You’re not alone. It’s ridiculous and it worries me greatly.

You know what I would take in any dimension. My new profile pic!!! Where is it, oh Powers that Be?!?!?

QUOTE: “The days when people would return to see the same movie over and over again are gone with the wind.”

I disagree. Also, I dislike that pun.

I wouldn’t even mind if it was the pink Mattel hoverboard.. Did I just type that? I preferred the 3D hype when it was more of a novelty and now it’s just a bit too much.

@Omegabob – Movies used to play in theaters for MONTHS!!! Now, if you don’t get in to see a film within the first 2 weekends, the flick is pushed from 4 screens to one tiny one in the back of the theater and gone in a month.

You know why?

Because people aren’t going to see the same damn movie over and over and over again.

You used to have to wait AT LEAST 6 months before you could get a flick on DVD. Now they are out in 3.

You know why?

Because people aren’t going to see the same damn movie over and over and over again.

They just aren’t!!! Look at every weekend box office report. Most films – in particular the big event pics – plummet after the first weekend. It is rare to see a movie’s box office rise on the 2nd weekend, which is what used to happen on a fairly regular basis. Nowadays, it’s an anomaly. Avatar. The Dark Knight. Inception. Basically about once a year. ET freakin’ stayed in theaters for a year!!!

And you want to critique my writing? A wise man once said, the best way to critique a film is to make another film. So why don’t you go and publish a blog and show me how it’s done.

I’ve already got two editors. GOOD ONES!!! I don’t need a third-stringer.

He is right though. Gone are the days of Titanic.

Avatar, Lord of the Rings and Dark Knight are cases of everyone seeing it. Repeated viewings ended with Titanic.

As for 3d? It’s a fad. Until I see something revolutionary, not buying into the hype

agree. there’s nothing new with the current state of 3d technology. just more of the re-hash of the old, to squeeze more green from the fad-followers.

i’ll buy into 3d when someone develop something that i can touch and feel, not just watch. wink wink wink.

Ed, you’re my hero:

And you want to critique my writing? A wise man once said, the best way to critique a film is to make another film. So why don’t you go and publish a blog and show me how it’s done.

I’ve already got two editors. GOOD ONES!!! I don’t need a third-stringer.

On the topic of 3D, I enjoy it as a novelty. Much like I enjoy motion control. Kinect is a BLAST! I had a really good time playing the boxing game, but I still want my Fight Night when I’m in the mood for watching jaw bones break in slow motion.

I haven’t played any of the current generation games with 3D, but I’ve heard mixed reactions. I’m with you though, I won’t be excited or impressed until I feel completely immersed in a 3-D universe and bullet tracers are whizzing by my head and a direct hit is felt through some sort of sensory feedback device.

@Matthew – Great comments!!!

I agree with the novelty piece and your mention of Kinect is right on the money. At least with motion control games, they are built with a “party” in mind, for the most point. They play off the rise of social gaming – meant to get people off the couch and shaking their groove thing. The second I have people over, the dust comes off my Wii. I hope to add Kinect this year for just that same reason.

With glasses-free 3D, right now we’re stuck staring at a tiny sweet spot and hoping not to break our concentration less we lose the full effect. And of course, We’re hoping we remembered to grab a bucket of Tylenol on that last Costco excursion.

In fact, you’d think Nintendo would realize that they already brought the latest revolution to market through motion control. Of course, Microsoft went one better and removed the controller – so I would have preferred Nintendo work on perfecting that piece of tech. The fact that the 3DS has a slider allowing people to opt out of 3D completely shows that they have a sense this isn’t going to be for everyone – certainly not for extended periods of time.

But, who knows. Maybe this is just another brick in the wall (sorry, OBob – can’t help myself). Maybe 3D plus Kinect plus whatever dreams may come (there I go again) will finally bring us to the Holodeck.

Make it so!

There is an online text from oscar winning Walter Murch where he describes why
3D on screen is such an unnatural thing for the human eye (focus and convergence
not aligned).

Actually I’m already unhappy with pseudo 3D games that try to do the job
of my eye and set a focus to some object on screen and everything else is blurry.
I want everything on screen to be sharp so I can decide what to look at
and I’m not forced to focus where the game wants me to focus.
Imagine a classic jump’n run like Jumpman and everything that is not within
reach of jumpman would get blurry because that is “realistic”. Actually it is
not because I might not be looking at jumpman on the bottom of the screen,
but at the bombs coming in from above!

Hey Ed!!! Hoverboards don’t work on water…unless you got POWER!!!

3D on screen is entirely unnecessary UNLESS the experience is specifically designed from the ground up to take advantage of it the way (so I hear) Avatar did. Everything else is basically the 1950s “Comin’ at ya!” gag only now with CGI instead of someone throwing something at the camera.

See, 3D is designed to create perspective, but we get that ANYWAY from DEPTH PERCEPTION. I know that the smaller figure is farther away than the larger one. This is why when I play an FPS game, I know who is farther away from me. Adding a 3D effect….to a game that already creates a first-person perspective…..well, what’s the point?

The problem is that the technology to make 3D actually shine is still prohibitively expensive. The margins won’t justify widespread use of it when the benefit isn’t much to speak of. I mean, look at computer gaming and 2D video. It was POSSIBLE to do 3D (the “old” 3D I mean — like, what your NVidia or ATI card does) back in the 1980s. Don’t believe me? Go watch the original Tron or The Last Starfighter. The problem was that doing that kind of stuff was prohibitively expensive for gaming purposes. It was also POSSIBLE to run perfectly fluid cel animation in video games back in the 1980s….but that required sticking a laserdisc player in an arcade cabinet and popping in Space Ace or Dragon’s Lair in an age where games like Galaga were the standard.

Now, look at the video game industry. An industry dominated by certain marquee titles and myriad clones thereof. Then ask yourself “Is it likely that a game studio will actually put the money and time into developing a game that actually takes full advantage of the 3D experience….or will they just do more ‘Comin’ at ya!’ gags….which we already get in FPS gaming as it is?”

There’s another very compelling reason why this latest 3D fad is going to fizzle: economics. See, aside from things like power consumption and thinner panels, HDTVs aren’t really undergoing any kind of major improvements….other than sticking 3D processing in there. A lot of people went out and made the big switch to HD when the TV signals were finally switched to HD. That, in large part, along with the rise of DVD (and now Blu-Ray) drove the adoption of HDTVs. Now, how many of those folks do you think are about to go out and plunk down ANOTHER $2K or so JUST to get 3D processing for…what…three? Four films? It’s one thing if you didn’t buy already (I haven’t, for example), but it’s another thing entirely if you already HAVE an HDTV. Why would you spend the extra money on new gear JUST to get the 3D functionality? Hell, we JUST got HD channels for cable.

Lastly, there’s the general sense that this is all just a fad. I mean, not to say you guys aren’t up on the times, but this discussion has happened plenty of times in plenty of other fora already. Each time I’ve seen it, you get some people saying “Yeah, I like the effect, but I don’t think it’ll take of,” and others saying “This is a load of crap and a fad and it doesn’t even look good.” But what everyone seems to agree on is that 3D is a fad. If the market ALREADY believes that it isn’t going anywhere, why would they shell out cash for the systems to support it?

The only reason I’ll be getting any 3D hardware is because I’m upgrading anyway, and the stuff that handles 2D the best also happens to have 3D processing attached to it. If I could figure out a way to cut out the 3D features and knock a few bucks off the price, though, I absolutely would.

@Patrick – I love that I read that in a menacing high falsetto.

So I just tried the 3DS (w/ Street Fighter) at a local GameStop. I thought the 3D was annoying and immediately thought: “Good, now that this crap is out, I can buy a 3Di for cheaper.”

@Matthew – We’re sharing one of those cosmic cross-the-country bonds. I, too, just tried out the 3DS at a Gamestop and I came away with the exact same feeling. Well, that and a mild case of eye strain. And this was on the “showcase” title, Super Street Fighter IV 3DS (blah blah blah – I’m sure there’s more to that title but I’m not about to Google it, not with this eye strain already flaring up).

Used properly, 3D should immerse you in the entertainment. Kind of hard to forget reality when staring at 2+ inch screen. I was well aware that all around me, the nerd herd was clamoring to get their clammy mitts on the device.

So, yeah – wake me when there’s a 3DSi XL for 1/3rd the price and then maybe I’ll take the plunge.

What the hell is this Bill gate’s B******* about Nintendo club, people get a life or a JOB!

^ you sir, are an idiot.

Dear Satan – First thing I will do is get a job so I can pay for your higher education so that you can learn all about proper punctuation so that I can then understand half of what you’re trying to tell me and while I’m at it, I will also study along to help mitigate future run-on sentences like this one.

Twitch

See what you made my editor do!!!

She’s MY editor!

Ahhh… a board full of technophobes. Sure the current technology to produce 3D on TVs suck. It gives you a blinding headache and after you take off your glasses, the room starts to spin.

Why did the TV companies go to old technology with shutter glasses is beyond me. Sure, its cheaper to manufacture, (since it uses the same type of monitor) and in the end anyone who tried shutter glasses back in the 80′s would have said that the technology sucks even then.

With most games, 3D is already in the programing. Games are created in 3D and then are converted back into 2D for viewing. All that needs to be done is to unlock the 3D already in the programing. Since I do not advocate 3D shutter glasses, what other technology is available to create 3D?

The best system I have found that doesn’t make your brain bleed, is dual LCD monitors such as iZ3D. I’ve been playing the majority of my games in 3D for years and anyone who has seen what it can do, (when its configured properly) is simply amazing. No headaches. No disorientation. Why haven’t the major manufactures of TVs look to this technology? Its beyond me.

3D is great when it works properly. Since none of the 3D TVs offer dual LCD monitors, the consumer tries the shutter glasses once, and hates it. So do I.

Why go to 3D? There is no reason now, but hopefully dual HD LCD monitors will come to the market.

The only reason that iZ3D didn’t become as big as it should have is the size of the company. Its small and with only a handful employees, upgrading drivers to work on all games efficiently is beyond them. They have the right technology for 3D, its just that its not implemented well.

For those that snub 3D, why did you move to HD? Why did TVs move from CRT to flatscreen? For that matter, why did people snub typewriters since writing was good enough back in the 19th century?

Once 3D technology destroys the shutter glasses and moves into something that is far more watchable, the masses will follow.

“Ahhh… a board full of technophobes.”

We’re not technophobes. I you would have read everything, you’d have read this quote:

“The point is, I see no point in 3D gaming. None. Not as currently constituted.”

Which is precisely in-line with everything you said. We’re subbing the current trending of 3D as being a) cumbersome to use and b) usually has negative side-effects.

“For those that snub 3D, why did you move to HD?”

Because when you are talking about the sharpness and view-ability of a game, you’re referring to a totally different aspect of gaming than you are with 3D. Resolution actually aids gameplay and creates a better viewing experience for increased accuracy (e.g. multiplayer FPS). Maybe you’re dual LCD adds to the viewing experience as well, but I doubt you’re performing better because of the 3D.

The only thing any of us said was that in the cases we experienced 3D, as being put forth to the masses, 3D sucked and did almost nothing for gameplay experience.

^ sorry for the spelling/grammar issues

@Kaz – You started out seemingly disproving my thesis and only made my point. As Booth pointed out, it’s all right here in this blurb.

“The point is, I see no point in 3D gaming. None. Not as currently constituted. Until I’m jacking into the Matrix or firing up a holodeck and actually living the life, I’ve got no use for slapping on a pair of glasses that dim the screen, all so a handful of tracers can try to fool me into believing they’re headed towards my brain pan.”

It’s clear as day. Slapping on the glasses. No use for that. Nor do I have any use for Nintendo’s gimmicky handheld. And this coming from a core-Nintendofile. The 3DS does nothing for me, which is a shame – as I consider Mario, Metroid and Zelda to be my Holy Trinity. No doubt, I’ll miss out on a few installments of my beloved franchises, but if it will save me the headache, so be it.

You make some good point and I appreciate you illuminating where this can go. But as currently constituted. Sorry, they haven’t sold me yet.

@Ed – What I was trying to establish was the difference between reality and fantasy. You don’t see any point to 3D gaming since you have never used an iZ3D monitor. That’s obvious. I have seen the 3DS and I agree, it looks horrible. What you and Booth do in your arguments is throw in all 3D into the same category. Crap. If you only could see the iZ3D monitor, with polarized glasses that look great, your views are going to be tainted by your current experiences of failure in the area.

To label all 3D systems as useless and should be averted until a fantasy system takes place is a type of child’s argument. There is the reality of experiencing 3D, and when it comes down to watching a 3D movie at IMaX, it looks simply amazing. Why does it look so good? Polarized lenses that separate the two images look superior than say; red and blue anaglyph glasses. Shutter glasses are the worst for viewing and for whatever reason, the major companies that create TVs chose the wrong technology. Nintendo also chose the wrong technology, but it is NEW technology. 3D without glasses. Its an absolute failure, but thats the same thing with all technology. It goes through a rough start until the best system is found.

The correct 3D technology is there, but no company apart from iZ3D has taken hold of it. 3D in games looks absolutely unbelievable. Its far better to play in 3D than without, especially in FPS games. The level of immersion in games when you play in 3D is far better than in 2D. And that should be obvious, but then again, you have never seen 3D done right in gaming. I have.

I have had the same argument among my friends as well. Once they saw 3D the way it should be like, they too moved upon the 3D bandwagon. 3D is a beautiful way to experience movies and games, but once again, until the shutter glasses get crushed forever by a better technology, like HD dual LCDs, 3D will continue to suck.

I am hopeful that in the near future, a new 3D technology will emerge that looks brilliant. I am not waiting for a fantasy holodeck to emerge in my lifetime.

@KaZAamM – dude… we are on the same page. Pay attention to what we are saying.

“The point is, I see no point in 3D gaming. None. Not as currently constituted.”

iZ3D is not what we are against. We are not against 3D in general. We are against the crap that manufacturers are currently trying to pawn off on us.

@KaZAamM – but I do thank you for bringing up a decent application of 3D. I am anxious to see what it looks like.

When you add depth perception within games, especially in FPS games, you have a definite advantage over 2D monitors. Distance is one that the brain has a hard time with in 2D. For whatever reason, in 3D, you can spot the enemy at a distance far faster than in 2D. This should be obvious as well, but it seems this has alluded you. 3D looks great in WoW… When you are in a massive battle, its imperative to target the nearest enemy first. With a 2D monitor, its very difficult to find this objective. In 3D its almost automatic. Your reactions are faster, the sensation of a 3D environment is exhilarating and far more enjoyable.

And isn’t that what people are after? To be that more aware of your surroundings in FPS games or any type of game? To enjoy the art of games in a more exhilarating way? I hope that is your desire as well.

3D is a beautiful way to experience movies and games. I for one can’t wait till Samsung or Hitachi or Sony comes out with a better system.

What we should be doing is demanding from these companies better 3D technology and pointing them into the correct technology since they made a huge mistake with the shutter glasses. All I am saying is to not give up on the idea of 3D. Its there for the taking, all they need is the push to get it done.

Sorry Matthew, I was writing when you posted those two up. “Not as currently constituted.” alluded me since iZ3D is old. Even their monitors need work on the driver issue, so most games work, but its not in HD. Also a 22″ monitor to me is small. 27″ is the sweet spot for me and I currently use an LG 27″ HD monitor for gaming. My iZ3D is still here, but it takes awhile to set up.

This is the “right” technology for today. Easy to manufacture, and the glasses only cost 15 bucks. I just wish a major company would attempt to put one of these out. Then, and only then, will we see a real move towards 3D. Until then, we have to wait it out.

Here is an article that shows that this technology is underway, and we may be seeing this by this year!

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Samsung-Execs-No-Immediate-Plans-for-Passive-or-Glasses-Free-3D-TV.shtml

Now that we’re all on the same page (3D as it’s marketed today sucks), I am compelled to point out that “alluded” and “eluded” are two totally different things. Love you all.

@KaZAamM – I’ll check the link out a little later, but thanks for the info. I actually never did consider the benefits of 3D you mentioned. Now I actually wish I had one of those monitors to try out my favorite games on!

Matthew, I am assuming that you are on Steam. Check out my profile there. I’m sure you’ll be amazed at the selection of games I currently have on Steam alone. I have close to the same amount in boxes as well….

One thing that I must stress with 3D. 3D is unique to the individual. Even though the minimum requirement for watching 3D is possessing binocular vision, (one eyed pirates need not apply) the level of depth and popout varies between individuals.

So, if you see one of these monitors or TV’s and the picture looks disturbing, it may only need to be configured properly. The default settings may be way out sync with what you perceive as a good 3D image.

Why is it that iMaX 3D fits one and all? Simple. The dual polarized images are at the exact same distance from your eyes. There is only one surface. With dual LCD’s, the images you see are at different distances due to the duality of the monitor. So it must be configured properly for each game to maximize the 3d experience without distorting the images beyond what your vision can understand comfortably.

The idea that one can go to the nearest TV department store and look at what “seems” to be 3D, but the image sucks and that becomes your final verdict upon that product, is incredulous. When buying a new monitor or TV that is in 3D and NOT the infamous shutter system, take your time making your decision. Find out how to adjust the 3D to your vision, and then make your decision.

Be patient, in the very near future, 3D will emerge within the marketplace in a huge way. When “z panel” technology becomes affordable and easy to mass market, 3D will explode upon the scene in a gargantuan way. This is what I am waiting for. The 2 panels are almost razor thin, and there is no darkness that is produced. Unlike iZ3D, there is a considerable loss in brightness and color vibrancy. “z panels” have none of the anomalies prevalent in LCD technology.

The concept of 2 panels sandwiched together producing 2 images directly is the correct technology. “z panel” technology is what we should be aiming for, but we are currently a few years away from worldwide implementation. For now, at least, I would be satisfied with dual HD LCD systems until the better technology takes over.