Dev Says 3D, Not Move, is the "Big Thing" For Shooters

[dickseverywhere]

i think most gamers would rather suffer indescribable pain than excersize, i would.
3D should be pretty awesome for shooters i saw videos of quake 3 played on a big curved multidisplay setup so you had like railgun shots wizzing past your head and stuff and it looked pretty awesome. i guess 3D would be like that but better.

Guy makes good point.

I don't mind 3D to be honest, so long as it's done with some subtlety (Toy Story 3). I'm far too lazy for motion controls though.

you means so long as its actually made for/filmed in 3D and not processed into it so it looks like a bunch of cardboard cutouts moving around in front of you.

 

[Jkudo]

What is a shootesr?

You made an acount just to say somthing none of us really care about?

OT: makes sense, I dont think move is good for any games other then party ones. No person will be anting to play for hours on BFBC2 if they have to be running all that time.

what makes you think you have to run all the time when using move?

 

[Jkudo]

I don't think move requires as much movement as this guy might think and although 3d makes it look pretty, its too expensive and it isn't worth the money right now.

 

[Mr.Petey]

I don't think move requires as much movement as this guy might think and although 3d makes it look pretty, its too expensive and it isn't worth the money right now.

Pretty much this. I'm not forking out triple figure amounts of cash for a new 3D tv set, not even got a HD one as of yet.
Nothing wrong with the Move for implementation into shooters. It's incredibly responsive and a mite cheaper than forking out for a new tv set altogether. Sorry 3D, you'll have to prove you're more than just a fad to get people's attention, as I'm sure people will generally be more enthused to try out a new control methodology than buying a white elephant

 

[PeePantz]

I doubt there would be much physical exertion with move, so I feel this hypothesis is somewhat invalid. With kinect though, I can see this becoming more relevant.

Personally, I would enjoy a scenario in which you could physically (through movement) control first person shooters. The games would become more immersive and take on a laser tag feeling.

 

[mad825]

stereography = gimmick, no matter what anyone says

at least with motion controllers you can do something new and innovative.

 

[Folio]

Maybe they should just quit trying to make good shooters and start making good games.

 

[Twad]

I cant quite imagine how pseudo-3D will improve the FPS experience. If it contributes something good to the genre at all.

But hey, who knows what they will come up with. Might be interesting.

 

[Andronicus]

You know, now I think about it, I can't really think of which one I'd like the most hate the least; motion controls or 3D. If given the choice between the two, I'd probably go with motion controls. Then again, it really depends on the game. If it's a hardcorey shootery actiony kinda game, I'd probably go for 3D instead.

Who am I kidding. I think they both suck just as much as each other.

 

[00slash00]

3D can go sodomize itself with a garden rake. its stupid and should just go away, along with motion controls. i have never found 3D to be more immersive, ive always just found it to be a very obvious way of saying "well the story sucks and the characters are bland and cliche but look, look...pretty!"

 

[reddfawks]

3D nor the Move will help FPS games, IMO.

Just give us a single-player campaign that won't last less than two hours since, y'know, some people like to fly solo. Yes, I had some fun with MW2, but it was over too quickly.

I'd rather not ruin my fun by going online where I have to deal with pre-pubescent douchebags recycling the "Get back to the kitchen!" joke every five minutes.

 

[mr_rubino]

Both stupid gimmicks, but hell, even I could have told you that, in comparison to one another, 3D was far-and-way the better idea.

 

[PureChaos]

3d is better than motion controls, but seriously lets just keep it 2D

i'm with you on that one. why are they trying to fix something that isn't broken?

 

[felixader]

When you made Blackligth : Tango Down you shouldn't probably act like you would know your way so good around that you can predict whats bigger in the future of gaming. X-P

 

[Danpascooch]

Misspelled "shooters" in the title

Good contribution to the conversation.

OT: I agree somewhat but personally believe neither are the "Next big thing". 3D is cool and all but just like Motion controllers it's just another gimmick that might be another thing that will remove more focus from the Gameplay itself.

Actually my contribution made the article not look like it was written by a five year old, that's pretty good

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

stereography = gimmick, no matter what anyone says

at least with motion controllers you can do something new and innovative.

+1

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Jumplion]

I'm sick of the word "gimmick" being tossed around every which way and used only when it's to express discontent with it just because "I don't like it, therefore it sucks and it should never progress!"

3D and motion controls both have their interesting mechanics behind them on how they can be used, so say "3D can fuck itself! I want to stay in 2D!" and vice versa with Motion controls is pretty much a testament to how people just hate change of any kind.

Personally, I think 3D has a lot of potential, moreso in video games than in movies because it can be brought to an interactive level, bringing you to a whole new level of immersion and an extra dimension to toy with. Motion controls are a bit hit and miss with me, but so long as it's not shoved down my throat or utilized in a less-then-ideal way then it's an interesting mechanic that can really smooth controls.

I do think that 3D has more potential than motion controls do at this moment since the Wii has already popularized motion gaming, the only problem is that it's not quite perfected yet or used in a whoely new way.

I, for one, can't wait to see what the future holds for these mechanics. If they fail, they fail, and the industry probably will stagnate in some areas. But if they succeed then it paves the road for even more innovations and new mechanics, so long as they are utilized properly.

Also, as I've asked before, have any of you actually played a 3D game before? You cannot compare 3D movie "gimmickery" with 3D game "gimmickery", the two don't even use the same technology. I've played WipeoutHD in 3D, and let me tell you it was practically a whole new game. I wear glasses and I didn't find it that uncomfortable or hard to use.

 

[ImprovizoR]

I always had the impression that in the visual department physics were the next big thing. Maybe devs should focus on more realistic physics and animations and less on useless gimmicks that most gamers don't give a crap about.

 

[JediMB]

"That right there is the big thing," he added, "not waving my arms around."

*facepalms*

Not only is "waving my arms around" a tired cliché based more on TV commercials than reality, but multiple Wii games have already proven that these non-traditional controllers are quite superior to the old dual-analog setup for playing first-person shooters.

Metroid Prime 3/Trilogy, The Conduit, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, etc.

Of course this doesn't guarantee that the developers are competent enough to use the controllers right, or even make a good game to begin with, but that goes for games using traditional controllers as well...