Slashdot Mirror
Don't Go 3D For 3D's Sake, Says Sony
Sony is determined to push 3D graphics into the realm of gaming, but the company seems to be aware that quality, not quantity, is what can win over gamers. They've been telling game developers to take the plunge only if it makes for a better gaming experience, and not just to take advantage of an industry buzz word. Sony's Mick Hocking said,
"We need to, and we're trying to encourage everyone to learn about 3D properly and come and talk to us so we'll support them when they convert the games. But only deliver the best quality 3D. As we've seen in some other industries, if you make great quality 3D, in film you could say Avatar – it's the most successful film of all time, it's the highest grossing film of all time – but since then that hasn't been followed up with the same degree of success. ... If people see great quality 3D it does enhance the experience. It's a great feature for a game. But if they see poor quality 3D it can put them off. Unfortunately some people are producing poor quality 3D, in all mediums. Over the last 12 months we've seen TV, film, some games, where the quality hasn't been there. It's just a case of people need to understand how to work with 3D, how to make it technically correct and then how to use it creatively. Only add 3D where it makes a difference to the gameplay experience. It must add something. Don't just add depth for the sake of it."
One way or another, despite it's insipid story, it'll always be remembered as either A) The only 3D movie to ever really be good at what it does or B) The 3D movie that ushered in a new age of media.
Just imagine Duke Nukem 3D!
The handful of games and handful of 3d blurays available do not make 3d in the home compelling.
Put aside complaints about 3d tech, stupid glasses, whatever. Heard them all, I don't hate the tech like a lot of other folk. I even bought a 3d tv because it was a good tv in the price range I was looking for anyway.
I never get to use it!
And here in Australia they seem to want $60+ for a 3d bluray version of cloudy with a chance of meatballs, or Monsters vs Aliens. Seriously. Bad selection, bad prices. These things will kill it stone dead even if all the naysayers don't.
FTA: "Don't just add depth for the sake of it." Bad dum tsss!
And here I was thinking that Sony was giving serious, practical advice to buyers of their TV sets and to their film division ...
Sony... making a reasonable point? NO! We hate sony! Game developers everywhere, make shitty 3D games just to spite Sony!
It's a buzz word, so people will go with it. Sony can warn them all they want, but people just want to gain from someone else's success. If they can turn an ordinary game into a 3D game with little effort, and boost their sales (on the short term), then they will do it.
I predict a 3D sudoku before the year is over.
I want to learn 3d too... but math is such a difficult thing to conquer..
Developers can't make 3d-centric games because no one but an incredibly small minority of people with gaming rigs and/or consoles would be able to play them.
Customers don't buy 3d-monitors and TVs because there's no content worth watching on them.
End result, 3d is used as an afterthought or marketing gimmick. It makes no sense to spend a lot of funds developing a feature almost no one would use.
In other words, Sony is saying, "Hey consumers, it's the developers' fault for using buzzwords we helped promote. We know 3D sucks ass right now, but come on, give us another chance! Remember Avatar? Come on, remember?"
Or: "I have lazy eye, you insensitive clod!"
(Besides, it's not really 3D until you can move your head and see the parallax.)
Whilst what Sony says is true of films, in that technicians need to re-learn how their cinematography etc. will work in 3 dimensions rather than the 2 they've learnt their trade in, I think games are a very different matter. Have these guys never played FPS on a PC with 3D shutter glasses or some similar system? That enhances the gaming experience immensely, even if the game was never designed with that in mind. The difference is that in a game the user controls the camera and gets the full depth experience as a result; in a film the director / cinematographer would need to visualise the end result in 3D which, I guess, is still in its infancy, artistically. Hence we get countless crap 3D films every year, but loads of great 2D FPS games which look bloody marvellous in 3D.
Granted, I don't know how you guys in the USA did it but at least where I live, there was 100% government owned company that produced programming for tv (and radio before that). It guaranteed that there was always something to do with the device once you bought it, even before producing the programs was profitable. Then, when enough people had bought the device, private companies began moving in.
So unless you're suggesting that the government should again invest great deal of money in 3d technology before such investments become profitable (and don't get me wrong, it's interesting idea if you really are suggesting that), I really don't see how comparison to tv or radio is relevant.
How about making a decent game without stupid gimmicks or one that doesn't play a cutscene every two steps.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
The problem is that we've been screwing around with the 3d word. Remember when "3D" cards came out. The original OpenGL spec also defined a left and right frame buffer. And then there were Shutter glasses going back to things like the Sega Master System.
3D never, ever, works. The primary problem Nintendo learned with the VR boy. People get headaches from it because it's impossible to calibrate them to work with every pair of eyes. Everyone gets motion sickness or headaches with a "VR set" and when you put it on a flat screen, you force the eyes to go cross-eyed, resulting in headaches and eyestrain.
In the theater, they use polarizing glasses, which work in a pinch but require the picture to be much brighter than normal. The problem again being that not everyones stereo vision is calibrated the same. Like for me, with the exception of a few key scenes in Avatar, 3D is lost on me, the brain tunes it out after 5 minutes. I still see some films in 3D because they're the only properly calibrated projection screens, but overall it's never been worth seeing anything in 3D, since 3D adds very little value.
Now here's where I think we can make a difference, but I don't think we'll see it in current generation systems. Take the Kinect device and combine it with a auto-stereoscopic monitor. Now you have a true 3d interaction. Until this is possible, 3D will remain as glue and sparkles, looks pretty, but functionally useless.
There is some promise for 3D, but I don't see any games being able to make use of 3D without completely doing away with the glasses. Any real benefit to 3D stereography would require being able to see light bounce off 3D objects, which doesn't happen, hence why it fails. There's no depth, so the eyes can't focus.
Avatar was good, but if you turn the 3D off, most people wouldn't have noticed after the first 10 minutes.
And what have you done to the Sony we love to hate?
Is it just me or are the tune Sony is playing by changing, and from the looks of it to the better, towards that of the old Sony...from before they started screwing over their customers at every chance they could get?
If you want games with gameplay, I suggest you travel back to the 1990's. Unfortunately, most games these days seem to want to move into the "interactive movie" category.
Mind you, I've only seen the 3D portions of Gran Turismo 5 and Sly 3, but each of those games only seemed to have a divergence of about 5 horizontal pixels onscreen between the 2 views even at the farthest Z-buffer depth. The actual 3D effect was incredibly understated and pointless. Sure as a graphics geek, I'm all for having superfluous 3D just for random kicks once in a while, but even from that end of things it did not deliver.
Every 3D game should have a configuration for adjusting the "strength" of the parallax divergence, especially as display sizes and other factors could benefit from them. Neither of those 2 games I tried seemed to have that at all. Trying to make a "safe" default divergence strength makes the gimmick effectively disappear.
(If I understand correctly, the 3DS has some sort of depth adjustment slider. Does it affect the rendering convergence, or just help focus at the hardware level?)
Just fuck 'em.
Sony needs to recoup their investment in 3D technology by making sure the public sees value in 3D, so they will buy into it.
Game developers need to recoup their investment in the game by making sure their most recent game sells; i.e. use buzz-word technology.
It is not in the game devs best interests to ignore short term profit; in fact, it is in their best interest to have this type of tech die out in a few years so they can focus on new buzz-words that sell.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Watched the new Harry Potter last night in 3D at the behest of my housemate. It was a good story told well but 3D added nothing to it. The depth of view effect was nice but having to accommodate 3D filming means they rely overly on slow panning shots and the like a lot of the film's shot selection seemed to be based on trying to shoehorn the direction into the format. Also due to the limitations on frame rates many of the action shots simply became a blurry jaggedy mess.
I love 3D and always have. I admit it's gimmicky, and usually done poorly, but I still like it.
For games on the PC, especially first-person games like Fallout New Vegas and Portal, it adds an element of depth to it. I really feel like I'm more into the game when playing in 3D. I've started to dislike games that the 3D doesn't work right, and I have to play them without the glasses.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
one would think that sony would be the last company to talk about 'game quality' after screwing up star wars galaxies.
Read radical news here
Sony have massive stock of 3DTV's to sell and don't want the fad to die out before they've flogged them.
Now if only some of the movies coming out had some depth in the plot. As much as I like some good brain melt mindless action, but I really enjoy movies with actual plot development. I watch different movies with different expectations, but now so many movies seem like they are being produced with a checklist of features of which 3D is one of the new must have features.
Time to offend someone
The company that advocated going CD for CD's sake, and then HD for HD's sake, and even until very recently actively campaigned for 3D for 3D's sake, is now trying to say that pretty pictures aren't everything? Yeah, right. Sony depends on pretty pictures; their whole business model is based on it. This is a calculated marketing risk in an attempt to combat the 3DS, and nothing more.
(on a related note, why does the latest graphical gimmick always have an abbreviation that ends in D?)
How about you just don't make ANYTHING unless it is using high quality components? A sucky 3D movie is somewhat more annoying because of the extra $3, but it's not like spending $10 to see a sucky 2D movie is a great alternative.
I'm trying. I got an EVO 3D. I take the most boring 3D pictures/movies you have ever seen, but I'll have some beter stuff soon. The phone shows the scene as 3D, so I know what it will look like, and doesn't require glasses. It does have a narrow viewing angle, so two people can't look at the same time.
I got it mostly because it was free after corporate discounts, porting rebate, instant rebate. I could have gotten the other EVO with the slide out keyboard, but I don't text enough to make it worthwhile.
Anyway, yes it's gimmicky, but I'll figure out what I like in 3D and what doesn't work. I have piles of red/blue glasses from various places, and magenta/green from the Coraline DVD, so I can post-process to match any situation. And if you hate yourself you can do side by side Right-Left on a widescreen TV (cross your eyes to get the effect). One day I'll have dual polarized projectors so I can watch my nonexistent grandkids blow out their candles on my wall, in glorious 3D.
I'm not waiting for someone else to make the content, I'm making it myself. And yes, it will be terrible at first, but it will be important to me.
If you are using movies as a gague to determine if you want stereo 3d in home, make damn sure you are watching a movie that was actualy filmed in 3d. Not something shot in 2d with the 3d added as an afterthought. The biggest hurrdle with stereo 3d adoption is missinformation passed between consumers, and not enough available information from the hardware producers. People that dont take the time to understand how it works on home setups, or dont bother taking the time picking decent seats in the theatre, or even take the time to understand the tech..are the reason this tech is floundering. I swear to god if one more person who cant figure out how to turn on the glasses tells me stereoscopic 3d doesnt work on them, im going to snap.
You dont understand this tech just because you owned a Viewfinder as a kid. Stop assuming and read up on it. It isnt the stero 3d making you sick. It is your inability to understand your own personal ergonomics and your failure to adjust yourself apropriately. If you are so close to the screen that you cant see the effect without moving your head or constantly refocusing your eyes, then move! It is quite simple! If the dragon's head is trying to go THROUGH you as it swings around, dont just sit there untill you throw up in your popcorn, jackass!
Also as a general rule contact lenses work better then glasses if you require corrective lenses while viewing in stereo 3d. Believe it or not this isnt obvious to some people.
Here is the reality. If you can focus on multiple planes at varying distances unaided, drive a car, or even walk around without running into shit constantly, you can see stereo 3d. Period. If you are well known for rearending people at stop lights, then im sorry...stereo 3d isnt for you. Now stop running your mouth and spreading bullshit...swallow your pride and just ask the clerk at best buy to show you how to turn on the glasses and make sure the tv and bluray player are configured properly.
Don't Go Security For Security's Sake, some say to Sony ...
This is the same Sony that has released various films shot in 2D and then upconverted to 3D just to make more money.
Films that are shot in 3D (including Avatar and that new 3 Musketeers film) are fine, films shot in 2D and upconverted to 3D are not. Obviously CGI films like Cars and Toy Story that are rendered properly for 3D (with separate rendering passes for left and right eyes) are also OK.
There is a difference between 3D-displaying technology and 3D; and this guy doesn't seem to get that.
I totally agree with him that "if [people] see poor quality 3D it can put them off". But that only relates to 3D technology. For example, Madden on the 3DS was widely panned as headache inducing, because of the poor 3D tech implemented.
However, there is a LOT of 3D technology out there, and it will only get better. And that's why I think this guy's main point is totally wrong.
"Only add 3D where it makes a difference to the gameplay experience. It must add something. Don't just add depth for the sake of it."
What a stupid quote. 3D is a technology that was invented millions of years ago when the first squirrel grew two eyeballs. You don't just close one eye when watching an opera, and then open both of them when "it adds something".
If the technology is effective and affordable (for both the producer and consumer), then it should be used for ALL content.
"but the company seems to be aware that quality, not quantity, is what can win over gamers."
No, no they don't and a great example of that is PSP, If you are handed one of these and have never used one, your going to be really fucking lucky to find a game that is quality and NOT shovelware shit ports of 10 year old PS2 games, or worse like one of the simpsons games which looks and plays worse than tomb raider on PS1
the PS2 was full of it too, there was endless bins of 9.99$ games that were not worth the plastic they were cased in, and you can start to see that with PS3, and speaking of which can someone name a got to have PS3 exclusive outside of "god of war"? They sell you unfinished pre beta computer games as the full experience, they fuck around with your property, try to constantly sell you the same thing over and over again, and they think that their shit is a golden blessing.
fuck sony
...this is one of the saner things I've heard from Sony in a while now. 3D remains a special medium, to be used tastefully for very specific entertainment works, not for haphazard application to every form of media on the face of the planet.
if ($question !~ m/bb|[^b]{2}/i) { die(); }
Don't just add depth for the sake of it.
No, please do! Don't add 3D just for the gimmick of it or the trick of it though.
;) But seriously. Sometimes depth for the sake of it is good. I think a lot of people won't see the point of 3D unless stuff is literally being thrown at them constantly. Which is the opposite of what a lot of us other people want.
Pirates of the Caribbean 4 comes to mind. I went with some people recently and most all the other people I talked to that saw it in 3D too said it was a waste to pay the extra money. Everyone says there was "nothing really" in 3D other than that one sword coming through the wall. The sword was the one "gimmick" to me.
Ironically, I thought it had one of the best 3D scenes in it. It's where they are in the hull of Blackbeard's ship. The scene is lit by one candle in the middle of a table and the 3D camera work is just beautiful. There is nothing fancy, nothing gimmicky, just people standing around this small table talking about a mutiny, but the inside of the ship comes alive, the people come alive, it brings something else that you just wouldn't feel otherwise in 2D. Like you're really there.
Thank god too, because for a few minutes you get to forget about the plot.
Isn't every DirectX/OpenGL/Glide game supposed to be 3D-ready? I mean, the polygons are already there. Sharp had once revealed the RD3D laptop which could do that very thing: Make DirectX and OpenGL games stereoscopic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_Actius_RD3D_Notebook
(I realize this article is referring to stereoscopic 3D, but this is as good as any chance for me to rant about this.)
Does anybody else think, like I do, that they completely ruined Super Mario Brothers by going 3D? I don't think they've come out with a truly good 3D version of a classic platformer...ever. Maybe there's some exception I don't know about, but I think they ruined most console gaming when it went 3D.
Don't get me wrong; I love games like Crysis 2, Doom 3, Half-Life, etc., but we've really lost something by deciding that EVERYTHING has to be 3D.
[end of rant...for now]
Maybe they should've taken their own "quality not quantity" advice when they released a 300W games console with bigger hardware numbers than the rest and a launch lineup of tired old sequels.