surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I can't imagine playing some 3DS games without 3D. Super Mario 3D Land is amazing.
Nintendo what Sonydon't.
Nintendo what Sonydon't.
i dont like 3D,that's it.i've seen 3D movies and my eyes bleeeeded (NOT,but you get it..)..and BURNED (NOT,again,the same thing)
NOPE.AVI
NOPE.AVI
Your eyes bleed because the frame rate needs to be at least doubled for 3D to be comfortable. Movies run at 24 fps and most console games don't run much better than that as well, so MOST people actually haven't experienced 3D to its full potential. When the 48fps James Cameron tech demo rolls out, feel free to bash it, but I don't think people will be able to.
Jesus christ, doesn't this happen every decade? Big media outlets try to push faux-3D gimmicks, and the audience just goes NO.
But it just keeps happening over and over.
But it just keeps happening over and over.
Imagine that. 3D doesn't sell games. Original ideas and decent gameplay does. Who would have thought? Oh, that's right: everyone but the executives who can't hear anything over all that money.
Of course it didn't take of in the livingroom - who likes wearing shades at home?
I enjoy 3D in the cinema, and am planning to pick up the 3DS XL soon.
I enjoy 3D in the cinema, and am planning to pick up the 3DS XL soon.
3D is awesome in certain games. I can't imagine not playing Child of Eden or Stardust HD in 3D. ditto house of the dead overkill extended cut and killzone 3. those are all excellent examples of 3d done right in games.
I hope they don't walk away from it entirely. don't push it as hard, sure, but keep giving me the option please sony. I was really enjoying it.
I hope they don't walk away from it entirely. don't push it as hard, sure, but keep giving me the option please sony. I was really enjoying it.
3D movies and 3D televisions need to go away now because they've worn out their welcome. My grandma bought a 3DTV a little over a year ago and it is not impressive. Having to wear glasses is still annoying and even without them, the 3D effect still remains gimmicky as the excitement wears off after a minute or so. It's just not worth it.Besides, who wants to pay higher ticket prices when we're already paying enough as it is ?
3DS is the only 3D-enabled device I like because A) glasses-free B) it's affordable C) 3D benefits some games and D) 3D is optional.
I'm still happy with my family's 34" Sony WEGA CRT HDTV since late 2006.
3DS is the only 3D-enabled device I like because A) glasses-free B) it's affordable C) 3D benefits some games and D) 3D is optional.
I'm still happy with my family's 34" Sony WEGA CRT HDTV since late 2006.
Well hopefully this is the end of 3D for gaming. It was just purely a novelty factor because gaming has got stuck in a rut so they needed something new to catch peoples attention. Still, 3D can never be a true fuck up as Kinect is. Amazing how people get suckered into buying shit.
Even Nintendo said people don't care that much about 3D anymore, it's why they stopped advertising the feature so much.
I love playing my 3DS with the slider all the way up. Never really bothered me unless I already had a headache or was really tired.
That said...3D should never be considered the main driving point for a game. I think more game systems could use the option of having 3D visuals, especially since I do think some games benefit from the visual enhancement, but marketing it as the one big thing is a bit dumb. I'd like to see some more done with AR personally.
That said...3D should never be considered the main driving point for a game. I think more game systems could use the option of having 3D visuals, especially since I do think some games benefit from the visual enhancement, but marketing it as the one big thing is a bit dumb. I'd like to see some more done with AR personally.
@pk fire
I think the Virtual Boy might have had a chance if it had had full color, instead of just red.
It would have still been gimmicky. It would still have given people headaches and nausea. But being limited to shades of red was the nail in the coffin. Probably several nails in the coffin. Red might have been a cost-effective choice, but limited to a single color, it is almost like Nintendo set out to make a poor choice.
I think the Virtual Boy might have had a chance if it had had full color, instead of just red.
It would have still been gimmicky. It would still have given people headaches and nausea. But being limited to shades of red was the nail in the coffin. Probably several nails in the coffin. Red might have been a cost-effective choice, but limited to a single color, it is almost like Nintendo set out to make a poor choice.
It's really nice to have and I love that some games still include the option, but it isn't The Next Big Thing. I just hope devs still continue to implement it from time to time. It's worth it if they do it right.
What Sony is really saying here is "We need to focus on this Smart TV thing before it destroys our goal of Playstation being the go-to entertainment hub." Not that a Playstation is now, but its always been their holy grail. I think they hope to achieve this with platform-exclusive features and what devices they deem worthy Playstation Suite support, but I think its already too late for them to compete there.
Nintendo got 3D right - Make it standard to the platform, make its use optional and no stupid fucking glasses. They never went after 3DTVs because they knew that would be stupid expensive and were aware Smart TVs were coming.
Nintendo got 3D right - Make it standard to the platform, make its use optional and no stupid fucking glasses. They never went after 3DTVs because they knew that would be stupid expensive and were aware Smart TVs were coming.
@ pk fire
Bullshit. Nintendo did the right thing. They made 3D affordable and convenient.
The reason why Sony screwed up, is because they were thinking too tech-oriented instead of thinking about the consumer.
They wanted to sell you as much tech as possible, including TVs, 3D-Glasses, Blu-Ray-Players, 3D-Blurays and other stuff. When 3D really doesn't work in the livingroom as long as you have to wear the damn glasses. People just don't wear 3D glasses at home, period.
They should have made the Vita a glasses-free 3D machine, that would allow you to download 3D movies, that would have been in the consumers interest, since then you would have gotten a 3D experience, that doesn't require a special TV, doesn't require Glasses, doesn't require a BluRay Player.
But well, guess what, then Sony wouldn't be able to sell you all that other crap.
Bullshit. Nintendo did the right thing. They made 3D affordable and convenient.
The reason why Sony screwed up, is because they were thinking too tech-oriented instead of thinking about the consumer.
They wanted to sell you as much tech as possible, including TVs, 3D-Glasses, Blu-Ray-Players, 3D-Blurays and other stuff. When 3D really doesn't work in the livingroom as long as you have to wear the damn glasses. People just don't wear 3D glasses at home, period.
They should have made the Vita a glasses-free 3D machine, that would allow you to download 3D movies, that would have been in the consumers interest, since then you would have gotten a 3D experience, that doesn't require a special TV, doesn't require Glasses, doesn't require a BluRay Player.
But well, guess what, then Sony wouldn't be able to sell you all that other crap.
You may think this is about the 3DS and video games but its more than likely not (even though its with Eurogamer.)
I'm sure this is more about Sony's huge push for 3D tvs over the past couple of years and it just flopping face first hard, and thats one of the big reasons their electronics division is in total disarray. Sony was predicting back in 2009 that it would make up 30% to 50% of their tv sales. I think fewer than 2% of households in America have 3D TVs with even more depressing numbers on people who watch 3D channels ( like a 100k, which is the absolute worst)
I'm sure this is more about Sony's huge push for 3D tvs over the past couple of years and it just flopping face first hard, and thats one of the big reasons their electronics division is in total disarray. Sony was predicting back in 2009 that it would make up 30% to 50% of their tv sales. I think fewer than 2% of households in America have 3D TVs with even more depressing numbers on people who watch 3D channels ( like a 100k, which is the absolute worst)
@Kyousuke dumb and stupid? Man that must be really bad. You must be from the Department of Redundancy Department.
On the other hand, the Playstation branded 3DTV bundle is only $179.99 at Best Buy. Even if you won't ever use the 3D, it's a damn good 24" monitor. Using it for my PC and I don't regret it one bit.
wait wait wait wait what?
You're telling me that once again big media has tried to push 3D as the next big thing (something that seems to happen every 5-7 years) and people didn't really care?
I am genuinely shocked!
You're telling me that once again big media has tried to push 3D as the next big thing (something that seems to happen every 5-7 years) and people didn't really care?
I am genuinely shocked!
It's really simple. As soon as 40" and up LED TVs with glasses-free 3D tech are marketed at a reasonable prices, 3D will take off big time. That seems like it's about 3-5 years off.
3D will never be relevant due to the fact that 30-40% of population can't see it, period. then you have to add the fact that large part of the rest 60-70% won't see it either as they get older.
Sony's 3D business failed because it not only required glasses but also it was outrageously priced. 3DTV were 3-4 times more expensive compared to competition(despite the fact that many of sony's TVs had worse specs) while glasses were nearly 250$/pair(compared to 80-100$/pair from other companies) and sony never included a single pair with their TVs.
Sony's 3D business failed because it not only required glasses but also it was outrageously priced. 3DTV were 3-4 times more expensive compared to competition(despite the fact that many of sony's TVs had worse specs) while glasses were nearly 250$/pair(compared to 80-100$/pair from other companies) and sony never included a single pair with their TVs.
Consumers are IDIOTS. 3D is very important to me. And awesome. You dummies should try Wipeout HD in 3D, or Halo CE in 3D. It will blow your puny minds.
So, it's well-recognized that the 3DS is the best effort so far in 3D. And this pretty much sums that up for me: http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20110321
3D wasn't put out there because it adds so much to the viewing experience to the consumer, it was put out there because TV -makers finished milking money out of people for HDTV's and thought they could put out this gimmick and hope to get everyone to ditch their 1-3 year old HDTV's with 3D ones....and it failed pretty hardcore.
So, now they're onto Smart TV's. Guess what, guys, I don't want that shit, either. No one who knows jack shit about tech wants their TVs to be anything but dumb screens. As little as the TV-makers want this to be true, screens last for a relatively long time, and I'm not going to replace the screen as often as I will the equipment with the real brains which are hooked up to that dumb screen. Put them together, and now people are forced to.
So, I'll keep sailing along happily with my dumb, non-3D 46" for hopefully years to come. And when I do replace it, know this: the company who will get my money is the one who produces the best dumb screen for the money which will last me a long time. Not one which puts in useless features which will be obsolete LONG before the screen is spent.
3D wasn't put out there because it adds so much to the viewing experience to the consumer, it was put out there because TV -makers finished milking money out of people for HDTV's and thought they could put out this gimmick and hope to get everyone to ditch their 1-3 year old HDTV's with 3D ones....and it failed pretty hardcore.
So, now they're onto Smart TV's. Guess what, guys, I don't want that shit, either. No one who knows jack shit about tech wants their TVs to be anything but dumb screens. As little as the TV-makers want this to be true, screens last for a relatively long time, and I'm not going to replace the screen as often as I will the equipment with the real brains which are hooked up to that dumb screen. Put them together, and now people are forced to.
So, I'll keep sailing along happily with my dumb, non-3D 46" for hopefully years to come. And when I do replace it, know this: the company who will get my money is the one who produces the best dumb screen for the money which will last me a long time. Not one which puts in useless features which will be obsolete LONG before the screen is spent.
Currently, 3D is like electric cars; it's a nice concept, but the tech needed to make it both impressive and convenient and thus make it the new standard is not yet available.
@akibakemono:
Lol. You have a fair bit to learn about empathy and people. Reducing the price will not make it take off at all. It never worked in the 90s, 80, 70s, or 60s (I can't comment on the 50s as I wasn't around then). Yes, the tech was different then, but it was easily affordable as the best there was at the time. It will always remain a gimmick until we have TRUE 3D - that is a display that is 3 dimensional, not a 2 dimensional plane. Even then, I'm sceptical.
That's to say nothing of those people who don't have perfect eyesight who cannot use it anyway (about 1/3 of all consumers), even under perfect conditions. Nor does it take into account those of us who care not one jot for it.
@Elektro Dragon:
You are indeed right. But I'm afraid you have the term the wrong way round. Who's the idiot?
Lol. You have a fair bit to learn about empathy and people. Reducing the price will not make it take off at all. It never worked in the 90s, 80, 70s, or 60s (I can't comment on the 50s as I wasn't around then). Yes, the tech was different then, but it was easily affordable as the best there was at the time. It will always remain a gimmick until we have TRUE 3D - that is a display that is 3 dimensional, not a 2 dimensional plane. Even then, I'm sceptical.
That's to say nothing of those people who don't have perfect eyesight who cannot use it anyway (about 1/3 of all consumers), even under perfect conditions. Nor does it take into account those of us who care not one jot for it.
@Elektro Dragon:
You are indeed right. But I'm afraid you have the term the wrong way round. Who's the idiot?
All you guys knocking 3D gaming have probably never fully played a game in 3D on a big screen. As a "consumer" 3D isn't that important to me but it definitely is a major plus when considering purchasing new games. There aren't too many 3D games out there but I've loved and been blown away by the few played thus far.
Uncharted 3 (in 3D) - Amazingly Awesome
Batman Arkham City (in 3D) - Unbelievably Awesome
Crysis 2 (in 3D) - Pretty Awesome
Black Ops (in 3D) - Yup, Awesome
I'm gonna give the classic Shadow of Colossus a run with 3D and it'll surely be awesome as well.
HEY SONY, KEEP THESE 3D GAMES ROLLING, I LOVE EM!
Uncharted 3 (in 3D) - Amazingly Awesome
Batman Arkham City (in 3D) - Unbelievably Awesome
Crysis 2 (in 3D) - Pretty Awesome
Black Ops (in 3D) - Yup, Awesome
I'm gonna give the classic Shadow of Colossus a run with 3D and it'll surely be awesome as well.
HEY SONY, KEEP THESE 3D GAMES ROLLING, I LOVE EM!
All you guys knocking 3D gaming have probably never fully played a game in 3D on a big screen. As a "consumer" 3D isn't that important to me but it definitely is a major plus when considering purchasing new games. There aren't too many 3D games out there but I've loved and been blown away by the few played thus far.
Uncharted 3 (in 3D) - Amazingly Awesome
Batman Arkham City (in 3D) - Unbelievably Awesome
Crysis 2 (in 3D) - Pretty Awesome
Black Ops (in 3D) - Yup, Awesome
I'm gonna give the classic Shadow of Colossus a run with 3D and it'll surely be awesome as well.
HEY SONY, KEEP THESE 3D GAMES ROLLING, I LOVE EM!
Uncharted 3 (in 3D) - Amazingly Awesome
Batman Arkham City (in 3D) - Unbelievably Awesome
Crysis 2 (in 3D) - Pretty Awesome
Black Ops (in 3D) - Yup, Awesome
I'm gonna give the classic Shadow of Colossus a run with 3D and it'll surely be awesome as well.
HEY SONY, KEEP THESE 3D GAMES ROLLING, I LOVE EM!
i love 3d, but i can't understand sony's (or any other company's) bloated expectations that every home in the world would suddenly have 3d tvs in their living room - 'because avatar!'.
3d tvs are expensive (unless you buy a $400 42" vizio like i did). as 3d seems down in to more mid and low range tvs, it'll start being adopted more. we're in the middle of a recession, it's no wonder expensive new tvs aren't flying off the shelf. everyone just upgraded to a regular hdtv a few years ago and are going to be reluctant to upgrade again so soon.
3d tvs are expensive (unless you buy a $400 42" vizio like i did). as 3d seems down in to more mid and low range tvs, it'll start being adopted more. we're in the middle of a recession, it's no wonder expensive new tvs aren't flying off the shelf. everyone just upgraded to a regular hdtv a few years ago and are going to be reluctant to upgrade again so soon.
@Delarozay
Agreed
@Jack Dandy
No, it really doesn't. There were stereo-graphic pictures back in the early 1900's, then we had red/blue 3D movies in the 80's, and then we have what we have now.
IMO, the 3D tech we have now is good (with certain implementations being much better than others); and I view the resistance to 3D in general (not any specific 3D tech, just 3D imagery at all) as ridiculous. It is like being against color TV's, or sound. However, this resistance is the fallout of poor showcasings by the people pushing it. The biggest example I can think of is The Phantom Menace 3D; they took a movie recorded in 2D and made it 3D after the fact. As a result, everyone looks like paper cut-outs in the movie. But it is fallacious to group together good implementations with the bad and call them all equal.
Agreed
@Jack Dandy
No, it really doesn't. There were stereo-graphic pictures back in the early 1900's, then we had red/blue 3D movies in the 80's, and then we have what we have now.
IMO, the 3D tech we have now is good (with certain implementations being much better than others); and I view the resistance to 3D in general (not any specific 3D tech, just 3D imagery at all) as ridiculous. It is like being against color TV's, or sound. However, this resistance is the fallout of poor showcasings by the people pushing it. The biggest example I can think of is The Phantom Menace 3D; they took a movie recorded in 2D and made it 3D after the fact. As a result, everyone looks like paper cut-outs in the movie. But it is fallacious to group together good implementations with the bad and call them all equal.
I decided 3D was irrelevant when it was first announced..
However, the 3DS does impress me. Not 3D TV's though.
However, the 3DS does impress me. Not 3D TV's though.
Actually I sorta wrote 3D off (after never having the slightest urge to see a movie in 3D) when I read an article about theaters hiking up the ticket prices on normal movies to subsidize 3D movies. That also made me less interested in bothering with normal movies because fuck if I'm going to pay extra so some crap I don't care about can continue to exist.
translation- "We weren't counting on the 3d backlash to happen."
The fact is movie studios and game developers were excited to jump on the 3d bandwagon after Avatar came out, and in their hastiness, did more to damage the format by churning out crappy post-conversions that turned people off to the format. Avatar, Hugo, Prometheus and Transformers 3 all had fantastic 3d, but those films were made with 3d in mind from the beginning and were made by experienced master filmmakers (yeah i know, say what you want about Michael Bay but the guy knows his way around a camera). Not everybody loves 3d, and that's fine, but I and many others DO love it when it's done RIGHT.
I rarely ever turn off the 3d on my 3DS. Mostly when the lighting screws with it. Most games, like Mario 3d Land and Kid Icarus, I can't imagine playing without it. I just don't want studios and developers to abandon 3d because of the vocal haters.
The fact is movie studios and game developers were excited to jump on the 3d bandwagon after Avatar came out, and in their hastiness, did more to damage the format by churning out crappy post-conversions that turned people off to the format. Avatar, Hugo, Prometheus and Transformers 3 all had fantastic 3d, but those films were made with 3d in mind from the beginning and were made by experienced master filmmakers (yeah i know, say what you want about Michael Bay but the guy knows his way around a camera). Not everybody loves 3d, and that's fine, but I and many others DO love it when it's done RIGHT.
I rarely ever turn off the 3d on my 3DS. Mostly when the lighting screws with it. Most games, like Mario 3d Land and Kid Icarus, I can't imagine playing without it. I just don't want studios and developers to abandon 3d because of the vocal haters.
c u 10-15 yr again and 8-12yr next that, until the holograms go mainstream. This pseudo-3D just will not endure.
@RoOhDiNi I hope you're not mad at me lol. I guess I should have been more clear inferring that I wish Nintendo didn't attach 3D to the 3DS, as opposed to working on things like the eshop right from the get-go. I personally hate 3D in games, but that's just one guy's opinion. I wished the effort would have been spent else ware.
And I was in no way defending Sony, so stop acting so butthurt haha.
And I was in no way defending Sony, so stop acting so butthurt haha.
follow
