Displaying 1–14 of 14
All 3-D is going to do is crive up the cost of games for no reason. -_-
@theboxelder3D is a much more important step than HD, because 3D introduces another dimension while HD just adds resolution to an existing dimension. 3D makes the picture more clear, vivid, and detailed. It makes the picture look more true-to-life and better. 3D adds to picture quality because it adds depth of field that HD could never touch. 3D also makes the picture look technically better. The picture in Avatar 2D vs 3D looks very different from a technical standpoint. The extra third dimension required new technology, extra technology, and more sophisticated technology to both create, render, and view in 3D compared to the old 2D. Plus, the great visuals added to the story. I would like to consume all entertainment with 3D from now on, if I could. My standards have been lifted, the bar has been set higher. Entertainment has changed forever. I will never again go to a theater and see a 2D movie. Eventually, HD will fade out and die as 3D ascends. Avatar has succeeded far beyond the cynical criticism of 3D-haters. It was the single highest-grossing movie of all time.... and it was in 3D. That is a fact, a fact which is hard to forget - world records tend to have that effect. 3D has safely secured its place in movie history, and it's only just getting started. The next place 3D will conquer is gaming; it will do so with similar efficiency. Already Nintendo has announced its intentions to support 3D, as has Sony. With 2 of the 3 major players contending, Microsoft is guaranteed to follow suit quickly. PC has been on board for a while already, with nVidia leading the charge. Old 3D technology made some people nauseous, but 3D has improved and persevered. Now only a select few people with brain anomalies are unable to view 3D, much like people with seizure disorders were unable to view old 2D games that flickered too much. 3D will offer gaming better immersion by creating more true-to-life worlds. After all, graphics are a major aspect when consumers purchase video games, and 3D offers a huge graphical update - from 2 dimensions to 3. We see the world around us in 3D, not in 2D. We don't become nauseous looking around at our world; it only remains for the 3D technology to simulate our natural way of viewing our surroundings. In fact, after people experience 3D they will realize that 2D is an unnatural medium. They will see 2D as a "false way of viewing the world," and rightfully so! 3D was once a gimmick, much like the first movie was once a gimmick. Now 3D is mature enough to start a revolution. It's progress cannot be stopped.
@ brettf05I feel that HD was a much more important step than 3D, and that 3D is more of a novelty. HD unlike 3D makes the picture more clear, vivid, and detailed. It makes the picture look better. 3D does not add to the picture quality. All 3D does is add depth to the picture, but it doesn't make the picture look technically better like HD. 3D after all is a perception effect and that is it. The picture in Avatar both 2D and 3D both looked the same from a technical stand point. All the 3D did was add depth to the picture, but besides that there both identical. Sure it's cool for a few movies, but personally if I had to play every game or watch every movie in 3D is would get nauseating and tiring. It's completely novel and once the novelty fades 3D will die. The only reason why 3D is on everyones radar is because of the success of Avatar. But time moves on and once everyone forgets about Avatar the same will happen for 3D. Besides sci-fi and children movies, 3D doesn't have a place in film. And with gaming once people see how irrelevant 3D is and the uselessness of the effect pertaining to how it changes the game, people will abandon it as well. HD was important since it actually improved the quality of the picture. 3D doesn't create a better picture. On the contrary it makes the picture often fuzzy at times. And also it's known to cause motion sickness and dizziness when people are exposed to 3D for a long duration of time, and that is fact. 3D is a novelty and really has nothing significant to offer in gaming. Avatar was a good movie, but it's no Citizen Kane or There Will Be Blood. 3D is a gimmick, a one trick pony, and people are too fixated with the effect rather than the actual medium. 3D is not the next big step for Movies and Games, but a small side diversion.
Most of the comments seem to be about how 3D is unnecessary. But is HD really necessary to tell a good story or have good gameplay? I have to admit that the Avatar movie in 3D highly exceeded my expectations and I was blown away by how beautiful the 3D visuals were. 3D added value to my movie experience, and I think it can do the same for games. As long as consumers have the choice between 2D or 3D, then what is the problem with creating games in 3D?As far as 3D becoming a crutch to sell a game that doesn't have good gameplay, I can definitely see that happening. But that's what quality reviews are for. There will always be good games and bad games, regardless of 3D.
The one interesting idea that James Cameron put forward was the concept of making the glasses into a beneficial aspect of 3d rather than a detraction. I'm not a fan of the 3d hype at all, but that idea seemed to hold some possibilities. Since we've reached a point in many games where the limited input of traditional controllers (buttons and joysticks) are creating limits on the interactivity of those titles . (An example of an attempted solution is the Wii's motion controller)Imagine if the glasses, rather than controllers, were utilized as motion controllers. For example, when playing a first person shooter, what if your character used the glasses to look around (neck and eye direction) and the joysticks controlled your characters body? This would allow added immersion as well as putting control of a players view in a more natural place (a player's eyes!), rather than the odd dynamic of using your thumbs to control a characters head.
When i saw Clash of the Titans in 3d, i actually felt like it took me out of the movie rather than immersed me into it. It was ok during action sequences but during slow parts, you do not really know what to look at.
A gimmick? Possibly, bt moving a dot across a screen can be considered the same.
3D is a gimmick. That kind of stuff isn't necessary. A good story will pull you in and immerse you in the world it creates. You don't need thing popping out at you in order for it to seem real.I don't 3D in my video games because I know people would advertise "Whoa this game has the best 3D ever!" and use that as an excuse for having a bad story.
i refuse to think that having an extra pair of glasses on my face to allow things to pop out at me will enhance my gaming experience. instead i would like better stories, voice acting, game play, and art design(like batman aa, uncharted 2 and assassins creed 2)
Regardless of how gamers and consumers may feel about it. If a bunch of gaming developers and business executives are holding a summit about 3D gaming. Then it's gonna happen. I just hope they stay true to the idea of choice, and not try and force this down eveyone's throat. But I also think this is just another fad that anyone who feel they can make money off of it, will try and make money off of this!! Why else would you see the producer of Avatar at a gaming summit?? He's just trying to milk 3D for everything it's worth!! Which is what I'm afraid of. Because I don't want the quality of games to take a back seat to 3D, just like movies!! Because even though Avatar made like a gazillion dollars, and blew everyone away with its visuals...it was still crap!!
3D is unnecessary piece of crap, it does not add anything like HD or color. It just has a wow factor that will just turn annoying after 24/7 use and gives you a headache. Why the heck would you want 3D while reading your email!Get off the stage you bloke.
Do not ask what you can do for 3d gaming. Ask what 3d gaming can do for you!! But seriously, until 3d gaming somehow truly enhances what video games can do and how we perceive them, it's not worth it.
My biggest problem with 3-D is I just don't give a damn.In the past with those dinky paper glasses, 3-D NEVER worked for me, and all I ever saw was slightly less blurry lines.At this point, I really just don't give a damn about anything 3-D, yet it seems the industry as a whole ran out of HD stuff to come up with and sell to us that now everyone is going to jump on the 3-D bandwagon.Let me know when we get to virtual reality, I might be interested then.
The biggest problem I have with 3d (I think this is the same with a lot of other people) is the glasses. After years of having the TV we never needed to put on something to view something on TV. Now all of a sudden we may have to and that kind of is a step backwards. I do like what he is saying that if games do go 3d they give the players a choice. Playing in 3d or 2d is an individual choice, I don't want to be forced to pay for a new TV just to play a new game because it only supports 3d.
Posted: December 4, 2012
4,448 Views | 15:47
Posted: November 27, 2012
2,520 Views | 15:06
884 Views | 15:06
2,309 Views | 15:15
Posted: November 21, 2012
1,164 Views | 15:15
© 2012 G4 Media, LLC. All rights reserved.