3D *could* make you a worse gamer

Just before Samsung launched their 3D range of screens, they promptly sent out a release warning of the dangers of 3D to your health. They have to legally to protect themselves from and issues caused which by now you should know of. It can cause nausea, confusion etc. Sony buried warnings in a manual somewhere that comes with your new Sony screen purchase.

Sony have said that 3D could even help you be a better gamer, and while I do see their points and it looks so damn good, I am not convinced it will make me a better gamer for one fundamental reason.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
ElementX3137d ago

I'm not sure 3D is safe for everyday use. Tricking your eyes/brain and stuff will probably be shown to cause permanent damage a few years down the road. Just look at all the harmful products put on the market, not to mention medicines which were thought to be "safe". A few years later they're banned.

MariaHelFutura3137d ago (Edited 3137d ago )

I`m not sure TV itself is good for everyday use. While your watching TV your brain activity is dangerously low, which is why you can forget what your watching 10 seconds into the first commercial sometimes. The activity between reading and watching TV are night and day. Another thing I personally find interesting about TV is the name. Tell-A-Vision.

Windex3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

Plz tell me how scientifically can 3D cause permanent damage???

Your eyes view 2 different images EVERY TIME.

what 3D does is same. it shows two different images to the two different eyes which is exactly what you are doing when you are not watching TV.

Only permanent damage 3D tv can cause is the same permanent damage caused by 2D tv.

and guess what?? some 2D games have warning with motion sickness.

And SOny warns nausea + confusion which is same thing as 2D warning.

Windex3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

this guy is completely wrong. Lol.

Stereopsis is the process in visual perception leading to the sensation of depth from the two slightly different projections of the world onto the retinas of the two eyes. and this happens when your eyes are looking at one object.

Lol. this guy thinks that your eyes split to watch 2 different things. ROFL.

its called peripheral vision. and it does not require your eye to look at 2 different objects.
As matter of fact, your eyes are still focusing on one object, but you r just using your peripheral vision to look at the map or something else.

Sarcasm3136d ago

This title *could* make you a worse english speaker

Natsu X FairyTail3137d ago

That's what I've been saying @ ElementX. I've watched movies played games in 3D a bunch of times and always felt dizzy after a while. Most recenlty I've got to watch and play some games @ the Toronto Eaton Centre. I played that Space Shooter Demo on PS3 with the glasses and everything and the whole thing felt very uncomfortable after a few seconds of my eyes feeling strained by the constant meteors ''flying at me''.

My friends also experienced the same disconfort from Watching Movies etc etc.

I like innovation that's for sure but 3D still needs more time to develop.

Nihilism3136d ago

Yeah because 'what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger right?"

Like living near power lines or muscular dystrophy...

Whether or not people can realise it, there is ghosting in 3d, it messes with you eye muscles and aside from the darker picture due to using the 3d glasses which again cause eye strain...

Yes there is going to be long term effects. Have fun being lab rats.

ConanOBrien3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

thinks the opposite

Believe in Sony

z2z2z3136d ago

i accidentally hit the agree button sorry

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3136d ago
r0gueZA3137d ago

It is definately not safe for everyday use!

All the manufacturers warn not to watch for long periods of time without a break.

ElementX3137d ago (Edited 3137d ago )

Yeah, but people won't necessarily read the warnings. How many gamers do you know will stop every hour for a 15 minute break? I'm not saying warnings should be ignored, but many don't follow them.

Windex3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

are you guys for real??
you guys are repeating same warning is given out for 2D tv as well....

try the dam 3DTV.

r0gueZA3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

WINDEX you idiot.

What do you think peripheral vision is?

Your eyes are focused on one thing and the side of your eye another
I.e IF IT IS ON YOUR LEFT THEN THE ONE EYE IS SEING IT NOT THE OTHER NOT. Your bulls*** theory is wrong. Your eyes ARE splitting you vision!

Thus you eyes are seing something else you ****!

Dont leave troll remarks on ZG. If you cant say anything intellegently and like an adult then ...

r0gueZA3137d ago

They'll take a break when they're throwing up :)

But yes, I cant remember the last time I read a warning.

BeOneWithTheGun3136d ago

I remember playing MGS4 and during one of the loading screens it was telling me to make sure to take a break every 30 minutes, or something. I laughed. I can sit for hours and game.

F4sterTh4nFTL3136d ago

I then watched the whole game and it amazing cutscenes on a walkthrough website.

HDgamer3136d ago

You don't have a ps3, MGS4 and you only watched it on youtube.

Dylantalon13137d ago

usual 3d haters i see. 3d is amazing but whatever.

remember my name

ElementX3137d ago

I'm a 3D hater? LOL, I love technology, but I'm not going to potentially cause harm to my eyesight until further tests have been conducted.

ALFAxD_CENTAURO3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

But watching the display of the TV or the Monitor without 3D for hours is harmless, right? lol.

newhumanbreed3136d ago

There's a huge difference though. You could easily get headaches with 3D displays because you're manipulating your eyes to do things they aren't meant to do.

Arnon3136d ago

"2D actually causes more of a strain"

Rofl what kind of scientist is this? You're telling me that adding onto an already eye-straining device with another device that causes eye manipulation is LESS stressful on the eyes than watching regular TV?

There's absolutely no damn logic in that.

snp3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

Rofl what kind of scientist is this?

A professor in visual and cognitive development. Would seem to be the ideal type... (The only other actual expert - rather than just 'noise' - offered in this thread is dchalfont's 'Pc 3d review' guys. It's odd that the one actual expert represented would rub you the wrong way, in a thread full of ignorant (unsubstantiated) guesses and 'hunches'.)

You're telling me that adding onto an already eye-straining device with another device that causes eye manipulation is LESS stressful on the eyes than watching regular TV?

There's absolutely no damn logic in that.

"I'm" not telling you anything.

This 'expert' is saying:

"In actual fact, two-dimensional TV creates more of a conflict for our visual system than 3D TV, because we have to interpret a 3D image out of a flat screen, whereas 3D TV is just giving us a 3D picture."

My hunch is this is more complicated than yours or my 'damn logic', all knowing though it may seem.

This sentence -

"The human visual system responds to a great many different cues in order to interpret the depth of what it is seeing, so it is not likely to be confused by a single cue - a 3D picture which is in fact being projected on a flat screen"

- to me suggests your 'damn logic' might be missing the odd bit of education - complexity -here and there.

I don't and wouldn't claim to know any better, though - hence the deference to scientists who dedicate their lives to this sort of thing (rather than bellowing sky-is-falling fear mongering, smug, from out of nowhere nonsense (which is 80% of this thread, and every 3d thread on here) or your 'rolling on the floor laughing' at experts not saying what you want to hear)

If i had to guess, i'd suggest the addition of 3d glasses somehow cognitively mitigates negative effects of pure at-a-distance flat non-split 2d image, meaning the line 'adding onto an already eye-straining device another device... etc' is misguided - but what do i know?

If you do know more, or have some sort of technical expertise to back it up, i'm all ears. I think we also all know - if we're not goofy - that scientists tend to 'dumb down' their technical knowledge/explanations for the mass media (or if they don't, the journalists will).

snp3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

"2D actually causes more of a strain"

Just to pull you up on this. Should add it's actually not the scientists quote - his discussion is more along the lines of cognitive effects and cues ('conflict' etc). It's a paraphrasing of a more complex sentence (which doesn't actually use the word 'strain' or go into that area) by the news reporter - sorry if you already got that; your use of quotation marks and your 'rofl' directing at the scientists credentials on the basis of it made it a little murky (i'll assume you weren't actually weren't deliberately miss presenting that as the quote of this professor, though).

Anyway, my 'hunch' (since that seems to be the in thing here) is people will believe what they want to believe (the cynic in me thinks once MS dedicates itself to 3d many of the 'fears' directed types will suddenly settle down - though i hope we're not all that pathetic, if people have fears (even if they turn out to be misguided ones) they're at least actually sincere.)

Overall on 3d i'm undecided. If i get eye strain, i'll leave something alone (even have to give my eyes a break from this monitor every hour or two - beyond three hours, and i've gotta go for a jog; my eyes/head goes into a malaise). If i don't, i wont - and for the short (one or two hours) periods i've used 3d i've had no monstrous 'extra' problem.

I don't see any reason, though, to presume watching a split image through shutter glasses is somehow going to give me cancer or some such nonsense (there's no logic). And i'll leave the effects of such trickery/manipulations on engaging cognitive responses/cues up to those who seem to know a bit to sort out (though i don't see any reason to believe shutter glasses will break anyones brains)..

lolzers3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

This caught my eye (no pun intended) -

'Clifford added that there had so far been little research worldwide into the effects of 3D TV.'

He may be qualified but I'd prefer to wait and see how it all pans out before I make my own judgement.

snp3136d ago (Edited 3136d ago )

That's fair enough lolzers.

It's not people saying 'i'm uncomfortable and want more information/evidence on this because of my gut', that i find silly (although whoever clicked 'disagree' to my posting a considered scientific perspective above is being ridiculous), it's people declaiming 3dtv is borderline evil - sans any real logic, other than maybe that they get headaches or some such (i get headaches from too much orange juice for petes sake). If you personally have an adverse/uncomfortable effect, of course it's sensible not to use it - but that's as far as that line of argument goes imo.

Waiting for more evidence is fine, but there's also somewhat the question of how much does one distrust and about what? 3dtv is something can take or leave, of course, but what about cell phones? I don't use one, but many people - including folk who are terrified of 3dtvs - use them no questions asked. What about preservatives and additives in foods? How many people scan each food item and avoid these things (given the anecdotal link to cancer, and the real world surge in cancers in the past century). Alcohol effects on the body anyone – do we all avoid alcohol? Can list a hundred things in daily rotation in most western lives that have big question marks.

I just find the sheer vocal ‘panic’ about the idea of wearing a pair of shutter glasses for an hour or two to watch a split image inside a pane of glass (creating an optical illusion) a bit silly. And in a world where people daily use devices or ingest foods or drinks that come with significant known or suspected risks (including actual chemical changes) - hell, in a world where over half the western world is tripling their chances of early death through obesity, even ignoring the chemical effects side of things - it's flat out strange. But if folk want to make their stand on 3dtv, good luck to them, i guess.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3136d ago
Nihilism3136d ago

The difference is that TV has been mainstream for what 60 years? and it has been refined all the while. mainstream 3d is BRAND NEW, there have been no long term tests and no refinement. Look at any PC 3D review from a tech sight, they don't do subjective 'play beyond!' accounts of 3d, they do ghosting tests and such a scientifically measure the glaring flaws of clearly premature tests, they all conclude the same thing.

'3D will be better when it has matured' and that it degrades image quality and causes headaches and in some cases will not work at all.

I'll take the professionals word over the PR team at Sony.

Show all comments (38)
The story is too old to be commented.