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."
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!
Dear James Cameron,
Why, oh why, couldn't you just stick with 2D filming? (Worked fine for Titanic, right?) You have caused probably a decade of suffering. We can only hope that eventually the 3D fad will die out and only be used in projects where it is appropriate.
Sincerely, pretty much all Slashdotters.
Seriously. This is a story about games. We've heard the same old "just make the stories good, we don't need no fancy 3D!" in movie discussions several thousand times already. At least leave the gaming discussion alone in this, because games are something that really can improve your experience with it. I love the 3D effect in Left4Dead games. It makes everything really, really scary and I hope game developers use it with scary or FPS games. Strategy games, not so much.
Google+ vs. Facebook, and why Google+ will fail
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.
Dear drb226,
Please speak for yourself. Not everyone considers the current 3D to be either useless or painful. I think it's rather pretty when done well and am interested in what can be done with it.
Sincerely,
me.
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?"
I enjoy that today's 3d seems more about the world going in then things popping out at the screen/viewer. Gives a feeling that I am watching a world through a window instead of on a 2d screen.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
I just hope they consider that there are some people, such as myself, that get no actual use out of 3D. In my case, it's because of a blind eye.
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.
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?)
I'm assuming that you're too young to remember Sonic 3D and other horrible games from the same era that took a game that worked really well in 2D and added a third dimension. The only 3D platform game that I've found that was fun was Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project, and that was really a 2D game using a 3D engine.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
Sincerely, pretty much all over the age of 14. FTFY. And I agree Ferngully II...errr...I mean Avatar would have been just as nice and MUCH less of a skull thumper without the 3D. I thought Cameron had the better idea years ago, when he was talking about 60FPS film instead of 24.
And am I the only one that just gets massive headaches from the crap? If anything this new stuff gives me worse headaches than the 70s crap did or even the 90s Nvidia crap. And I've noticed that even though the stores are pushing 3D TVs like crazy everyone I know that has bought a new big screen didn't go for the 3D and when I asked them why there was always someone that it didn't work for, be it the husband/wife or BF/GF. I have a feeling a lot of folks are just gonna avoid it like they did in the last three go arounds.
And do we REALLY need crap jumping out at us as we play our games? with a good widescreen there is already so much purty and boom booms on your average AAA FPS that I find it hard not to just gawk and get my ass blown off and they are already so much immersion they can make you jump, so do we REALLY need "Dr Tongue's 3D house of bullets" to enjoy the game?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I suffer from a lazy eye (strabismus), so my perception of depth is very limited. You can tell this simply from the scrapes on my cars' bumpers (fenders). I took my 4 year old to see Shrek 3D not so long back. The glasses were wasted on me, and too big for his head. We spent 90 minutes watching a blurry mess, at only twice the cost!
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.
Avatar was no better or worse because it was in 3d, it just was.
With that one, I've seen Harry Potter, Transformers, Up, Toy Story 3, and probably a couple other that I'm forgetting in 3d. The only thing these movies have in common is that the ones that were good (Harry Potter, Toy Story 3, Up) were good in spite of the 3d while the other ones were bad, also in spite of the 3d.
Complete gimmick that is coming around for the third round in my lifetime. First I watch Creature of the Black Lagoon, then 15 years later it was bad sequels of sharks and camp killers in 3d, now this latest round that can't be gone fast enough.
IMO games should be fun. If 3D brings fun -- why not?
I'm in the excruciating headaches from 3D club, too. Add to that the fact that the 3 movies I've seen on the "new and improved" 3D all seemed to feature at least two or three of the usual gimmicky "argh it's coming out of the screen at us" scenes, which shows it's still a tech that's not being used to add to the depth of the story but just as a shiny bauble to disguise the lack of story. I just splashed out £2k on a new gaming laptop - I chose not to add the 3D feature even though it was only a little extra, I a) don't see the point and b) don't want to lend financial support to something which is just going to hold movie/game making back.
Maybe it was no better or worse for you. For me, I paid a 50% premium just so I could leave with a headache.
The topic is stereoscopic 3D, not 3D gaming engines.
Anyway, as to 3D platform games, I don't know about DNMP but Mario 64 is one of the best games ever made.
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 agree Ferngully II...errr...I mean Avatar would have been just as nice and MUCH less of a skull thumper without the 3D.
Without the 3d, there would have been no reason to see it at all.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Of course, you're talking three strip technicolor there. The first two decades of color film used the two strip process, resulting in bizarre, unnatural color palettes. It was a gimmick. Some filmmakers used it successfully, most did not.
In 20 years I'm sure most 3D films will look fantastic. Double-4K res, double-60FPS, using super-bright laser projectors on high-gain synthetic diamond screens, it'll look more real than real.
Until then, like two-strip color, it'll be a quality-sacrificing gimmick.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Dear drb226,
Movie theaters have had revenues going down the pooper for the last decade or so. They need some sort of draw that's difficult to replicate at home with a home theater system. I suppose that's what 3-D was supposed to be... until they started making 3-D televisions like a bunch of morons. Fission mailed.
Sincerely, Ihmhi
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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.
I'm partially with you Sir.
Well as with all inventions you have to use them well in order to achieve brilliance. HP for example had very nice 3D effects that some might argue made the movie come alive...
just some issues I have with 3D in cinemas:
Isn't the whole point of 3D to aid immersion? I cant remember having the world selectively going blurry on me.
In the end of the day I still will need anti nausea medication and painkillers after attending a 3D movie but at least I won't be pissed with the director/cinema...
-- no sig today
60/s movies are a blast! Too bad that today all manufacturers seem to be preoccupied to make their TV/DVD/BD/projectors sync better with 24/s
As to 3D TV buyer profiles I have noticed that even though lots of friends have bought new tv sets and home cinemas none actually bought a 3D one... Who is actually buying these things?
-- no sig today
You see that is the part I don't get, and am starting to wonder if they are using some accounting trick like counting numbers shipped to stores like you would numbers sold.
Because counting customers of my little PC shop I know probably more than 3 dozen folks that bought new TVs, from 32 inchers up to the big monster sets and not a single one bought 3D TV because as I said there is always someone in the family who either gets sick at their stomach or a massive headache from the junk.
So who EXACTLY are supposedly buying up these things? And are they even using it for 3D, or did they just get a deal and are using it as a regular set? But for all their pushing I just haven't seen the buying public, at least in my area, give a crap about 3D TV.
BTW if you want to know what IS selling like mad, which frankly I wouldn't have pictured? Media tanks. Everything from the cheap Nbox for the kiddies to the latest Internet capable ones that will play any format media tanks just seem to be THE thing to have. You'd be surprised how many folks have started learning about DVD ripping because they see a friend with a media tank and want all their DVDs on a tank too. Not that I blame them, if you got kids those things are heaven sent as the kiddies can't scratch the discs. But I didn't see that one becoming popular as I thought they were too geeky but I guess that shows what I know about trends. Folks been buying those things up along with 1Tb USB drives like they were going out of style. Oh and none of the popular ones, or hell anyone that I've seen, actually support 3D either.
I personally think 3D is here today, gone by 4 PM, as the folks just don't seem to care for 3D outside the theater. And I got to agree with you that 60/s rocks and I'd take that over 3D any day of the week. IIRC Ebert also is pushing it, comparing it to the switch from B&W to color.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I hope not. I mean, sure, for a vast majority of games, it would make perfect sense to have a "disable 3D mode" button, and aim to make that just as functional... but if someone came up with a truly magnificent idea, where depth perception would all of a sudden be an active element in gameplay mechanics, I hope they're gonna go ahead rather than thinking "Oh no, only 80% of the world could possibly enjoy this, let's not risk offending the remaining 20. Scrapped."
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
In much the same way, I anticipate we will have to go through certain other approaches before we approach something like true life-like 3D. It cannot be a sudden jump from high-quality 2D to high-quality 3D. There will always be growing pains.
3D was a brief fad in the 1950's, with another brief fad in the 1980's.
We're already at the "it's 20 years later" stage and I could argue that what you say has actually happened to some degree; the current influx of 3D movies has already lasted longer than either fad, and the technology to make them is *much* better than it was back then.
3D was a brief fad in the 1950's, with another brief fad in the 1980's.
We're already at the "it's 20 years later" stage and I could argue that what you say has actually happened to some degree; the current influx of 3D movies has already lasted longer than either fad, and the technology to make them is *much* better than it was back then.
Yes, and during each of those phases/fads, they tried some things, and found that when technology/expense didn't work, it fizzled out. This time around, the tech has progressed somewhat, and the quality is better, Better, but it could always be even better. But folks seem to be saying that one day it should no "no 3D" and then there should be only R&D for 3D without any returns for the next 5-10-20 years or so "until we are there", and then suddenly we should get "perfect 3D". I don't think it works that way. We will always go through iterations until we reach relative perfection. And those iterations may be spread apart by decades, or may be contiguous.
...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(); }
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.
Sorry, i know at least one person with a diagnosed medical condition that prevents them from seeing 3D, and yet they're perfectly capable of driving and walking around without running into shit constantly. (I believe they do have trouble catching if you throw something at them, but i don't know if that part is really any worse than the stereotypical geek clumsiness.)
I've also heard from a number of people who can see the 3D effect (though not ones i can personally vouch for) that extended use gives them a headache, and i've heard decent technical explanations about how the methods currently used to portray 3D differ from what we see in real life and how that can adversely affect the experience, which makes me think the rest of your post may be just as wrong as well.
Personally i have no issues at all with 3D, despite wearing glasses rather than contact lenses. It works fine for me in theatres (regardless of where i'm sitting, though i admit i haven't tried along the very edges of the theater) and it works fine for me on the 3DS. And so far i've never gotten a headache from it regardless of how long i've played or how high i've had the 3D effect turned up. However just because i seem to be naturally gifted in this one useless area doesn't mean i'm going to assume that everyone else who reports problems with it is either lying or doin it rong.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
But we don't don't have "True 3D" (in any movie theater or screen), only a "sortof there" there 3D, and that's the big problem. That's why current 3D is a step back in quality, due to the convergence issue which cannot be solved in the current 3D technology.
I'm one of those who dislikes 3D movies, but think 3D games have potential to solve some 'big problems' in gaming that current technology doesn't address. How many times have you used a 3D engine (that is, regular 3D everyone has used for a decade, not 3D vision) and tried to jump at a platform or grab an object.. only to find that what looks like it's in range on the screen is actually out of range, simply because you couldn't actually gauge distance. Sure, a good game will be designed with the limitations of the medium in mind, but I look forward to being able to have real depth perception inside games.
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.
I think you mean Ferngully III because Ferngully II actually exists lol :)
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
How DARE you compare Avatar to Ferngully! I am Outraged! OUTRAGED i tell you!!!11!!1one!!
Avatar is CLEARLY actually Pocahontas... IN SPAAAACE!!!!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Actually I don't think 3D would help in that situation, and here is why. When you jump IRL, there are several factors automatically processed by your brain, such a your weight and your balance, and then taking this data along with the softness of the ground and how much traction you are getting then and ONLY then do you try to make the jump.
Without virtual reality even with 3D you are only given the visual cues, you can't for instance tell how much force your space marines legs generate or how much distance he needs to be at full speed. Hell there really isn't any difference in most of those games when it comes to jumping between a space marine and a 14 year old girl scout, since they are both simply avatars.
So if anything I'd argue it would probably make jumping worse as they never seem to get the scale right on a 3D plane instead it always devolves into "Dr Tongue's 3D house of shit thrown at you" and the lack of all the non visual context would just make you more inaccurate.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
(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]
I agree that 3D is enjoyable when done well. That just doesn't seem to be the case for most 3D movies, though.
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.
Please see my below reply to Jiro (131519) for a response to your point.