3D gaming and why it is a concept that should die just like motion controllers

Me55enger

New member
Dec 16, 2008
1,095
0
0
I'm going to make two very very safe assumptions about you.

1- you have never actually seen anything game-wise through them Nvidia 3D goggles.

2- your argument is like the British Coalition Government: fundamentally flawed.

Ill wait 'til you grow what passes as a reasoning gland before I listen to you in any serious sense.
 

Erniesrubberduk

New member
Mar 29, 2010
136
0
0
Hardcore_gamer said:
Erniesrubberduk said:
Ok 3d gaming is a new concept that developers are considering trying out and I think this is a fucking retarded idea. Everybody remembers Dances With Wolves in 3D right? You may know it as Avatar. Remember how much you had to pay to see it in 3D? Remember how much you had to pay to see it in 3D and iMax? And with all these movies coming out in 3D, movie tickets are going to reach upwards in $20 a ticket. Imagine what the price of games would do if we did this 3D shit? Next thing you know we are going to pay 70-80-90 bucks for the inclusion of 3D in our games. Then games are going to take the Avatar route and say that the animation is amazing and the 3D is going to blow your mind and everything else would suffer quality-wise.
While I agree that 3-D is just a gimmick, I think your reasoning is flawed. Basically your post just exists of "Avatar is shit and 3-D is shit. lol!"
No I'm saying that 3D wasn't really well done in Avatar and when the 3D didn't work we only had the story and characters to live up to the movie's standard and those didn't really live up to much.
 

TOGSolid

New member
Jul 15, 2008
1,509
0
0
3d is nothing more than the hardware makers desperately trying to find a new reason to get consumers to buy new hardware. They know the HDTV market is pretty well saturated, however if they really think 3d is gonna be the 'next big thing' like HDTV is, they're sorely mistaken. Anybody can sit down in front of a HDTV after looking at an older regular TV and go "Oh, well holy shit." However convincing them that they'll have to wear those glasses the whole time while watching tv for what is essentially a gimmick that a lot of people don't even care is going to be a VERY hard sell. 3d is fun for movies you go and see in the theater. You sit down, put on the stupid glasses, watch your movie on a bigass screen and go home. On the small screen though, well, I remember going to Nvidia's 3d booth at PAX last year and I saw a lot of gamers try the system out (same style of shutter glasses that the tv 3d would use) and walk away kinda unimpressed. I tried it out and walked away with roughly the same reaction "looks neat, but not worth it (and fuck those glasses)."

And since the OP mentioned them in the title:
Motion controls are a good idea implemented VERY badly. If you want an example of motion controls done right, then go check out the TrackIR. It's kind of a niche product geared towards the sim crowd, but I have one and it's fucking awesome. It also has the massive advantage of being a niche product meant for the sim crowd with a very specific use. It makes it easy for developers to code it right in (since all it does is allow you to look around in game just by moving your head around. This is horribly vital in a lot of these games) and thusly the product does very well since the market exists and the developers are willing to support it. After all, all of these games are playable WITHOUT the TrackIR system. You'll just be using a hatswitch or numpad or whatever to look around instead. This also helps to drive TrackIR sales since gamers can still play their games, save up their pennies and eventually get the TrackIR so that they can be even more competitive in multiplayer.

However on the flip side, he Wii's controls are just a dumb gimmick that went nowhere, and Sony's bullshit won't be any better. The Natal has potential to act like kind of like the TrackIR, but that would involve the game developers to intentionally take advantage of it and I highly doubt console games, which are meant to be a mass market, wide audience sort of affair, will ever treat it as anything other than as a stupid toy.

There is a lot of potential for fantastic uses of motion controls, but it sure as hell isn't going to happen with the current mentality that most game developers have.
 

Pokedude1013

New member
Oct 27, 2009
52
0
0
The future should be denied! I'm sure someone back in the 3D gfx days was like
2D IS HOW GAMES SHOULD BE

RARGH
 

SomeBoredGuy

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,160
0
0
Erniesrubberduk said:
grimsprice said:
Unfortunately, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[HEADING=1]TECH ALERT![/HEADING]

games and movies operate on completely different systems. CGI movies are pre-rendered, and in order to make them 3d, you have to have an extremely complex, binocular camera setup, it has to be unbelievably precise, and that is very hard to do. Very expensive.

Games on the other hand, are actively rendered from a 3d model in the computer, that means that all you have to do in order to make a 3d game is to double render the game, which happens over 30 times a second in your consoles cpu anyways. Take the two renders, color shift them, and offset them on the screen.

3d Games won't cost all that more, if any at all. It's just a few lines of code, and once its been written it can be copy/pasted (more or less), from game to game. At the very worst, the graphics will take a small hit. And maybe the next generation of consoles will have the same graphics as the current gen... with 3d.
Yeah but what precentage of the consumer knows that do you think?
I don't want to start any arguments here, but could you clarify why it would matter how high a percentage the consumer-base knows how the 3D actually works and why the only extra cost is the hardware? Surely since all the actual work done in making something 3D is done by the companies who create the products and all the consumer has to do is get some 3D hardware, put on some 3D speccies and play the game.
 

LeonLethality

New member
Mar 10, 2009
5,810
0
0
While I am against 3D gaming mainly for health reasons (I get sick just watching a 3D movie a 3D game would be hell for me) and for a few other reasons that pretty much everyone agrees on. I say we come to the compromise that if 3D games do become prominent make sure the 3D is optional.

Also motion control does not need to die. It is pretty cool. There is room for both just like there could be room for both 2D and 3D gaming.
 

Hap2

New member
May 26, 2010
280
0
0
grimsprice said:
Unfortunately, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[HEADING=1]TECH ALERT![/HEADING]

games and movies operate on completely different systems. CGI movies are pre-rendered, and in order to make them 3d, you have to have an extremely complex, binocular camera setup, it has to be unbelievably precise, and that is very hard to do. Very expensive.

Games on the other hand, are actively rendered from a 3d model in the computer, that means that all you have to do in order to make a 3d game is to double render the game, which happens over 30 times a second in your consoles cpu anyways. Take the two renders, color shift them, and offset them on the screen.

3d Games won't cost all that more, if any at all. It's just a few lines of code, and once its been written it can be copy/pasted (more or less), from game to game. At the very worst, the graphics will take a small hit. And maybe the next generation of consoles will have the same graphics as the current gen... with 3d.
Yes, but that will not prevent the gaming companies from jacking up the price to what amounts to a pretty pointless feature for gaming. As someone else said above, I would also rather see the developers and publishers work on the game itself, improving the overall quality, rather than attaching gimmicks to sell it and raise its initial price with.
 

Malediozone

New member
Apr 14, 2010
122
0
0
This is why there's no innovation anymore. You guys cry for change, but when change comes you tell them to turn it back. Why don't we just give it a try?
 

SimuLord

Whom Gods Annoy
Aug 20, 2008
10,077
0
0
What say we all go back to isometric 2D and use all that freed-up processing power for making AI that doesn't suck?
 

^=ash=^

New member
Sep 23, 2009
588
0
0
If you're that afraid of 3D, keep one eye closed o.-

As mentioned above:
The likelyhood of a 3D game costing more is a minimal risk. So no problems there.

Change happens, just enjoy the ride.
 

Sion_Barzahd

New member
Jul 2, 2008
1,384
0
0
I don't see whats with all the hate on 3D gaming, and this same arguement stands for touch screens and motion controllers too.

Its an entirely new concept, something which may possibly add a whole new element to the way you play videogames.
Okay it might flop and become a cheap gimmick which is almost forced onto players (like motion controllers seem to) but its an experiment.
It might go the way that basic 3D graphic went and lead to a whole load of awesome! I mean look at the original doom, that was a brilliant game, especially for its time.

So i say let them have a go at trying something new, cause who knows it might work out brilliantly. My money is honestly on it not working out very well, but its still worth a shot.
 

interspark

New member
Dec 20, 2009
3,272
0
0
i know we've seen some crap in the 3D area (the less said about "fly me to the moon" the better) but this is nintendo i think they deserve a bit of faith here, i know its a new idea i'll be backing