Sony: 3D Is a New Creative Medium
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
3D requires alot of things:
- Game developers who are willing to bother with this and take the risk
- People willing to blow tons of money on these
- A larger audience. ie, more people with these 3D tv's.
- Shorter games. 3D on a 3 hour movie can be vexing for some people. Try games that can go up to 10 hours or more with gamers who will play for 5-6 before stopping.
- Game developers who are willing to bother with this and take the risk
- People willing to blow tons of money on these
- A larger audience. ie, more people with these 3D tv's.
- Shorter games. 3D on a 3 hour movie can be vexing for some people. Try games that can go up to 10 hours or more with gamers who will play for 5-6 before stopping.
So Sony call the Kinect a gimick but say 3D is the new creative medium? Sheesh...
Now here's an idea, combine Kinect's controller-less motion controls WITH Sony's 3D visuals and let's get the virtual reality games we've been waiting for going. Sure you'd probably have to set up a whole seperate room for your video gaming but I am ok with this. I'd call it my 'danger room' like the nerd I am.
Now here's an idea, combine Kinect's controller-less motion controls WITH Sony's 3D visuals and let's get the virtual reality games we've been waiting for going. Sure you'd probably have to set up a whole seperate room for your video gaming but I am ok with this. I'd call it my 'danger room' like the nerd I am.
Business-wise, I always thought 3D was a good strategy for Sony. Better than going casual with the PS Move, at least (the reasons why I'm skeptic about Move are arrogantly mentioned here [http://nightmaremode.net/2010/08/16/what-goes-up-cant-go-down/]).
Now, while the technology is filled with controversy (and still NOBODY realized how cumbersome it is for people how already wear glasses to wear the 3D glasses), it DOES make sense in the framework of disruptive innovations.
The idea of 3D is the same idea behind an OS requiring more and more power instead of less (the first versions of the Excel required only 1.2 Mb; the 2008 edition required 1.5 Gb). This is a marketing strategy to steepen up the slopes of the market trajectories: most people wouldn't really need all the horsepower the newest computers have to offer, but because the basic programs they use start demanding more, they will also start demanding the performance improvements these new computers can offer. In Sony's perfect world, 3D is widely adopted by gamers everywhere and Sony's PS3 and PS4 will be the only machines with enough power to use them.
That Sony is now trying to justify 3D for gamers is as natural as Sega's Blast Processing. So, 3D may be bullshit as far as actual gameplay improvements are concerned, but still makes more sense than the PS Move.
Now, while the technology is filled with controversy (and still NOBODY realized how cumbersome it is for people how already wear glasses to wear the 3D glasses), it DOES make sense in the framework of disruptive innovations.
The idea of 3D is the same idea behind an OS requiring more and more power instead of less (the first versions of the Excel required only 1.2 Mb; the 2008 edition required 1.5 Gb). This is a marketing strategy to steepen up the slopes of the market trajectories: most people wouldn't really need all the horsepower the newest computers have to offer, but because the basic programs they use start demanding more, they will also start demanding the performance improvements these new computers can offer. In Sony's perfect world, 3D is widely adopted by gamers everywhere and Sony's PS3 and PS4 will be the only machines with enough power to use them.
That Sony is now trying to justify 3D for gamers is as natural as Sega's Blast Processing. So, 3D may be bullshit as far as actual gameplay improvements are concerned, but still makes more sense than the PS Move.
Speaking of which, I wear glasses.
How can 3D games be "natural and accessible" when I'm forced to wear the 3D glasses on top of my own?
How can 3D games be "natural and accessible" when I'm forced to wear the 3D glasses on top of my own?
Until the 3-D becomes Holograms and we are sitting in the middle of a battle field.BreakfastMan said:
I haven't played a game in 3D, although I've seen a bunch of 3D movies (sometimes unfortunately). I mean sometimes unfortunately because sometimes the 3D effect actually adds to the movie. I could see 3D being cool for games, but it will take a really good developer a lot of time and dedication to really harness the potential.maddawg IAJI said:
Look at the Wii, the only good games for it that truly harness the motion controls are all made by Nintendo. I would imagine that the same would apply to the 3D effect, lots of really shitty games, with only a few ones worth playing.
I don't get it, everyone praises Nintendo for the 3DS, which uses 3D.
The only real reason I see people reluctant to try it, is because of price.
I like 3D, I've enjoyed it the times it's done well, what really pisses me off is when they make it a full blown feature, taking advantage of it at every little corner.
The only real reason I see people reluctant to try it, is because of price.
I like 3D, I've enjoyed it the times it's done well, what really pisses me off is when they make it a full blown feature, taking advantage of it at every little corner.
It's not a media like how color wasn't a new media back when Wizard of Oz came out.
At best it is a creative TOOL for film makers to use or abuse to verying degrees of success. Used well, it should go unnoticed and help you draw you in or used creatively (like in Night or Day) it can add to the experience.
If you just throw it on so you can add five bucks to the ticket price (Dogs and Cats 2) or an excuse to sell special thousand dollar TVs (what Sony wants) then it is just a GIMMICK.
At best it is a creative TOOL for film makers to use or abuse to verying degrees of success. Used well, it should go unnoticed and help you draw you in or used creatively (like in Night or Day) it can add to the experience.
If you just throw it on so you can add five bucks to the ticket price (Dogs and Cats 2) or an excuse to sell special thousand dollar TVs (what Sony wants) then it is just a GIMMICK.
I think the article kind of demonstrates something about that point in and of itself;Vaccine said:
For 3d to be anything more than a gimmick, something in the gameplay has to actually benefit from depth perception.
Ever played a fps with large jumping sections? Ever noticed how difficult it is to avoid falling to your death? That's because of a lack of depth perception.
3d would make it easier to create stuff like that, but the catch is, unless everyone has 3d capable hardware, you have to design the game around the lowest common denominator.
That means, the gameplay has to be built with the assumption that most people only have 2d displays.
That inherently forces 3d into the role of a gimmick.
So, here we have the 3DS, which, since ALL 3DS units can do 3d, means it's possible to make 3d a meaningful part of gameplay without worrying that a lot of people won't be able to use it.
Aside from that, the 3DS's glasses-free 3d system just seems to work quite well by most accounts, which really can't be said for a typical 3d television.
I have a lazy eye too(it sucks doesn't it?). I hate 3d so much. I don't want to where crappy 3d glasses over my other glasses. I don't want to pay the extra cost for something I don't want.D0WNT0WN said:
I dislike all these recent gimmicky things like 3d and motion controls. They all just make me mad.
3D is a gimmick because thats what people went to Disney and Imax for, for having a little thrill, I don't think having 3D ALL THE TIME is gonna make things better.
However 3D in the form of a holodeck...now that I can get behind! Battlefield Bad Company 3: Holo Edition, for the first time be IN the action! ...Dammit O'Brian beam me up.
However 3D in the form of a holodeck...now that I can get behind! Battlefield Bad Company 3: Holo Edition, for the first time be IN the action! ...Dammit O'Brian beam me up.
To true although I stopped wearing glasses around 2 years ago, my left eye is dominent and picked up after the right eye, unfortunantly I cant see crap out of my right eye and it has left me with a major blind spot and when I am not wearing my glasses for reading or gaming my right eye is a blurry mess when I close my left eye.FortheLegion said:
As a hardware manufacturer first and foremost you have to expect Sony to take this track, however with the economy as it is, I don't see this happening any time in the near future. I mean I just got a HD TV Earlier this year which was pretty expensive, especially for me. I won't be able to afford a new TV for a good long while yet (we're talking years). But then again I'm retired on Social Security. Then yet again, why should I be expecting to upgrade my TV yet again when I shelled out money for what is the big thing, and state of the art.
I think people overestimate the American market and the stupidity of American consumers, especially overseas. You can't keep changing formats every few years and expect a massive rush of consumerism.
What's more, none of these companies have yet to adequetly explain to me why I am supposed to need a special TV, and special battery powered goggles, to achieve an effect that I was seeing off of VHS tapes over 20 years ago. I suppose many kids today might not have experienced that kind of thing, but I'm only 35 and I have, and so have my parents. Right now it's generally people my age and older that have their hands on the purse strings, and the less than enthusiastic response to home 3D some people are reporting is probably not just due to them rushing out the new technology, but also because the entire thing sounds like a scam to anyone with half a brain.
When it comes to gaming, I see no reason at all why a game cannot be made in 3D, I mean it's animation and we've seen cartoons in 3D. I vaguely remember having a toy as a kid called "Captain Future" or something like that where you had this light gun in the shape of a plane and watched special VHS tapes with the glasses to fly the plane through the 3D effects and shoot the screen in ways that would catch a rebound to score points. It's been a while, maybe that wasn't 3D, but I seem to remember it being so.
At any rate, failing memory aside, there is no reason why they can't just do a game in 3D, include a pair of glasses in the box, and have a 3D game. At least none that I can see, and so far nobody has yet to come up with an adequete explanation as to why I should be shelling out that kind of money even if I had it. I mean in theory I could save up the money if I really wanted to, but why do I want to other than Sony and other companies tell me I need all this stuff.
Heck, why the heck do you need batteries in 3d glasses? That's an even more "WTF" question that has been plagueing me since I first started hearing about these packages they are trying to sell.
I think people overestimate the American market and the stupidity of American consumers, especially overseas. You can't keep changing formats every few years and expect a massive rush of consumerism.
What's more, none of these companies have yet to adequetly explain to me why I am supposed to need a special TV, and special battery powered goggles, to achieve an effect that I was seeing off of VHS tapes over 20 years ago. I suppose many kids today might not have experienced that kind of thing, but I'm only 35 and I have, and so have my parents. Right now it's generally people my age and older that have their hands on the purse strings, and the less than enthusiastic response to home 3D some people are reporting is probably not just due to them rushing out the new technology, but also because the entire thing sounds like a scam to anyone with half a brain.
When it comes to gaming, I see no reason at all why a game cannot be made in 3D, I mean it's animation and we've seen cartoons in 3D. I vaguely remember having a toy as a kid called "Captain Future" or something like that where you had this light gun in the shape of a plane and watched special VHS tapes with the glasses to fly the plane through the 3D effects and shoot the screen in ways that would catch a rebound to score points. It's been a while, maybe that wasn't 3D, but I seem to remember it being so.
At any rate, failing memory aside, there is no reason why they can't just do a game in 3D, include a pair of glasses in the box, and have a 3D game. At least none that I can see, and so far nobody has yet to come up with an adequete explanation as to why I should be shelling out that kind of money even if I had it. I mean in theory I could save up the money if I really wanted to, but why do I want to other than Sony and other companies tell me I need all this stuff.
Heck, why the heck do you need batteries in 3d glasses? That's an even more "WTF" question that has been plagueing me since I first started hearing about these packages they are trying to sell.
Ha That's exactly how it is for me except I still wear my glasses. The state recognizes me as legally blind in one eye. At least my left eye has better than average vision.D0WNT0WN said: