Nintendo 3DS - 3D handheld system *no glasses*

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rathji

3D will never truly take off in the gaming world without a fully compatible motion control system of some type. As it has been pointed out in this thread, people see in 3D so displays will need to be 3D in order to provide the most realistic experience. Same line of thinking goes for movement, because people don't dodge things with their thumbs.

A huge chunk of the video game industry uses realistic graphics with non-realistic controls. Saying 3D is to 2D what IPS is to TN is kind of laughable. It's more like what colour is to black and white, or HD to SD. IMO there will always be a market for games that don't use motion control, but there may be a time long after the introduction of autosterescopic TVs when 2D gaming has largely gone out the window.

[Rathji]

I will take your word for it. Maybe I am just under valuing how it would be to play something like Call of Duty on a 3D screen.

[Pastiche]

As I see it, the only way 3D would really make a difference to gaming beyond being another gimmicky graphical element is being able to dynamically update perspective. I don't know if that will ever be possible but I'm thinking about that guy on youtube who made the 3D glasses using the wii remote and when he moved his head around the 3D elements changed.

So say if you're playing an FPS, if you move your head slightly to see around corners or above trees then that could dramatically change gameplay. Otherwise, it seems kind of gimmicky to me. More gimmicky than motion controls.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

As I see it, the only way 3D would really make a difference to gaming beyond being another gimmicky graphical element is being able to dynamically update perspective. I don't know if that will ever be possible but I'm thinking about that guy on youtube who made the 3D glasses using the wii remote and when he moved his head around the 3D elements changed.

So say if you're playing an FPS, if you move your head slightly to see around corners or above trees then that could dramatically change gameplay. Otherwise, it seems kind of gimmicky to me. More gimmicky than motion controls.

I agree totally, but I have never played a 3D game

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

As I see it, the only way 3D would really make a difference to gaming beyond being another gimmicky graphical element is being able to dynamically update perspective. I don't know if that will ever be possible but I'm thinking about that guy on youtube who made the 3D glasses using the wii remote and when he moved his head around the 3D elements changed.

So say if you're playing an FPS, if you move your head slightly to see around corners or above trees then that could dramatically change gameplay. Otherwise, it seems kind of gimmicky to me. More gimmicky than motion controls.

No reason you couldn't combine head tracking and 3D (going from 2D to 3D is incredibly simple... basically most stuff is already 3D, but there's a few common things that mess stuff up), but I don't get how 3D is a "gimmicky" graphical element. I don't see how, say, Battlefield BC 2, isn't gimmicky with one eye, but is with two. The games stay the same. Currently (the 3DS will change this), the games are the same in 3D and 2D, just with and without depth.

[photon]

[Nage Waza]

Some people are very narrow minded...

I would imagine that the first 3d games will consist of very plush environments. For example, the foliage could bring a very real sense of depth to the screen. Maybe an explosion comes out of the screen, or the credits roll down the screen in 3d. There are all sorts of things that can take place in 3d that actually have nothing to do with gameplay, but everything to do with making a richer deeper experience. That I am all for.
I found motion controls to be nothing more than suitable for a few select games, yet 3d could be a part of every game. And that is the big difference.