Contrary to what fanboys seem to believe, the Playstation 3 is neither the first nor the only console that does 3D gaming. GamingBolt examines the history of 3D gaming on consoles.
This article forgot to mention Sega Master System. I rented a game once that came with 3D glasses you plugged into the card slot in front.
BUT IT SURE IS THE BEST.
When Sony announced the Move over a year ago G4 had an interview with Jack Tretton and he said (I'm paraphrasing) "We don't always have to be first, but we like to be the best experience." This applies to everything they do in my opnion. You think NES 3D is as good as PS3s? Not a chance. All ideas come from somewhere.
Sad but true...
He stated a fact... Can some one higlight me a console that DOES the same 3D the ps3 offer not being it THE PC....no right? no, so yeah he statement is pretty solid compared to the ps3 is not the only console that does 3D, but IT SURE is the only that does PROPER 3D and brought 3D a place to stay, did these others console achieved the same? no...right no...again right...no! So much hurt-ass here cus their xbox doesn't do proper 3D...nor even true HD, give us a break.
To be honest, I thought that 3D back in the 80s was better because it was brand new. There was nothing like it. You had 3D horror films, games, and what-not. These days 3D is being re-implemented. Truth is, 3D started back in the 80s or earlier. These days it looks better with the new technology, but it's just a revamp of 80s tech. People think Avatar is really awesome because it's 3D but you really have to stop and give props to the pioneers of the 3D movement.
you are so right ! gamingbolt : "Contrary to what fanboys seem to believe..." biased site spotted ! :)
Sony nor anyone else has proclaimed sony to be the first. Sony is the first to really get behind the tech and drive it forward but the author of this article can't seem to get past the fact that the name sony is behind it. It's just a warning sign that he's biased and I thoroughly ripped his rant apart in the comment section.. Him, and the myriad of other journalists that proliferate the internet are giving this industry a bad name for their poorly written articles..
3d started in the 50s not the 80s.
Im hope this means that all you fanboys will stop complaining about Kenect being just a copy of the eye-toy I means, suddenly when its Sony, its ok to copy....but when it was MS you all critiziced (and still do) Ms for copying the eye-toy. lol
Nobody is leveling criticism at microsoft for borrowing heavily from the eye toy. Microsoft is being criticised because they came into e3 last year and proclaimed kinect to be revolutionary and the first controller free motion device. Which is far from true, so in turn we called foul and of course you and the ever faithful to the M$ monument have come in defense trying to leverage weak arguments against us.. Microsoft is full of more crap then a porta potty and you eat it up.. Move along.
I believe that game was Space Harrier.
google is so effing almighty!
Rubbish article. Whoring for hits. W/o reading it, not falling for the trap, Sly Cooper is a PS2 game and already has anaglyph 3D support. So this article FAILS, it's well known R/B 3D has been around for a while. I find extremely ridiculous people putting anaglyph on the same foot than stereoscopic. That is totally ignoring the advance of technology.
First 3D with HD display settings for a console :)
...Could you repeat your self anymore, he/she says the same thing, worded differntly over 4 paragrahs. On another note, 3D gaming, and viewing in the home is along way from perfection. I think that head tracking should be the way forward for 3D gaming. Although a draw back is that only one person can view it at at time. But no glasses are required and it looks amazing, no 3dTV required either.
Actually, the Vectrex was the first 3D console.
Uh...you can do stereoscopic 3d with ANY source on any tv. All you need is the content to be stereoscopic. How utterly useless is this article. The ps3 doesn't even use stereoscopic 3d. Author= failure
Try reading the comment section on that website and you'll see the author being so desperate to defend the honor of 360: "Really? And just how is the Xbox 360 any weaker than the PS3? What tangible proof do we have? Here, have a look at these: PS3 GPU: 550 MHz Reality Synthesizer PS3 CPU: Cell Broadband 3.2 GHz PS3 MEMORY: 256 MB XDR @ 3.2 GHz, 256 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz, GPU can access CPU memory Xbox 360 GPU: 500 MHz codenamed “Xenos” Xbox 360 CPU: 3.2 GHz IBM PowerPC tri-core codenamed “Xenon” Xbox 360 Memory: 512 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz shared between CPU & GPU 10 MB EDRAM GPU frame buffer memory The Playstation 3 has bottlenecked RAM, that essentially kills any advantage it may have had over the Xbox 360. And graphical integrity is absolutely subjective. There are many who would swear that Super Mario Galaxy 2 is the best looking game of this game of this generation, and they would be right in their places. And yet SMG2 isnt even HD… wonder what you would say to them. Finally, Microsoft HAS already demosntrated 3D games running on the Xbox 360, and on several occasions. Yes, all their games are pushed at 120 Hz as well" Apparently he is also an expert in "Cell-based" processed development whereas many "other" 3rd parties are struggling with that knowledge. -End statement
The only objective graphical specifications that make any difference is how many polygons either console can push per second realistically. Everything else you stated is based on developer talent. And no, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is not the most graphically intensive game.
"Everything else you stated is based on developer talent" Not me, I'm just quoting from the author's comments. **It would be nice to have an inclusive "Bold" font feature to sort out different parts of the user's comments. -End statement
funny because the x360 has the same amount of RAM, 2x256 = 512, funny because the 256 MB XDR @ 3.2 GHz is very fast and most exclusive, many people forget that the ps3 is not as gpu/ram reliant as pc/360, if x360 is so more powerful how come it still can't exceed uncharted 1 never mind uncharted 2, gow iii, heavy rain, and upcoming games like killzone 3 and infamous 2
yeah gears of war 2 is best looking 360 game. That tell everything..
I see how the kid is a complete microsoft fanboy with no idea about hardware whatsoever.Sony learned a thing or two with gamecube,there's no use having a great video card if your CPU can't handle all it's capabilities.There is no bottleneck on RAM,in fact with it's 512 megs of memory in wich 256 XDR memory clocked at 3.2 GHZ the Playstation 3 takes the advantage because it's massive advantage on speed.GPU and CPU CAN swap and access each other memory,it's a matter of coding.If you just look at simple wikipedia stuff like he did he won't know how Cell it's way waaaay superior to what the 360 have,and the Cell it's the only CPU on consoles that is able to do GPU stuff (not only equally but better,like MLAA).When we talk about VISUAL fidelity yes it's subjective HOWEVER when pointing out the best graphics TECHNICALLY there's nothing to argue about...Sony's Playstation 3 IS the most powerful console out this generation there is nothing to argue about,it's something we saw over and over again,but that does not mean games on other consoles can't evolve in All aspect.This new ''gamers'' are so shallow and stupid,they praise poly numbers on screen while they don't even know what they are talking about,and worse they talk about the technical side of things like it was going to downplay a game experience,if Miyamoto share the same idiotic thoughts with this morons,masterpieces like mario or zelda would have never being born...games are not about graphics or tech it's all about great game design.
The PS3 can push more polygons than the 360 can. Stop talking about which console is more GPU intensive and which is more CPU intensive. The PS3, overall, regardless of what processor it uses to push the most polygons, can push more polygons than the 360. Everything else comes down to developer design choices. If a game like Gears of War 2 can push more polygons than Uncharted 1, yet looks visually inferior, then that means the developer chose to use the polygons for something else or didn't use them well enough to get the higher quality textures. And to reply to someone above, the 360 has boasted more visually intensive games than Uncharted 1 on the PS3. It's only a myth on this website that 360 hasn't had a game with Uncharted 1 graphics.
everything that is "innovative" on consoles have been done on PC or atari long before nintendo, sega, sony, or microsoft even thought of developing a console. Motion controls? yep. 3-d gaming? yep. Multiplayer? yep. All tech being released today is more or less a more polished/enhanced version of innovative tech released years ago. This should not be a surprise to anyone except maybe delusional fanboys who believe innovation equals the console of their choice. The tech behind the toyota prius was invented almost 10 years before it saw the light of day in a production vehicle.
I must say, while I already knew all of this, I find it incredibly interesting. Hopefully, this can put a rest to the fanboys' incessant bragging.
was more like http://www.youtube.com/watc... at 1:26
Funny the author of the article is also named "Pramath." Coincidence? EDIT: Nothing will ever stop fanboys incessant bragging. Not your article, nothing.
I knew it....Sony always copies stuff and I am looking at Playstation Move
haha =), that was really funny
I swear to god I saw a move prototype back in 2004 before the wii was even out. here's the the vid and read the description.
Sony had motion technology even before the Wii was released, but the concept and design of the controller were probably influenced by Wii's controller.
they had this prototype working since 2000(before the wii was conceived)it was made public(mostly devs) in 2004.
Sony and nintendo both dabbled in the 3dv tech, which is what powers kinect, and deemed it as limited tech and turned it down. Sony and nintendo both then began researching their own methods of motion technology and nintendo realized that in order to keep costs down and maintain healthy interest they needed a simplistic approach and it has worked wonders for them.. Sony has been developing their method since the intial concept of the eyetoy which helped to fund the ps eye which in turn evolved into the current more sophisticated variation that is now the move.. So yes sony has been working on motion controls for a long time but to say who did it first is a blurry and irrelevant fact considering the issue is that sony is copying the wii which they clearly are not.. Dr. marks has had prototypes of the wand since the ps2 days but it has taken a long time and alot of code to get it to where it is..
3d gaming goes way back. Sony is just trying to bring it to another level. #60 fanboys should be the laast people talking about creativity. Atleast the playstation brought some original Ideas to the indusrty more than the xbox did. The 360s controller is a rip off, Xbox live is a rip off, Camera motion gaming is a rip off. The list goes on. Sony, nintendo, sega, and a few other companies built the industry. Microsoft just followed for the most part.
If nobody copied anyone else, then Sony and MS wouldnt be making consoles since thats copying Sega and Nintendo
move as been in devolopment for 10 year so dont come that crap dude the move tec is nothing like the wii........unlike the konnect copying eye-toy. But the best part is playstation move works unlike Konnect.....
You'd be surprised at how many people don't know this.
lmao i bet there all 12 years old.but yeah didn't we have a article like this last month lol
Sigh who cares. I never believe I heard Sony saying they were the first. If I remember correctly I believe they said they are the best console to offer 3d gaming etc. Anyway who cares. Somebody does it first someone later take it and does it better thats how the world is anyway. Anyway I could be wrong if so then feel free to correct me with a link or something thank you. Much appreciated.
As it's doing 3D in a totally different league to what they mention(and we all knew about anyway)and in a completely different league it's like someone comparing someone having the idea for B/W TV in order to criticise someone marketing their Oled screens. It's a different entity entirely in terms of the user experience AND the way it's done. Using different coloured sweet wrapper glasses for 3D is not comparable in ANY way to what they're trying today. Is the article really suggesting we should poo-poo HDTV and use our ancient black and white sets in order to stay with the originators of an idea? Itr makes little sense and is telling no one anything they didn't already know anyway. When did anyone say Sony were the first people to make a 3D console game anyhow? Big fails all round on this one, imho. Do we have to rely on the people who invent the first one of anything for future inprovements? If so it's going to be a long process ever moving on again. Tech gets adapted and refined by a massive community of tech savvy companies and their boffins-it's always the way it works and God is in the detail, is he not? The idea of 3D is ancient and it just happens that Sony are the ones now leading the charge to make it an acessible, working tech in mainstream homes(taking, no doubt, inspiration from the things worked on in the PC world as well as TV,games and movies). I just think this article answers and question nobody ever asked with things we all knew in the first place.
Ok i agree so this means that all you fanboys will stop claiming that Kenect is only a copy of the eye-toy, thus implying that they copied, as if it were a bad thing? But now you all agree that 3D is a copy but are fine with it because they allgedly impoved on the technology. I guess you will all disregard this since this is N4G and you all have double standards
What double standards. I never said Kinect was a copy of the eye-toy. I don't care about that crap of who copy who. The only thing that concerns me about Kinect is 1 the price and 2 the games and how many will be truly "hardcore".
people actually though sony started it?
Somehow, the fact that some ancient systems did stereo 3D, but yet did not do serious 3D rasterization, doesn't really matter to me much. I can make a couple transparencies, one with red scribbles, one with blue scribbles, and make a 3D effect too. Do I beat the NES, since I was able to do this before the NES was even released?
Didn't Sly Cooper on the PS2 have 3D?
ya it did i guess someone miss that
well of course 3d been done before, but rather like the MOVE, the 3D Sony are offering is the latest and best tech. that's why you buy into the PS3. you know you are going to get the best
The difference between the Move and the Wii Motion Plus is so negligible that it won't translate to much in the real world. If the 'best' remains unutilised, then it's useless.
but theres a HUGE difference in between pseye and the shit-ass sensor bar the wii comes with. that thing is garbage and freaks the hell out whenever it cant detect the wiimote. thats the biggest improvement in my mind
You need to see some tech demos dude. They are very different.
i know the biggest problem Sony are going to have is expressing the differences between the Wii and the MOVE to the average consumer, but those with Savy already know why the tech is different and the games will eventually show that difference. i say eventually because MOVE will likely get gimped games and Wii ports. i can't blame devs for this... after all, it's a big ask from Sony to throw money at an untested market
Totally, spot on. Anywhoo.... @asyouurn: sensor bar is not even a sensor bar. It just sends out ir signals and has nothing to do with motion gaming. It's for pointer controls.
but i cant sit comfortably on my couch and play my wii, i have to get closer so that the trash sensor bar reads the controller, and it jitters like crazy until i move closer. the pseye can track the ball wherever it goes all the time. i dont really plan on getting move, but i thought the tech was a major improvement over the wii. the wii sensor bar has two LED's to track pointing. even time crisis on ps3 came with a sensor bar that blew away the wii one, and its only for one game. it has six LED's (three on each side) ands as a pointer runs circles around wii's casual technology. im sure with motion plus, theyt are about the same motion-wise, but most games are gonn use the pointer first and foremost like socom, and killzone
I had some trouble with that at first too. If you go to the settings in the wii menu, you can raise the sensor bar sensitivity. I had less problems after adjusting that☆
PS3 is 4 years old, dude. Also, the only thing new about the move controller is that it has a ball with a light, that the old playstation eye can follow. Not new. Anyway, not trolling, I think it looks like a remarkable piece of tech. By the way, something does not have to be on the bleeding edge to be good tech. And it is good tech. It's true though, that in terms of what is translated intro actual gameplay, it won't make much difference in regards to Wii motion plus.
IDK, Motion Plus seems a bit too finicky for my liking and the fact it's been out ages and no one really used it well, or at all, in games yet says something. either devs don't thnk Wii gamers really care about the extra \accuracy, it makes dev too expensive for the few who DO or it isn't as stable as we'd like to think-and after market add ons often aren't as good as tech launched with the main product. Maybe, had Wii been as accurate as M+ at launch we'd have seen more clever uses of motion control and less vague waggle but now that;'s what Wii has been about, manly, for four years, it's a big change and risk to do much about it for companies who already know they can make profits without even bothering with it. Move, and Kinect, in fairness, have a better chance of finding fresh idea impetus as games will need to be made for them and devs don't know what will sell on them yet and developing new ideas will help them differentiate from Wii games, give their Move/Kinect stuff an ID and as it's the start of things it's less of an effort to incorporate everything as opposed to ripping up an existing Wii rulebook. Hell, I could be wrong but I'm just proposing some thoughts and ideas. What makes me wonder, though, is why we haven't ever had an explosion of M+ games for the Wii. It's why I thought Skyward Sword should be out already as a showcase for the tech because right now the best thing sing it is RS2-and as it didn't sell what is the need for developers to put the extra effort and cost nto their dev cycles? Sorcery and the chameleon tech demo(and a few others) actually have fresh ideas for motion controls in them nd are more what we imagimned when Wii was introduced as the Revolution. I'm not saying either newbies will succeed or dent Wii sales at all but I do think there;'s a little more cause to think devs will be freer with ideas on them than they currently have been on the Wii. My biggest disappointment(and ?I love my Wii)with Wii games in general has been the wasted opportunities and the fact few games have even tried to make motion controls that do things better than we could qwith a pad as to me that's the only reason for them to exist in the first place. Also, it's just very sad that so few games have stood up and used motion plus. I found Sports resort pretty patchy control wise-though may have had over inflated expectations. Again. Not hating, mind you, just a bit puzzled and wondering why things have happened as they have. Vague waggle is as much the enemy of motion controls as it is games in general, in my eyes, and if Move can sharpen up expectations all round is that even possibly a bad thing?
Nice to see someone doing some actual research.
I remember playing Rad Racer in 3D. You press select and it goes in 3D mode, it came with blue/red plastic glasses. This game was on NES.
Everyone knows. No one has claimed this.
Are you calling me an idiot?
How about Sewer Shark?
Play on semantic , everyone knows 3d was already there , but certainly not the kind we see right now . Just like 3d movies and shows didnt use the same techniques than an avatar or run of the mill 00's 3d horror flick
Strange. I don't remember anyone either us or Sony claiming that we where the first. Can we for once get information without stirring up trouble? Even if some of us didn't know that, was it necessary to call us 'fanboys' to start another argument? Why is it people see to find it necessary to put us PS3 'fanboys' in our place but ignore the outrageous, unproven claims that other 'fanboys' of other systems constantly make?
Actually, the SEGA MASTER SYSTEM was the first to have Steroscopic 3-D, not the GameCube. There was a game on the SMS called “MISSILE DEFENSE 3-D” which used bulky 3-D glasses that were powered using the console itself. I still own it!
in a massively popular level the PS3 will be the first one though