[chipsy]

Speaking as a game dev, the current 3D still isn't good enough for games, IMHO. As you said, it's incremental.

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.

[eru]

Yes, 2D jump-and-runs tend to work better than 3D ones. At least gameplay wise--you can have a 3D look, but still confine your gameplay to 2D (or 2+1/2D, if you have layers or so). However I feel that first person shooters really benefit from 3D.

(And I admit that controlling a first person shooter in 3D with a mouse and a keyboard is more complex than most people are comfortable with. It's a skill that I needed to learn, too.

On the other, a certain level of experience and skill is also necessary to enjoy games like soccer or chess.)