This is perfect! I remember thinking to myself, "You know what? I just spent a boatload of cash on a new, high definition television set. What I really want from my games is to bleed elements off of my TV in a low resolution manner."
I like games. I like games cheap. This is just an expense that companies would absorb for what is essentially an annoying feature. I don't want my living room to be the center of attention. I don't want my bookcase and Pikachu hat to become part of a game. I want whats contained in my TV to be part of the game. Everything else is just a waste of resources - something I'll have to absorb as the consumer, for what ammounts to a gimmick.
Lets not also forget how much of a pain in the ass having something for your TV mounted on your coffee table is. First off, if your in a room with no coffee table, or a non-traditional setup, then screw you! You're not getting the functionality you paid for. Second off, running a cord out from my TV across my living room is a, survey says, TRIPPING HAZARD! Thats why people loved the transition to wireless. Thats why most consoles and DVD players are situated next to or under the TV. It essentially says "Hey, do you have a toddler, cat, or dog in the house? Well screw you buddy, looks like you'll be dealing with broken peripherals and the console getting yanked from the TV set."
Its a cool bit of technology, much like the Kinect, but like the Kinect, I have to ask myself "What does this add to my experience? Why should I absorb the cost of manufacturing this thing?" To me, much like the kinect, it falls within the Uncanny Vally of peripherals. With the Kinect, we couldn't mimic exact movements completely (like putting your foot out or running in place translating to movement). It feels unsettling to us because its TOO close to reality, but not close enough. Same with this. It is immersion breaking to look into the foreground and and notice that its not the game, just the game plastered on your uneven living room. Its immersion breaking to see a first person shooter that makes the whole room into the screen, but not see the characters feet or other body parts - that FPS scene in general just makes it look like a floating hand with a gun.
The bullets flying our the screen is actually amazing for immersion, and a lot of really cool stuff could be done with it - but that alone is not worth the cost to develop. And its something that any 3D TV could already do.
For the love of fuck and shark cheddar cheese, just focus on games and multimedia. We don't need gimmicks. We don't need gotcha's. We don't need this or that or a yellow hat. We need games. No fancy science-fair hardware will change that.
I like games. I like games cheap. This is just an expense that companies would absorb for what is essentially an annoying feature. I don't want my living room to be the center of attention. I don't want my bookcase and Pikachu hat to become part of a game. I want whats contained in my TV to be part of the game. Everything else is just a waste of resources - something I'll have to absorb as the consumer, for what ammounts to a gimmick.
Lets not also forget how much of a pain in the ass having something for your TV mounted on your coffee table is. First off, if your in a room with no coffee table, or a non-traditional setup, then screw you! You're not getting the functionality you paid for. Second off, running a cord out from my TV across my living room is a, survey says, TRIPPING HAZARD! Thats why people loved the transition to wireless. Thats why most consoles and DVD players are situated next to or under the TV. It essentially says "Hey, do you have a toddler, cat, or dog in the house? Well screw you buddy, looks like you'll be dealing with broken peripherals and the console getting yanked from the TV set."
Its a cool bit of technology, much like the Kinect, but like the Kinect, I have to ask myself "What does this add to my experience? Why should I absorb the cost of manufacturing this thing?" To me, much like the kinect, it falls within the Uncanny Vally of peripherals. With the Kinect, we couldn't mimic exact movements completely (like putting your foot out or running in place translating to movement). It feels unsettling to us because its TOO close to reality, but not close enough. Same with this. It is immersion breaking to look into the foreground and and notice that its not the game, just the game plastered on your uneven living room. Its immersion breaking to see a first person shooter that makes the whole room into the screen, but not see the characters feet or other body parts - that FPS scene in general just makes it look like a floating hand with a gun.
The bullets flying our the screen is actually amazing for immersion, and a lot of really cool stuff could be done with it - but that alone is not worth the cost to develop. And its something that any 3D TV could already do.
For the love of fuck and shark cheddar cheese, just focus on games and multimedia. We don't need gimmicks. We don't need gotcha's. We don't need this or that or a yellow hat. We need games. No fancy science-fair hardware will change that.
