David Houghton, Content Editor, GamesRadar Every so often, a new technology turns up
and instantaneously opens up a raft of new possibilities in the creation and consumption of games. Online connectivity has
transformed how we share gaming. Even the much-maligned motion control has, at times, provided genuinely immersive experiences in naturalistic game-world interaction. But so far I have found 3D to be nothing more than an opportunistic chancer, trying to blag its way into that exclusive club of game-changers using a dog-eared, photocopied fake ID and hastily assembled bum-fluff. For me, 3D adds nothing but slight and short-lived garnish at the high-cost of clarity and immersion. The effect itself brings with it the potential for no meaningful new design additions bar the same cheap jump-scare gimmicks it has peddled since the ‘50s.
As for those claims of a tangible connection to the game world? Pah. I’ve never found 3D technology to be anything other than a heaving great wrecking ball for the fourth wall. Even when done well, the effect is never natural enough to be fully immersive, creating a wibbly depth-perception uncanny valley.
All that, and I need to recalibrate my much-prized, none-more-anally honed TV picture settings to counteract the lens tint? Seriously people, why are we doing this?
Journalist
Joe Robinson, Deputy Editor, Strategy Informer The main issue I have with 3D technology in
general is that I personally think it’s come too early.
Now that the HD-format war is long over and high definition content is catered for in nearly every corner of technology, it’s painfully obvious that companies were just looking for a new band- wagon to jump on.
And so they have used 3D as their new vessel for over-priced and unnecessary products.
NO “
I know several households that
don’t even have HDTVs yet, and I don’t know anyone who has made the leap to 3D gaming – even among hardcore PC enthusiasts. Right now 3D is little more than a gimmick, and an expensive one at that. Don’t get me wrong – I played a bit of Crysis 2in 3D, and it did lookpretty good, but in terms of gameplay and functionality, it did nothing for the game. Considering 3D gaming requires the use of extra (and expensive) 3D glasses (not to mention yet another TV), to justify the extra expense, something like 3D really needs to add more than a nice visual touch to the gameplay experience. Nintendo, bless their hearts, have tried to get around that particular issue with glasses-less 3D, but again it’s little more than a
Retailer
With any luck, the bubble will burst and everyone will realise it’s too soon for 3D.
Joe Robinson, Strategy Informer
One of the biggest complaints against 3D gaming is the headaches caused by the glasses
24 January 27th 2012
gimmick. Then there’s the fact that a percentage of the population can’t even interact with 3D content, and the headaches it can cause amongst others.
With any luck, the bubble will burst and everyone will realise it’s too soon, and perhaps everything will calm down. There’s a time and a place for something like 3D –it’s just not now.
Simon Kilby, Founder, Playr2 There’s a reason Nintendo had to cut the cost of the 3DS
after only a few months – and that’s because your casual gamer just doesn’t care about 3D gaming. Another example is with Batman: Arkham Asylum’s Game of the Year edition. I must have played the game using the included 3D glasses for a grand total of a couple of minutes, before getting wound up and throwing them in rage for completely ruining the experience. I don’t know what it is about 3D, but the apparent need to force it upon consumers across film, TV and gaming has to stop. If something doesn’t add to the experience, it shouldn’t be employed in the first place. The gaming industry is better than resorting to fads.