As much as we might not want to accept it, 3D is in our lives. With movies like Avatar making over a billion dollars at the box office, video games are trying to get some of that money for themselves. Nintendo and Sony both made their tech known and here is JDevL and my take on the matter in this week’s REPLY TO ALL.
Last month E3 brought a lot of new information on what’s going on in the game industry. The biggest thing other than Microsoft and Sony introducing their own motion controls, was the push for 3D gaming. I’m more intrigued by the Nintendo 3DS than anything else because you get to see 3D without wearing any glasses. If it works as everyone says it does, it’s the one thing I can see succeeding in terms of using 3D. Sony’s solution is not one I’m interested in and could kill 3D gaming before it gets started. Wearing glasses that dim the bright colors of a video game is not a solution I’m willing to buy into. I like my games the way they are right now. Until the 3DS screen is manufactured into a size that’s affordable to sit in my living room, 3D won’t be apart of my console gaming. People like me will be the ones who kill 3D gaming.
I agree with being much more interested in the 3DS and it’s application of 3D than the current alternatives. My hangup on 3D is for two reasons 1) I don’t want to have to wear anything different 2) all of the effects still come across as gimmicky. If I’m going to have to wear something to watch TV or play games I’m not interested, unless it goes all out like the old school Virtual Reality setups. I want total immersion or no immersion, not this lazy immersion. 3D seems to be an isolated experience to this point, I don’t socialize during the movies when I have the glasses on and I can’t see that changing in my living room during games or movies. I wouldn’t pay for a VR setup either, but I’d go seek one out for random nights out if they could apply some modern technology to it. Someone is going to see the 3DS and apply that to displays to a higher degree. In the meantime, hopefully Nintendo can also lead the charge with showing how to do interesting gameplay in 3D while we figure all of this out. Now, how do we get Sony and movies to change their approach?
The only way I see the movies studios and Sony changing their approach is if people stop paying for the content. I understand why movies are doing it. It’s hard to pirate 3D movies plus the bump in price of the tickets helps the studios recover the costs. I think Sony is just trying to jump on the 3D bandwagon ahead of Microsoft to grab whatever piece of the 3D pie they can get. I don’t think that there is a huge market for it right now but we have to remember that we are in the infancy of all this 3D nonsense. I think if VR can be done right it would be interesting to play it on occasion but it has to be total immersion like you said. It’s hard to predict where the industry will be in a few years but I’m happy playing games the way I’ve always played them.
How excited were you about VR back in the day? Seriously. That shit was insane. It was awful, but the potential made me want to have every subsequent birthday party at a GameWorks on the off chance they would get it right finally. The other alternative is the gaming pods that used to have racing games and mech battles in them. The screen would wrap around so you had to use your peripheral vision. That’s what Ubisoft should have brought back instead of laser tag.
I think I’m just irritated by this 3D thing because it isn’t thought out, and I thought the next gen could really take advantage of the penetration of HD. One more generation where graphics and power are the focus, instead of halving that processing power into duplicating the image in 3D. I’m happy where things are going, give me another console before you start playing around again. Master this before you move on. I understand the need for innovation, but this is just too soon.
VR was the future. Fortunately it didn’t work out because, like you said, it was shit. I was going to mention Ubisoft’s Laser Tag in my last comment. They are trying to go for a realistic shooter but the thing us gamers like about videogames is sitting on the couch with a controller. Don’t get me wrong, laser tag and paintball can be fun, but when you want to shoot monsters you either have to get hopped up on some serious hallucinogens or play video games. Until that can be brought over in a realistic sense I’m sticking with what I got.
I think they are using 3D to try and extend this consoles lifespan. But I agree with you in not wanting my games less technically proficient because of the processing power needed to render games in 3D. This is where I think Nintendo has gone the right way with the 3DS. Instead of just a software update, they are building hardware capable of this specific task. And they are doing it at an affordable level. Until prices come down on 3D capable television sets, Sony is going to be hemorrhaging money on their tech.
Nintendo has always been good at that, they don’t try to release an overpowered system that pushes boundaries and breaks. They work within their means and refine, refine, refine. There are going to be a lot of lessons to come out of the lifespan of the 3DS, and that’s a helluva lot more interesting to watch than anything at the movie theater or on my tv screen.
Well, JDevL and myself are clear in our thinking. We don’t want 3D…yet. It will be interesting to see where 3D succeeds and where it fails from here on out. If you have any thoughts of your own, please feel free to leave a comment to continue the discussion.