I just played grand turismo 5 in 3d. Can't say I'm amazed. I certainly would not invest in a 3d setup right now. It actually gave me a headache after a few minutes. Is it the saving grace that Sony seems to think it will be? Is Microsoft right in seemingly not caring at all? Is nintendo.... (haha, had you going there didn't I? Nintendo still thinks most new tv sales are CRTs it seems!) Maybe if some game utilizes it as a game mechanic, but that won't happen either. Just thoughts.
I reckon Nintendo are going to invest heavily into the 3D market and I think the 3DS is their trial product. The Wii was unique because of it's "unique" motion controls, their next gen home system will have to have an angle in order to succeed. Many non-gamers invested in the Wii because it was something new and different, even the elderly love it. There's a huge new market who will be expecting another twist from Nintendo. I think 3D will be it.
I've read industry related articles that argue the current lineup of consoles (well, ps3 and xbox) could be here for the next several years. From a hardware perspective if the big three could somehow spend zero on hardware r&d and the whole losing x$ on every unit sold, I recon they wound do just that. I believe in the past they pushed out tech so fast to keep a foot ahead, but as it stands now they aren't really competing as much as each have carved out their own markets in a way. But maybe nintendo I'd waiting for built in 3d sets before launching. Is that 3ds really 3d gaming? I argue no, it is not. Games are defined by living room experiences, and I can't see the 3ds exploding and changing the way we game like ps2 or xbox live did.
Fair points. But Nintendo are going to have to do something when those new consoles finally hit. Even if it's 5-6 years from now. They've had so much success with being the odd one out that it would seem fitting for them to put a spin on whatever comes next. Unless it's 3D they're probably going to make something seriously powerful and stick in Wii/GC backwards compatibility. I'm still expecting Apple to take a shot at the home market too.
I would like to see that. However I imagine that after another year of tepid 3dtv sales, the CE industry pushes out 3d-sans glasses sets faster than we would imagine. If that is the case, then sony already has what... 11 first party games all sporting 3d launching this year? And microsoft has added that the xbox can indeed output the technology but does not advocate developers use it. I hope nintendo isnt marginalized again. You can only innovate video gaming so much, and indeed motion controllers were a big step. So if that happens, nintendo better have an ace up its sleeve. maybe they are the only company that really "gets" 3d and creates experiences made for it. Then again, the requires that nintendo have a huge base of 3dtv owners to sell to, and that is cutting (if not bleeding edge) as of now. The future is murky!
To me, 3D today is just like 3D in the 80's. A gimmick. Everytime i hear / read about anything about this, i remember an LG commercial where a family is amazed of the "technology" and then the family dog appears, also with 3D Glasses, watching the TV. That's just pathetic.
Well the current TVs are using LCD shutter technology that has been around for nearly 30 years now, the only difference is that they update faster so you get less flickering, but Highway Star (Rad Racer) on the Famicom still looks as 3D as Gran Turismo 5 does. Gran Turismo 5 is nice in 3D but unless you are in cockpit view the effect is a little lost, although Clubman Stage 5 does look amazing as the night time views work a lot better then daytime ones. However the screen does get darker (because of the flickering LCD lenses) and the glasses do get uncomfortable after a short space of time, endurance races would kill you. Passive screens have been available on the PC for a while, these use more basic polarised lenses so if feels you are wearing a comfortable pair of sunglasses, although it does require a lot more setting up but the effect is just as good and has a lot less eyestrain. The Nintendo 3DS seems to use a inbuilt passive technology so you can see a 3D image without glasses, although you can't move you head too much or the screen will blur, I've been told it has a 20 degree viewing angle... As for Yes as Nintendo have never done any 3D products before, no such thing as the Famicom 3D headset or the Virtual Boy.... Still although I love play GT5 in 3D when I can, I would not spend the vast sums of money that it costs to get a 3D screen.
Not really. The 360 and PS3 directly compete with each other, and they both want a portion of the casual crowd the Wii has attracted. They're all very much in competition with each other. Your gaming is defined by living room experiences. This is not universal, by any stretch. Why are you comparing it to consoles? Surely the DS is the better comparison, and you'd be hard pushed to claim that it didn't change the way we play handheld games.
@Jamtex. Many of todays younger gamers weren't around for the blue and red glasses of the 80's 90's so the famicom and virtual boy can't really give them any indication of how the tech is going to be received today. I'd like to look upon the ream-mergence of 3D as a fad but when major film studios as well as cable/satellite providers are pushing it more and more I think it's sadly here to say. Any developer who burnt their fingers on the virtual boy and other failed gimmicks are probably having to take a step back and look at the 3D market again.
This is also the inherent problem with 3D: everyone views the world differently, but every 3D approach is trying to solve it universally. Even with lenses which correct for focal and astigmatism problems, the human brain simply perceives depth differently for each person. This is why I hate the current trend to try and force 3D into everything, because I simply do not see it being feasible outside of a head-mounted system. You need individual focal length adjustment, separate eye-tracking, head tracking and a hell of a lot of horsepower to keep the display up to date with the continual adjustments for normal body/eye movement in order to really have a functional 3D system. Sure, you can do what everyone is doing now with multiple screens/shutters, but it is still just a crappy gimmick that does not work.
No, the nintendo DS didn't change the way people look at handheld games at all... The original gameboy did. The iPhone has also changed the way we play games, meaning that getting the games and the cost is now radically different on the iPhone and the idea of a real handheld gaming console didn't exist before gameboys active matrix display existed. The ds did not change things. Adding a stylus and essentially more screen space isn't revolutionary.
3D is here to stay. It won't be long before the majority of LCD/plasma TV panel production lines are switched over to 3D production. It's being pushed upon upon consumers at an alarming rate, unfortunately. I really think that the PlayStation 4 will be mainly focused on 3D gaming. After all, Sony sell 3D Bravia TVs, Blu-ray players, etc. and need to expand their market. That being said, Sony won't release their next console for a good couple of years yet until the market and the economy is ready to accept it. The current PS's 3D gaming and Blu-ray capabilities and the Move will keep the console going until then and keep the early-adopters happy. I don't think we'll see a new Xbox for a good couple of years either, that's what Kinect was for. Microsoft won't push the whole 3D thing as much as Sony, but the machine will of course be fully capable of doing it. I also reckon that an upgraded version of Kinect will be an integral part of the system and included in the box from the start. As for Nintendo, well, they seem to be the wild card. After the fantastic success of the DS and Wii they are easily in a position to deliver a console that's actually on-par with the competition hardware wise. The fact that they're investing in a 3D handheld at least shows that they're looking to the future, which is great. The main thing Nintendo need to do is get their online experience up to the standard of XBL and PSN; It might also keep their hardware a little more secure I can see the current Wii controller set-up being fine tuned and evolving into something more fantastic than anyone can possibly imagine, similar to how the NES pad evolved into the SNES pad. Nintendo will definitely be first to market with a new home console. If they are then it won't be a 3D focused system. It will probably be capable of doing it, like the current PS3, but Nintendo have to get over the shock of discovering HDMI and 1080p first. Like I said, 3D is being pushed upon consumers at an alarming rate and the console manufacturers are inevitably going to have to produce 3D capable machines. After all, it's what the consumers will expect (or rather, what they're told to expect). However, 2D-2D games will still exist, just look how awesome New SMB, Muramasa and BlazBlue are. And of course, we'll still see a lot of 2D-3D adventure platformers, but these will be the ones that get the full 3D treatment too (ahem* movie licences).
I want holography Star Trek style damnit. This "3D" is nice but after seeing Avatar in theaters in 3D and then in 1080p on my laptop the difference seemed to mostly be in the color vibrancy more than the 3D aspects. Though for that movie the 3D seemed better but in the way that ice cream is better with toppings.
+1 on the holodeck even though it would totally destroy humanity as we know it. We'd all just settle into our holodeck cubes and hook up their powergrids directly to the sun, playing them endlessly until virtual reproduction killed real reproduction and civilisation came to an end. Anyway wishful thinking and OT convo aside...
There are many issues with holography, and the most important to me is not the technical one. To be able to present a sequenced image/audio narrative (aka a movie) in a way that is 360 degrees viewable means a dynamic type of directorship. Although I understand that this is desirable for say, science stuff, it's not really the ideal vessel for the art of classical movie making. Games wouldn't benefit much either, considering that if holograms kicked in you'd be able to examine the world periscopically instead of using the right stick to shift camera angles but how desirable is that? to move all around a focal point all the time seems silly. I am actually in favour of immersive 3D. That means the ability to project seemingly 3D objects in actual space, even a white room would do but again, that would detract from the practicality of what is a television set - which needs no special space, takes up a corner and you're set to go.
