Why are people so skeptical of 3D?

[JLrep]

Look, 3D is the next big thing, and that's just a fact. By that I don't mean that 3D screens are going to revolutionize life, just that they will replace regular 2D screens, just like HD replaced non-HD. Years from now, the only electronics that won't have 3D screens are the ones that are too utilitarian or cheap to have them.

Any 3D that required glasses was inevitably too awkward to really succeed, especially since red-green glasses screwed up the color badly and shutter glasses are expensive. But now that the 3DS has been confirmed, that's all there is to it. People laugh because it's impossible to show the 3D effect of the 3DS on a computer, well, give it a few years: your computer will be 3D. So will your TV and your phone, depending on when it becomes cheap and when you adapt.

If you say it won't catch on because it makes some people sick, well, people will get over that. When FPSs first came out they gave people motion sickness badly, yet I'll bet most of you could play one for hours and feel fine (I certainly can). Any other technical concerns, such as poor viewing angles, will simply be improved, especially as development efforts shift from improving 2D screens to improving 3D ones. (This would happen eventually, but I'm betting the 3DS will push things along very quickly.)

Again, 3D isn't what I'd call revolutionary (we'll wait for actual holograms for that), and personally I don't find it all that fascinating. It's just that it will become the norm; it simply will.

As a side note, the one really positive effect I see 3D having on gaming is 3D platformers where you don't have to rely on your shadow to aim your jumps.

 

[sephiroth1991]

I don't like 3D cos i see it as a gimmick and has no real benefit besides have picture closer to you.

 

[SirDerick]

I think it's because people think that 3-d is a gimmick and that James Cameron made it popular.

And let's face it, 3-d doesn't add much to the experience. The only thing 3-d adds to is making the stuff that's closer to the screen look more like it's there. Anything that's far away, won't have anything added to it with the glasses.

In Avatar for example, I think they used 3-d to it's fullest with the snow, the subtitles and anything else that was close. It would be really easy to not use it to it's fullest (How to train your dragon hardly had anything with the glasses.) or to overuse it(Think of some action move that will constantly shove slow-mo bullets in your face.)

Although the 3-ds might be good. As a handheld, it won't be able to show us things that are far away, forcing developers to make the most out of the real 3d.

 

[Kif]

I think it's largely considered a gimmick because it was pushed as the next big thing at least once before, appeared for a while, then promptly disappeared.

I do, however, think that this particular brand of 3D could stick around for the long term as the lack of needing red and blue glasses means you can see the picture in almost the colour it was intended. (I say almost cause the glasses are a bit dull)

The only issues I can see with it is that it relies on you being able to see well with both eyes and (as far as cinemas are concerned) getting the sweet spot in the middle for the best results... Whether or not people who wear glasses are able to use it to its full potential I don't know.

As for 3D tech which does not require glasses, you're ahead of me. I've been TV shopping recently and not come across such a gadget.

 

[Vhite]

There is much more work with ugly 3D game then with nice 2D game.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Because people fear the new. They always did, they always will. People feared trains, cars, planes, TV, computers, you name it.

That said, I just want the glasses gone. I loved 3D in Avatar, the adding of depth by 3D really increased immersion for me. But glasses are all well and good for in the cinema, at home it's just massively inconvenient.

 

[Rewold]

How about using the cross-eyed technique so there's no need for glasses.

 

[molesgallus]

Because people fear the new. They always did, they always will. People feared trains, cars, planes, TV, computers, you name it.

That said, I just want the glasses gone. I loved 3D in Avatar, the adding of depth by 3D really increased immersion for me. But glasses are all well and good for in the cinema, at home it's just massively inconvenient.

What this guy said. Personally, I love it. I already play most pc games in 3d, on my projector, and it adds A LOT to the experience. I can't wait until it becomes standard in games and movies. The glasses are slightly annoying, but you soon forget about them.

 

[Littaly]

I'm guessing the tech that the 3DS applies works only on the 3DS, it's probably not possible to apply it to a TV or computer. But that's just my guess and not the reason as to why I am skeptical.

Thing is, it wasn't so long ago we moved into HD, hell, I still play games on an SD TV. I bet the companies that sell the 3D tech are shitting their pants in joy, me and a lot of other consumers, not as much.

That and I think 3D gaming is sort of a waste. I was never much of a graphics freak, which is basically what this is, a way to make games prettier, not necessarily better. I'm not against it, I would just have spent my time and money on developing other aspects of gaming instead.

 

[Plurralbles]

I'm not. But if people keep hyping it up I will become very skeptical. Just let it happen and see if it's cool or not. THe 3DS looks like it will be okay.

Sony's 1 million dollar solution for 3D though is a big turn off.

 

[PissOffRoth]

How about using the cross-eyed technique so there's no need for glasses.

If you want to permanently fuck up your vision for a 4 hour, 3D session of CoD, be my guest.

And I think the main reason people are against this whole 3D explosion is because it costs an arm and a leg for the setup. That and the fact that there's not a whole lot of 3D game titles yet. Metro 2034 is about the only one I can think of.

 

[Baby Tea]

And let's face it, 3-d doesn't add much to the experience.

I disagree.
Really seeing the depth of field makes things way more immersive.

Avatar is great looking movie (I have it on Bluray), but the 3D effects really shone through when I was in theatres. The added depth of field really bring you into the movie, as oposed to watching a flat screen. Most people, like myself, can lose ourselves in a regular, non 3D movie. But the added depth makes it way more immersive.

That being said: Once they get rid of the glasses and the price goes down, then I'll look into it.
Until then, I'm happy with my 40" LCD.

 

[Axolotl]

I dislike 3d because it looks ugly. With a few exceptions it generally detracts from the experience. It's just anaother fad like it was in the 70's.

 

[Eekaida]

Stereoscopic 3D is a fad that re-emerges every 30 years or so, starting the the 40/50's, then again in the 70/80's and then again now. It survives just long enough for one or two good movies and a whole lot of bad movies to be made. The only difference this time is that digital technology makes it much easier to distrubute.

3D doesn't work for everyone, and rescent medical research suggests that it can cause blackouts and disorientation in certain people, as well as the usual headaches in most people.

Alos, its just not that good.

 

[TheHitcher]

3D is something that I like to be a treat. Like going to see a film in 3D. I don't know if I want it as something I take for granted.
Plus, it must suck for people who are half blind, or have no depth perception.

 

[Casual Shinji]

That and I think 3D gaming is sort of a waste. I was never much of a graphics freak, which is basically what this is, a way to make games prettier, not necessarily better. I'm not against it, I would just have spent my time and money on developing other aspects of gaming instead.

The thing is that 3D doesn't enhance the image at all, it muddles it down. HD allows for a sharper image and much more detail, but all 3D does is bring down the screen quality for the sake of a parlor trick.

 

[spartan231490]

Look, 3D is the next big thing, and that's just a fact. By that I don't mean that 3D screens are going to revolutionize life, just that they will replace regular 2D screens, just like HD replaced non-HD. Years from now, the only electronics that won't have 3D screens are the ones that are too utilitarian or cheap to have them.

Any 3D that required glasses was inevitably too awkward to really succeed, especially since red-green glasses screwed up the color badly and shutter glasses are expensive. But now that the 3DS has been confirmed, that's all there is to it. People laugh because it's impossible to show the 3D effect of the 3DS on a computer, well, give it a few years: your computer will be 3D. So will your TV and your phone, depending on when it becomes cheap and when you adapt.

If you say it won't catch on because it makes some people sick, well, people will get over that. When FPSs first came out they gave people motion sickness badly, yet I'll bet most of you could play one for hours and feel fine (I certainly can). Any other technical concerns, such as poor viewing angles, will simply be improved, especially as development efforts shift from improving 2D screens to improving 3D ones. (This would happen eventually, but I'm betting the 3DS will push things along very quickly.)

Again, 3D isn't what I'd call revolutionary (we'll wait for actual holograms for that), and personally I don't find it all that fascinating. It's just that it will become the norm; it simply will.

As a side note, the one really positive effect I see 3D having on gaming is 3D platformers where you don't have to rely on your shadow to aim your jumps.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that i can buy a hdtv and dvd player for 300 bucks, but to get a 3d tv and 3d blue ray player is minimum 5-6 thousand dollars. that's why I won't be buying 3d, prolly ever, i don't think 3d adds anything to a good movie, and im not paying several thousand dollars for the privaledge. I won't watch 3d movies in theatres when i can avoid it, cuz it isn't worth the extra 3-4 bucks. that's why 3d won't catch on for many years, prolly more than a decade, it's just too damn expensive.

 

[spartan231490]

And let's face it, 3-d doesn't add much to the experience.

I disagree.
Really seeing the depth of field makes things way more immersive.

Avatar is great looking movie (I have it on Bluray), but the 3D effects really shone through when I was in theatres. The added depth of field really bring you into the movie, as oposed to watching a flat screen. Most people, like myself, can lose ourselves in a regular, non 3D movie. But the added depth makes it way more immersive.

That being said: Once they get rid of the glasses and the price goes down, then I'll look into it.
Until then, I'm happy with my 40" LCD.

This is a personal thing, i get more immersed in the tremors movies (which have bad blue-screening and everything cuz the first one was early 80's) than i do in many modern movies. for me, 3d makes it not at all more immersive, actually makes it less immersive for me cuz i can see the reflection of my eyes in those glasses and the glasses also give me a headache. even without that, it just makes it prettier, plot is what makes a movie immersive to me, not how pretty it is, with a game, it's gameplay, i still play duck-hunt frequently and that's def not 3d.