Published on 25th May 2011 by
Originally Posted by steve30x...last week I tried shutter glasses. 3D just does not work for me. With shutter glasses the only difference I saw was a flickering image.
Originally Posted by OCJunkieAgain that's the huge difference between indie games and huge corporate outfits who continually find new gimmicks to push their BS rehashed products down our throats. Just give it enough time with disappointing sales and the 3D gimmick will disappear, making way for the next fad.
On the other hand, surround gaming has genuinely and legitimately changed my whole gaming experience and I'll never go back to a single display--can't say that much for 3D though...
Originally Posted by Grape FlavorOh look, more anti-3D soapboxing from bit-tech. Why don't you guys let people decide for themselves about 3D and focus on some real content please? We get it, 3D is horrible lens flare gimmick AIDS and we will die if we use it. Now let's move on, please?
Oh and I find it hilarious how everyone who gets headaches from 3D therefore declares the whole concept to be inherently rubbish. Science has proven about 15% of people can't see in 3D - it's your brain that's defective, buddy. Don't expect anyone to admit that anytime soon though lest they bruise their own ego.
This whole anti-3d crusade is so incredibly tiresome considering it's COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. If you don't like it, don't use it. But all this incessant whining from all corners of the internet like 3D killed your sister really needs to stop...
Originally Posted by ZurechialI think the opinions of the indie devs are the most interesting and perhaps the only ones worth listening to because they're possibly the only informed industry commenters who don't have a vested interest or a gun to their head about these kinds of fads..
Originally Posted by CardJoeFunny; I thought we were asking others for their opinions, rather than voicing our own. I also thought we heard from the other side of the industry in the two previous articles...
Originally Posted by Grape FlavorYeah, I'm sorry, could have phrased that better, I sounded kind of hostile. I'm just sick of all this debate and the venom against 3D. If you don't like it, don't use it. I do appreciate your investigating the issue but again: 3D is entirely optional. So when it really comes down to it this "debate" is over nothing - I don't quite see the point in all this internet fussing over whether any particular individual thinks it is or isn't rubbish.
Originally Posted by KayinBlackAny tech that makes up to 20% of people possibly physically ill isn't going to go far.
Like it or not, 3D isn't going to be able to stay or become the mainstream. Far too many hurdles to its acceptance.
Originally Posted by feathersIt's clear from the recent 3d features here at Bit Tech that many readers regard 3d as a sales gimmick and something that has no place being here. I've encountered this mentality some years ago when promoting body vibration systems and the use of Fresnel lenses to create immersive games. I think the masses are against anything that isn't standard issue pc hardware. I'm surprised they even accepted 3d sound.
These people seem to regard 3d as purely a sales gimmick that "failed before and now they're trying to sell it again". That couldn't be further from the truth. Stereoscopic hardware has been in development a long time and it will continue to grow and become more refined. It looks to me like there's a whole bunch of complainers out there who hate anything non-standard. I for one don't want a conventional gaming PC or multimedia experience. I've used body vibration systems for games, movies and music since the 80's, fresnel lenses and any hardware I can to increase the sense of realism.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
6th February 2016
4th February 2016
3rd February 2016
© Copyright bit-tech