|
|
|
|
|
by frossie
5888 days ago
|
|
I am old enough to remember when our households transitioned from a B&W TV to a colour TV and I absolutely guarantee you that that the reaction was one of unalloyed joy. No "bah-it-looked-better-before" in sight. The difference is that in B&W you have no idea if the grass is a lush green or a parched brown, whereas in real life you make that determination in an instant.. The problem with 3D is, as Roger Ebert points out, that your brain already derived the 3D based on a 2D image. So the improvement is incremental, if that. The real issue is whether 3D has a real potential in gaming, where gameplay is frequently first-person, as opposed to movie, where the experience is almost always third-person. Or, to put it another way, if you can't turn the camera around, you don't need a 3-D environment. |
|
It is the case that game design sacrificed precision control to get the 3D look+feel when it was first introduced: for example, 3D platforming essentially has not progressed beyond Mario 64, and that game is still somewhat uncomfortable to "pick up and play" despite all its refinements; the extra dimension just makes everything far more complex. Adding the glasses helps regain some of the depth cues that make complex movement difficult, but then we're dumping on even more equipment, and gaming is already more complex than it needs to be for most audiences. A full solution would need to be convenient and unobtrusive.