It adds a level of functionality for the overwhelming majority of people, improving the experiance without shifting the paradigm. And is being pushed hard by the movie industry (and by the way is doing great), and thetv industry is going to do the same?
It is going to be more than a decade before anyone considers making a home console that focuses on a 3D experience. The install base on those kinds of TVs (if it even works out to be popular) is going to be very small for a very long time.
I would be suprised if the next consoles don't offer it as an option. Unlike HD it barely raises the cost. Plus a decade is way too long. When was the first HD released?
It is going to be more than a decade before anyone considers making a home console that focuses on a 3D experience. The install base on those kinds of TVs (if it even works out to be popular) is going to be very small for a very long time.
I think 3D is gonna be like laserdisc. It's a brand new and expensive technology that'll find a niche market but never really take off. Glasses are both tacky and uncomfortable and once a better solution becomes actually viable that doesn't require glasses, it'll become the new standard that actually takes off.
It is going to be more than a decade before anyone considers making a home console that focuses on a 3D experience. The install base on those kinds of TVs (if it even works out to be popular) is going to be very small for a very long time.
I think 3D is gonna be like laserdisc. It's a brand new and expensive technology that'll find a niche market but never really take off. Glasses are both tacky and uncomfortable and once a better solution becomes actually viable that doesn't require glasses, it'll become the new standard that actually takes off.
Another issue that it doesn't add to every game/movie experience like HD does. It's nice to see the monsters and mechs in Avatar pop out, but say you're watching something like the Prestige or the news or any number of media that doesn't really benefit at all.
It seems like a technology that a lot more people will just shrug at.
It is going to be more than a decade before anyone considers making a home console that focuses on a 3D experience. The install base on those kinds of TVs (if it even works out to be popular) is going to be very small for a very long time.
I think 3D is gonna be like laserdisc. It's a brand new and expensive technology that'll find a niche market but never really take off. Glasses are both tacky and uncomfortable and once a better solution becomes actually viable that doesn't require glasses, it'll become the new standard that actually takes off.
Another issue that it doesn't add to every game/movie experience like HD does. It's nice to see the monsters and mechs in Avatar pop out, but say you're watching something like the Prestige or the news or any number of media that doesn't really benefit at all.
It seems like a technology that a lot more people will just shrug at.
3d to me (if done right) is just higher definition. If you could see the prestige in 3d where it looked like real life, how would the movie NOT be benefiting from that?
jeddy lee on
Backlog Challenge: 0%
0/8
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
It is going to be more than a decade before anyone considers making a home console that focuses on a 3D experience. The install base on those kinds of TVs (if it even works out to be popular) is going to be very small for a very long time.
I think 3D is gonna be like laserdisc. It's a brand new and expensive technology that'll find a niche market but never really take off. Glasses are both tacky and uncomfortable and once a better solution becomes actually viable that doesn't require glasses, it'll become the new standard that actually takes off.
Another issue that it doesn't add to every game/movie experience like HD does. It's nice to see the monsters and mechs in Avatar pop out, but say you're watching something like the Prestige or the news or any number of media that doesn't really benefit at all.
It seems like a technology that a lot more people will just shrug at.
I disagree. Why wouldn't I want to see a news anchor in 3D? Sure, in that situation I don't care about being "immersed," but as long as it's not giving me a headache I see no reason to not have it. What about the news footage being in 3D as well, or the weather map showing real elevation and cloud cover? I'd be all over that.
It is going to be more than a decade before anyone considers making a home console that focuses on a 3D experience. The install base on those kinds of TVs (if it even works out to be popular) is going to be very small for a very long time.
I think 3D is gonna be like laserdisc. It's a brand new and expensive technology that'll find a niche market but never really take off. Glasses are both tacky and uncomfortable and once a better solution becomes actually viable that doesn't require glasses, it'll become the new standard that actually takes off.
Another issue that it doesn't add to every game/movie experience like HD does. It's nice to see the monsters and mechs in Avatar pop out, but say you're watching something like the Prestige or the news or any number of media that doesn't really benefit at all.
It seems like a technology that a lot more people will just shrug at.
3d to me (if done right) is just higher definition. If you could see the prestige in 3d where it looked like real life, how would the movie NOT be benefiting from that?
"Where it looked like in real life?" This isn't virtual reality technology, it's technology that makes stuff pop out and in a bit.
Actually it would help make things look more like they do in real life, though. We're used to seeing everything around us with depth to it, so even looking at something simple like a 3D cornfield will give you a better sense of distance and depth than a flat 2D image.
Actually it would help make things look more like they do in real life, though. We're used to seeing everything around us with depth to it, so even looking at something simple like a 3D cornfield will give you a better sense of distance and depth than a flat 2D image.
Eh, maybe I've just had bad experiences with 3D so far then. It just doesn't seem to me like the applications are as universal as a crisper, clearer screen, but I'll try and keep my mind open.
I remember some time ago somebody linked to an archived thread from when the DS was first announced.
I think the primary arguments were "It'll suck", "That's impossible and unnecessary and stupid" and "The human brain can't focus on two screens at once"
So should we expect something similar with regard to this?
I guess this is as good a place to mention it as any.
Bought a DSiXL today.
I am actually really impressed. The screen doesnt look blurry at all, which was my fear with the increased size "blowing up" the images in the games. It actually looks really clear.
They actually pre-install Flipnote and the web browser on it now, in addition to the 2 brain age games and the clock. Never tried flipnote before, so that was cool to see.
also at 360a people put their forum name in their bio, it shows up next to their name on Live
I can't because urahonky is supposedly offensive.
It's a racial slur. Yeah, it's one white people don't really give a shit about, but MS couldn't allow honky while banning others without opening themselves up to a lawsuit.
Meh. Anyone who gets offended by honky needs to relax. :P
I mean, I get hating the implementation because there hasn't been a good one yet.
But the concept itself? It's just the next evolution of visual technology. It just remains to be seen how it can be achieved cheaply and practically.
And it'll be gimmicky just like HD was at the beginning, where you had maybe one or two cable channels in HD that had shitty programming whose only draw was that it was in HD. And now they've mostly died out, giving way to good shows that happen to use HD, not shows created for it. Similarly, we'll have shitty games/shows that rely less on gameplay/story-craft and more on "HOLY SHIT THINGS ARE COMING AT YOU!" But this, too, shall pass.
I personally don't care for 3D. Don't hate it but I haven't seen it done effectively to where it REALLY added something else for me.
Superman Returns, Alice, UP! all sucked in 3D. The 2nd and 3rd were supposed to be "amazing" in 3D. Didn't see anything impressive.
I'm always on board for the newest Nintendo handheld but.... man I don't know about this. I'm not doubting it or anything, I'm sure t'll be great. I just don't care for 3D.
haha you're allowed to doubt it, dude. Don't let Nintendo fanboys bully you. "I don't know about this... NOT THAT I'M DOUBTING IT!" :P
So you don't see the possibility that 3D could be done well? What I'm saying is don't let past implementations cloud your opinion on future innovations. No one has done it right, so it has been unimpressive. That doesn't necessarily mean it could never be done right
I would be suprised if the next consoles don't offer it as an option. Unlike HD it barely raises the cost. Plus a decade is way too long. When was the first HD released?
I'm just saying if you think there will be more than 50% penetration of 3D sets in 10 years, you're way past the wildest dreams of the manufacturers.
Meaning: no way this has a legit effect on gaming unless it's on a handheld.
I would be suprised if the next consoles don't offer it as an option. Unlike HD it barely raises the cost. Plus a decade is way too long. When was the first HD released?
I'm just saying if you think there will be more than 50% penetration of 3D sets in 10 years, you're way past the wildest dreams of the manufacturers.
Meaning: no way this has a legit effect on gaming unless it's on a handheld.
The idea is you wont need a special tv for it. Especially with all the motion controls and cameras and whatnot you could do simulated 3d with cameras.
The idea is you wont need a special tv for it. Especially with all the motion controls and cameras and whatnot you could do simulated 3d with cameras.
I haven't heard anyone talking about this, so maybe I'm just out of the loop. Sony's talking about bringing 3D gaming to high end sets with a firmware update ... and I haven't heard *anything* about console 3D gaming from MS or Nintendo.
But isn't that it? Some vague talk that this years' TVs might be firmware compatible with 3D at some point in the future. Which doesn't exactly give the impression that it's coming anytime soon.
The Sony 3D is just a 120mhz or more TV that can use those shutter glasses. Once they have the a fast enough refresh rate, it's all software on the TV's side, any thing else is accomplished through external hardware with the glasses
3D is a piece of shit and anything 3D can go fuck itself. Why are we supposed to expect the 3DS will be any different from the regular DS? After the first tech demo games, nothing good bothered with the shitty gimmick touch screen. After the first tech demo 3D games, nothing good will bother with the shitty gimmick 3D.
3D is a piece of shit and anything 3D can go fuck itself. Why are we supposed to expect the 3DS will be any different from the regular DS? After the first tech demo games, nothing good bothered with the shitty gimmick touch screen. After the first tech demo 3D games, nothing good will bother with the shitty gimmick 3D.
3After the first tech demo games, nothing good bothered with the shitty gimmick touch screen.
This post is amazingly wrong.
He has something getting close to a point. Some of the best DS games make little to no use of the touch screen in main gameplay, except for things it's good for, like mapping and menus, or have it fully optional.
I say that with great love for the normal DS. Which games make complete use of the touch screen? The only ones I can think of are Zelda and Star Fox, and Star Fox blew. The best DS games, New Super Mario Brothers, Mario Kart DS, and Pokemon, barely use it at all. It's like a more-powerful GBA.
3D isn't something people can or can't "bother" with on something like this. It's not a gameplay feature, it's inherent in the viewing of the screen. If you make ANYTHING for the system, it will be in 3D. The best games with use it as a subtle enhancement, some of the worst will rely on it solely for the "OMG IN UR FACE" factor, but they'll all use it to a degree
Oh. Ugh. I honestly don't see it catching on more any more this time around than with the virtual boy. Yes, they're different, but they also both had different competing devices, and these days the competition is much stiffer than it was in the days when the VB flopped.
I say that with great love for the normal DS. Which games make complete use of the touch screen? The only ones I can think of are Zelda and Star Fox, and Star Fox blew. The best DS games, New Super Mario Brothers, Mario Kart DS, and Pokemon, barely use it at all. It's like a more-powerful GBA.
Oh. Ugh. I honestly don't see it catching on more any more this time around than with the virtual boy..
The Virtual Boy's failure had nothing to do with 3D. The Virtual Boy flopped largely had to do with the fact that you need to be hunched over peering into pair of goggles to use
Gonna have to side with PolloDiablo on this one. I've never been a big fan of portable systems--something about the level of production bothered me about it, plus tiny screens etc--but the DS seemed to have something going for it with the new interface and two screens.
4 years of pretty standard GBA-to-N64 games with few using the second screen as anything more than a map and I sold it. It pretty much is just a standard portable, albeit an incredibly trendy one.
For the record, my favorite game on the system was Pac-Pix. Has there even been a single game for DS in the past couple years that relied as heavily on touch screen use?
I say that with great love for the normal DS. Which games make complete use of the touch screen? The only ones I can think of are Zelda and Star Fox, and Star Fox blew. The best DS games, New Super Mario Brothers, Mario Kart DS, and Pokemon, barely use it at all. It's like a more-powerful GBA.
Oh. Ugh. I honestly don't see it catching on more any more this time around than with the virtual boy..
The Virtual Boy's failure had nothing to do with 3D. The Virtual Boy flopped largely had to do with the fact that you need to be hunched over peering into pair of goggles to use
The fact that it gave some people headaches, had an all-red palette, and was supposed to be portable but was way too fucking big to take anywhere probably didn't help either. In fact, I think the 3D was the only thing the system did have going for it.
And if Nintendo can make another handheld as solid as the DS has been I could give two fucks if the 3D is just a gimmick. Like people have said, the DS games didn't exactly make full use of the touch screen's potential but that didn't stop a bunch of its games from being great.
Pokémon HGSS makes great use of the touch screen. Organizing boxes is incredibly easy now, though mass moving pokés is not possible anymore. Also, selecting moves with the stylus is great.
Posts
It adds a level of functionality for the overwhelming majority of people, improving the experiance without shifting the paradigm. And is being pushed hard by the movie industry (and by the way is doing great), and thetv industry is going to do the same?
I would be suprised if the next consoles don't offer it as an option. Unlike HD it barely raises the cost. Plus a decade is way too long. When was the first HD released?
I think 3D is gonna be like laserdisc. It's a brand new and expensive technology that'll find a niche market but never really take off. Glasses are both tacky and uncomfortable and once a better solution becomes actually viable that doesn't require glasses, it'll become the new standard that actually takes off.
It seems like a technology that a lot more people will just shrug at.
3d to me (if done right) is just higher definition. If you could see the prestige in 3d where it looked like real life, how would the movie NOT be benefiting from that?
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
360
Bayonetta
Fable 3
DS
FF: 4 heroes of light
I disagree. Why wouldn't I want to see a news anchor in 3D? Sure, in that situation I don't care about being "immersed," but as long as it's not giving me a headache I see no reason to not have it. What about the news footage being in 3D as well, or the weather map showing real elevation and cloud cover? I'd be all over that.
I think the primary arguments were "It'll suck", "That's impossible and unnecessary and stupid" and "The human brain can't focus on two screens at once"
So should we expect something similar with regard to this?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Bought a DSiXL today.
I am actually really impressed. The screen doesnt look blurry at all, which was my fear with the increased size "blowing up" the images in the games. It actually looks really clear.
They actually pre-install Flipnote and the web browser on it now, in addition to the 2 brain age games and the clock. Never tried flipnote before, so that was cool to see.
Meh. Anyone who gets offended by honky needs to relax. :P
I mean, I get hating the implementation because there hasn't been a good one yet.
But the concept itself? It's just the next evolution of visual technology. It just remains to be seen how it can be achieved cheaply and practically.
And it'll be gimmicky just like HD was at the beginning, where you had maybe one or two cable channels in HD that had shitty programming whose only draw was that it was in HD. And now they've mostly died out, giving way to good shows that happen to use HD, not shows created for it. Similarly, we'll have shitty games/shows that rely less on gameplay/story-craft and more on "HOLY SHIT THINGS ARE COMING AT YOU!" But this, too, shall pass.
Superman Returns, Alice, UP! all sucked in 3D. The 2nd and 3rd were supposed to be "amazing" in 3D. Didn't see anything impressive.
I'm always on board for the newest Nintendo handheld but.... man I don't know about this. I'm not doubting it or anything, I'm sure t'll be great. I just don't care for 3D.
So you don't see the possibility that 3D could be done well? What I'm saying is don't let past implementations cloud your opinion on future innovations. No one has done it right, so it has been unimpressive. That doesn't necessarily mean it could never be done right
Never play Deadly Creatures then.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'm just saying if you think there will be more than 50% penetration of 3D sets in 10 years, you're way past the wildest dreams of the manufacturers.
Meaning: no way this has a legit effect on gaming unless it's on a handheld.
The idea is you wont need a special tv for it. Especially with all the motion controls and cameras and whatnot you could do simulated 3d with cameras.
I never asked for this!
Watch this instead it's awesome.
http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-deadly-creatures/17-268/
I haven't heard anyone talking about this, so maybe I'm just out of the loop. Sony's talking about bringing 3D gaming to high end sets with a firmware update ... and I haven't heard *anything* about console 3D gaming from MS or Nintendo.
But isn't that it? Some vague talk that this years' TVs might be firmware compatible with 3D at some point in the future. Which doesn't exactly give the impression that it's coming anytime soon.
This post is amazingly wrong.
Get out
http://i.imgur.com/1drz4.jpg
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
He has something getting close to a point. Some of the best DS games make little to no use of the touch screen in main gameplay, except for things it's good for, like mapping and menus, or have it fully optional.
Kirby's Canvas Curse
Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents
The World Ends With You.
Trauma Center.
The Virtual Boy's failure had nothing to do with 3D. The Virtual Boy flopped largely had to do with the fact that you need to be hunched over peering into pair of goggles to use
4 years of pretty standard GBA-to-N64 games with few using the second screen as anything more than a map and I sold it. It pretty much is just a standard portable, albeit an incredibly trendy one.
For the record, my favorite game on the system was Pac-Pix. Has there even been a single game for DS in the past couple years that relied as heavily on touch screen use?
The fact that it gave some people headaches, had an all-red palette, and was supposed to be portable but was way too fucking big to take anywhere probably didn't help either. In fact, I think the 3D was the only thing the system did have going for it.
And if Nintendo can make another handheld as solid as the DS has been I could give two fucks if the 3D is just a gimmick. Like people have said, the DS games didn't exactly make full use of the touch screen's potential but that didn't stop a bunch of its games from being great.
Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon both say you're wrong
Avatar used glasses.
glasses are a bad implementation of the concept of 3D. No one wants to put on fucking glasses to watch TV