Why are people so skeptical of 3D?

[Miles Tormani]

Okay, so... I'm seeing a lot of people talk about how 3D just means that more movies will have stupid "hey look that thing is coming toward me" moments. That is the primary reason it's dismissed as a gimmick, and for the time being, it's true.

But, think about it for a second. If 3D eventually becomes the standard, rather than an extra parlor trick that moviemakers can do, what will happen with all these "look I'm throwing stuff at you moments"? They'll phase out. The simple reasoning behind this is that currently, people think stuff like that is special. If every single movie or TV show can do that, it's no longer special, and people will easily dismiss stuff like that in favor of more reserved uses for the technology, like just making things look better. It's like how with each new generation of gaming systems, the first few games are of the "look at how detailed everything is" variety, while the later ones wind up focusing a bit more on getting the best gaming possibilities out of it.

This is going to sound like a bit of a weird example, but compare Resident Evil 4 to the next-gen Resident Evil 5. The latter one, being on a new system, had a tendency to do cinematic shots that seemed deliberately designed to show off the detail on, say, Chris's gun. Resident Evil 4 on the other hand, as a game that came late on the GameCube, focused more of its cinematic shots on things that actually mattered. Aside from the crotch shot on Luis.

Frankly, at the moment, I find movies that are converted to 3D in post-production turn out to be better than movies made to be 3D from the outset. The simple reasoning behind this is because if the movie was made in 2D, the director, producers, and publishers don't see any reason to throw stuff at the viewer. So, the only effect that comes in when the movie becomes 3D is that it has depth perception to it. Winds up being less gimmicky.

I want 3D to be used like that once it becomes standard.

Also, I personally won't be getting a 3D TV until they fix the glasses issue. Convenience is, of course, another large factor.

EDIT:

Lastly, the fact that there has yet to be a 3d porn further illustrates the fact that 3d won't become common place.

What you talking about Sheic?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.203662-Hustler-Making-3D-Avatar-Porn-Movie

 

[Pegghead]

3D is nothing but a pointless gimmick that doesn't look any better or immersive than good old 2D, it brings nothing to games and I guarantee the 3DS probably isn't as good as Nintendo would like us to believe.

 

[Mr. Fister]

3D with glasses will always be an inconvenience, especially to anyone who already wears glasses.

3D like the 3DS is employing (autostereoscopic imaging) is much better solely because it does not require glasses at all. It has its issues (you have to be in the sweet-spot for it to properly work), but ultimately it should prove to be far more immersive than 3D that requires some sort of additional viewing apparatus to work.

And besides, if 3D truly is a fad, then the 3DS has plenty to fall back on regardless, so it's not like companies are banking everything they've got on the new technology.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

My main problem with 3D is the same problem I have with motion controls - it's a bullshit excuse to (re-)release games/movies and label them as "innovative" or "new."

It's as if companies think I'm not going to notice that the dialogue or pacing suck ass just because the images are popping out of the screen (Alice in Wonderland, any terrible money-grab like "Final Destination 3D," etc.) or because I have to wave my hands to make a character move.

Nintendo re-releases and re-hashes popular games only "now with motion-controls," and John Q. Public eats them up like candy. Now they're doing the same damn thing with the 3DS ("Oh wow, can I really play this 15-year-old game in the third dimension? Awesome! Here's my $40!") while new, fresh ideas are usually few and far between.

To be clear, I don't hate the technology, I just hate how I see it being exploited. That is all.

and you can blow it out your ass if you expect me to drop 4K on a television...

 

[Miles Tormani]

Nintendo re-releases and re-hashes popular games only "now with motion-controls," and John Q. Public eats them up like candy. Now they're doing the same damn thing with the 3DS ("Oh wow, can I really play this 15-year-old game in the third dimension? Awesome! Here's my $40!") while new, fresh ideas are usually few and far between.

My reaction was more, "Holy crap, I can play Star Fox 64 wherever? Here's my $240."

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Nintendo re-releases and re-hashes popular games only "now with motion-controls," and John Q. Public eats them up like candy. Now they're doing the same damn thing with the 3DS ("Oh wow, can I really play this 15-year-old game in the third dimension? Awesome! Here's my $40!") while new, fresh ideas are usually few and far between.

My reaction was more, "Holy crap, I can play Star Fox 64 wherever? Here's my $240."

Ah yes, those nostalgia glasses can be pretty heavily tinted, can't they? I'm not denying the appeal (there's tons of it, actually), but still, it's nothing new. There's only so many games we can re-release before we run out, and at that point someone better come up with a fresh idea. Nintendo used to be the best at that sorta thing, but it seems like they've gotten pretty slack these last 5 years. Playing Star Fox anywhere is pretty kickass, but could a new IP end up being better than Star Fox? We may never find out.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Because we don't care?

 

[Miles Tormani]

Ah yes, those nostalgia glasses can be pretty heavily tinted, can't they? I'm not denying the appeal (there's tons of it, actually), but still, it's nothing new. There's only so many games we can re-release before we run out, and at that point someone better come up with a fresh idea. Nintendo used to be the best at that sorta thing, but it seems like they've gotten pretty slack these last 5 years. Playing Star Fox anywhere is pretty kickass, but could a new IP end up being better than Star Fox? We may never find out.

You may think that the nostalgia glasses are just really heavily tinted, but the thing is, Star Fox used to be one of my favorite IPs from Nintendo, and it was one of the primary reasons I wanted a Nintendo 64 to begin with. The game itself kicked ass, and still is fun to play. The problem is that every other Star Fox after it has been either underwhelming or a total pile of ass.

In light of this, Nintendo has never re-released the game on any system, save for the Wii's virtual console. In fact, the most the game really gets from Nintendo is that when a new game comes out, it happens to share the same continuity. A perfect example is how in Star Fox: Assault, they never bring up Andross except in passing reference. Since, you know. He's dead. That doesn't give the game the right to suddenly become Starship Troopers with the heavy use of Aparoids, however.

(EDIT: In hindsight, maybe they should have gone the Zelda route, and just did reboots with every single game. It seems like most of the time, they're trying to find an adversary that could hold a candle to Andross, and the best they could come up with were bugs, Al Bhed-speaking dinosaurs, and these toad things that Andross apparently made in his free time while pretending to be God.)

More importantly, anything added to the series to make it more fresh has only added more weight to the cement block that's sending it down into the ocean. The Landmaster was kinda fun in Assault, yes, but at the same time, it was ridiculously overpowered. The only balancing it even got was that its strafing and hovering absolutely sucked. This is not the Landmaster I remember. This is a Halo Scorpion with no real turret and a shitty rocket engine to compensate.

You only get it for two or three levels if I recall correctly anyway.

Command only added a generic strategy layer on top of it that boiled down to "move all ships onto enemies and blow generic enemies up." Not to mention, every single area was All Range Mode, and battles lasted less than a minute. They had to, anyway. There was that fucking stupid overarching time limit to constantly compensate for. It's justified with the Arwing happening to have limited fuel, but that fails to explain why the limited fuel is shared between multiple craft. Besides, fuck that anyway. I don't need no damn fuel. My ship runs on a G-Diffuser engine. Captain Falcon never had to re-fuel.

Now we have Nintendo bringing back one of the only two Star Fox games that I can say were "good" as opposed to "decent" or "shit." With it, they're adding better graphics, a 3D thing that would help with dodging some of the more sudden blocks that show up (the running man at Venom comes to mind), use of a analog "stick" as opposed to a touch screen stylus, and a potential for online play of the classic style. This is infinitely better than anything else Nintendo has done to the franchise in ten fucking years.

So, yes, this is a lot more than simply rose-tinted nostalgia. It's also a case of blue balls of everything after it just not living up to what was. Besides, in this case, I'd much rather have a port that retains the crap than a remake that misses all the things that made the original good.

 

[JLrep]

I can't see the reasoning behind #1. Every technology we're using now, from flash drives to wireless internet to portable computers, was once too expensive, was once almost impossible to imagine as ever being affordable to more than a technophile.

Yes and personal jetpaks, personal android servants, laser weaponry, and other technological advancements that were deemed too expensive and ultimately unnecessary have been abandoned. Most people are perfectly happy with 2D television sets, so I don't see what the market is for 3D. Not only that, but the kind of 3D TV that can be viewed by everyone in a room easily and without added bullshit such as glasses isn't just about making the circuitry smaller or more sophisticated. You would need to invent an entirely new form of optics and projection. I'm not saying it won't EVER happen, I'm just saying that such technology isn't just 10-20 years in the future, its not going to happen within our lifetimes.[/quote]

I think my examples are a bit more in line with 3D screens than yours are. As for the technological point, I admit I'm not an expert, so I'll ask, why would you need to invent a an entirely new form of optics and projection? The 3DS seems pretty darn close already. The only thing that needs improving is the viewing angles, and that doesn't need to be perfect, because viewing a TV screen at more than a slight angle is always annoying, no matter how clear it is. This business of "not within our lifetimes" seems rather extreme, as well. There are people alive now who can remember a time when electronic computers did not exist.

(And not to be OC or anything but if you replaced "android" with "robot", all your examples currently exist and are still being developed; it's just they're not as impressive as they are in sci-fi stories)

A combination of low demand for 3D equipment and the cripplingly high costs of development and production of such equipment is going to eventually send 3D on the backburner for another half century. AGAIN.

You admit that there is a low demand for 3D, yet you insist that eventually all personal entertainment will be in 3D? How does that make sense?

I'd like some source on that first claim. As far as I know, all you need to go from 2D to 3D is the ability to record and process two images simultaneously. As for the second, I don't think I said there was a low demand for 3D. I said that 3D that required glasses would never become mainstream.

No, those are all improving previously accepted norms of visual entertainment in an attempt to replicate reality and increase immersion. 3D does not replicate reality any more than a pop-up book, it just serves to emphasize certain visual elements over others. It's basically a way to control our perception of the on-screen depiction by controlling what we see as foreground and what we see as background. This is why 3D doesn't just use a 'pop up' effect, it also uses a blur/focus effect.

Oh, really now, considering that reality is 3D, I'd absolutely say that 3D images replicate reality more than 2D images do. You make it sound as though 3D is only capable of rendering a couple of flat planes at different "distances" in some unnatural way, like certain magic-eye pictures (or, as you say, a pop-up book).

I'd sure like to see what you're basing your 'developing countries find it difficult to understand a flat image' concept on. The entire concept of many optical illusions is that our mind immediately attempts to see depth and dimension based on lighting, foreshortening, and shadow. Our brain is confused by this image:

Because our brain automatically interprets a 3D image. The brain is the same no matter what kind of images or types of perception you've been exposed to. We expect our world to have depth, so our brain perceives depth where there is none.

The "concept" I mentioned isn't mine, it's an observation by the neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks, though I've read many of his books and apologize that I cannot remember where it appears.

I, uh, feel as though you're supporting my point now, though. You pointed out that our brain is confused by that optical illusion because, while the picture is technically flat, our brain insists on perceiving it as having depth and so accepts the misleading visual cues. This is confusion that is not present with 3D; in 3D, that illusion wouldn't work, because our brain has actual depth data to use, and doesn't have to assume (by "actual" I mean the two eyes actually seeing two different images, which is what stereoscopy is). I've seen movies and images in 3D, and gimmicks aside, I'd absolutely say they look more real than 2D images (other than the red/green ones I mean, those never look natural).

I know its a long post but I feel this is an interesting discussion and absolutely worth having.

Likewise.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Why are people so skeptical of 3D?

I'm not skeptical.

I know 3D is nothing but a shallow gimmick.

Here's some quotes from Yahtzee's recent Extra Punctuation: [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/7794-Extra-Punctuation-On-Kinect-and-PlayStation-Move]

I'm beginning to see that motion controls are to me what 3D is to Ebert and Kermode. A desperate gimmick being overplayed in lieu of any lasting innovation, which sufficiently impresses Joe Tosspot but leaves the critics - the actual thinkers and philosophers of the industry, the ones concerned with the cultural substance of it all - waving their arms trying to get everyone to see just how shallow it really is.

And stereoscopic 3D is in the same boat as motion controls: It's a crude imitation of a hypothetical future technology that gets us nowhere. The ultimate future of the TV screen would be some kind of holographic output, where the viewscreen perfectly resembles an actual window into the world beyond, rather than an animating 2D image. Stereoscopic 3D is just a parlor trick. It's an interesting effect that is an unusual quirk of humans having two eyes. It's not a step towards that possible future, any more than a cardboard cut-out of Henry VIII is a step towards the invention of time travel.

3D is a dead end.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Look, 3D is the next big thing, and that's just a fact.

Just like it's been a fact for every 20 years, and still isn't.

3D can't work because of the uncanny valley. If you know it's not real, it breaks. If you do know it's real, then it's a danger.

It maybe awfully pretty, but in the end, like 1990,1970,1950...it's all just smoke and mirrors.

 

[JLrep]

I read Yahtzee's EP. As usual it is pretty good stuff, and I agree wholeheartedly that 3D as a step towards virtual reality (just like motion controls as a step towards virtual reality) is stupid, for reasons stated. However, if the subject must be brought up, there is one thing that 3D is capable of giving us, which I for one would be very happy to see: an isometric platformer where the jumping's not all guesswork.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

I don't like 3d because it's pointless and cliche. Plus 4d is where it is at

 

[superbatranger]

For now, I see it as a gimmick. I just haven't seen anything in 3D capable of selling me on the idea that it's the next best thing. But, that could change in the future.

 

[Feriluce]

Look, 3D is the next big thing, and that's just a fact. By that I don't mean that 3D screens are going to revolutionize life, just that they will replace regular 2D screens, just like HD replaced non-HD. Years from now, the only electronics that won't have 3D screens are the ones that are too utilitarian or cheap to have them.

Any 3D that required glasses was inevitably too awkward to really succeed, especially since red-green glasses screwed up the color badly and shutter glasses are expensive. But now that the 3DS has been confirmed, that's all there is to it. People laugh because it's impossible to show the 3D effect of the 3DS on a computer, well, give it a few years: your computer will be 3D. So will your TV and your phone, depending on when it becomes cheap and when you adapt.

If you say it won't catch on because it makes some people sick, well, people will get over that. When FPSs first came out they gave people motion sickness badly, yet I'll bet most of you could play one for hours and feel fine (I certainly can). Any other technical concerns, such as poor viewing angles, will simply be improved, especially as development efforts shift from improving 2D screens to improving 3D ones. (This would happen eventually, but I'm betting the 3DS will push things along very quickly.)

Again, 3D isn't what I'd call revolutionary (we'll wait for actual holograms for that), and personally I don't find it all that fascinating. It's just that it will become the norm; it simply will.

As a side note, the one really positive effect I see 3D having on gaming is 3D platformers where you don't have to rely on your shadow to aim your jumps.

I'm just wondering here. You do realize that the 3DS technology has been around for a while, and the reason it hasn't been used before is because of the completely abysmal viewing angle.
Its find to have a 11 degree (I think thats about right) viewing angle on a handheld console where you're the only one who'll look at it most likely, but when you start to move up to monitors and especially TV's its just not practical in any way.

Oh, and HD isn't some kinda special technology. Its simply a higher resolution than the stuff that was there before.

 

[F-I-D-O]

Well:
1. There is a minority that can't use 3D.
2. A lot of people just got HDTV, why should they be forced to upgrade
3. A lot of people don't want to have to wear glasses in their homes.
4. We don't know how expensive it is/if it can be applied to larger technology (3DS tech)
5. Nintendo likes it's secrets. It will guard the 3DS tech for only itself and first party people. Look at motion controls. Ever wonder how the first party stuff usually works better?
6. It was done before and failed. Natural cause of skepticism
7. 3D causes headaches after use for long periods (at least on a large amount of people). I don't want to get a headache just from watching a few movies
8. If it doesn't need glasses (some HUGE TVs have this feature) it makes the TV appear half the size
9. For gaming: Imagine wearing a headset. Now add glasses (correction). Hard enough. Now add 3D glasses. Insanely difficult, and not worth it.
10. And some people still have trouble with motion sickness from games. Will people with seizures just get over them because games are becoming more popular? 3D will cause people to get sick, and they won't get over it.
11. It doesn't work like they say it will. It usually involves someone falling into the audience a few times. Woohoo.
12. It does not count for peripheral vision. I can look from the sides of my eyes and not be immersed in a 3D realm. Goggles don't usually work as they claim. Once they have 3D from all sides, it may be have more immersion then looking at a screen.
There are problems with 3D tech, some inherent and some that can be improved. Once it truly works as they claim, it might be worth a look. But I'm happy with my 50" LCD HD that I recently got, and I don't feel the need to upgrade just so I can wear another pair of glasses.

 

[JLrep]

I'm just wondering here. You do realize that the 3DS technology has been around for a while, and the reason it hasn't been used before is because of the completely abysmal viewing angle.
Its find to have a 11 degree (I think thats about right) viewing angle on a handheld console where you're the only one who'll look at it most likely, but when you start to move up to monitors and especially TV's its just not practical in any way.

I don't think it's ever been in a product the average person is likely to buy, though.
I don't know the history of autostereoscopic displays (I think that's the term), but yes, I figured it stood to reason that anything being featured in an upcoming mass market consumer device must have been around, in one form or another, for years prior; that's how technology works.

 

[Feriluce]

I'm just wondering here. You do realize that the 3DS technology has been around for a while, and the reason it hasn't been used before is because of the completely abysmal viewing angle.
Its find to have a 11 degree (I think thats about right) viewing angle on a handheld console where you're the only one who'll look at it most likely, but when you start to move up to monitors and especially TV's its just not practical in any way.

I don't think it's ever been in a product the average person is likely to buy, though.
I don't know the history of autostereoscopic displays (I think that's the term), but yes, I figured it stood to reason that anything being featured in an upcoming mass market consumer device must have been around, in one form or another, for years prior; that's how technology works.

It hasn't been a product the average person was likely the buy because its extremely impractical for anything other than a screen you will always be looking at directly from the front. Like a handheld.
It will never see any use outside of that unless the viewing angle is improved drastically.

I do agree, however, that if someone manage to make a 3d screen with a viewing angle similar to current monitors, without the need for cumbersome glasses and without making some people who look at it dizzy, nauseus, etc. Then it will probably start taking over regular screens.
As the technology looks now 3d is a gimmick and thats it.