Why 3D Doesn’t Work

Kotaku Australia: As we head towards a 3D future, with the 3DS and the PlayStation 3 in particular, the problems with 3D become increasingly important. This concept that 3D is an important feature we must pay a premium for is an idea that has become infused with video gaming – and not everyone agrees with the sentiment.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
N311V3731d ago

Personally I've never had a problem with 3D. First time took a bit to realise I had to look where the director wanted me to, everywhere else seemed out of focus. Was a little annoying as sometimes in Avatar for example I wanted to check out the space ship interior rather than the persons face. I kind of want to get a 3D TV but at the moment it's too risky, worried this tech will die.

Anon19743731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )

I had the same problem, at first. When you see a 3D image, you expect everything to be in focus - but film makers often blur out the foreground or background and focus the camera on what they want you to look at. For me, that took a little getting used to but once I learned to relax, stop trying to focus on things I shouldn't and let the camera guide me to what I should look at, I was fine.

What I find surprising is the lack of knowledge this editor has about 3D. They know exactly why some people get dizzy/headaches when watching 3d and it has zero to do with "It's harder for your brain CPU to switch focus." Researchers concluded that the effect is similar to those who get motion sickness, or the people who feel sick playing first person shooters. The brain sees movement but doesn't feel the type of movement in the body and inner ear that it thinks it should based on what it sees. This can cause certain people's brains to short circuit, and it's why people who are motion sick can close their eyes and feel some relief.

3D is the same. Everything on the screen is telling the brain that the subject should be in motion, but the other senses aren't and that can cause issues. I understand that with repeated viewings your brain will eventually learn that it's ok to see 3D images and not feel motion that goes along with it. In the meantime, drink some ginger ale for your stomach and limit your viewing. Apparently, you'll get the hang of it eventually.

Personally, I think 3D is the holy grail of gaming. To add depth perception to games is as big a leap as when TV's went color. Don't believe me? Try walking around for a day with one eye covered and see how much depth matters.

Like he proved with video games time and time again, Robert Ebert just doesn't get it. He's pushing 70, he's used to the way things have been his entire life and like many older people he doesn't understand new technology so he becomes dismissive of it. Just read his many rants against video games for proof of that.

ApocalypseShadow3731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )


"why Kotaku doesn't work"

Apocalypse Shadow: As we head towards a Kotaku flaim article, with the 3DS and the PlayStation 3 in particular having 3D, the problems with Kotaku become increasingly important. This concept that Kotaku is an important gamesite that we must view is an idea that has become increasingly stale – and everyone with common sense agrees with the sentiment.

don't like 3D,don't use's not mandatory if it is an OPTION.

and using that same idea,i didn't even give them a hit.i'm using my option of not viewing their site.see how easy that was?

Cratos87803731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )

I know there is a dislike for Kotaku on N4G but this is the Aussie Kotaku, not the American one.

There is also a Kotaku for Japan-

WhiteNoise3731d ago

3D is horrible. I played Black Ops in 3d on my future brother in laws 55" LG LED tv, and I saw the 3d demo's in store. Both looks like absolute $#!+.

Unbelivably blurry. There was a few relatives visiting and all of them said the same things: firstly they asked when viewing the game in 3d "is it on yet" because the 3d effect is so minimal that it's hard to tell if it's even on, and then they said "it looked better with it off".

3d massively degrades image quality for a gimmicky effect that does not even enhance gameplay.

I have to lol @ tards who are claiming to be buying a 3d TV for KZ3.

Calm Down Sunshine3731d ago

The degraded image quality isn't the only problem.

It's also very isolating once the glasses are on.

A large and understated aspect of gaming, especially offline multiplayer/co op is the interaction between the persons playing outside of the videogame.
With huge dark glasses on the eyes are covered, which makes conversing naturally difficult.

iamgoatman3731d ago

I agree, in it's current form I don't think the effects makes up for huge loss in overall image quality. Give me a high res 2D image any day of the week, this goes for games and films.

Rhythmattic3731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )

Yep, and Black ops is K3 in 3D.....


WhiteNoise3731d ago


They are both stereoscopic 3d...if you think KZ3 will be magically 'better' then you are mistaken, same technique.

The glasses themselves are a handicap. They do not alternate shudders perfectly which ghosts the image, in addition to the cheap implementation used in the console games to save on resources.

Even TN panel monitors which have much faster respinse times than any HDTV have to overvolt the pixel clock to even get close to being able to refresh fast enough for 60 frames per eye.

60hz HDTVs ( which is all any 'OMFG!!! 240HZ!!' ) tv really is with duplicated frames, cannot produce clear, 3d images.

Good luck with that though.

Have you ever seen a computer game run at non native res when no scaling is used.....3d looks far worse than than.

If I were to run crysis in 640x480 on my 1920x1080 still looks clearer than 3d gaming.

Rhythmattic3731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )

@ White noise..

Wow. I'm gonna guess your wrong..

So what your saying is because GG has from the outset, wanted to deliver a 3D experience, using Sonys own 3D tech, will be a fail as much as Activation's implementation in BO's ?

No jumping to conclusions please.

Honestly, I dont know... I've not played either in 3d, (not even BO in 2D, because I wont buy another COD) But if I have the choice for either 2 or 3D, good for me..

I just feel sorry for the haters that hate because they dont have the choice.

Daver3731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )


loll first you were looking at it on a LG TV, that explain some of this ''absolute $#!+'', second Blacks Ops has never been a good thing to show 3D what it can do...
and it's not because both games are stereoscopic 3d that they will look the same...It is like movie, some have better 3D integration than others..
The new 3D TV that has been announced at this year CES are much better than what we have right now.

WhiteNoise3731d ago

They don't seem to think the LG is 'shit'.

3d is just $#!+. As far as 3d goes, this tv is better than most.

But 3d still sucks. Using a nice TV and blurring the image in 3d mode is a waste of quality and damaging to your eyesight.

Daver3731d ago

I never saw any studies that says that 3D is damaging eyesight...Can you give me a link for that too?

Rhythmattic3731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )

I love 3d. I want 3d

So tell me i dont WhiteNoise.

BTW: What i've seen, Glassless 3D's depth starts at the display panel...

ChrisW3731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )

Any FPS isn't great in 3D. For example, I've tried numerous times to play Bad Company 2, which is "3D-Ready" for nVidia's 3D Vision, but cannot focus on where I'm going and then quickly focus on my crosshairs when I want to shoot. I figured that it might take some getting use to, but it just doesn't work.

Now, don't get me wrong. It looks awesome and beautiful, but the 3D makes it confusing and almost unplayable because of the need for quick hand-and-eye reflexes amidst the intense action.

All other current FPS games (such as the CoD games) are only rated as "Excellent." Meaning they have some sort of depth, shadow, or incorrect rendering issue. Albeit minimal, but the issues are sometimes very noticeable.

The only other 3D-Ready games I have are Just Cause 2, Metro 2033, and Trine. Just Cause 2 is playable because of auto-aiming, but it still gets a little confusing and intense action can give you a headache. Metro 2033... Well, actually I haven't played it past the intro (bit busy with other games now days). Lastly, Trine. Now that is an absolutely beautiful game in 3D. I can play it with the 3D depth at max and for long periods of time. Reason being, it's a side scrolling game and the action isn't very intense. Which I believe is the key to a good 3D-Ready game.

If you haven't heard of Trine and you have nVidia 3D Vision. It's a must have!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3731d ago
+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3731d ago
ugo3731d ago

u guys are all jealous of 3d, bet none of u has tried it out in particular (bot fans)

Calm Down Sunshine3731d ago

I've tried it, my Grandparents own a 46" 3D TV, it's used mostly for Sky Sports 3D.

From the games I've seen on it, Motorstorm 3D.. It's not worth the time nor money, the backlash will come, as it does with everything... It happens now with the Wii, it used to be the PS3, soon enough it will be Kinect (That's already begun.)

And when it does happen and you're all bleating about how 3D was a gimmick doomed to fail, remember that you were once willing to invest huge amounts of money in it. (Buying a whole new TV.)

We're making huge leaps in terms of quality graphics on consoles, let's not hinder it with 3D.

Rhythmattic3731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )

Heading should read:

"Why 3D doesn't work on a 2D screen."