3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick?

QCzar · February 17 2010, 05:26 PM

With the advent of 3D gaming looming over the horizon, many technology firms are already beginning to market new devices to get ahead of the curve. But given the spotty history of 3D in general, many believe they may be jumping the gun.

Though there were similar doubts at the beginning of the HD wave, I can't really see this in the same light. Actual HD resolution was just a nexus in an overall enhancement of gaming tech, which also includes numerous other measurable changes (frame rate, sound, model and texture detail, evolution of environment and lighting, massive advancements in multiplayer and AI, and on and on). In other words, evolutionary and incremental, in both function and increase in cost.

Whereas with 3D, most of the quantifiable changes are pretty anemic by comparison. Playing a game like Mass Effect 2 or Madden NFL won't seem qualitatively different in 3D than in 2D, the novelty of it quickly fading as people focus on gameplay, which won't have changed much. It also has a high cost of entry (for developers and consumers), unlike other radical shifts in gaming, such as motion sensing or MMORPG. This begs the question of what can the industry bring to the table that effectively gives 3D the ability to add value to a title? What can 3D do to make games we've been playing all this decade so much better, beyond the 3D itself? What innovations to gaming in the new decade will 3D be an integral part of?

What do you think the future holds for 3D gaming? Are you going to take the plunge or wait it out? If you're going to wait it out, what prerequisites would need to be met before you buy into it?

Hermiod · February 17 2010, 05:42 PM

I really don't see myself sitting around with a second pair of glasses on for 3D any more than I can see myself standing up and waving my hands around to play my games with Natal.

I never thought I'd see the day where I'd become such a total Luddite. I can see 3D being cool for the cinema, I suppose, but I play my games on a 22" HDTV in my bedroom. I don't think the console manufacturers understand that there are people like me who don't play games in their living rooms in front of 50" TVs.

The Fatman · February 17 2010, 06:02 PM

Hermiod wrote:

I really don't see myself sitting around with a second pair of glasses on for 3D any more than I can see myself standing up and waving my hands around to play my games with Natal.

I never thought I'd see the day where I'd become such a total Luddite. I can see 3D being cool for the cinema, I suppose, but I play my games on a 22" HDTV in my bedroom. I don't think the console manufacturers understand that there are people like me who don't play games in their living rooms in front of 50" TVs.

Preach on, brother. Preach on.

To answer the OP... until big screen HDTV's are much more common (In the US, HDTV is only in something like 40% of homes... how many of those do you think are big enough to enjoy 3d? I'm guessing most are the 27 or 32 inch 720p wal-mart brand TV's that just barely qualify as HD) and we can do 3d without glasses, 3D gaming is doomed to die.

Hermiod · February 17 2010, 06:08 PM

Games need to focus on experiences and immersion, not gimmicks.

Mass Effect 2 shows the direction games need to go in, not 3D or motion control.

The Fatman · February 17 2010, 06:29 PM

^^ it's funny you mention Mass Effect 2, as I was gonna use that as an example of publishers being in a bubble. The in-game text isn't legible in SD, basically requiring HD to play. BioWare's response is it only affects a "small number" of gamers, so they do not intend to patch it... half the homes in America is a "small number"?? What about the people who paid full retail for your game and it is now unplayable, your answer to them is they have to go and drop at least 200 more dollars to get a small HDTV to play your game? That is so ignorant and shortsighted it's borderline unbelievable.

Hermiod · February 17 2010, 07:04 PM

^I agree with that, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a stunning game. The bar has been raised, in my view.

PKerr · February 17 2010, 07:19 PM

When most people think of 3D TV they always think 3D glasses.

The new Tech is supposed to do away with the glasses.

Hermiod · February 17 2010, 07:25 PM

PKerr wrote:

When most people think of 3D TV they always think 3D glasses.

The new Tech is supposed to do away with the glasses.

How ?

Haggis and tatties · February 17 2010, 07:39 PM

I thought you not only needed to buy a new 3DTv but also needed a pair of those 3D shutter glasses to experience this new 3D fad.

Jim Steele · February 17 2010, 07:41 PM

Hermiod wrote:

I really don't see myself sitting around with a second pair of glasses on for 3D any more than I can see myself standing up and waving my hands around to play my games with Natal.

I never thought I'd see the day where I'd become such a total Luddite.

Pretty much sums up where I am on the 3D issue.

I doubt it will be a gamechanger. I think it will achieve ubiquity, eventually, purely through the bloody-mindedness of those trying to sell it as the next big thing. But it's not exactly a future I'm looking forward to.

Games need to focus on experiences and immersion, not gimmicks.

Mass Effect 2 shows the direction games need to go in, not 3D or motion control.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

To answer the question, and I'm sorry to sound like such a negative ninny, but gimmick - and one that the artists, content providers and tech manufacturers are at least ten years away from turning into anything else imho.

Mistral · February 17 2010, 07:44 PM

Hermiod wrote:

PKerr wrote:

When most people think of 3D TV they always think 3D glasses.

The new Tech is supposed to do away with the glasses.

How ?

Haggis and tatties wrote:

I thought you not only needed to buy a new 3DTv but also needed a pair of those 3D shutter glasses to experience this new 3D fad.

I went to E3 in 2006 and a small Canadian company was showing of a 3D monitor. No glasses, just a screen. It was pretty cool-as long as you looked at it straight on. From an angle-2D all of the way.

Rii · February 17 2010, 09:11 PM

720p is HD in name only, and many games on PS3/X360 don't even manage to achieve that. Most of the ones that do struggle to maintain 30fps. There's still a long way to go.

Arrqh · February 17 2010, 10:56 PM

Mistral wrote:

I went to E3 in 2006 and a small Canadian company was showing of a 3D monitor. No glasses, just a screen. It was pretty cool-as long as you looked at it straight on. From an angle-2D all of the way.

This tech is still many years away from being in consumer devices; all the 3D tv's that will start being sold this year require glasses.

Flying Spaghetti Monster · February 18 2010, 08:30 AM

anyone remember this:

dragunzng · February 18 2010, 08:08 PM

PKerr wrote:

When most people think of 3D TV they always think 3D glasses.

The new Tech is supposed to do away with the glasses.

Wait, what new tech? As far as I know the 3D that Sony and Nvidia are talking about introducing to gaming relies on polarised glasses and 3D tv's. There are some 3D tv's in the works that don't require glasses but they're very thick and have an extremely narrow viewing angle.

February 17 2010, 05:26 PM	#1
QCzar Fleet Captain Location: Washington, D.C. - Taxation Without Representation	3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick? With the advent of 3D gaming looming over the horizon, many technology firms are already beginning to market new devices to get ahead of the curve. But given the spotty history of 3D in general, many believe they may be jumping the gun. Though there were similar doubts at the beginning of the HD wave, I can't really see this in the same light. Actual HD resolution was just a nexus in an overall enhancement of gaming tech, which also includes numerous other measurable changes (frame rate, sound, model and texture detail, evolution of environment and lighting, massive advancements in multiplayer and AI, and on and on). In other words, evolutionary and incremental, in both function and increase in cost. Whereas with 3D, most of the quantifiable changes are pretty anemic by comparison. Playing a game like Mass Effect 2 or Madden NFL won't seem qualitatively different in 3D than in 2D, the novelty of it quickly fading as people focus on gameplay, which won't have changed much. It also has a high cost of entry (for developers and consumers), unlike other radical shifts in gaming, such as motion sensing or MMORPG. This begs the question of what can the industry bring to the table that effectively gives 3D the ability to add value to a title? What can 3D do to make games we've been playing all this decade so much better, beyond the 3D itself? What innovations to gaming in the new decade will 3D be an integral part of? What do you think the future holds for 3D gaming? Are you going to take the plunge or wait it out? If you're going to wait it out, what prerequisites would need to be met before you buy into it?

February 17 2010, 05:42 PM	#2
Hermiod Admiral	Re: 3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick? I really don't see myself sitting around with a second pair of glasses on for 3D any more than I can see myself standing up and waving my hands around to play my games with Natal. I never thought I'd see the day where I'd become such a total Luddite. I can see 3D being cool for the cinema, I suppose, but I play my games on a 22" HDTV in my bedroom. I don't think the console manufacturers understand that there are people like me who don't play games in their living rooms in front of 50" TVs.

February 17 2010, 06:08 PM	#4
Hermiod Admiral	Re: 3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick? Games need to focus on experiences and immersion, not gimmicks. Mass Effect 2 shows the direction games need to go in, not 3D or motion control.

February 17 2010, 06:29 PM	#5
The Fatman Captain Location: Buffalo, NY	Re: 3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick? ^^ it's funny you mention Mass Effect 2, as I was gonna use that as an example of publishers being in a bubble. The in-game text isn't legible in SD, basically requiring HD to play. BioWare's response is it only affects a "small number" of gamers, so they do not intend to patch it... half the homes in America is a "small number"?? What about the people who paid full retail for your game and it is now unplayable, your answer to them is they have to go and drop at least 200 more dollars to get a small HDTV to play your game? That is so ignorant and shortsighted it's borderline unbelievable.

February 17 2010, 07:04 PM	#6
Hermiod Admiral	Re: 3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick? ^I agree with that, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a stunning game. The bar has been raised, in my view.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

February 17 2010, 07:19 PM	#7
PKerr Rear Admiral Location: Tampa Fl	Re: 3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick? When most people think of 3D TV they always think 3D glasses. The new Tech is supposed to do away with the glasses.

February 17 2010, 07:39 PM	#9
Haggis and tatties Rear Admiral Location: Glasgow	Re: 3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick? I thought you not only needed to buy a new 3DTv but also needed a pair of those 3D shutter glasses to experience this new 3D fad. __________________

February 17 2010, 09:11 PM	#12
Rii Rear Admiral Location: Adelaide	Re: 3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick? 720p is HD in name only, and many games on PS3/X360 don't even manage to achieve that. Most of the ones that do struggle to maintain 30fps. There's still a long way to go.

February 18 2010, 08:30 AM	#14
Flying Spaghetti Monster Vice Admiral Location: Flying Spaghetti Western	Re: 3D - Gamechanger or Gimmick? anyone remember this: __________________ Life of Pi is the most pleasant film I've ever not cared at all for.