3D Gaming: Why Now Isn't The Time

ObnoxiousGamer: The release of the Nintendo 3DS signaled the beginning of the 3D gaming age. Whether this age is appropriate for the time is something that will be decided by us, the gamers and consumers

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
JoGam2601d ago

It may not be the time for you but its time for me. Cant wait to get Resistance 3 tomorrow. Playing in 3D.

ATi_Elite2601d ago


i have a Nvidia 3D 3 screen set-up and although many games look great in 3D i rarely use the 3D cause of the glasses and headaches!!

glassless 3D is what is needed but 3D is a fad that comes and goes.

bumnut2600d ago (Edited 2600d ago )

Something is wrong with your eyes if you get head aches.

I had a good 5 hour plus session on the Witcher 2 in 3D and was fine.

What makes you think you would not get headaches with glassesless 3D?

ATi_Elite2600d ago (Edited 2600d ago )

I think glassless 3D is just more natural. I have 20/20 vision and i've always got headaches when wearing 3D glasses for a prolong time then again Cell Phones give me headaches so it's just something with me.

But glassless 3D is a lot more natural. The Witcher 2 in 3D is friggin awesome.

death2smoochie2601d ago

Glasses, console hardware and cost are reasons 3D gaming right now won't become mainstream until next generation.
The majority of consumers already have a HDTV that is not 3D capable. Now to ask them to go and buy another one just to view 3D content and or play games won;t fly...especially in this economy.
Glasses are another major stumbling block for 3D gaming. The cost of those are still too high.

chrisgay2600d ago

It isn't just the economy that should put people off going out and buying a 3D television- it should be the simple fact that 3D is a novelty. And a bad novelty at that. Totally tacky.

I hope this 3D fad doesn't catch on and find itself incorporated in films and games that are actually worth a damn- I'll take 2001 over any 3D film any day of the week and I'll still be far more impressed with the visuals. 3D is for people with no taste and too much money- they should spend the extra time they work in order to "enjoy" their terrible films in 3D to watch some films actually worth watching instead. The investment for a 3D television could buy them hundreds of sublime DVDs.

plmkoh2600d ago

Funny how you should quote 2001 as a shining example of what is great for people with "taste". Wind back 30-40 years ago that movie was specifically critised for being pretentious, boring, "terrible" and overly arty ie a "novelty". Yet here we are years later calling it a classic of the 20th century.

Times change, interests change.

But maybe you can buy your DVD's instead, at least you won't kick yourself by realising that "3D television" are also flagship TVs that produce the best quality 2D images.

DaTruth2600d ago

Strange, last I heard HDTV was a novelty too! Now you can't even buy a television without HD! The only barrier to 3D becoming the same is the wide adoption of HDTV's that just took place and people's reluctance to shell out again!

It is time for 3D, it is just not time for my wallet! Also not time for my wife to see a third big screen HDTV in our cramped, small apartment!

chrisgay2600d ago

I was specifically mentioning 2001 as a shining example of a technically astonishing film. One that still astonishes fourty years on and still without the need for 3D. It just so happens that it is also a great film on many other levels.

Someone who truly enjoys film doesn't need to worry about "flagship" TVs. And yes, I'd much rather own hundreds of the best films ever made and watch them on my average television than waste my money.

I never heard about HDTVs being a novelty and never thought so myself- they are an obvious progression and offer improved picture quality, no question. However, there are lots of questions about 3D, including the loss of picture quality to name but one...

If all you people care about is the soulless 3D technical pornography that people swarm in droves to watch, then no need to worry about my comments. Let the advertising industry fool you into blowing your money on gimmicks. You clearly don't care enough about film (and games soon enough) to open your eyes and think for just a minute that it could be a step backward. A very expensive step backward, that will take precedence over true creativity and beauty if we allow it to.

aaaaaaaaa2600d ago (Edited 2600d ago )

For me i would like to have 3D for driving games but the only problem there, is the cost and to lay all that money out just to add depth to a racing game i just can't justify the outlay not at current prices (about £16 per inch)

Maybe when they are about £8 per inch of screen

TheGamingArt2600d ago

Bad article looking for hits with BS information. Period.

tubers2600d ago

Simple reasons:

Pricing (Got my 42 plasma 3D TV for 400 bucks though with x2 glasses if I bought from Frys last week).

3D Tech Growing Pains (flicker, reduced contrast, occasional artifacting, etc.)

3D will be here to stay even if it ain't for everyone. It just needs to sort out its major kinks atm.

Show all comments (13)