I mean, I get hating the implementation because there hasn't been a good one yet.
Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon both say you're wrong
So because you liked those two movies they're good implementations? You probably bit into the Avatar hype and thought it was a great movie because it was laden with SPESHUL FX
Actually they're both wonderful examples of what you can do with 3D other than "WHOA SHIT IS FLYING AT YOUR FACE", which has nothing to do with the quality of the film
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
Despite Metroid Prime: Hunters horribly unbalanced online play and unfortunately linear single player, the game was great. In fact, those were the only things that brought that game down. If I were to only judge it on how the touchscreen was implement then it would easily be one of the top games for the DS. Aiming with the stylus is easy and responsive. It's perfect.
But for right now, it's a small annoyance, but it works
If I could wear clear or lightly-tinted glasses (like there were for Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon, Coraline) instead of those blue/red things of the past, I wouldn't mind wearing glasses for my television at home at all
But for right now, it's a small annoyance, but it works
If I could wear clear or lightly-tinted glasses (like there were for Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon, Coraline) instead of those blue/red things of the past, I wouldn't mind wearing glasses for my television at home at all
Well sure, nerds will put up with anything to be on the bleeding edge
The mass market isn't going to be chomping at the bit until it's much simpler. Look at HD adoption, and all that was was swapping out a TV for a better TV. This involves keeping track of glasses and making sure everyone has a pair when they come over to watch a movie, keeping them charged (shutter glasses), buying extras...
I mean, I get hating the implementation because there hasn't been a good one yet.
Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon both say you're wrong
So because you liked those two movies they're good implementations? You probably bit into the Avatar hype and thought it was a great movie because it was laden with SPESHUL FX
I thought Avatar was a pretty medicore movie but there's no denying the 3d was amazing. Unless you've actually seen it you can't really compare it to seeing something like Superman in 3d, as Avatar was made with specific 3d technology in mind, wile they probably just decided to make a 3d version of Superman in post-production.
I need to put on glasses to watch TV, so I don't mind really.
I need to put on glasses to see life.
If only opticians gave you an option to add the 3D polarising (?) treatment to your normal lenses. I really enjoy the 3D experience, but wearing two pairs of glasses is an inconvenience.
But as the 3DS doesn't need glasses, this is a moot point. I'm well up for this graphical upgrade, even if it adds nothing to the gameplay - just seeing the Pokéballs bounce around in 3D or have Phoenix Wright point out of the screen would be pretty cool.
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.
the thing is though, unlike Laserdisc which required you to buy a separate piece of electronics, in another year or so, every TV sold on the market is going to be sold with 3D capabilities. The idea being that nobody's going to buy a TV specifically with 3D in mind, but since it's there anyway, why not use it?
I do think full acceptance is at least 10 years out though. HDTV's have pretty much reached critical momentum in market penetration, so you're going to have a significant portion of the population that won't have a 3D capable TV until they decide to upgrade again, which is a minimum of 10 years out.
I mean, I get hating the implementation because there hasn't been a good one yet.
Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon both say you're wrong
So because you liked those two movies they're good implementations? You probably bit into the Avatar hype and thought it was a great movie because it was laden with SPESHUL FX
How does Avatar's quality as a movie degrade it's performance in 3D?
3D is merely improved graphics. I fail to see how that's a 'gimmick'. Especially given it's going to become the norm.
On handhelds?
Maybe.
Also interesting were recent statements made by Ignition's Shane Bettenhausen in which he claimed that Sony's new handheld platform, also rumored to be shown at this upcoming E3, will be very similar to what Nintendo is planning. "The two products will be very competitive," he said. "The DS and PSP both existed in completely different sides sides [of the spectrum]," he said. "If those two put out similar products at the same time, it really evens the playing field." Is this a strong hint that Sony's next handheld will also offer 3D?
Could just be the touch screen but that seems to suggest more.
I need to put on glasses to watch TV, so I don't mind really.
I need to put on glasses to see life.
If only opticians gave you an option to add the 3D polarising (?) treatment to your normal lenses. I really enjoy the 3D experience, but wearing two pairs of glasses is an inconvenience.
But as the 3DS doesn't need glasses, this is a moot point. I'm well up for this graphical upgrade, even if it adds nothing to the gameplay - just seeing the Pokéballs bounce around in 3D or have Phoenix Wright point out of the screen would be pretty cool.
You're telling me, I have to mess with those glasses for like a minute just to make them sit properly on my actual glasses without feeling weird or uncomfortable. Then I have to adjust them again if I have to itch my eye or something during the movie. I'm so glad that the 3DS won't use glasses. It would probably be impossible for me to play while looking down if it did.
would sony really put out a statement saying that nobody wants 3D on handhelds and then turn around and do just that while pretending they were the ones that came up with it all along?
Whatever it is, really hope it's not a touchscreen; that's the one advantage I feel the PSP has over the DS
Touch screens are fine when used properly, basically menu selection and/or unit selection in turn-based games.
Note to Nintendo. Zelda does not use the touch screen properly. I seriously hope the focus on 3D on the 3DS means less touch screen based games because it would be awkward poking at a screen with 3D images popping out, though we know it will have one because its backwards compatible. I want a new portable Zelda that actually plays like its console counterparts and doesn't control like shit.
3D stuff does not actually pop out of the screen so it shouldn't be as awkward as some people are saying. It's like pointing at something in front of you in real life. Not too shabby.
But I agree the touch portion should be used responsibly.
Whatever it is, really hope it's not a touchscreen; that's the one advantage I feel the PSP has over the DS
Touch screens are fine when used properly, basically menu selection and/or unit selection in turn-based games.
Note to Nintendo. Zelda does not use the touch screen properly. I seriously hope the focus on 3D on the 3DS means less touch screen based games because it would be awkward poking at a screen with 3D images popping out, though we know it will have one because its backwards compatible. I want a new portable Zelda that actually plays like its console counterparts and doesn't control like shit.
Yay, I'm not the only one that hates the Zelda games because of that. You have buttons there, I was glad to have the same amount of buttons as the SNES, now don't make me want to drill a hole in my hand just to see where I'm telling Link to go.
I stand by my post that the best DS games only use the touch screen for menus, unit selection, or nothing. I'll add to it and say that most 3DS games will have a similar pattern.
If Sony was smart they'd flagrantly copy the supposed specs and power of this new handheld just for the added liscensing revenue of all the 3rd party multiplatform releases.
I want a new portable Zelda that actually plays like its console counterparts and doesn't control like shit.
Not to mention a good portable Ocarina of Time port! Laugh all you want about buying the same game again, but...A Link to the Past GBA is probably one of my most played portable games, and I can see the same happening again with OoT.
If Sony was smart they'd flagrantly copy the supposed specs and power of this new handheld just for the added liscensing revenue of all the 3rd party multiplatform releases.
Then they'd just throw down licensing agreements to keep people from releasing 3DS games before PSP2 games.
Fun fact: Microsoft doesn't let you release a demo for PS3 before the 360 version. If you wish to release your game for the 360, you have to release the demos at the same time or the 360 version has to be the first one out. Same with retail release - has to be 360 first, then PS3. If you want to release on PS3 then 360, they'll revoke the game's license.
It's pretty much 10 times worse than NES-era Nintendo.
Yes, clearly when your two biggest competitors who have a complete and total mindshare domination over your product in most of the developed world it would be stupid to add in the one feature they have which you don't, forever dooming a goodly number of ports from ever reaching you.
Sony's really got two good choices to make with the PSP2.
Ape the iPhone but with better controls and games.
Ape this new Nintendo device and make a killing on PS2 downloads.
NES era Nintendo controlled the software output of third parties in America. They said 5 games per year, we tell you the numbers of carts we'll sell you, through us, no outsiders. If your game isn't good enough we won't let you sell it. You can't release those games on the other systems without changing them or else we won't let you make any more.
We'll make some exceptions if you have a gigantic license attached to your property on the quality issue though.
NES era Nintendo are about a billion times worse then this little demo issue.
Microsoft at the height of its Windows arrogance is actually pretty similar in how it deals with its OS and Office though, but not on the home consoles.
NES era Nintendo controlled the software output of third parties in America. They said 5 games per year, we tell you the numbers of carts we'll sell you, through us, no outsiders. If your game isn't good enough we won't let you sell it. You can't release those games on the other systems without changing them or else we won't let you make any more.
We'll make some exceptions if you have a gigantic license attached to your property on the quality issue though.
NES era Nintendo are about a billion times worse then this little demo issue.
Microsoft at the height of its Windows arrogance is actually pretty similar in how it deals with its OS and Office though, but not on the home consoles.
It applies to retail also.
Also, if you are a small studio and a big studio is releasing a game in the same genre, they will un-greenlight your project in favor of the big studio
It's not a "5 games a year limit"
it's a "you don't get to release a fucking game whatsoever" limit.
Neither Sony nor Nintendo have similiar stupid meddling bullshit.
NES era Nintendo controlled the software output of third parties in America. They said 5 games per year, we tell you the numbers of carts we'll sell you, through us, no outsiders. If your game isn't good enough we won't let you sell it. You can't release those games on the other systems without changing them or else we won't let you make any more.
We'll make some exceptions if you have a gigantic license attached to your property on the quality issue though.
NES era Nintendo are about a billion times worse then this little demo issue.
Microsoft at the height of its Windows arrogance is actually pretty similar in how it deals with its OS and Office though, but not on the home consoles.
The Bolded part?
Nintendo needs to start doing that again.
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
I don't see where Quality control is a bad thing. Chicken shoot is not a game that should be allowed to exist outside of the shitty freeware realms of an 80 year olds PC
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
Nintendo, Sony , and MS never did game "goodness" control. None of them do. All they care is that your game follows guidelines and doesn't set the console on fire.
The Nintendo Seal of Quality was just a trademark thing to avoid the problems that happened to the Atari with bootleg carts. It wasn't "we played this game and it's good", it was "we manufactured this box and it will not turn your NES into a frog"
Posts
So because you liked those two movies they're good implementations? You probably bit into the Avatar hype and thought it was a great movie because it was laden with SPESHUL FX
Keep trying though, chief
I need to put on glasses to see life.
You're welcome
I'm saving you from yourself
Putting on special glasses to view media is a stupid solution from the 1950s. We can do better.
But for right now, it's a small annoyance, but it works
If I could wear clear or lightly-tinted glasses (like there were for Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon, Coraline) instead of those blue/red things of the past, I wouldn't mind wearing glasses for my television at home at all
That's what I was going for. Thankfully if I choose to I can read or play a portable sans glasses.
Well sure, nerds will put up with anything to be on the bleeding edge
The mass market isn't going to be chomping at the bit until it's much simpler. Look at HD adoption, and all that was was swapping out a TV for a better TV. This involves keeping track of glasses and making sure everyone has a pair when they come over to watch a movie, keeping them charged (shutter glasses), buying extras...
I thought Avatar was a pretty medicore movie but there's no denying the 3d was amazing. Unless you've actually seen it you can't really compare it to seeing something like Superman in 3d, as Avatar was made with specific 3d technology in mind, wile they probably just decided to make a 3d version of Superman in post-production.
If only opticians gave you an option to add the 3D polarising (?) treatment to your normal lenses. I really enjoy the 3D experience, but wearing two pairs of glasses is an inconvenience.
But as the 3DS doesn't need glasses, this is a moot point. I'm well up for this graphical upgrade, even if it adds nothing to the gameplay - just seeing the Pokéballs bounce around in 3D or have Phoenix Wright point out of the screen would be pretty cool.
the thing is though, unlike Laserdisc which required you to buy a separate piece of electronics, in another year or so, every TV sold on the market is going to be sold with 3D capabilities. The idea being that nobody's going to buy a TV specifically with 3D in mind, but since it's there anyway, why not use it?
I do think full acceptance is at least 10 years out though. HDTV's have pretty much reached critical momentum in market penetration, so you're going to have a significant portion of the population that won't have a 3D capable TV until they decide to upgrade again, which is a minimum of 10 years out.
How does Avatar's quality as a movie degrade it's performance in 3D?
Maybe.
Could just be the touch screen but that seems to suggest more.
You're telling me, I have to mess with those glasses for like a minute just to make them sit properly on my actual glasses without feeling weird or uncomfortable. Then I have to adjust them again if I have to itch my eye or something during the movie. I'm so glad that the 3DS won't use glasses. It would probably be impossible for me to play while looking down if it did.
yes. yes they would.
The PSP4 - Now you're thinking fourth-dimensionally
Touch screens are fine when used properly, basically menu selection and/or unit selection in turn-based games.
Note to Nintendo. Zelda does not use the touch screen properly. I seriously hope the focus on 3D on the 3DS means less touch screen based games because it would be awkward poking at a screen with 3D images popping out, though we know it will have one because its backwards compatible. I want a new portable Zelda that actually plays like its console counterparts and doesn't control like shit.
But I agree the touch portion should be used responsibly.
Yay, I'm not the only one that hates the Zelda games because of that. You have buttons there, I was glad to have the same amount of buttons as the SNES, now don't make me want to drill a hole in my hand just to see where I'm telling Link to go.
I stand by my post that the best DS games only use the touch screen for menus, unit selection, or nothing. I'll add to it and say that most 3DS games will have a similar pattern.
Word.
Then they'd just throw down licensing agreements to keep people from releasing 3DS games before PSP2 games.
Fun fact: Microsoft doesn't let you release a demo for PS3 before the 360 version. If you wish to release your game for the 360, you have to release the demos at the same time or the 360 version has to be the first one out. Same with retail release - has to be 360 first, then PS3. If you want to release on PS3 then 360, they'll revoke the game's license.
It's pretty much 10 times worse than NES-era Nintendo.
Sony's really got two good choices to make with the PSP2.
Ape the iPhone but with better controls and games.
Ape this new Nintendo device and make a killing on PS2 downloads.
Either way I see a touch screen in Sony's future.
We'll make some exceptions if you have a gigantic license attached to your property on the quality issue though.
NES era Nintendo are about a billion times worse then this little demo issue.
Microsoft at the height of its Windows arrogance is actually pretty similar in how it deals with its OS and Office though, but not on the home consoles.
It applies to retail also.
Also, if you are a small studio and a big studio is releasing a game in the same genre, they will un-greenlight your project in favor of the big studio
It's not a "5 games a year limit"
it's a "you don't get to release a fucking game whatsoever" limit.
Neither Sony nor Nintendo have similiar stupid meddling bullshit.
The Bolded part?
Nintendo needs to start doing that again.
That's actually pretty retarded
If you said XBLA only I'd believe it. I heard they are total control freaks about that.
Yeah, it's XBLA.
Retail they don't have much of a choice over.
The only "meddling" rule Sony has is that if you delay the PS3 version, you have to add content to it or they will not approve it.
Also MS's marketing and etc team love to use the words "value add". A lot. They use "value add" like it's a goddamn punctuation mark.
I don't see where Quality control is a bad thing. Chicken shoot is not a game that should be allowed to exist outside of the shitty freeware realms of an 80 year olds PC
The Nintendo Seal of Quality was just a trademark thing to avoid the problems that happened to the Atari with bootleg carts. It wasn't "we played this game and it's good", it was "we manufactured this box and it will not turn your NES into a frog"