden 3D craze. As someone else has said, this happens about every 10 years or so and then everyone gets over it.

[Oobgarm]

I'm sold on 3DS already. But I actually want to play the games on it.

I couldn't give less of a shit about 3D though. It's still way too gimmicky and expensive, and I don't think I'll ever be really into it.

[maxlords]

PC already has 3d gaming, but not many people had the funding back then to purchase a gaming PC. Not only is gaming more mainstream now, but where I live at least, you can't find a new television that's not HD. If you want new, then HDTV is really the only option, so why not bring 3d to a more mainstream compatible device?

I didn't care for the idea of 3d until I read WCP's post about it. However, even now I don't care about it for anything but Test Drive Unlimited 2(Gran Turismo 5 will have to do since I doubt we'll see TDU2 in 3d) and Mirror's Edge. The only games I think will do well in 3d is anything first person or a limited amount of third person(think Resident Evil 4/5.)

Virtual reality is what I'm sure the ultimate long term technological goal, but in reality, 3d is the closest we will ever come to that as true virtual reality is fake and only exists in movies. So now we have 3d and motion compatible accessories to act like we're actually doing something in a virtual world.

Mirror's Edge in 3D? Elaborate please....

[chrisbid]

Until 3D displays that don't need glasses comes out, 3D will be nothing but a gimmick.

agreed

[chrisbid]

Was that the hologram game with the weird set up? I vaguely remember playing that game and fighting Indians or something, the game suddenly ended and I wasn't quite sure what just happened. Other than the novelty, it was pretty forgettable, which is exactly how I feel about the sudden 3D craze. As someone else has said, this happens about every 10 years or so and then everyone gets over it.

the game was called time traveler. i found that game on dvd a few years ago. it wasnt very fun, but for the few bucks it cost it is a cool novelty to pick up and mess around with.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Like anything else in the AV world since the VCR... It depends if the porn producers embrace it or not.

[Zama]

Hmm 3D is confusing. :deadhorse: When I first saw Super Mario RPG, I thought that was 3D but now there's more modern 3D than previous 3D? :confused:

[Zthun]

Like anything else in the AV world since the VCR... It depends if the porn producers embrace it or not.

This. My friend and I were talking about when humans eventually develop the technology for virtual reality. Can you imagine how much the porn industry will take off beyond what it is today. Virtual sex in 3D with (insert porn star name here) - most men probably wouldn't ever leave the house..

[Dobie]

So the reasons I've seen in the thread so far for 3D in games... helps with platforming. So we'd see a renaissance in platformers? Super Mario 64 remakes do not exactly make me want to run out and drop mad jack on new kit.

3D bewbs though... LOL

Maybe a game like Assassin's Creed would stand to benefit from a tech like this. I remember getting mildly frustrated when falling of a roof because of some hidden hole or alley that was obscured and having to climb back up. Not sure how 3D would help with that though.

I'm just trying to think how 3D can really give us new and better experiences, like the advertising SAYS we will. Just not seeing many gaming applications as of now.

[Graham Mitchell]

I haven't really played with the neo-3d stuff at all. I haven't even seen one of those 3d movies. I didn't even see avatar.

But in the 90s I stuck my head in a virtual boy for about 10 minutes to play the wario land game and it was awesome.

I think it'll probably be a cool effect, but cost prohibitive.

One concern I have about it comes from some articles I read about 3d gaming. Essentially, the way the shutter devices work will cut your vertical resolution in half. I'm currently really enjoying the sharp details of hd gaming, and by jumping to 3d you're going to lose some of that definition.

I read they have a prototype device that's a polarized screen placed in front of the monitor that diverts the two images to the appropriate eyes. This eliminates the need for glasses, but again will reduce the image resolution.

I think they've still got a way to go before this technology is both affordable and reasonably comfortable and easy to use.

Meanwhile, I think the 3ds is a great idea. Just buy the unit for $300 (or whatever its going to cost) and you've got access to a whole library of games designed for the unit, with no bullshit pricey peripherals.

[Cryomancer]

Time Traveller isn't even that complex of technology. It's just a curved mirror and a TV. You see similar things used in some pinball machines. It certainly was neat to see once but it cost WAY too much to play and was confusing / standard LD game twich now or die and be out one of your 2 lives your dollar bought you gameplay so no one gave a crap.

[WCP]

I'm still playing the 4 PS3 games in 3D, and I'm still enjoying it. I got my all-time high score on Super Stardust HD while playing it in 3D, and I actually think the fact that it was 3D was a big factor, because you can see whats going on around your ship a bit better.

I love the 4 games that I've been playing, but I must admit that there is a bit of eye fatigue after awhile, and I doubt that I would want to play a game like Fallout 3 or Red Dead Redemption in 3D. Mainly because those are games that I like to sit down and play for 3 hours straight, and doing that with the 3D glasses on, would definitely leave me with some serious eye fatigue.

[jb143]

Time Traveller isn't even that complex of technology. It's just a curved mirror and a TV. You see similar things used in some pinball machines. It certainly was neat to see once but it cost WAY too much to play and was confusing / standard LD game twich now or die and be out one of your 2 lives your dollar bought you gameplay so no one gave a crap.

Yeah, the thing with that is that it's not even really 3D, much less a hologram. The curved mirror just creates a virtual 2D image of the TV screen so it appears to floating in 3D space. A clever gimmick that's very far removed from what we're doing now.

For an experiment I was going to look up old threads on here(but they didn't go back far enough) when many many games started going "3D rendered" to see if people made the same arguments..."3D is just a gimmick and 2D games will be back", "3D sucks", etc... I'm sure there were (or would have been) because I remember hearing them myself. There are still many 2D games(though many of them are rendered by a 3D engine) but 3D is mainstream now. Certainly wasn't the gimmick that many people thought it was. I also remember when everyone couldn't wait for the future when our games would really be in 3D and look like they come out of the screen. Now that the future is about here we all want things to stay the way they were. Human nature I guess.