Personally, I feel that it's a tad too early to try to bring this technology into gaming. Not that it's a bad thing, because it's not, but the mainstream gamers, I feel, won't really jump on this until it becomes much more vast than just 2 or 3 games.
I think 3D gaming is the best direction for gaming to go, starting next gen. Dabble in it now, but go full force next gen.
3D doesn't really work (TO ME) in movies, because we see things in 3-D already so there a natural inclination to think you're watching the movie in 3-D already.
However, in games you're in a 3-D environment, but there's no true sense of depth to it, and 3-D games would allow that sense of depth to be there.
You'll actually be able to see the depth in 3D and therefore feel the speed without the game having to bend the world, or do some special effects, to make it feel like you're going fast.
I also want to use 3D with 1:1 motion controls plus head tracking. O_O
Yeah I tried it at Microcenter, and Call of Duty World at War, and Burnout are so much better. Guitar Hero doesn't really have anything to gain, but the other 2 felt like a compltet upgrade.
I am sure games are headed in that direction, but not sure if that's a good thing. You see, 3D is what the movie industry turns to when their sh*t out of luck, money, and ideas. I think that the Industry is still healthy and sustainable enough without it. Features like 3D (a lot like motion control) seem to only be a temporary gimmick as they always require either extra useless peripherals or expensive equipment, such as the upcoming uber-expensive 3D capable TV's. Maybe in a few years, when more of the equipment needed is readily available and much cheaper.
I couldn't agree more, these are all fair points. However, unlike the extra peripheral/gimmick malarky - perhaps this genuinely could be pulled off for an artistic directors effect, as opposed to being another marketing tool to sell a game.
If it can be done in a non-gimmicky way, I think it has potential. Although, consider this: the majority of gamers today still aren't playing on HD sets, and we're well into the HD generation of gaming. If it's taken people this long to upgrade to HD, just think about another, arguably bigger, upgrade to 3D.
I have done it, it is very very very cool for single player games, not the stuff popping out of the screen, but the feel of depth. It is not great for multiplayer games, as you feel disadvantaged, due to it feeling a bit odd.
A review, of what is considered to be the best 3D setup:
I actually got a chance to play Need For Speed Shift in 3D. The tech they used incorporated the use of polarized glasses, and it was very good. The use of glasses is what kills the experience though.
Personally, I feel that it's a tad too early to try to bring this technology into gaming. Not that it's a bad thing, because it's not, but the mainstream gamers, I feel, won't really jump on this until it becomes much more vast than just 2 or 3 games.
I am sure games are headed in that direction, but not sure if that's a good thing. You see, 3D is what the movie industry turns to when their sh*t out of luck, money, and ideas. I think that the Industry is still healthy and sustainable enough without it. Features like 3D (a lot like motion control) seem to only be a temporary gimmick as they always require either extra useless peripherals or expensive equipment, such as the upcoming uber-expensive 3D capable TV's. Maybe in a few years, when more of the equipment needed is readily available and much cheaper.
Let's see what this thing does. It's not rocket science to know that 3D gaming is inevitable. But, when will it become "huge" is the question.
3D porn, then we're talking!
I couldn't agree more, these are all fair points. However, unlike the extra peripheral/gimmick malarky - perhaps this genuinely could be pulled off for an artistic directors effect, as opposed to being another marketing tool to sell a game.