Will Gaming Get Lost in the Third Dimension?

Jan 20, 2010 by  

gaming-get-lost-3d

The success of James Cameron’s Avatar has undeniably changed the way mainstream entertainment consumers view 3D – moving the medium from niche applications (mostly horror and children’s movies) to a whole new level of immersion altogether.

Where previous 3D endeavors were built around the notion of constantly reminding the viewer that they were seeing something in 3D, i.e. explosions flinging debris into the face of the audience, Avatar elected to present viewers with a straight-forward experience that simply looked incredible in 3D. There are very few moments in Avatar that stuck out as overt attempts to remind the audience how cool the 3D experience was; instead, these moments simply utilized the technology to further immerse the viewer in the world of Pandora.

But what does this newly fashioned 3D experience mean for gamers (and entertainment lovers in general)?

At the beginning of the month, during Sony’s CES press conference, the company unveiled a plan to make an aggressive push to incorporate 3D technology in many of their upcoming product lines, in an attempt to position themselves as “an undisputed global leader in 3D.” While the technology is certainly impressive, and quieted a lot of dissenters that felt 3D home theatre tech couldn’t satisfy consumers who had grown accustom to HD visuals, Sony’s 3D TVs still require the use of the “shutter glasses” which make the effect possible. Sony has yet to reveal the cost of the glasses but most industry estimates put their price point between $200-$400 a piece at launch.

sony-3d-shutter-glasses

The necessity for the glasses inherently changes how we interact with our home theatre, games, etc. ESPN 3D is a great notion, but watching Sunday football – what used to be a simple social gathering, where the biggest concern was deciding who would be picking up the pizza bill, would now have potentially expensive hurdles for participation.

Everyone would need a pair of the costly shutter glasses to enjoy the action. Also, any quasi-spectators who might be busy preparing buffalo chicken wings for the group, and can’t focus their attention solely on the display would no longer have the luxury of sneaking peaks at the action – not to mention that anyone with astigmatism or other eye problems might not even be able to see the 3D effects. The result – something that was once an unbiased social event could instead become an isolating one.

Similar to 3D, over the course of the last decade video games have begun to break free of their niche market – enticing casual consumers back down piranha pipes and into the fields of Hyrule. Titles have become more cinematic, the notion of onlookers (friends and significant others) actually watching someone play through a single campaign for hours has become more common. Common enough that Sony made a commercial about it.

But the difference between the reemergence of 3D and that of video games, though they are both improved evolutions of their predecessors, is that one has re-invigorated consumers with the ability to engage with others, through online gameplay and vibrant console communities such as Xbox Live, while the other promises an immersive but isolating experience.

Click to continue reading our feature on the future of 3D gaming

« 1 2View All»

5 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. I just can't really decide how I feel about 3D in gaming. I loved Avatar just as much as the next person, but do I want to see every movie from now on in 3D? Hell no. I think the same can be said for video games. One or two developers may have the money and marbles to actually pull it off (like Cameron did), but for the most part it will be done poorly, if at all.

    I would like to see developers focus more on quality writing and innovative gameplay, not to mention “fun factor,” than trying to push the limit with the latest graphics or cutting edge technologies. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case, and I think the modern game market suffers a bit as a result.

    Sure, I like my games to look nice these days, but, if that's all it has to offer, count me out. Forget the 3D until you have good designers and writers. :)

  2. I definitely feel the same way, there are some incredible titles out these days that blur the lines between artistry and entertainment. Uncharted 2 was a testimony to how a multi-faceted title could provide a great story, excellent visuals, and fun gameplay.

    Next to that kind of engaging experience – 3D feels like a gimmick.

  3. While I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of 3D entertainment…I don't think it's quite time for it to enter the gaming industry. Hell, it's already expensive as it is to implement into film.

    Being fully immersed in a video game is definitely something that would cause severe enjoyment for some, although I wouldn't believe it to have a huge impact on my gaming experience.

    While the future of technology is always something to be excited for, I guess I won't have a problem if it's just me, a controller, and a TV. Then again, feeling like I'm knee deep in war doesn't seem like it would be a boring experience. 3D technology is going to be great for certain genres, but for others, it would seem like such a waste. My biggest fear is that it could turn into something gimmicky and almost forced upon the user…Early PS3 motion control, anyone?

  4. Sounds pretty stupid to me. Games are realistic enough these days as is, not to mention challeging. Having a zombie look like it's coming out of the screen and right towards me while I'm trying to solve a puzzle is more of a distraction than anything else. Besides, this kind of reeks of fail.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.