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

  • bdemell

    I don't understand why anyone wants to watch tv or play video games in 3D and wear those stupid glasses, etc, etc.

    From CES I'm far more interested in the new interactive technology out there like the new tv's you can control with hand motion. that's a much better technological innovation that will help entertainment whereas 3D will not.

    Posted: January 14, 2010 4:33 AM
  • NetheRealm

    Skip 3d & give us PS9 with Star Trek TNG Holodeck Graphics

    Posted: January 14, 2010 4:17 AM
  • PcgamerWithAClue

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to do some research before standing on that box.

    Posted: January 14, 2010 3:31 AM
  • PcgamerWithAClue

    3d is not new, including shutter glasses.
    They have been used in pc games for over a decade and currently with 120hz monitors (which are cheaper than 3d televisions) Nvidia 3d vision already
    supports hundreds of games.

    This is also optional, it can be turned on and off at the switch of the button.
    Basically, you have the option to use it, or play standard, how exactly is this bad Mr Sessler?

    Also, Uncharted 2 frequently uses a 2d depth effect, depth of field as does graphical wow, Killzone 2.

    Posted: January 14, 2010 3:26 AM
  • ChrisHero22

    I won't deny that I think 3D is nothing more than a gimmick. That said however, I feel certain specific types of games, or movies....ARE enhanced by said gimmick. However....the idea that 3D is the next big thing very much implies that everything would benefit from using 3D. Which....if you look at some of your favorite movies and or games of all time, you find yourself asking yourself...."would this of been better in 3D?" Almost every time I ask that question, I say no.

    I don't think 3D sucks, or that it can't be used to make something enjoyable if used properly. However, it isn't the next big thing. Flower was a great game, it used the six axis motion control very well. Does that mean six axis motion control is the next big thing? Not likely. I think 3D is just the market trying to get profit, while technology is being developed....for the next big thing. I mean how many more resolutions can we present our games and television in before we take another leap? In my opinion that next leap especially in gaming wont' be 3D "immersion." It will be full on mental immersion. No controller, no motion control. My eyes move and that moves the camera. Thing that are practical that actually replace the controller.

    The one thing I hated about motion control, is you don't every feel like the character in the game. That is why controllers still work so well to this day. I don't need to be able to do a jumping back flip, or try to flail my arms around to look bad ass and do a sword slice. The controller turns into an extension of my body in itself. The next step above that is just removing the controller and having your mind control it, as honestly thats what you do with the controller anyways. How many of us actually look at the buttons before we hit them? The same as how we lift our arm int he air, its instinctual. Anyways, I'm done with a rant for now....I just wanted to say I agree Sessler, 3D is a neat tool that if used properly could make for a few interesting games.

    Posted: January 14, 2010 2:51 AM
  • thirsten55

    with all the talk of 3D i think one of the coolest things I've seen from CES is getting extremely overshadowed, sharps new tvs add something thats worth having, image quality. right now i think 3D is in a bubble that going to burst like the economy...too soon?

    Posted: January 14, 2010 1:47 AM
  • hestonlee

    I WANT EVERYONE SO SEE THIS VIDEO AND THE OTHERS OMG MUST SEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=Z2A_cibFmTE

    Posted: January 13, 2010 11:44 PM
  • T-Lee

    I don't think a whole lot of game developers will not get on the 3D gaming bandwagon. It's just a waste of time and money for them. They should focused on making game plan and simple. The talk about 3D is just a phase. It almost like how people though FMV games were the future of gaming. We all saw how long that lasted.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 11:14 PM
  • Knyght

    3D is nice, and it's meant to give users more immersion. I am happy, however, with my HDTV they way it is. I don't need pictures popping out of the screen to make me feel more immerse. I just want a good story to pull me into it's world.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 11:12 PM
  • minty160

    I love 3d gaming, it's just plain amazing. And what's great about nvidia's 3d vision is that it works with almost any game.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 11:08 PM
  • Theeliminator2k

    Lets not freak out here. 3D is the futrue, it may not be the near futrue, (within the next year) but it will, most likely, be (the futrue) in the next 5 years. I know some people phyically can't handle the 3D effect, but for me, I like the 3D in games. For me, I like the depth of field that 3D brings to the table.

    HDTVs have been around for some time now. (Heck I remember them back when they cost 10,000 dollors) I also remember when people use to say "why whould you even need HDTV" now look at it. Same was said with the TV, when raido was big, then later when Color TVs came out.

    Now this may seem like an attack on Adam but his stains on 3D sounds a lot like person that is not willing to accept the change that the futrue brings. Like an old man in the 1970s seeing kids skateboarding and shaking his head and cain at the young wipper snappers with their newfangled things.

    No company is thinking that 3D TV's are going to sell like hot cakes, when hot cakes are barely selling. They are merely showing us the next step, just like they did 10 years ago with the first sets of HDTVs

    Posted: January 13, 2010 11:04 PM
  • MakoTheWolf

    Until they can simulate 3D without the glasses, I probably wont jump on board... but I really want to see Avatar in 3D when it comes out on bluray, so I don't know if it's worth investing in buying a new TV for this. Sony has jumped on and who knows. Maybe game developers can get creative with it.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 10:56 PM
  • Bulbachar

    3D has a major flaw in that it requires those glasses to be worn. I haven't messed with much 3D stuff, but I can't imagine having those glasses on for more than an hour or so, before I get a headache.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 10:17 PM
  • Peatore

    I went to see avatar, the 3d effect was cool... sometimes
    most of the time though it just cluttered everything , and when i go to the movies i'm there for the story,

    Avatar was very predictable


    people suck, we killed a bunch of smurffs , but they kicked our asses later and the good guys win.
    oh, and there was a smattering of generic character archetypes. hey this is what i thought would happen.


    i wanted to like this movie, but the hype may have ruined it for me.

    but back to 3D, i really hope it is a gimmick that will fade out.

    until i am in my own personal holographic room (like in star trek voyager) i have little interest.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 10:05 PM
  • Dudimus24

    I agree, I'm not buying a new #@%*ing tv just to see a couple layers in my games. And Avatar in 3D was soo overated, I went to see it in 3D, and the whole time I was just thinking about how annoying the glasses were to wear.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 9:55 PM
  • IamtheBat

    I love the Avatar rip Adam, It seems like g4tv.com has been up James Cameron's A$$ all week.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 9:52 PM
  • bolo73

    Like the day earlier for both. I agree with your 3d review, and would add who wants to ware glasses just to watch TV. I for one do not want too.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 9:42 PM
  • thesilentmole

    The entire time I watched Avatar I couldn't help but think about how badly I would love to see a Metroid Prime that was in 3D and that detailed. Is there a merit to 3D, I think there is, if it's classy enough.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 9:20 PM
  • friendofbud666

    Seriously Adam haven't you seen The Lawnmowerman. What are you scared of skynet or what. If you can't afford the tech don't complain about it. It is and will be the future. Some of you naysayers need to try NVidia 3d vision and then tell me it is just a gimmick. This ranks up there with fanboyism. They love Natal but not 3d? Really... Natal is a gimmick of smoke and mirrors, rooms full of servers can't even do what M$ is claiming. Stereoscopic 3d is here. Assimalte!

    Posted: January 13, 2010 9:09 PM
  • specswiz

    I think that 3D will take hold in a few years. It seems like a gimmick, but everything seems like a gimmick at first. When I think of the Immersion into a game it's more than 3D. It's surround sound over stereo, more immersive. It was clearer picture in HD, 3D is just beginning. They also have a lot of stuff in the works more than 3D. The first person shooter vest that actually makes it feel like you're getting shot and from where, which is more immersive. They even have a brain controller that finally works from emotiv. Simple commands could be taken off the controller, given you more buttons to assign to different functions. It could also copy your facial movements exactly, allowing your character to really represent you. If you look pissed off, he looks pissed off. As well as full lip sync to your character so he looks like he's saying everything you are. Right now it seems like a gimmick, but having these things already coming out means in a few years it will be standard.

    Posted: January 13, 2010 9:03 PM