Do Game Snobs Dream in Two Dimensions?

[tjspeirs]

I meant trainwreck as in it started with about 2 channels.

What I'm saying is that they should make ALL the channels 3D before turning it into a part of regular TV. Eventually, the HD channels will disappear, leaving all of the normal channels to be in HD too. Bypassing that step would mean that more people would buy 3D TVs sooner, and they would become as standard. HD still hasn't crossed that border.

So....gas stations should have existed across the country before the car was built?

The internet should have been built before the PC?

OF COURSE IT STARTED WITH 2 CHANNELS. Something starting small and growing into a large success is not a "trainwreck".

So explain something to me:what sense does it make to spend money to create content that no one COULD watch if they wanted? Smellovision doesn't exist yet, would you spend a few million extra to develop content for it in the hopes that someday everyone will buy one at once and THEN it would be useful? Why in the hell would studios shoot everything in HD 3d if it WEREN'T available to consumers?

I see where you're coming from.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it was, undeniably, far too slow. HD is supposed to take over the industry... but I'm seeing no sign of that. The channels simply haven't shown enough commitment to go with it. Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is that there should be some commitment for them to end up with 3D channels before going ahead. Otherwise, it ends up much too slow to be able to change a thing for years.

What comes to mind for me was color TV. Obviously I wasn't exactly around when it was first put to market, but IIRC, it wasn't released and then IMMEDIATELY was in every household in the US. It had the same problems as HD: high price point (partially due to rarer tech, but also due to demand), perhaps a slightly lacking supply, lack of support through stations.

I could be completely wrong about that. Maybe every station in the country supported Technicolor immediately. Not sure.

 

[Wolfram23]

OP: You don't seem to understand how depth perception works. (etc)

I understand depth perception perfectly well. As I said, if stereoscope can be done without causing pain or otherwise being obstructive in some way, then sure, go ahead. But it's no use to games. That very point, about the video cards having to be that step above, is a detriment.

Well firstly, only a minority of people experience discomfort from it. I don't know why, and I think it's shitty for them and all, but the majority of people couldn't care less about that. And I mean, from what I've heard at the absolute most it's 15% of people who experience discomfort.

As for the gaming aspect... please. There's no use? You've got to be joking. Have you ever put a beginner onto a game, maybe a Mario game (or Mirror's Edge!), and noticed that they suck balls at making jumps? They jump too early, or too late and they always seem to miss their timing. That's because there is no depth perception and they just can't tell when to jump. Us gamers have the advantage of experience, it's like we can process 2D into 3D. Well that and the newbie isn't used to controllers but that doesn't really matter a whole lot in a Mario game. I've personally experienced it many times in Demon's Souls as a melee fighter. It's hard to judge your distance when you switch to a new sword and half the time I swing and miss. If I could truely see the depth/distance, it would become significantly easier. Instead, it takes a lot of time to learn the queues that you pick up on to decide if the range is right or not.

Getting all bent out of shape because people are promoting 3D is just stupid. Why should you give a shit? You don't like it? Then don't use it! At this time it's an enthusiast thing - you know, people who get top of the line hardware? Yeah, the ones with crossfire or SLI top end cards. Like my pair of 5850s. I could easily handle 3D framerates in any game ever with only a slight drop in graphic settings. So many people are oh so happy with 30-40fps, well when I'm already pushing 60+ I'd be good to go.

 

[Corvuus]

I don't really see what your problem is. The point of an ad is to generate want/desire/need for something even if you don't need it. Actually, especially if consumers don't need it.

Don't need a new car every year, don't need to see movies in 3D, don't need alot of things.

Companies have to be competitive, make money, and stay in business. There are a lot of people who just don't see the need to go to a movie theater anymore since 1. it is quite expensive now. You can buy a DVD and own it forever instead of paying to see it once. 2. To get people into theaters, they offer 3D gimmick even though, in probably 80-90% of movies that have 3D, it is poorly done or doesn't add anything.

Do they have a choice? Well, you can bring up ideas if you'd like. Otherwise movie theaters are at some point in the future going to die out. I'm comfortable with the gimmick shift since it is a choice on their part and the consumer can choose as well. Especially if you can't afford home entertainment system, etc.

-----

3DS is another 'gimmick' but frankly, they are doing it to stay competitive and keep pushing gaming forward. The DS is, arguably, one of the 'best' hand-held game devices but it is being pushed out by Iphone games and apps which can give you plenty of entertainment and is 'comparable' in terms of price, size, etc.

-----

The whole argument for 3d in movies is that it is 'easy' to add (although it is pretty bad if they don't film for 3d from the start). Just add it in, earn more money, simple no brainer right?

For games, as someone else pointed out, making it 3D and look "good" can be potentially small in cost/risk but huge on reward. There is no real reason 'yet' for them to not try it. It might take them a few generations to get it right so that it does work and aids gaming as a medium but why not.

I just don't see what your problem is. It doesn't affect you unless you choose it to.

C

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I don't like it for personal reasons, namely that it doesn't work for me. Looks like a normal movie, but there will occasionally be something thrown at the screen.

 

[tjspeirs]

I don't like it for personal reasons, namely that it doesn't work for me. Looks like a normal movie, but there will occasionally be something thrown at the screen.

I gotta admit, it doesn't work most of time for me either. It has to be really deliberate for me to really notice.

That doesn't make me biased, to anyone that might think that. I can still get stereoscope and still find it useless for games.