Question of the Day, July 4, 2010

[Zhukov]

I voted fad.

That said, there's no reason why something can't be both a fad and the next big thing. The next big fad if you will.

Incidentally, I saw Avatar in both 2D and 3D. I preferred the 2D. I appreciate the thought Mr Cameron, but my eyes are capable of perceiving depth just fine on their own.

 

[Abedeus]

Last time I saw a 3D movie was in... 2006? It was some kind of an underwater exploration, or something. About an exploration of the wreck of Titanic, if I recall.

I don't really crave the 3D versions of movies. Seem like a pointless gimmick. If a movie is bad in 2D, 3D will just make its vices even more visible.

 

[imaloony]

It's just a fad. It adds nothing to movies and games, and it only serves as a way for the industry to charge us more for movies and video games. I can't wait until it blows over, seriously.

 

[JRShield]

3D is a gimmick, nothing more. Holograms like on Star Trek, that would be a big thing!

 

[Natdaprat]

I hate how movies are going down the path of "We have 3D, so our film can be shit". I hope games don't do the same.

 

[Bigeyez]

Fad, and considering that because I have a condition where only one of my eyes focuses at a time, it's a fad that I hope goes away soon. Having to explain to people that I can't see 3D effects everytime I go to the movies is driving me nuts.

 

[Ravek]

Fad, and considering that because I have a condition where only one of my eyes focuses at a time, it's a fad that I hope goes away soon. Having to explain to people that I can't see 3D effects everytime I go to the movies is driving me nuts.

You want no one to have 3D video because you can't enjoy it? Self-centered much?

 

[Banana Phone Man]

Just a fad hopefully. At the moment I am hating the parts in films that were made just so it could be in 3D. I usually find it hard to notice really good 3D anyway. The thing that is in the most 3D is the advertisement before the movie.

 

[Haz88]

I think it's a fad, at least until the price goes down. And when filmmakers start using it for something other than poking spears out of the screen or having people falling down ravines, then it might become more than a hollow gimmick.
Then there's my b0rked left eye. I can still see 3D with the glasses on, but the picture get's a bit blurry. Pretty excited about the 3DS though.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

I recall much the same was said about HD back in the day. Too few installed TV's, not enough difference...etc...etc...and now alot of games you can't even play on a CRT (Mass Effect 2's dialougue trees are indechiperable on a CRT).

Perhaps Sony is being premature, the Next Gen is probably the time, I can see 3-D TV's getting cheaper. But it's not that long ago a rather large LCD would have set you back the same amount. And once more movies start getting the 3-D treatment the only hurdle is the glasses because they/re very expensive...but which you can steal from your local cinema...can't you?

The cinema 3D uses a polarisation filter, it's relatively cheap providing you can get the framerate for a cinema screen high enough. The reason the consumer 3D glasses are so expensive is because they are active (ie electrically operated) shutter glasses.
Polarisation filter 3D works best on large areas making it perfect for cinema, active shutter works best on monitor and TV sized screens and Nintendo's glass-less 3D works best on small screens because of the small "focal area" of the 3D effect.

 

[deth2munkies]

It's a fad, nobody is going to want to wear those glasses all the time.

 

[Bigeyez]

Fad, and considering that because I have a condition where only one of my eyes focuses at a time, it's a fad that I hope goes away soon. Having to explain to people that I can't see 3D effects everytime I go to the movies is driving me nuts.

You want no one to have 3D video because you can't enjoy it? Self-centered much?

I never said I didn't want ANYONE to enjoy 3D video. I said it was ANNOYING to have to explain to people everytime I go to the movies that I can't view things in 3D. I've even paid the extra money to see films in 3D when friends want to see it in 3D even though I can't see 3D effects. Finding something annoying and/or wanting that annoyance to go away and wanting no one else to enjoy something are two very different things. Reading comprehension much?

 

[The Last Nomad]

I've never actually saw a film or anything in this new Avatar-style 3D, just the old gimmicky thing from the 80s. But from what I've heard its really good. I think It should be made more accessable, I could have just went to the cinema to see some of the movies, but I would be nice to experience it at home without those ridiculous costs.

Wasnt this a question of the day before?
Or maybe someone just made a thread witha very similar name.

 

[Simalacrum]

I personally don't get why everyone is against 3D - yes, the technology is still young and very expensive, but so was blu-ray and HD-TV's when they first came out (anyone remember Sony's E3 06 press conference? "$599.99" haunted many people that day...)

The glasses aren't too intrusive, although I wish they would make 'goggle' versions that you can wear over regular glasses, and there is a MUCH bigger distinction between 2D and 3D, compared to SD and HD.

While the tech won't be picked up anytime soon by the masses, I reckon we'll be seeing cheap and affordable 3D TV's in a few years. For now, its too expensive, and yeah I think Sony isn't doing the right thing pushing it so hard in the marketing department when its still too young, but I do think it will be the next big thing in a few years time.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

Once glasses-free hardware like that on the 3DS makes it to family room and desktop displays, I think 3D will be undeniable. Our children will be wondering what we ever saw in 2D, it'll be difficult to explain to them - kind of like our parents telling us how wonderful black-and-white television was. "WTF."

 

[Delusibeta]

The 3DS really will be the acid test on this question. If it succeeds, I could see 3D becoming a standard within five years, at least with mobiles. Nintendo has a very high strike rate with innovations, ranging from the D-Pad to the Rumble Pack, and in bring concepts to the masses, from analogue sticks (where were we without them? Bonus fact: the Saturn got an analogue stick controller out in Japan for NiGHTS a few months before the Japanese release of the N64) to touchscreens, which seems to have been adopted as a standard in the high-end mobile phone market. The effect of motion controls had on the gaming market will be seen in the next five years or so, as well as Nintendo's glasses-free 3D.

 

[Interference]

Two possible answers? *Sigh*. It's neither. It's not a fad but the current implementation and cost of it just isn't viable at the moment.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I know it's a fad because I gain nothing as a consumer from it, except maybe eye strain.
What does the industry gain?
An excuse to take more of my money.

 

[Snowpact]

Just a fad, nothing to see here, just keeeep walkin'...

 

[Timbydude]

I think the wording of those options is a little restrictive. "Next big thing" implies that everyone will be marveling over it, and raving about how amazing it is.

3D is definitely the future, no doubt. Eventually, pretty much all our favorite visual media will find 3D incarnations. But at the same time, we already have 3D in theaters, and it's not something people are that amazed with. It's preferable to a 2D experience, but not mind-blowing.

So, while I think it's going to be present in most games/movies in the future (and thus definitely not a "fad"), I don't think people are ever really going to be jumping up and down for it.