Sony "Pleased" By Nintendo 3DS

[Andronicus]

3D is gimmick technology, and gimmick technology will be very popular for a very short period of time, until people realize that gimmicks don't make things better. For now 3D adds nothing to the gaming experience other than visual distractions (same with a 3D movie). From what I've seen so far, 3D is developers and producers misunderstanding the concept of 'immersion', or at least using it as an excuse to sell a gimmicky toy to children and technophiles.

I honestly don't understand why so many people here are hating 3D. Sure it's just a gimmick, as Mr. Leaves here says, but it doesn't actually detract from anything, as long as it stays just an option (if it becomes a must at some point, there will be blood). Lots of people I know think it's "TEH FEWCHA!!" of movies and games; if it costs more to watch a movie in 3D, I'll just stick two dimensions, thankyou very much.

I agree that they're trying to use it as the newest concept in immersion to children and idiots though. It looks cool, but it doesn't add any more immersive value to the media.

Huh, I'm a little off-topic here. Umm... yeah, so... Sony's using reverse psychology PR. What else is new?

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Spoiler: quote

3D is gimmick technology, and gimmick technology will be very popular for a very short period of time, until people realize that gimmicks don't make things better. For now 3D adds nothing to the gaming experience other than visual distractions (same with a 3D movie). From what I've seen so far, 3D is developers and producers misunderstanding the concept of 'immersion', or at least using it as an excuse to sell a gimmicky toy to children and technophiles.

I honestly don't understand why so many people here are hating 3D. Sure it's just a gimmick, as Mr. Leaves here says, but it doesn't actually detract from anything, as long as it stays just an option (if it becomes a must at some point, there will be blood). Lots of people I know think it's "TEH FEWCHA!!" of movies and games; if it costs more to watch a movie in 3D, I'll just stick two dimensions, thankyou very much.

I agree that they're trying to use it as the newest concept in immersion to children and idiots though. It looks cool, but it doesn't add any more immersive value to the media.

To me it actually does detract from the experience. This was most clear to me while watching movies in 3D. So many scenes are added in to the movie just for the sake of exploiting the 3D gimmick. Scenes that don't require a huge focus on depth of field have it artificially added in, long sequences are included that add nothing to the experience but are filmed in a way that showcases the 3D, and entire settings exist only because they would look good in 3D. Watch a preview for a 3D movie and tell me you can't pick out half a dozen things that were clearly created to showcase 3D.

 

[Radelaide]

$20 says Nintendo don't give a shit what Sony think since Sony spend half their time bagging out the Wii.

I really don't understand what's so great about 3D. it's really eluding me why everything is touting 3D like it means something. It's a novelty. Like drinking lots of soda because your in the coca cola factory. But you wouldn't want to have all those coke drinks at your house. Espesically beverly ughhh.

And you have no idea how much I agree with you.

 

[Delusibeta]

Honestly? 3D's pretty much the only thing the movie industry has come up with to fight "camcorder in the cinema" piracy, so they will probably peddle it until the people have grown bored to death with it, and probably a bit beyond that. Of course, all that becomes futile if digital 3D camcorders come onto the market.

As for gaming itself, hmmm... Sony has been acting funny recently. Just because many people buy the 3DS does not mean many people will pay silly money for a TV they need to wear glasses to watch.

P.S. Although Nintendo hasn't made it clear how the 3DS screen works, judging by Kotaku's inital hands on and them complaining that if your eyes aren't on the sweet spot, the screen is several shades of wrong, I think it's safe to say that eye tracking is definitely not involved.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

3D is OPTIONAL on the 3DS. You can turn it OFF and still see graphics like these:

So is it hurting anyone? No.

You're missing my point though. Games designed for 3D viewing will cater to the 3D gimmick. You won't have to see it in 3D if it bothers you, but that won't change the fact that games will be designed specifically for it. Lots of sequences in the air with things flying at you, unnecessarily complex interfaces that 'pop' out at you, disorienting and overly deep field of vision, sequences in odd or completely out of place settings (ie flying mountains), etc.

I mean, watch this:


...and try and tell me that isn't a game whose design started with "we need something that will look good in 3D". I'm not saying it won't be a fun game, but I don't think it's a good sign when the design process is focused on showcasing visual tricks rather than making a good game. Same goes for movies.

 

[TimeLord]

3D is a fad IMO, it's something I don't see lasting very long personally.

 

[Andronicus]

Spoiler: quote

3D is gimmick technology, and gimmick technology will be very popular for a very short period of time, until people realize that gimmicks don't make things better. For now 3D adds nothing to the gaming experience other than visual distractions (same with a 3D movie). From what I've seen so far, 3D is developers and producers misunderstanding the concept of 'immersion', or at least using it as an excuse to sell a gimmicky toy to children and technophiles.

I honestly don't understand why so many people here are hating 3D. Sure it's just a gimmick, as Mr. Leaves here says, but it doesn't actually detract from anything, as long as it stays just an option (if it becomes a must at some point, there will be blood). Lots of people I know think it's "TEH FEWCHA!!" of movies and games; if it costs more to watch a movie in 3D, I'll just stick two dimensions, thankyou very much.

I agree that they're trying to use it as the newest concept in immersion to children and idiots though. It looks cool, but it doesn't add any more immersive value to the media.

To me it actually does detract from the experience. This was most clear to me while watching movies in 3D. So many scenes are added in to the movie just for the sake of exploiting the 3D gimmick. Scenes that don't require a huge focus on depth of field have it artificially added in, long sequences are included that add nothing to the experience but are filmed in a way that showcases the 3D, and entire settings exist only because they would look good in 3D. Watch a preview for a 3D movie and tell me you can't pick out half a dozen things that were clearly created to showcase 3D.

Touche, I know what you mean.

3D is OPTIONAL on the 3DS. You can turn it OFF and still see graphics like these:

So is it hurting anyone? No.

I am aware that it can be turned off. It will be interesting to see if they follow in the vein of cinema where they, as Acacia pointed, add in extra scenes in order to "showcase" the 3D. Does it really matter as much in games, where it isn't necessary to condense the story into 2-3 hours? If you have the gameplay and the story down pat, who would complain if they decided to add in a few extra scenes or features for the 3D? Would it still look good without the 3D? Is it worth paying extra money for? Am I asking to many questions? Guess we'll just have to see how the DS works out to tell if a console based on 3D, and by extension the games, will work.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

That all depends on developer choice. Some games will be as long as forty hours. Do you really expect that during that entire time, you'll have nothing but objects flying at you to make full use of the 3D? Highly doubtful. Too much use of a single cinematic trick or theme diminishes its "wow" factor, and most directors/developers understand this. There will undoubtedly still be a few games which over-use the 3D to cover up for the fact that their other elements (gameplay, story) were designed rather poorly. But those are games that were going to tank with or without this technology. The majority of games trying to convey a better sense of immersion, however, will use the 3D more sparingly. To scare or surprise or set an atmosphere at key points.

That's all it comes down to, really. 3D is a new technology (at least the type of 3D this handheld uses), and as with any new technology, it has the potential to do great things, and the potential to do terrible things. Overall, though, I think the ratio of bad games to good games released on the 3DS will be largely unaffected by the fact that it has 3D.

That's fair enough, although I don't necessarily trust Nintendo's recent track record with their gimmicks. Many perfectly good DS games were made much worse in my opinion due to the apparently obligatory sections dedicated to the stylus gimmick. Same goes for the Wii and their wobbles and flicks that would have been much easier and more immersive if I could just use a normal controller.

My biggest concern is that in catering to the 3D gimmick, games will become disorienting and unplayable after a certain amount of time. I can barely handle 2 hours in a movie, let alone 40 in a game. So then you'll turn off the 3D and have a very overpriced DS?

It may seem like a small thing, but if the kinect and PS Move have taught us anything its that everyone is willing to jump on the successful casual-gamer new gimmick loving bandwagon, and I'm just not drinking that Kool-Aid yet.

 

[MurderousToaster]

When I read this title, I imagined a Sony representative "pleasing" himself with the 3DS.

I never, ever want to think of that again.

 

[armaina]

First of all something I have to say is that 3D does not set well with me. I watched Avatar and it was cool but the 3D caused me some major eye strain and I ended up getting a headache as I was watching the movie. I'm not sure if it was because I was too self-aware of my own glasses or what but it was not a pleasant experience for me. That being said, I still don't think 3D should really be shoved aside so soon.

Remember, entertainment is filled with 'gimmicks' and some of them catch on, some of them don't. Many of us may call 3D a gimmick now, but as the technology progresses it may become commonplace. I mean, at one point the concept of motion controls or other controls that involved movement instead of button input was considered a gimmick.. but now... well all 3 major consoles are in on it and more technology is being made outside of the gaming industry dealing with non-conventional controls. In 10 or even 20 years, it may no longer be considered a gimmick. This is likely true for 3D.

It may have flopped it's first time around, but now the technology is much more different, so don't write it off just yet. I'm still going to give it a chance and keep myself open to it, even if the most recent attempt did give me a headache.

 

[Corpse XxX]

if they can make a screen for the ds that requires no glasses, why dont they just make tvs that do the same?

i wonder the same thing.. let me know if you find out..

 

[Ehra]

I really don't understand what's so great about 3D. it's really eluding me why everything is touting 3D like it means something. It's a novelty. Like drinking lots of soda because your in the coca cola factory. But you wouldn't want to have all those coke drinks at your house. Espesically beverly ughhh.

Sound use to be considered a novelty when it came to movies. Heck some studios at the time even said sound would be a failure, claiming that audiences wouldn't want to have to watch AND listen at the same time.

Are you kidding me with that comparison? Sound has added so many things to that meduim that entire movies are made and broken based on diaglogue and musical score. Your telling me that there will be movies that will become great bestseller hits that will enthrall and entertain the world merely because it is 3D. Bullpocky.

As someone else said, all you have to do is look at Avatar. And what movies have "enthralled and entertained" the world merely because they've got sound? Of course a game's going to have to be good, but I'd say that good 3D has FAR more potential to make or break an experience for me than more polygon pushing.


edit:

That's fair enough, although I don't necessarily trust Nintendo's recent track record with their gimmicks. Many perfectly good DS games were made much worse in my opinion due to the apparently obligatory sections dedicated to the stylus gimmick. Same goes for the Wii and their wobbles and flicks that would have been much easier and more immersive if I could just use a normal controller.

Those were things that I'd agree were problems early in each console's lives but I'd say that once everyone (both consumers and the developers themselves) got over the initial "wow" factor, we started seeing a large reduction in the number games that use these things just to use them. I'd say the typical game coming out now tends to use these things when they actually fit and improve the experience, instead of just throwing it in wherever.

 

[PureChaos]

i still don't see why games need to be in 3D. i don't even get it with films

 

[Jared]

Well, nice to see another developer giving credit where credit is due! I am sure Nintendo will be pleased to hear it