Meant to be Seen

MTBS EDIT: We moved this thread here for further discussion. Please read MTBS' editorial response.

Another refreshingly positive article on the upcoming 3D revolution from a major gaming site:

3D is just a tacky hold-over from the 1950s, right? A garish, eye-straining gimmick that makes your brain vomit up a rainbow of fruit flavours in exchange for a few pop-up zombies on sticks. It was cinema’s desperate knee-jerk reaction to the increasing dominance of TV during the chrome-plated days of white picket fences and Godzilla. Today it’s Jim Cameron’s desperate knee-jerk reaction to the increasing dominance of bit torrents.

http://www.gamesradar.com/f/why-3d-is-t ... 3355312051" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



And who said 3D wasn't cool?

yeah the article is nice- but the comments are as puerile as ever

Yeah this one almost made me puke.

3d on the most powerful console (ps3) will look quality

I would have thought the fact GTA IV runs at higher resolution on the 360 (Along with many many other games) would have shut those stupid fanboys up. - Even game devolopers are saying they hate the PS3 now and that its just not capable of doing what they need it to do.

christ, gaming is already bad enough on your eyes. we don't need 3-D to make it worse, imagine trying really hard to focus on something in the back round that the game insists on keeping blurry. ugh...

I don't even know were this person got that from?!

Yeah, the comments are kinda annoying. No idea why people are so anti-3d. Guess people just hate what they don't understand.

I think the common thread amongst the naysayers is that they didn't actually try it. Also, the most adamant ones are saying they don't want game immersion. These guys don't represent S-3D's market. I wouldn't worry.

Regards,
Neil

The first comment says: "I think we can skip the 3D step and just go straight to virtual reality"

What does virtual reality mean in this context?

It only surrounds you but is not 3D? I always thought they both went hand-in-hand and the point to developing better S-3D viewing methods was to achieve a computer generated interactive reality.

WheatstoneHolmes wrote:The first comment says: "I think we can skip the 3D step and just go straight to virtual reality"

What does virtual reality mean in this context?

It only surrounds you but is not 3D? I always thought they both went hand-in-hand and the point to developing better S-3D viewing methods was to achieve a computer generated interactive reality.

200 years from now: I think I'll just skip these fancy new holodecks and just go straight to virtual reality

yuriythebest wrote:200 years from now: I think I'll just skip these fancy new holodecks and just go straight to virtual reality

LMAO. Do you guys ever think Holodecks will become a reality?

UndeadD3vi1 wrote:

yuriythebest wrote:200 years from now: I think I'll just skip these fancy new holodecks and just go straight to virtual reality

LMAO. Do you guys ever think Holodecks will become a reality?

200 years ago tv's, the interwebs, antibiotics, porn, elevators, 3d webcams, 3d screens, 3d hmd's were all science fiction. 200 years from now we could all transition from humanoid to floating immortal energy orbs that travel through space for all I know.

MTBS EDIT: We moved this thread here for further discussion. Please read MTBS' editorial response.

Regards,
Neil

Neil wrote:I think the common thread amongst the naysayers is that they didn't actually try it. Also, the most adamant ones are saying they don't want game immersion. These guys don't represent S-3D's market. I wouldn't worry.

Yeah, I agree. Upon further review I see a few problems. Firstly, they haven't bothered to try any 3D game/movie lately (I'm not talking about some VHS horror movie in anaglyph years ago). However with the recent popularity of 3d movies, there is a good chance these people could be converted.

Then there are the ones that don't value immersion in games. This is an issue, but not totally unexpected. Consider that the Wii is the most popular system, which doesn't support HD, doesn't support advanced stereo sound, has lacking graphics, etc. The majority of the market is completely fine with a sub-standard technical experience as long as the game is entertaining. This is not the demographic for 3D.

We are targeting primarily the PC gamers market, then the Xbox360/PS3 crowd. Even among the xbox/ps3 owners, not all of them own HDTVs. So these users still on SD tvs are probably not our market either. They know HD is better quality and a better experience (no one can argue that SD is better) yet still don't want to spend the money for the feature. Its not going to be easy selling 3D to them.

Finally, there are the xbox/ps3 owners with the big-screen HDTV, 5.1 surround sound system, etc. This is the market we should be hitting. Except one problem, they just spent upwards of $2000-$3000 on their "ultimate" gaming/home-theater system. They don't want to hear that they wasted their money because "3D is the next HD" aka "HD is obsolete". We are basically telling them they have to spend another $2000 just to keep up with the technology. Not the best proposition. I'm not offering any solutions, I'm just stating that its an up-hill battle we are fighting here.

In the editorial Neil said: "I have never played a game that insists on making objects blurry. Perhaps they are thinking of what a 3D image looks like when the gamer isn’t wearing their 3D glasses?"

I think the comment refers to games like Gear of War or Bionic Commando that blur the foreground or background to simulate a cameras' depth of field.

cybereality wrote:So these users still on SD tvs are probably not our market either. They know HD is better quality and a better experience (no one can argue that SD is better) yet still don't want to spend the money for the feature. Its not going to be easy selling 3D to them.

Some of these people will be the first ones to buy a 3D Screen however, as they will eventually decide to upgrade, you could even say they are better off for not upgrading to HD so soon.