Ben-DutkaOn the surface, this should be an absurd question, just because it's so absurdly easier to answer: Of course. All gamers care. …right?
I mean, if video games are all about immersion and losing oneself in a fantastical world, wouldn't a technology that presumably adds to that immersion be a 100% universal good? At first, I was pretty much on board with that idea.
But I've found that in truth, not only do I not care about 3D, I actually don't like it for video games. Maybe it's because the technology isn't up to snuff yet, I don't know; I just know I find 3D downright annoying and I'd typically rather have the higher resolution in 2D. Some games look so unbelievably amazing on my TV and I really think 3D ruins that beautiful presentation. And I almost never feel more "immersed." Generally, I just get a headache and furthermore, I'm always very aware that I'm playing in 3D. It actually detracts from the immersion factor, in my mind.
This all being said, I don't think it's just me. Nobody I know takes advantage of the 3D option in games, and they all have the capability to do it, too. We've all got 3D-enabled TVs but we'd all rather not use that option…what's that say about 3D? And if you check around the Internet, most gamers wouldn't say 3D is a major selling point for any game, even the titles you assume would benefit most from that "extra dimension." Of course, I don't really care about motion-sensing in gaming, either, so maybe I really am in the minority.
All I know is that I'm far more interested in that nutso 4K resolution than I am in seeing next-gen games in 3D.
I only care about 3D in games and movies for that matter if it actually enhances the experience. If it's just there for extra marketing flash, or if it seems like it was tacked on at the last second, then I'd just rather have them in 2D.
Last edited by JROD0823 on 9/25/2012 10:22:41 PM
I've seen a couple movies and played a few games where I really enjoyed the 3D. Honestly, I think Nintendo did a great thing with 3DS — the 3D's hardly the most amazing you'll ever see, but it adds some nice, sublte depth to games that I for one really appreciate at times (Ocarina of Time 3D and Mario 3D Land both looked FANTASTIC in 3D, imho) but can be turned off instantly, at any time, if you don't feel like using it anymore for any reason. And you can adjust the strength for it too — going full blast strains my eyes a bit, but a little below the halfway mark actually gives the games a nice, subtle depth that actually enhanced gameplay. For example, platform jumping in 3D Land was WAY easier with the 3D enabled, and it definitely drew me in to the game more.
That said, I just can't get excited about it for consoles. I always wear glasses when I game for one, and I really don't want to wear ANOTHER set of glasses over those. But maybe I just need to give it more of a try — just got a SICK new TV with 3D capabilities so maybe I'll try a few 3D games on it this weekend.
Yeah telly, I love, love, love my 3DS! 😀
You are right. It pays to fine tune the depth slider to just the right amount of 3d. I LOVE Ocarina of Time on it, and actually feel the port truly improves on the original. Some games, like Kid Icarus can be disorienting with high 3d, but perfect with less.
I suspect a lot of people's TVs have the depth settings cranked to 11, or at least the defaults.
I bought Sony's gaming monitor, cause I figured I could bump up my third monitor to 1080p at least, and do 3D gaming (albeit smaller) beside my 42" TV… The ONLY game i have in 3D is Ico/Shadow of the Colossus. All the games I really like, are sadly developed by companies that have no respect for, or desire to support 3d, like Bethesda…
Of course, they don't support the PS3 hardly in the first place… /)_-
Last edited by richfiles on 9/27/2012 7:44:41 PM
No, I dont like it in movies or in games. It hurts my eyes and I think is bad for the eyes in general.
Now if they get those augmented reality headsets working like what Valve is working on I might change my mind because this could really enhance games in general.
But I like my gaming experience from a couch with a controller, I like knowing I'm playing a game. It seems gimmicky both 3D and motion controllers, because they don't add anything for me. Even if it was all one to one motion and the 3D made explosions look cool I wouldnt care really. I like games for the story and the challenge whether its multiplayer or single player. 3D really can't make either of these aspects better for me.
Thanks for the Dust514 beta key. Anyway, 3D is lame. It's not perfect yet. Too many shadows.
Depends on the game, TV and settings.
Last edited by Jawknee on 9/26/2012 2:38:41 AM
I have a Sony BRAVIA and I can't get any of my 3D games to look nice.
Play with the 3D depth in the options on the TV. it will help to close the distance between any images that are ghosting.
I am very much interested in 3D gaming, having played UC3 on a 3DTV before. I am building a very expensive gaming PC right now, and am planning to add in a 3D monitor by next summer(can't buy it right now due to all cash going to the PC). And to the naysayers, just play the Chateau level in UC3 in 3D and you'll know the difference. And the PC games are in 1080p3d or even more, provided you have the proper hardware.
Must admit UC3 in 3D sounds very tempting. My TV at home is playing up and I may just upgrade with a 3D TV 🙂
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
It gives me migraines… End of discussion for me…
No I don't care, it's just an annoyance that you stop noticing the effects of after 15 minutes. Strains the eyes, messes up the spatial relationships and detracts from the overall experience via framerate and color. It is a fad and gimmick with no future.
The more I age, the worse my vision gets. I have to use reading glasses sometimes and don't really need a prescription, but I figured 3D might accelerate eye degradation. I'm just playing it safe and it doesn't cost me anything to be wrong.
I got the Lasik, it's so nice to be free of lenses. But not my close up vision isn't as good.
Lucky. I have required a pretty strong prescription since I was 10. 🙁 I may have to get LASIK at some point.
I had PRK eye surgery done when I was in the military about 5 years ago. It was nice that they paid for it but I would have paid if they didn't. Totally worth it! I used to have horrible eyes. Now I can see perfectly 🙂
DEFINITELY interested in getting Lasik. It ain't cheap but to see perfectly again — when I was a teenager I had 20/20 vision! — would be awesome. Between working at a computer, and then sports, shows, and video games on TV when I get home (usually with the iPad in hand too, so I can screw around on the internet simultaneously) my poor eyes are getting a LOT of wear and tear…
I could hardly see two feet in front my face, everything was in seriously low-def and blurry. Can't recommend it enough if you can find a way to afford it. I went to a place that was top of the line but very cost effective because they rely on word of mouth advertising to get people in. The place was called Joffe.
Luckily for myself my visions is 20/20, let's hope it stays like this for as long as possible. I never leave the house with out my sun glasses and try to protect my eyes as much as possible…
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
I wouldn't mind getting a 3d tv.
if/when I ever get a new tv I'll probably try and get a 3D one.
It was funny how the 3DS was more or less for the younger audience and then they came out with that info that 3D is bad for kid's developing eyes. Durrrp.
Was it though? I remember Nintendo from the start saying it wasn't appropriate for kids under 6. I love my 3DS. Funny, with all the games I have for Vita, I still find myself spending more time playing my 3DS and with 3D always on max.
I had to buy a 3DS, OOT was calling my name! Love it too! But 3D is a bit finicky, looks awesome sometimes but during extended gameplay its easy to mess up the 3D effect.
I've only had issues with certain games. Just about all of Nintendo's franchises look great on the 3DS, well New Super Mario Bros. 2 is just okay. Mario 3D Land was much better. To my surprise Resident Evil Revelations was quite good in 3D.
Last edited by Jawknee on 9/26/2012 12:35:26 AM
3D Land was the best use of 3D I've ever seen in any game, for 3DS or anywhere else. Enhanced the gameplay tremendously.
All I know is that it was damn incredible to play through both uncharted 3 and killzone 3 in 3d. And in killzone's case where most of the levels were shades of grey with orange in it, 3d really made what would be some unremarkable stuff really stand out.
now that I have a 3D TV I need to go back through U3 again in 3D. I can imagine that game really popping.
Uncharted and Killzone 3 were a blast in 3D. It's not a necessity but it's fun when done right. About to watch the Avengers on Bluray 3D then next month comes Prometheus! Woohoo!
Lemme know how the NEW spiderman is in 3d. I heard that was actually filmed with 3d camera equipment. So hopefully that means lots less actors on parrallax planes and more undulated surface depth. At least I hope.
Fosho. Thanks for reminding me. I'm off to preorder it. 🙂
Just because we can use 3D doesn't mean we should. People believe that better technology promises better games but that idea is false. It should just be avoided, it does not mix well with gaming.
If only I could afford it, I'd so love to have a 3D HDTV instead of my cheap 32" Westinghouse HDTV with tinny sounding speakers.
Anyway, I say bring on any & all of the options imaginable…I'm game.
Keep an eye out for deals. I managed to get my hands on 55" Sony Bravia 3D LED TV that is Internet ready for less than $1800 with a 5 year warranty about a year ago.
Thanks Jawknee,
But I'm just about living on pennies right now.
I've been out of work for 16 months now & have used all my life's savings, and that included the money from cashing out my 401K plan too.
Hell, it's been so bad lately I haven't even been able to buy a used under$10 bargain bin game in the last 2 & 1/2 months.
Anyway, thank goodness I get 4 free $25 Gamestop gift cards a year for doing surveys, so at least I can look still forward to adding a game or so here & there.
Damn, sorry to hear that. Many people are struggling now. Hopefully we can start reducing this 8.2% unemployment rate starting Jan. 2013. 🙂
I am a believer in 3D….too a certain extent. Just like 3D movies, some games aren't meant to utilize 3D. But games like Uncharted 3 and Resistance 3 bring a "whole nother level" to the game.
I wasn't and overall fan of Killzone 3 in 3D just because it took a resolution hit. That really makes a difference on a 60 inch tv. Plus the 2D looks so nice on K3!
3D shouldn't be a necessary , but I'm glad it's an option!!! I hope 3D is here to stay and hope the tech gets better with and cheaper with passive display vs active shutter.
While it might become a more viable option down the road, right now with those glasses its a major inconvenience.
If we get glasses free 3D with no framerate or resolution dip, it could be the next big thing.
I can't say I've actually played many games in 3D but I know that people swear that once you play Child of Eden in 3D, it's impossible to go back. I really want to try that game in 3D. I absolutely love it! Even got the plat on it, and it's one of the harder ones 😉
I haven't had enough (i.e. any) experience with 3D games to properly answer that question. I figure, though, as with movies it could enhance it enough to add a little more enjoyment. This is assuming the 3D was done properly and tastefully, of course.
I agree about 4k, though. The super-high resolution should insure that any game developed for it will look gorgeous! Not to mention the technology should be good enough to offer full 120Hz HD games in at least 1080p. I would certainly hope so, anyway.
It's like I said way back in the beginning, until 3D comes without glasses, it'll be difficult for me and any other wearer of glasses to really enjoy the experience because glasses over glasses suck.
But, I've never found the 3D experience with movies to be anything to right home about, and actually prefer the sense of depth you get at a regular Eyemax presentation.
I think though that the problem with 3D for me, and perhaps many others, is best explained as follows. Playing video games, watching a movie, or TV, are all experiences in which we are stationary and watch the action unfold in front of us. We are not in the action, we cannot be 'in' the action. No amount of 3D gimmickry will put us there. The same is true of games, despite the 3D rendering and movement in a virtual space, we know, our brains and bodies know, that we are not 'in' the environment.
When you are actually there, in the environment, a flick of the eyes, a tilt of the head is enough to shift the view. Moving your hear even slightly causes your eyes to track what you are focused on. Your brain compensates for the depth of field refocusing your eyes instantly on what you are looking at. It all happens constantly and instantly without a moment's thought or direction from us. It's natural. When we move, our point of view changes and so does our focus point, and our eyes track and adjust focus. The brain is constantly parsing the environment around us to determine where objects around us are, how far they are away, and if they are in our path. Just typing this message my eyes are flicking back and forth between the keyboard and my screen. As I move my shoulders or neck, my head tilts and my view adjusts. My eyes track and focus immediately. I look off to the right for moment and my eyes immediately lock and focus and track on the object I focus on. I turn back to the screen and again my focus flicks between screen and keyboard.
That's impossible to simulate in a game or movie. It's impossible to create a presentation that would feel natural to a viewer – making them feel part of the scene. Sure you could overdo the changes in focus to create a false sense of 3D, and that will impress people by drawing attention to the change in focus, but it's not natural. When you do see something in 3D, your eyes will move around and will try to resolve objects into better focus, but because the depth of field is controlled by the game or movie, there is no way they can. Your brain is trying to operate on that 3D imagery as if it were real, which it's not, and so it can't do what it is programmed to. That will ultimately cause a headache. Even if your brain can be trained not to do what it normally does, you're talking about re-training the brain to ignore depth perception and all the other aspects that come from moving and existing in a 3D world and accept that input from an external source instead. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be driving and find that I suddenly have depth perception problems because I have played a game in 3D for several hours.
I just do not believe that it's possible to create a stereoscopic 3D image that will feel normal because of the issues inherent in a forced 3D perspective. 3D requires some method of presentation that allows our brains to take care of focus and depth of field. Until then, it's not going to work very well for anyone.
Sony's 3D glasses fit quite comfortably over my clunky Buddy Hollyish glasses. Do you have big frames?
All the ones I have ever tried were very uncomfortable. The bridge of my nose is very thin, and any kind of glasses or goggles that don't have adjustable nose pieces are impossible for me to use.
You should look at the LG series of 3d TV's They have the cinema style 3d with the cheap passive 3d glasses. If you look on ebay etc there are a ton of types of glasses you can use that are very cheap and lightweight, even some that you can just clip onto your existing glasses.
The active shutter types i wouldnt recommend for anyone who suffers with migranes or wears glasses.
Ps for anyone who doesn't know, there are two types of 3d in TV's, ones not better than the other, they both suit different people differently.
Nope, my girlfriend made me watch titanic in 3D and all it did was agrivate my eyes. I thought about trying a game with it but i really don't see the need. I get what i want out of a video game when i sit down, turn my tv up LOUD, and play it. Anything else is a unnecessary luxury.
I think 3D adoption will just be a long, slow process. Once tech gets implemented without glasses and more flexible viewing angles at a reasonably lower cost AND gaming hardware doesn't present noticeable detail loss, then would I become more interested. But I hope it always stays an option for the player.
Anyone else actually get moderately nauseated for the first 30min or so?
It happens to me while my brain recalibrates, or something. I remember taking my glasses off during avatar to try and feel less sick. It didn't help. The key was to leave them on and just endure through it, thinking "I'm still a fan!" then eventually everything is okay and it feels normal.
By the end of the movie I thought two things: 3D is mostly pretty cool but Avatar's stupid plot made me not want to watch it again.
And that's the end of my story =p
It doesn't bother me but my wife gets a headache.
Avatar was just as bad in 2D
The 3D in Avatar was the ONLY redeeming quality of that film. That's the movie I saw that actually got me excited for 3D. Most movies I've seen in 3D was pretty worthless, but a handful — Prometheus definitely comes to mind — look extraordinary in 3D.
I think a major 3D movie could be the Hobbit — the trailer alone makes it look like a pop-up storybook come to life. Could be very influential if it works.
Avatar is an unmitigated disaster. You see James Cameron say that he wants to stop making movies unless its 100 Avatar sequels?
Last edited by Jawknee on 9/26/2012 6:27:54 PM