Thoughts on 3D movies, tv, and gaming
I figured I'd try and figure this out. The whole thing kind of confuses me. I don't see the point to 3D movies or television. The average experience I've had with it so far has been negative. The movies are hailed as amazing and groundbreaking but they are usually drab and unoriginal. I've also heard about how they are ruling the box office but my experience has been that the better a movie does in theaters the longer the wait for it to come to video. Yet the 3D movies are going to video faster. It's just distracting and takes away from the scene half the time. Also it causes blurring whenever there is motion.
As for the televisions I haven't found anyone who would actually buy them yet. I keep hearing about how they don't see why they'd pay for another new television again, especially when they don't want to watch television in 3D. This leads to my next point.
3D gaming just seems like a gimmick to me. It's a money sink and I can't see it really improving my gaming experience. The games that are coming out are easier, shorter, uninspired on average and I can't see making the game pop out at me changing any of those things.
I want to hear your takes on it now.
As for the televisions I haven't found anyone who would actually buy them yet. I keep hearing about how they don't see why they'd pay for another new television again, especially when they don't want to watch television in 3D. This leads to my next point.
3D gaming just seems like a gimmick to me. It's a money sink and I can't see it really improving my gaming experience. The games that are coming out are easier, shorter, uninspired on average and I can't see making the game pop out at me changing any of those things.
I want to hear your takes on it now.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
As far as incorporating the technology for home use... Well, I'd like to get a new TV, but I'm not really in the market right now. If I was, I certainly wouldn't mind getting a 3D TV...if it wasn't so ridiculously expensive. At this point, I consider it a gimmick that might be sort of cool but certainly isn't worth the expense. And on that front, I can't see the point in 3D gaming either.
However, I do find myself excited about the 3DS...but for three main reasons almost entirely unconnected to the 3D aspect. Certainly, the thing has to be fairly powerful to support 3D, and I think it shows in the clarity of the display. It definitely appears to be a step up from the DS. Second, there's the analog stick. I admit, it took a game like Kingdom Hearts to make me wish that the DS had more buttons, mainly because this is the first game where the amount of control I wanted exceeded the number of buttons, but the touch screen was unavailable to fill this need due to the type of gameplay. I'm hoping that the analog stick will help fill this need, and hopefully it'll be better than the PSP "nub". And third, I'm excited for it because while there's one DSiWare game that I want, I just don't see the DSi as a big enough step up from the DS Lite to be worth the purchase. With a new DS model with actual new features on the way, this solves the problem for me.
And I know this isn't a thread to talk about the 3DS's other features, I wanted to really illustrate the point that while I'm excited about it...I could basically care less about the 3D.
So overall...yeah, I agree. 3D is sort of a cool technology, but it's mainly used as a gimmick that seems to have a tendency to overshadow actual creativity while draining the wallets of people who choose to indulge it far more than it's worth.
I much prefer 2D movies that I can actually watch.
As far as the 3DS goes, I wouldn't really care but they're releasing a new Paper Mario on it so I'll probably get it at some point. Just not at release.
Having said that, I did see Up in 3D and thought it was an appropriate use of 3D, not too much, not too little, and I didn't walk out of the theater with my head splitting open, so I suppose it could be well done.
If you say 3D excludes people who are blind on one eye and shouldn't exist, then color TV shouldn't exist either, because people are color blind, or TV at all, because there are people who are blind on both eyes.
I think the only ones doing it right are cinemas, where they give you the 3D glasses and you feel immersed with the huge screen and sound system and all, and I think that the 3DS is doing it right, not requiring any glasses, and giving you the hardware and the software together instead of requiring you to buy a TV + receiver + expensive movies + glasses + everything. Haven't seen the 3DS's 3D yet, but I heard it's awesome.
I'm not interested in a 3D TV or 3D home console at this point.
3D has the potential of bringing some additional entertainment value. Unfortunately there are downsides; all of the current technologies have problems. Movies are sometimes just cheap cash-ins and the 3D effect isn't even done well in all cases. (For example; some 3D movies are recorded in 2D and the 3D effect is added in post production. This gives an unconvincing, "layered" look). Even if done right technically, some movies spend way too much time throwing stuff at the screen just to show you that "hey, it's in 3D!"
I can see why the cinemas are doing so much 3D these days, it's a way of getting people out of their homes, and it might reduce piracy somewhat. This strategy will of course only work for as long as 3D TVs aren't common in private homes.
I don't really see the big appeal of 3D in the home right now though. There are still too many drawbacks with the current technologies, and there's not yet enough 3D content available to justify purchasing a 3D TV screen.
It seems more useful for games than for movies, because you can make existing 3D-rendered games utilize the 3D effect on a modern 3D display. Existing movies on the other hand cannot easily be converted to 3D with good results.
I like 3D when it's done really well and it looks nice and natural, but interestingly that often means that after a while I forget that I'm watching 3D. I assume this is why some movies love to throw stuff at the screen, but that distracts from the experience in my opinion.
3D display technologies:
Also, something I didn't know: only the top screen supports 3D. I'm not surprised, and it makes sense, I just didn't already know this.
It doesn't seem as tangibly film-enhancing as HD did, because by the reviews it's just a way of making parlour tricks which would probably distract me from the actual program.
Fast wireframe 3D, fast polygon filled 3D, fast textured 3D, hardware accelerated (fast) 3D, flexible shader 3D, fast shader 3D, 3D on mobiles, fast and reasonable stereoscopic 3D, ...
I think this will go on for another decades, until we'll have reached a sufficient quality&performance level.
Hmm. I choose none of the above.
Until I get a chance to see the 3DS in action for myself in person, I will remain utterly unvconvinced about anything being in 3D. Until we get rid of the glasses, it will always remain gimmicky to me, and I can't stand that it suddenly seems to be making a massive comeback.
I probably won't remain convinced until we can do 3D films or TV shows without making us wear glasses, by which point they may as well just get rid of the screen entirely and just have it as a hologram. That'd be awesome.
but for some people (Ex. Rather Dashing) it is just a huge pain.
so I like it, but I hope it dosen't become the Everything must be done in this thing
Are special effects "bad" ?
No.
But anything that relies on any technological aspect to be its main selling point sucks.
If in 10 years 3D is so widely used than no one even notices it anymore, then i won't care about it. Until then, it's probably gona keep pissing me off more than anything else.
The polarized 3D crap has been around for 70+ years.
I agree with Lena P that the whole thing is a fad that keeps cropping up. My problem with it though is the fact that it's annoying. We are trading substance and go camera shots for the fact that it looks like something might possibly pop out at you? It's like if Telltale told you that they were going to make a 3D version of the first season of Sam and Max but it would have blissful Max for the whole thing and the jokes were being removed entirely. I know I'm being slightly more dramatic but it happens. The remake of Clash of the Titans was awful. They didn't think about the story line or the characters they only thought of how best to showcase a movie in 3D. While it might look cheesy I'll take the original any day.
But I am a huge fan of 4D movies, had a great time when I watched a little movie in Lego Land and Thorp Park. And the added physical effects was even more fun.
So little movies meant for it is ok, but don't include it to the big screen, its to strenuous on the brain.
I mean, it seems like most of the time film makers are faking the shots you see. They're not in a huge mansion, they're in a relatively small set. The actors weren't really ten feet from that massive fireball, they were fifty feet away and were actually stunt doubles. It seems like it'd be hard to create a sense of depth when it didn't exist in real life.
But animated features shouldn't have that problem, should they?
And because people throw fits like this over graphics, because so much of the consumer base places them on this pedestal, the Wii often gets passed over for certain titles because it can't keep up graphically. That's bullshit. I don't regret opting for the Wii as my console of choice, but it's gotten to the point where I can't get by with it as my only console anymore, and I'm having to save up for a PS3.
And my point in bringing this up here is that this isn't just limited to gamers, it's just that many of them are particularly bad about it so they make a good example. My point is that our culture is, like the article says, obsessed with shiny things. And as long as media companies see that it works, they'll continue to produce media that favors visuals over substance.
Don't get me wrong, good graphics, good special effects and a voice actor who happens to also be a big star can all be fine. But because they happen to work with the rest, not as a minimum requirement regardless of quality.
Anyways. I wouldn't have a problem with 3D if I could actually see it. As long as they keep making both versions available I'm ok with it, though, I'm not against it on principle or anything like that.
Also, I'm very happy with the Wii. At some point around... March, I think, my husband suggested we get another console, though. He was interested in the X-box 360 due to the... Bioware, is it? titles. I couldn't care less about either the PS3 and Xbox 360, but he put me in charge of researching which would be better because "I'm good with these things", apparently.
I asked a few people, got pretty set on not wanting the PS3, talked to more people while mentioning I was leaning towards the 360, got lots of opinions about how the 360 sucked...
Long story short, the choice was: neither. And now, 3 or so month later, we're both pretty happy we didn't get either (we were actually talking about it recently).
So... I don't think it's that essential. But of course I'm less of a gamer than most people here, and I've always favoured handheld anyways (didn't have to share them).
Well. I just lost my rant on the subject because the forum didn't let me post it, but this sentence sums it all up anyway, so 'ill leave it to that.
Technology sucks anyway. Off to throw this computer out the window and start living like a caveman.
There are similarities. Wanting everything to be 3D and wanting to add more pixels and wanting to add more CGI and so on are similar.
Technology rocks. But the point of technology isn't, in my opinion, "let's push this specific thing more and more and more!" but "let's use technology to fit our needs". These things are too one-tracked for my tastes. Technology isn't a single track thing, it's more like a tree, each new improvement can lead to many different things. Why only focus on a specific aspect and try to push it past a reasonable point?
And why, as a consumer, wanting something bigger every time there is a new release? "It HAS to have better graphics" or "it HAS to be a long movie" or whatever, I just find that ridiculous. Why don't you try to enjoy the game or movie as a whole? Graphics and special effects and the like are only tools use to tell the story (if there is one). Caring only about these is like caring about the font of you book more than its words. Or even caring more about the cover. It just beats me. Technology is a means, not an end. It's good to find ways to improve it constantly, but don't lose sight of the end, because if there isn't one, what's the point?
What Avistew said. The weird thing is, this isn't the first time recently that I've posted somewhere and used a somewhat distant analogy without tying it as securely to the main subject as I intended.
But yeah, my point was that this is a problem prevalent in multiple aspects of our culture, and the video game thing is just a more exaggerated example of the problem behind 3D movies, driven by the same cultural flaw, and as such, I felt that it did a better job of illustrating that flaw.
Don't worry, i pretty much agree and was just trying to be funny.
As you said, technique is only a tool.
A hammer doesn't suck and is actually pretty cool and useful. But hanging a hammer on the wall in a museum would sound pretty stupid, wouldn't it ? (maybe they'll do in a few centuries tho, in some exposition about our barbaric age, but hey that's not the point).
It's the obsessing about technique that sucks and somehow makes me wanna run away from anything "shiny".
So yeah, you're right, technology doesn't suck, but hanging it on walls does.
Ooga Booga.
It really compared well once the connection was there and it's easier to see several other connections to industry problems that are exemplified in 3D. The fact that it's not about making a better product, that they aren't looking at what people are wanting to see, the way that they are looking for the easiest route to making a buck. It's all there. It's really not me being upset over 3D or feeling that it shouldn't be there. It's more of how it reminds me of all the other things that bug me about the industries that I patronize and I think that I'm not the only one that feels that way. But as always I could be wrong, and I could be rambling.
Except that the general consensus seems to be that you're right. Not that that necessarily means anything, but I'm inclined to think it does. Of course, I'm part of that consensus, so...
Sure, the glasses are fairly silly, but they work really well.
"come back when I have a holodeck, ala Star Trek"
The 3DS is most definitely a step in the right direction, with being able to scale the 3D on a slider (which may be analogue) along with not needing glasses. On top of this there are those that have only sight in one eye, who are entirely deprived of the experience with current tech. 3D is being pushed out the door faster than it should as Sony are in a hole financially. Hitachi are ahead of them with the physical tech, which is the screen used in the 3DS.