Sessler's Soapbox: Is 3-D the Future of Gaming?

Posted: January 13, 2010
Sessler's Soapbox: Is 3-D the Future of Gaming?
Adam discusses all the new 3-D technologies shown off at CES 2010 and wonders if they will represent the next step in game immersion.

Comments are Closed

  • Markntosh

    Thank you, Adam. Once again we have a soapbox that does a good job of using logic and common sense, two things that are, sadly, endangered in our world.

    Posted: January 18, 2010 2:27 PM
  • Arsenette

    Having survived the 1980's 3D craze.. Adam you should know it's not new :) Well.. okay I admit.. the gaming tech going 3D is new but the idea of wearing those stupid glasses to see something is ridiculous. Personally as someone who wears glasses and not contact.. having to wear something over them is not at all appealing. I totally agree that it's the fad of now where everyone and their mother wants this in lieu of actual content that would make me buy the game in the first place.

    Posted: January 18, 2010 11:05 AM
  • rayken15

    Yeah, I think I recall something similar being said about the Modal T and talking pictures.
    In all seriousness. I think this is a viable idea, it's just pre-mature. I think it's a technology that should be left alone until the next gen systems come out. Not only does no on have a tv that can support this, no one has the money or desire to buy one.

    Posted: January 18, 2010 10:03 AM
  • apr19

    I say...DOWN WITH GAMING 3D. Seriously, most people cant afford a good HD TV so why go and make something that only people that have money, in times like these, can get. Keep 3D in the theaters.

    Posted: January 18, 2010 6:34 AM
  • the gonz

    Racing games would be the only genre where i could see 3D adding something to the experience, such as parts from a wreck flying at your winshield

    Posted: January 18, 2010 4:15 AM
  • bmben

    Hey Sessler, you know what's smart? You are. I actually first saw one of these soapboxes on gamesradar (killzone 2 forum lunacy) and was SHOCKED to see that G4's talking head was not only funny without a script, but had a vocabulary and understood aesthetics and critical theory to boot. Where's the podcast? Come on! New fan (never been a "fanboy" though).

    I not only completely agree with this point of view, I think you could just edit in the word "natal" for 3d and repost this in a year. Peter Molyneux epitomized the CES mentality in that trailer. Doesn't anyone remember how he was acting before Fable was released? Adding motion control or 3d would be fine if it was cheap and could be turned off (my wife has a lazy eye which renders 3d useless). And don't tell gamers what the future of gaming is, that's our right to decide.

    Posted: January 18, 2010 3:17 AM
  • VikingrBerserkr

    You don't care about 3D, Dane Cook or Avatar, Adam you are now my friend :P

    Posted: January 17, 2010 11:56 PM
  • Flashx

    I agree with everything Adam said. I'd also like to add that like about a third of Americans, I have Astigmatism, which means I can't see 3D images on a theater or TV screen. Those glasses can't compensate for my eyes focal points. I don't have it that bad, but some people get physically ill from watching these things. Why is this never talked about!?!?

    Posted: January 17, 2010 9:06 PM
  • deuce3

    adam your right 3D is a gimmick... i dont like 3D its cool for a movie once in a while but i dont wanna watch tv with glasses... and games? i dont need to see who's at the side of me in a game... i dont like change, change is scarey... why are you moving to tuesday? why tuesday im scared dont like change and feedback wednesday?! WhAt?!! 0_o the world is changing around me....aaahhhh!!!!

    Posted: January 17, 2010 1:54 PM
  • Spoonpwner


    Posted: January 17, 2010 1:17 PM
  • Spoonpwner


    Posted: January 17, 2010 1:17 PM
  • kujel

    I totally agree with you mr.Sessler, 3D doesn't add anything. The same thing is true of blu-ray (I know the sony fanboys would disagree but hear me out). 3D in games is like blu-ray for games, the games don't play better, we don't get more content (I mean actual content, not a few more pixels), the games aren't longer, and they both do their thing at a added burden to developers without really adding anything tangible.

    Posted: January 17, 2010 11:36 AM
  • kentatayfoe

    Sure the 3D graphics are great but they also made me feel so sick that half way through avatar I threw up, wouldn't be surprised if we weren't doing permanent damage to our eye sight.
    I most certainly agree with Adam, great job man on the soapbox!
    Sure 3D movies can keep it up as long as they don't mess with my games!

    Posted: January 17, 2010 11:28 AM
  • JoeBushido

    I've, personally, always felt that 3D is the next logical step in home entertainment and HD is really just a half step. The 3D that's being done right now is good, but it will get better. I'm always hearing "epic scale" as a selling feature of games like GOW3 and so on, what better way to capture that than with a genuine sense of depth? Also, look at racing sims like GT5.. having true depth perception would be incredibly useful order to accurately judge speed and when to begin cornering. Or how about Project Natal? That kick-ball demo they used at E3 was neat, but it was a little awkward because you can't really tell when to hit the ball, you have to develop a "feel" for it simply due to the lack of depth.

    3D is still pretty new, and with any new thing, some will say it's gimmicky and useless, while others will say it's revolutionary. I take the middle road and say it's gimmicky right now because no one really knows the potential, and it's still too new to be taken for granted. I remember someone once saying "Super Mario Kart controls just fine with a SNES controller, what do we need analog for? It's really just a gimmick". Well, it's a gimmick until someone finds a real use for it.

    Posted: January 17, 2010 10:30 AM
  • ScienceOfSleep

    i gotta disagree. i was skeptical as hell about avatar the movie. but my god the 3d was outstanding. you say it doesnt add emersion... but every single conversation seemed like i was there and damn. breathtaking. 3d is not going to go away.

    Posted: January 16, 2010 10:35 PM
  • Rodigo1

    hey from a purely objective standpoint here, i watch this on hd just for funsies and the lighting makes the screens way too bright and it's hard to see in great detail the games themselves.

    runons ftw

    Posted: January 16, 2010 10:24 PM
  • slackersphere

    @ absydion

    lol filabuster, good sir

    Posted: January 16, 2010 7:47 PM
  • Absydion

    Greetings, Adam! I've watched many of your soapboxes, and up until now I've always agreed with you (I frequently comment to my peers that you're single-handedly raising the level of discourse in gaming journalism). Having said that, I don't understand why you're so against this development. Well, I think I understand, but I think your arguments are specious. If 3D is bad because the economy is terrible, people's tight wallets will force the new technology to fail (it simply won't be adopted widely enough). I also don't see how 3D will force games to be more mediocre. There will always be mediocre games being made, and there will continue to be great games produced. Nothing will change in that regard (in my opinion, at least).

    The technology is, simply put, fun--at least for a lot of people. It's great to see things in 3D. You said that when you watched Avatar, you couldn't see anything. Was that a metaphor, or could you actually not see the 3D? True, the movie is Pocahontas in space with a strong post-colonial and eco-conscious message, but I thought it was a very entertaining movie and the 3D was used to good effect.

    I have thought about what the experience of 3D televisions will be like. Of course, if the technology is widely adpoted, more than Discovery and sports will be offered in that medium. My main concern is with those glasses. Will people be wearing all the time on the couch? Will that put added eye strain on them? For those of us who wear prescription glasses, will they make 3D prescription glasses for use in front of the TV? I suspect a wide market base will offer solutions to many of these problems (demand will spark innovation). My response, though, is not the conservative, knee-jerk recoiling from novelty, as so many may have responded to earlier innovations in media forms. Your message is, ironically, the one Avatar seems to proliferate: things are good as they are. We should resist progress. Drive those humans off our pretty blue planet and conserve what is. I don't think that's possible, and being open to the technology will at least allow people in your position to suggest ways it might be better utilized, or might allow you to suggest a place beyond it where we might go.

    Anyway, that's my two cents. Thank you for what you do out there. The drivvel of so much of the gaming media is painful, and even when I disagree with you, you come across as far more thoughtful than many others.

    Posted: January 16, 2010 11:26 AM
  • Schepis

    I would say the idea of wrapping ourselves around something new just for the sake of it being new is a fairly universal concept. Look at Sony's response to digital distribution with the PSP Go. Some suit from Japan says, "Hey, we need a new iteration of the PSP and digital distribution is the new thing. Let's make a PSP around this idea even if it cuts off our established user base."

    Posted: January 16, 2010 5:50 AM
  • bloodlustwar

    i dont see 3d taking off in any big way in gaming it sound like there just doing it to say the can.

    Posted: January 15, 2010 1:54 PM