Which game/franchise do you think benefits the most from stereoscopic 3D?

[Arachon]

Good/new graphics actually can add a lot to a game, directly to the gameplay. I could go more into it if you want. All 3D does is give the player the illusion that there's more depth then there really is.

And you don't think this illusion can be exploited to enhance the gaming experience in various ways?

 

[Arachon]

I honestly don't. Enlighten me, please. Maybe it's just because I'm not a fan of 3D that I don't see why being able to see the things I'm already seeing in a false view is any more productive.

Well, can't give you any concrete examples right off the bat, but I do believe that the illusion of 3D may be used to enhance various parts of games, be it the old "stuff flying out the screen" or just that the added depth may add an extra dimension (pun not intended) to the game experience as a whole.

I do agree however that, much like the Wiis motion controls, 3D won't work with everything, and we will probably see quite a few gimmicky, forced, implementations.

 

[Arachon]

And this is where I'm going to have to say why I don't think it'll ever really work. What you just said up there is nothing but gimmicks. "Stuff flying at the screen" Is shit for a B grade horror movie. Jump scares at the bottom of the barrel, but you could add them into the rest of the game, and what? Distract the player from the gameplay? For the 'experience'? Since when did games stop being about the bloody gameplay? Graphics tie into gameplay well. Graphics can enhance a game by enabling further story and characterization, emotion and better mood or setting. But adding a small bit of pointless, false, depth wouldn't improve this, and in most cases that people seem to imagine would actually manage to undermine this with all the OH LOOK AT THIS OVER HERE BOOGABOOGA SOMETHING IN YOUR FACE NOW shit.

I disagree, I think if it is implemented tactfully, it could be just a big contributor to immersion as say, the choice between first or third person perspective is today, stuff flying out of the screen doesn't have to be jumpscare, it could be implemented in an altogether different way, if the developers have the presence of mind to not create cheap, gimmicky, shovelware.

 

[DeeWiz]

I am in the camp that 3d when adjusted to not give headaches and eyestrain does not add enough to the visuals to qualify the drop in quality (brightness/contrast take a nose-dive) The idea of 3d is awesome, it would make everything more immersive and real, and most beneficial would be platformers and puzzle games, pretty much if it uses a drop shadow then being able to use depth perception would be a plus (I have perfect depth perception according to the test that was adminstered.
So as soon as 3d is developed without effecting image quality (I don't own a serveral thousand dollar projector because i just like it big) I will be lining up. To that end why they hell have we not moved away from the TV model to everyone gets their own personal wearable monitors (i.e. glasses) pop a 1920x1080p screen in each eye and bam (i've even seen samsung demo see-through OLED) that would get rid of the need for glasses and since each each would gets its own continious stream of visual information, just like IRL, it should work for everyone with no eyestrain. Yes theaters may see a drop, but TV shipments would be cheaper and you have to sell a new "set" for every person, so the industry should embrace this.

 

[migo]

None, apparently I'm in the minority of people who aren't completely incompetent with depth perception these days, and 3D just seems pointlessly expensive and gimmicky for my tastes on top of making me nauseous, headachy and forcing me to wear retarded glasses.

Yeah, there's definitely something wrong with you there. Most people aren't given any troubles by 3D, those that are have visual problems.

There's also something wrong with your thought process as you're adding nothing of value to the thread.

My eyes seem fine : ) thank you though. I'd still rather avoid a product that can still cause a rather large percent of the target audience to have physical distress when using it. As for adding nothing to the thread, not many other people are posting and I'm generally on topic loosely debating (if it could be called that given that neither side really has evidence or support) the subject at hand. You're the one who's throwing out attacks left and right.

You're 100% off topic. But you only read the title, and not the OP, so you don't realise that.

 

[mad825]

None, apparently I'm in the minority of people who aren't completely incompetent with depth perception these days, and 3D just seems pointlessly expensive and gimmicky for my tastes on top of making me nauseous, headachy and forcing me to wear retarded glasses.

^^
this

stereography changes nothing in terms of graphical design and in game-play.

 

[jackpipsam]

Sonic, It could look kick ass in 3d!

 

[demoman_chaos]

I don't see 3D adding much. I saw Avatar in 3D and I actually took the 3D glasses off halfway (rough guesstimate on actual time) through since it added nothing.

I see 3D gaming having the same problem. While some games could use it to the game's advantage (I'm sure Heavy Rain will get a patch for it), it really won't improve anything substantially (just like motion controls).

I'd be happy if I was wrong. Gran Turismo or any other racer could benefit from 3D. You might be able to judge distance from corners better and improve your braking a bit better. But after a few races, even without it you'd be able to timing down pretty well.

 

[PureChaos]

none, i really don't get the point of 3D. i've seen a few 3D films and they all would have been better if they weren't 3D. really hoping they have a 2D version of Saw VII

 

[icame]

I think Rail shooters would benefit nicely. Either that or something like burnout

 

[Wicky_42]

Huh, I'm impressed at how much hatred some people can direct at 3D - it's like going 'fuck off with your 360s and PS3s - it's all just a graphical gimmick designed to make you shell out for a new console when you've already got one that can play games fine!' (Or, you know, words to that effect).

I found 3D Avatar and Up to be really immersive, much more so than 2D versions, so the application for gaming would be to take it to the next graphical level. It adds another level to presentation, beyond just how many polys you can have on-screen at a time, or how high-res your textures and bomb-maps are. I for one am happy to see new graphical effects come out, though I'm not planning on buying anything 3D in the foreseeable future, heh.

Also, mature 3D game tech + mature motion control system = next best thing to holodeck. That can't be a bad thing.

OT, first-person melee would be much improved, as would be platforming. Racing games could look seriously intense!

 

[daltob]

well the 3d helps with the depth perception like in monsters vs aliens a opposed to everything looking like its on the same plane it actually looks like your their. also go play something like bioshock if you are a nvidia user the water effects are top notch

 

[Jkudo]

Reviews of Batman: Arkham Asylum GotY suggest that in detective mode the Trioviz 3D works quite well. That was apparently due to the contrast and lack of colour spectrum.

I'm leaning towards Mirror's Edge. One of the biggest issues with 3D platformers is it's hard to judge distance, a problem not present in 2D platformers. This is something of an issue with Mirror's Edge as well, and given the very stark and clean visual style it would likely be very easy to integrate 3D in, and the benefit would be pretty strong.

What games do you think would see a very real benefit from 3D, as opposed to just being a visual upgrade or gimmick?

....i thought it was a gimmick but if mirror's edge 2 was 3d i'd go out and buy a 3dtv ASAP.

 

[Wolfram23]

Racing games, easily.

I agree on Mirror's Edge, and overall I think most games would.

I definitely want to try 3D gaming! Right now with an ATI set up I'm considering Eyefinity, but if they can get 3D working soon then maybe I'll just get a 3D monitor instead...

Anyway, it's too bad some people don't enjoy it and have to be such Debbie Downers about how it's a gimmick, it sucks, it adds nothing, etc etc. Obviously that's one opinion, and tons of people have others. I mean it's the next logical step in entertainment. No business likes to remain stale and for TV makers 3D is the only way to go. Yes, sometimes it's a gimmick (looking at that Dance movie). But then, so is surround sound - or you could even go so far as to say sound at all! Afterall, people like/liked silent movies just fine. Hell, let's get rid of colour too! Who needs it? Black and white is fine!

 

[katsumoto03]

Sonic, It could look kick ass in 3d!

Veto. Sonic would be one of the worst games to implement 3D. The motion sickness would be horrible!