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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.