Poll: Is 3-D here to stay and would you like to see it in gaming?

[tylram]

I remember a surge of 3-D in the 80s. Then it was gone. I've been told it's become popular and died down even before that... Now it seems that every movie is being made 3-D, and 3-D televisions are beginning to hit stores. Will the newest resurgence of 3-D stay mainstream?

It seems logical that IF 3-D movies and TV here to stay, it'll be a short step into mainstream 3-D gaming aswell. Would you like to see 3-D rockets flying at your face?

Please, answer the poll.

Thanks!

 

[DeepComet5581]

I'm sorry, but i'm going to have to vote no and no.

At least until the people developing this technology can cater properly for people with sight problems. I love 3D movies. I went to see Avatar in 3D over Christmas. There was just one problem: I couldn't focus on the damn movie.

I wear glasses, which makes it extremely difficult to wear 3D glasses. If I put them over the top of my glasses, then they're too far away from my eyes and everything goes slightly fuzzy and I have to keep changing my focus to be able to see properly. If I take my glasses off, then I can't see anything, with or without the 3D glasses.

So sorry, but no.

 

[Avaholic03]

True 3D? Absolutely. Unfortunately, that technology simply isn't here yet.

But this fake 3D where you have to wear glasses? Probably not. Those glasses are bad enough over the course of a 2-hour movie, imagine how much it would suck wearing them for 6 or 8 hour gaming marathons.


EDIT: forgot to answer the first part of the question. Yes, 3D is here to stay because movies that have it make ridiculous amounts of money. It's now cheaper to produce, and it gives people a reason to actually go to the movies again.

 

[tylram]

I went to see Avatar in 3D over Christmas. There was just one problem: I couldn't focus on the damn movie.

I have problems with the 3-D glasses myself. Besides being uncomfortable hunks of plastic, they don't seem to work very well for me unless i move them further away from my face.

Plus, i find the whole 3-D thing distracting in movies. I concetrate more on the effects than the movie.

 

[mrfusspot]

I don't see it staying around. Same with motion control in the way of the Wii. Its a gimmick and I don't see people wanting to keep it around. As far as I can see, it'll be around for another few years, slowly reaching its peak, and then it'll drop off the face of the earth.

And I'll be fine with it. 3D is only something I care about seeing in the Imax with their educational movies.

 

[DeleteThisPlease]

Yes and no/yes. 3D is sticking around, and I do/do not want it in gameing.

Let me explain, if we got full 3D (like VR 3D), then it would be awesome and I would be all 'HELL YEAH' for it.

However, I don't want to have to pull on a pair of glasses everytime I want to play MonderWarfare 4 or Halo: Onyx.

 

[DeepComet5581]

EDIT: forgot to answer the first part of the question. Yes, 3D is here to stay because movies that have it make ridiculous amounts of money. It's now cheaper to produce, and it gives people a reason to actually go to the movies again.

It may be cheaper, but don't forget it still took James Cameron 14 years and $500,000,000 to make that film, and I suspect that he is the only reason it made any money. Think about it, the top 2 grossing films were both directed by him. The budget for both of those films is record-breaking. The difference is, Titanic didn't use any "3D effects" like Avatar did.

 

[PureChaos]

i don't see the attraction to 3D films and i'm not interested in 3D games. putting games into a VR suite, HELL YES, having to play wearing stupid glasses over my normal glasses, no

 

[KimberlyGoreHound]

3D films cost a lot to make, but they make huge amounts of money. As much of a gimmick as they are, and as useless as they are to cinema as a whole, they will stay around. However, we probably won't see it in gaming, not only because it would be extremely irritating to wear those glasses so long, but also because unlike film, where someone may go see a single film 10 times, once someone buys a game, they own it, which would fail to offset for the cost of production. Either that, or the game would cost so much it would lose much of its audience.

In short, yes and no.

 

[Commander Jack Rankin]

No and no. I fail to see what "true 3D" would really add to gaming to prevent it from being nothing more than a slightly entertaining gimmick.

 

[Xtroni]

Yes and no/yes. 3D is sticking around, and I do/do not want it in gameing.

Let me explain, if we got full 3D (like VR 3D), then it would be awesome and I would be all 'HELL YEAH' for it.

However, I don't want to have to pull on a pair of glasses everytime I want to play MonderWarfare 4 or Halo: Onyx.

its on the way dude! Some british guys are working on some kind of VR helmet with a functional smell system!

OT: Most games today are 3D since well most characters are 3-dimensional?

 

[DocBot]

I don't think it's here to stay. I hate it when I just want to see a movie with the improved IMAX sound and bigger screen and they hand my some freaking uncomfortable glasses.

As for gaming, uncomfortable glasses to wear for gaming? No thanks.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I'm not sure that they tech is developed or cheap enough yet to make it worth it for console and PC gaming yet but it will be interesting to see what Nintendo do with the 3DS.

I don't think that it would be revolutionary for me but if it is done properly then I will look forward to it. From anything from a 3D starfield map in a space game to a game like Boom Blox it would just be really convenient and useful. Gimmicky uses like having things thrown at the screen so you flinch are not so interesting but I wouldn't mind those too much either.

 

[beastwood225]

the problem i have with 3-D is that movie directors stick it in, it becomes a major selling point and they think that they dont have to bother with other thing like characters or plot. (see avatar and alice in wonderland)

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Yes and no.
I can cope with two hours of watching "Avatar" because I can really admire the effects and the pretty picture.
However, five hours of gaming in 3D is tiresome and probably not worth it.
So, it's a yes/no.

 

[Meggiepants]

Not with the current technology, no.

I read an interesting article [http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/] about this a while back. Aside from all the things mentioned by posters already, a particularly interesting fact in the article was that 5-8% of the population is stereoblind, which means they can't see 3D at all. And apparently another 20-30 percent have this condition to a lesser extent, which means they don't get the full effects.

Maybe that's why so many people are unimpressed with 3D. Whatever the case, I think until they create a truly holographic experience that is affordable by the masses, 3D isn't even here yet for quite a number of people.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I thought 3D was a total rip off because it doesn't work for me and it costs more. I voted double no because I'm selfish like that.

 

[Wolfram23]

I'm sorry, but i'm going to have to vote no and no.

At least until the people developing this technology can cater properly for people with sight problems. I love 3D movies. I went to see Avatar in 3D over Christmas. There was just one problem: I couldn't focus on the damn movie.

I wear glasses, which makes it extremely difficult to wear 3D glasses. If I put them over the top of my glasses, then they're too far away from my eyes and everything goes slightly fuzzy and I have to keep changing my focus to be able to see properly. If I take my glasses off, then I can't see anything, with or without the 3D glasses.

So sorry, but no.

That had nothing to do with your eyes, I think. The reason it is fuzzy at times is when they use normal cameras they need to focus on something so the foreground can be fuzzy, but in the CG scenes everything looks phenomenal. I have good eyesight and noticed that in the indoor scenes like in the lab and such, it was odd trying to look at a fuzzy person or scenery element because the main actors were a little further back.

Anyway, on topic, I really look forward to more 3D and 3D in games. The technology being used now is not the same as that used all those years ago. The old school red/green lensed glasses worked, but it's a long ways away from perfect. What we see in theaters is great - it uses 2 projectors with specifically oriented wavelengths and those glasses you wear are polarized so that each eye is getting the image from only one of the projectors. With current TV technology we need shutter glasses, so to get your 60Hz per eye you need a 120Hz TV, and those are expensive. Ideally, perhaps LCD will be able to pack in more LCDs in a screen, and give them light emitting orientation so that we can simply use polarized glasses just like the ones in theaters. That would be ideal.

I think the actual use of 3D in gaming would be phenomenal. Just imagine in a FPS, your HUD would appear to be right in front of your face, your gun would be hovering just in front of you. You can use your depth perception to know when you're in melee range - this would open the doors to the most amazing possibilities. If Demon's Souls had 1st person mode and was 3D, it would absolutely be mind blowing. One of the biggest problems with games having 3D worlds but not having 3D/stereoscopic vision is that it's so hard to determine depth. It comes down to practice. Racing games especially excentuate the issue. It's nearly impossible to really tell how fast you're going and how close a corner is without a LOT of practice to get good at it. I'm an avid fan of racing games and almost every time I first play after a long break I go flying off corners and all sorts of stuff that wouldn't happen if it I could realistically tell the depth.

I can't wait for affordable 3D in my home. It'll be fantastic.

 

[tylram]

Here's something that's interesting. It's kind of a combo of Virtual Reality and 3-D.

...5-8% of the population is stereoblind, which means they can't see 3D at all. And apparently another 20-30 percent have this condition to a lesser extent, which means they don't get the full effects.

I think I might be slightly stereo blind.... Another form of "3-D" tech is this
interesting video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw] It only works for one person, but doesn't require stereo vision.

 

[XMark]

Yes and Yes! But I don't think it's really going to take off until they make it glasses-free.