I for one can't wait to get it on my PS3. although i hear you need a "special" TV and I only recently bought my LCD....
This is what we should be working on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
Also, I don't get this whole 3D craze. It doesn't add anything to a film besides cheap 3D tricks. I honestly don't care if I walk out of a theater saying "Did you see that bookcase in the background? It looked so much farther away than the foreground!" Which is what proponents of 3D film are touting as its greatest strenght ("Realistic depth will make you feel immersed in the film!"). Sorry, but realistic depth is less immersive than those tinted 3D glasses are distracting. 3D should stick to 15 minutes movies at theme parks.
I saw Christmas Carol in 3D recently, and I didn't notice anything I didn't see in the 80s. Ooo Jim Carrey's arm came out of the screen for three seconds!
The only quasi cool 3D presentation I've seen is Philharmagic at Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom, but that's because they used other tricks like blowing food flavored scents in your face while the 3D tricks were happening. I remember about ten years ago when developers said they wanted to make a scent machine for games. I believe Resident Evil 3 was the first game they wanted to try it on.
Strange times.
Yea, they use it for Soarin', the ride as well. I'm talking about in your HOME, though! Those crazy dreamers.
Smell-o-vision in mah HOMEZ? Hooray, all the smells of a shopping mall and 14-year old B.O. + Axe to enjoy in my living room! GROUNDBREAKING!
:-)
On the other hand I saw Up and The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D using cool Rayban-like shades and that looked better, still like multiple layers though.
I flinched a few times with the glasses on, if that could happen with survival horror games I might need to stock up on nappies (diapers?).
No, I wouldn't. I would say "Microsoft, do not want". Every complaint isn't based on fanboy foolishness, sometimes a gimmicky idea is just a gimmicky idea. Just like Natal and the PS3 wand.
I can only speak for myself, but my personal problem with it is that I have invested a lot of money in TVs that give me picture quality which is as close to perfect as I can imagine wanting, and now they're pushing yet another TV "innovation" on us. Luckily, I don't think consumers who just got done paying $1,000+ for HDTVs are going to accept the idea of having to buy a new TV for a gimmicky feature, so this won't become "the norm" for gaming.
Maybe I'm just old, but even the new 3D movies now, they look great...but they hurt my eyes by the end of the movie. That's just an hour and a half...I game a lot! Certainly longer than an hour and a half.
I smell gimmick failure in Sony's future again. I'd love for them to prove me wrong.
But at the same time there are still many people who have yet to make that jump to HDTVs. I still don't have one but I thankfully got a good deal on my PC monitor that my PS3 is hooked up to. I guess what I'm saying that 3D gaming doesn't have to be "the norm" but having the option there for those who can use it is never a bad thing. I don't think it's right to ever hold back innovation and progression.
I know I'm not really trying to hold back innovation. I would really rather people try to get away from 3D technology that uses ridiculous goggles that strain the eyes and don't fit over normal eyeglasses. There should be more research in that direction, because as long as it uses glasses it will cause headaches in many people and be inaccessible to most near- or far-sighted people.
Why can you people just let me enjoy these gimmicks?? -__-
*goes back to playing Virtual Boy*

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow
















follow