• 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Recostar (118 posts) -

I stand beside Sonys effort to support 3D content !! Here's why

 

I have been reading a lot of comments about 3D, most of them are not  in favor of it. As a 3D/2D  video editor I'm very used to the negative  reaction. But, there is one thing I will say, and I'm trying  not to make any  judgments here towards people. I have noticed that the majority of  people that "Hate" 3D seem to only base this on the movies or from what  others are telling them. Yes ,it's agreed, as a 3D advocate and 3D video  editor I'm 100% agreeing with you ALL on this. The conversion movies that  came out  in 3D were absolutely terrible, just an atrocity and a  total slander towards what 3D is supposed to look like. It takes time  ,calculated decisions and a lot of dedication to make 3D work, this  conversion stuff is pure garbage !! and to be honest it Infuriates me. I  know it's hard not to hate 3D when Hollywood crams every half fast  conversion down our throats, believe me I get it. I'm tired of it too,  it makes guys like me who are trying to create 3D content look like  fools. Who knows, maybe I am a fool for creating and perusing 3D content  when it's so much easier to do 2D. I don't get paid to do these videos  and I get very little  exposer . In fact, if it wasn't for Youtube and Sony being  absolutely amazing , I wouldn't even have made it this far. I could  seriously kiss their  feet right now. either way, bad 3D has created a  stigma towards it in general that its only there to grab more money .It's  terrible.

 

Here is a link to my Youtube page  http://www.youtube.com/user/S3...

I have put so much time and effort in these videos to try and make  them appealing to people ,and all i see is Hollywood slowly destroying  this appeal. It's heart breaking . I understand your anger and I  can't blame you. If I never  actually played a game or watched a movie that utilizes good 3D, I would  feel the same way. All I would ask, or suggest is to reserve judgment  just long enough till you can get your hands on a 3D game and try it out  for yourselves. try to keep in mind to ,that gaming in 3D and watching a  movie in 3D are completely different experiences all together. if you  had a bad experience  watching a 3D movie, like 99% all have, don't let  that bad experience transfer  towards gaming in 3D. If done right , its  great .

 

This brings me to why I stand beside Sonys efforts to support 3D, It's not just because this is my field, it's because I truly believe that 3D gaming is going to be the future. Of course, I don't think this is going to happen until all 3D TV's are glasses free mind you,but they are coming. Right now it's really hard to make a glasses free TV that's bigger then "22 inches.  It's possible to do it, but the cost is to much. Sony has done a great job of consistently supporting 3D games and I know they are doing there best to help developers make the transition in 3D  as easy as possible. They have made a real effort to pursue 3D and encourage people like me to make 3D videos and develop 3D games. It's from there support and determination that has helped fuel the creative aspects of  3D and stimulate interest towards it as a whole.This is why I support them.

 

Regards,

Recostar

#2 Posted by KarlPilkington (2759 posts) -

You have put quite a lot of efforst into writing this post.

#3 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -
@Recostar: I stand right next to you and Sony then! 
A good read 
#4 Posted by mfpantst (2574 posts) -

My father and Wife will never ever be able to see and experience 3D.  So Fuck it.

#5 Posted by crusader8463 (14423 posts) -

And as someone who can never use 3D, like millions of other people around the world, because I was born almost blind in my right eye I say fuck Sony and 3D. Nothing can be the future when it automatically keeps such a huge portion of the populace from ever using it, and it can never become main stream because of it. So here's to hoping this 3D fad dies a quick painful death and is something we can all laugh at in the near future as one of those stupid things no one understood why it went on for as long as it did.

#6 Posted by mfpantst (2574 posts) -
@crusader8463: and to accentuate your point you don't have to be blind in one eye.  Just so long as your eyes don't coordinate (which is even more common), you can't see 3D.
#7 Posted by Recostar (118 posts) -
@ZeForgotten: thank you for the support, I'm glad to see someone else that appreciates 3D for what it is.
#8 Edited by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

Did you write all of this because you actually believe in 3D or because you'll blindly follow anything Sony does? 
Either way, you might be interested to hear that Microsoft are about to unveil their plans to support full stereoscopic 3D in all their future games too.  It'll most likely be announced at E3. 
 
Personally, I don't really think the tech has much of a future.  3DTV's are still too expensive and unlike HDTV, isn't really worth upgrading to, even if you have the money for one.. Not to mention the amount of people who get ill looking at 3D or simply can't see it at all.

#9 Posted by phish09 (1110 posts) -

So...that was just a very long winded way of you saying "I like 3D".  And that's cool, but personally, as far as 3D goes, I can take it or leave it, but if it is ever going to cost me a premium to play a game in 3D or watch a movie in 3D then I guess I'll just leave it.  So basically, once 3D TV's (and I mean glasses-free 3D) are the same price and non-3D TV's, then I'll probably grab one, but so long as there is a premium attached to it, they won't be able to sell me on it, and I'm sure millions of other people feel the same way.

#10 Posted by Brendan (7845 posts) -

I'm not into it.

#11 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -
@mfpantst said:
@crusader8463: and to accentuate your point you don't have to be blind in one eye.  Just so long as your eyes don't coordinate (which is even more common), you can't see 3D.
Yeah, I have same problem. 
#12 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -
@phish09: Don't forget the production overhead. Producing 3D content costs money, processor cycles, and creative time (if you optimize for 3D or 2D, the other will inevitably suffer, even if only a little bit).
#13 Posted by crusader8463 (14423 posts) -
@mfpantst: Was not aware of that, but that does indeed make it even worse. How this stupid 3D thing has allowed to continue I will never know. I really wonder what the tipping point will be when companies finally realize the majority don't want it or can't use it.
#14 Posted by Bucketdeth (8024 posts) -
@crusader8463 said:
And as someone who can never use 3D, like millions of other people around the world, because I was born almost blind in my right eye I say fuck Sony and 3D. Nothing can be the future when it automatically keeps such a huge portion of the populace from ever using it, and it can never become main stream because of it. So here's to hoping this 3D fad dies a quick painful death and is something we can all laugh at in the near future as one of those stupid things no one understood why it went on for as long as it did.
Just because you can't use it doesn't meen millions of others can't, that's like taking ice cream away because your lactose intolerant. Plus 3D isn't forced so there is no need for a "quick painful death", if I don't want 3D I simply turn it off.
#15 Edited by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I think 3D has some applications for gaming, but is generally dumb. But as a colourblind person I don't resent paying for red and green diodes in my TV. The same kind of applies to the vision thing.

#16 Posted by mfpantst (2574 posts) -
@Bucketdeth: I would happily agree with you except that there's a trend at least in movies towards exclusively 3D content- marking a push to get away from 2D content.  that's fucked.
#17 Edited by Recostar (118 posts) -

 I commend those that are willing to walk away from an experience because they feel that if there loved ones can't enjoy it then they won't either. This is  touching and shows a certain amount of respect , I honestly commend that. If my wife wasn't able to see 3D then by default I wouldn't enjoy it. It's just seems unfair to throw something like this in there faces.  I'm not a heartless troll guys, don't make me out to be that type of person. I care about people and want only the best for others.  Not everyone is going to be able to see 3D , just as many people that were unfortunately injured can't enjoy playing games. It's a terrible thing to not be able to do what others can, but  I won't allow people to try and make me feel like I'm a bad person because I support Sony and there efforts at pursuing 3D. 

#18 Posted by crusader8463 (14423 posts) -
@Bucketdeth said:
@crusader8463 said:
And as someone who can never use 3D, like millions of other people around the world, because I was born almost blind in my right eye I say fuck Sony and 3D. Nothing can be the future when it automatically keeps such a huge portion of the populace from ever using it, and it can never become main stream because of it. So here's to hoping this 3D fad dies a quick painful death and is something we can all laugh at in the near future as one of those stupid things no one understood why it went on for as long as it did.
Just because you can't use it doesn't meen millions of others can't, that's like taking ice cream away because your lactose intolerant. Plus 3D isn't forced so there is no need for a "quick painful death", if I don't want 3D I simply turn it off.
Millions of other people have eye problems that prevent them from ever seeing 3D the way it's currently made. Just read the other comments in this thread. As for the turning it off thing, I just think it's silly to waste development time and money on something that so many people can ether out right not use, or just turn it off from the get go. I would rather have that time and money go into developing more weapons, an extra level, bug fixes, alternate costumes for a game or to change a shot in a movie so it's not some stupid scene where something flys directly at the screen because it looks like it's going to hit you in the face in the 3D but to everyone else it just looks like a badly framed shot.
#19 Edited by MisterChief (832 posts) -

I will support 3D when it does not require me to wear glasses.

#20 Posted by Bucketdeth (8024 posts) -
@crusader8463 said:
@Bucketdeth said:
@crusader8463 said:
And as someone who can never use 3D, like millions of other people around the world, because I was born almost blind in my right eye I say fuck Sony and 3D. Nothing can be the future when it automatically keeps such a huge portion of the populace from ever using it, and it can never become main stream because of it. So here's to hoping this 3D fad dies a quick painful death and is something we can all laugh at in the near future as one of those stupid things no one understood why it went on for as long as it did.
Just because you can't use it doesn't meen millions of others can't, that's like taking ice cream away because your lactose intolerant. Plus 3D isn't forced so there is no need for a "quick painful death", if I don't want 3D I simply turn it off.
Millions of other people have eye problems that prevent them from ever seeing 3D the way it's currently made. Just read the other comments in this thread. As for the turning it off thing, I just think it's silly to waste development time and money on something that so many people can ether out right not use, or just turn it off from the get go. I would rather have that time and money go into developing more weapons, an extra level, bug fixes, alternate costumes for a game or to change a shot in a movie so it's not some stupid scene where something flys directly at the screen because it looks like it's going to hit you in the face in the 3D but to everyone else it just looks like a badly framed shot.
I don't own a 3D TV and hate 3D movies in theater, my eyes feel like shit the whole day after. The only time I feel like I'm forced into 3D is when I go to the movies which totally ruins it for me. Either than that I think 3D is alright as long as it is an option and not forced on the consumer. As for the development time it takes to create a game in 3D, I am not really sure but I to would rather extra content than I would 3D. 
 
(I totally said "3D" 6 times).
#21 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -
@Recostar: So...are you a heartfull Troll then?
#22 Posted by Sin4profit (2956 posts) -

I'm not into 3D because, science... 
When they can make a 3D TV that can detect the convergence of my eyes then we'll talk. 

#23 Posted by Recostar (118 posts) -
@crusader8463: @crusader8463 said:
@Bucketdeth said:
@crusader8463 said:
And as someone who can never use 3D, like millions of other people around the world, because I was born almost blind in my right eye I say fuck Sony and 3D. Nothing can be the future when it automatically keeps such a huge portion of the populace from ever using it, and it can never become main stream because of it. So here's to hoping this 3D fad dies a quick painful death and is something we can all laugh at in the near future as one of those stupid things no one understood why it went on for as long as it did.
Just because you can't use it doesn't meen millions of others can't, that's like taking ice cream away because your lactose intolerant. Plus 3D isn't forced so there is no need for a "quick painful death", if I don't want 3D I simply turn it off.
Millions of other people have eye problems that prevent them from ever seeing 3D the way it's currently made. Just read the other comments in this thread. As for the turning it off thing, I just think it's silly to waste development time and money on something that so many people can ether out right not use, or just turn it off from the get go. I would rather have that time and money go into developing more weapons, an extra level, bug fixes, alternate costumes for a game or to change a shot in a movie so it's not some stupid scene where something flys directly at the screen because it looks like it's going to hit you in the face in the 3D but to everyone else it just looks like a badly framed shot.
I can understand your frustration, If  i wasn't able to see 3D and had to watch the entire world make its transition into this, to be honest.... I would be outraged.  Everytime I had to watch a movie trailer blasting at me that its in 3D  would just make me upset all the time. It would honestly ware me down .  All I can say is that your definitely not alone on this subject, this isn't just about not being able to see 3D it's much more then that. Every time you walk by a person that is in a wheel chair, don't look down at them, give them a smile and say hello, make them feel good about there day.  They have to live every day of there lives having to be reminded about what they can't do.  I am very sympathetic towards people with disability's and  are not able to do some things.  It's really sad to see this, and it does break my heart, the only thing that can be done is to do everything  you can to make them feel respected and good about themselves.
#24 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Glasses-free 3D TVs are coming? If by that you mean "the near future", I don't think so. The 3DS got away with it because it's a tiny screen with a forced perspective, two things TVs don't have. It's going to take a lot of work to get there, and it'll take just as long for the price to come down low enough to become mainstream.

#25 Posted by phish09 (1110 posts) -
@Bucketdeth said:
@crusader8463 said:
And as someone who can never use 3D, like millions of other people around the world, because I was born almost blind in my right eye I say fuck Sony and 3D. Nothing can be the future when it automatically keeps such a huge portion of the populace from ever using it, and it can never become main stream because of it. So here's to hoping this 3D fad dies a quick painful death and is something we can all laugh at in the near future as one of those stupid things no one understood why it went on for as long as it did.
Just because you can't use it doesn't meen millions of others can't, that's like taking ice cream away because your lactose intolerant.
Poor English, but a good point.
#26 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

You know what we should be putting all this money into? Better movies.

#27 Posted by Recostar (118 posts) -
@Sin4profit said:
I'm not into 3D because, science... When they can make a 3D TV that can detect the convergence of my eyes then we'll talk. 
There is a strong rumor that by 2015 there's going to be many "50 -52 inch glasses free 3D TV's available. Currently, there is tech that with a camera will detect the angle of your eyes and adjust the convergence accordingly . What makes this so different from standard 3D TVS is the ability to change the 3D output to compensate on the fly the angle of the users eyes.  This would efectivly solve your problem. It's really to early to know if this tech will catch on but there is some promise to it.
#28 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

"I'm trying  not to make any  judgments here towards people. I have noticed that the majority of  people that "Hate" 3D seem to only base this on the movies or from what  others are telling them."
 
No, the tech just gives me a headache, so I avoid it when possible. Besides that, I've seen a half dozen movies in 3D and never seen one where the 3D actually looked good or added anything. I don't think the tech is ready, and think it's mostly a waste of time. I don't care if it's an option--some people clearly like it, and it doesn't bother their eyes--so long as 2D is also an option. And by the way, I've looked at a lot of criticism of 3D, and virtually none of it is based only on the quality of the movies.

#29 Edited by PenguinDust (12558 posts) -

What about all of us who get headaches from 3D?  I always need to look somewhere else for a minute or so during the course of a 3D movie and I still come away feeling ill from the experience.   
 
@Recostar said:

Every time you walk by a person that is in a wheel chair, don't look down at them, give them a smile and say hello, make them feel good about there day.  They have to live every day of there lives having to be reminded about what they can't do.  I am very sympathetic towards people with disability's and  are not able to do some things.  It's really sad to see this, and it does break my heart, the only thing that can be done is to do everything  you can to make them feel respected and good about themselves.
I know you probably didn't mean it to sound that way, but that's some of the most condescending bullshit I have ever read.  What any handicapped person wants is to be treated as any other person, so if you are a dick to everyone, then be a dick to them as well.  They are not looking for your sympathy, in fact that's quite insulting.  Rather the biggest hurdle a handicapped person encounters is being treated like they are less than complete.  Keep your broken heart for lost loves and puppies.  Your smile won't make them feel any better or worse unless they detect a trace of pity in your eyes, and that's more demeaning than your misguided intentions. 
#30 Posted by Recostar (118 posts) -
@haggis said:

"I'm trying  not to make any  judgments here towards people. I have noticed that the majority of  people that "Hate" 3D seem to only base this on the movies or from what  others are telling them."  No, the tech just gives me a headache, so I avoid it when possible. Besides that, I've seen a half dozen movies in 3D and never seen one where the 3D actually looked good or added anything. I don't think the tech is ready, and think it's mostly a waste of time. I don't care if it's an option--some people clearly like it, and it doesn't bother their eyes--so long as 2D is also an option. And by the way, I've looked at a lot of criticism of 3D, and virtually none of it is based only on the quality of the movies.

Respectfully , I strongly disagree. The majority of the back lash is do to the thought process of   " 3D had its chance already and it failed so it will fail again " combined with Hollywood over running our theaters with  half fast converted movies.  Even Goege Lucus understands this. Check this video interview with him, he talks about how when converting 3D movies it needs to be done right.       
#31 Posted by YoungFrey (1321 posts) -

When everything else has been done, and games run at 60FPS with 100 enemies on screen packed with thousands of projectiles warping authentically simulated smoke and blood in detail indistinguishable from reality.  Then I'll accept wasting processor cycles on 3D. 
#32 Edited by Recostar (118 posts) -
@YoungFrey said:

When everything else has been done, and games run at 60FPS with 100 enemies on screen packed with thousands of projectiles warping authentically simulated smoke and blood in detail indistinguishable from reality.  Then I'll accept wasting processor cycles on 3D. 

Until you actually experience good 3D gaming, you will not know that for sure. This is an on going problem with 3D right now, without people actually having a 3D monitor/TV  there is no way for them to know what it's like to play games like portal 2 in 3D. 
#33 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

i don't pay attention to 3D. i don't have a 3Dtv i don't plan on buying a 3D one until the price drops and i need a new tv. i find that it's uncomfortable to wear glasses since i also wear glasses. it's just weird to have to wear both of them.

#34 Edited by ProfessorEss (7451 posts) -

I'm kinda standing next to 3D. I have no beef with it, I like going to see the occasional 3D movie (I generally opt to for the 3D over 2D), I have no issue having to put on glasses, I don't experience headaches or dizziness and I really enjoy the effect. I guess that statement puts me firmly behind 3D, but here's where it starts to slip...
 
First, I'm not buying a new TV for it, and I when I do buy a new TV I will have a hard time spending much extra for 3D functionality. Sure by the time I'm due to buy a new TV 3D will probably be pretty standard but at the same time, will a new form of 3D (better, glasses-free) be on the way? Will be left once again with the decision between affordable old tech or overpriced new tech? I generally don't end up buying anything when I find myself in those types of situations.
 
Secondly, how much 3D can I consume on a regular basis until the effect gets stale? The reason I like going to see 3D movies is because it's something I only experience once every 4-6 months and even after a mere two hours of it I feel I've had my fill. After a month of daily 3D am I going to continue using it, or will the effect grow so hum-drum that I just don't bother putting the glasses on anymore?
 
We'll see what happens but for me, the tech has to get to some point of stability and more than anything, just like HD, the media created for it has to leave me no option but I NEED THAT NOW!

#35 Posted by crusader8463 (14423 posts) -
@Recostar said:
 I commend those that are willing to walk away from an experience because they feel that if there loved ones can't enjoy it then they won't either. This is  touching and shows a certain amount of respect , I honestly commend that. If my wife wasn't able to see 3D then by default I wouldn't enjoy it. It's just seems unfair to throw something like this in there faces.  I'm not a heartless troll guys, don't make me out to be that type of person. I care about people and want only the best for others.  Not everyone is going to be able to see 3D , just as many people that were unfortunately injured can't enjoy playing games. It's a terrible thing to not be able to do what others can, but  I won't allow people to try and make me feel like I'm a bad person because I support Sony and there efforts at pursuing 3D. 
No one's trying to make you out as troll, we are just saying why we don't like 3D and why we think it's a waste of time that we would rather see used some place else. You disagree and that's fine, we disagree with your POV and are just saying why we think/want it to just go away.
#36 Posted by YoungFrey (1321 posts) -

I'd also rather have a display technolgy that mimcs the human field of view more than I'd want one in 3D.  If somebody comes up with a compelling 3D game, that's cool.  But I don't want to suffer through crap I don't want because "it'll be great eventually".  How about you (Sony) give me want I want and am willing to pay money for rather than pushing a tech I know I don't currently want?
#37 Edited by Recostar (118 posts) -
@PenguinDust@PenguinDust said:

What about all of us who get headaches from 3D?  I always need to look somewhere else for a minute or so during the course of a 3D movie and I still come away feeling ill from the experience.   
 

@Recostar

said:

Every time you walk by a person that is in a wheel chair, don't look down at them, give them a smile and say hello, make them feel good about there day.  They have to live every day of there lives having to be reminded about what they can't do.  I am very sympathetic towards people with disability's and  are not able to do some things.  It's really sad to see this, and it does break my heart, the only thing that can be done is to do everything  you can to make them feel respected and good about themselves.

I know you probably didn't mean it to sound that way, but that's some of the most condescending bullshit I have ever read.  What any handicapped person wants is to be treated as any other person, so if you are a dick to everyone, then be a dick to them as well.  They are not looking for your sympathy, in fact that's quite insulting.  Rather the biggest hurdle a handicapped person encounters is being treated like they are less than complete.  Keep your broken heart for lost loves and puppies.  Your smile won't make them feel any better or worse unless they detect a trace of pity in your eyes, and that's more demeaning than your misguided intentions. 
You make some scary  points, I understand that not everyone wants to be treated differently. But were do you stop this, should governments not create special ramps because certain handicap people don't want to be treated differently ?  I guess we should stop making handicap parking spots to because they don't want to be treated differently either. well, looks like the laws forcing huge corporations to make adjustments so  handicap people can work there goes out the window to.  I think your very wrong about this and its kind of disturbing.   As a human being you should be compassionate about this and support efforts that are made to make there lives better . Don't sit on the side lines pretending that by not acknowledging they have obstacles in life or treating them differently will make them feel better. Your not the voice of people that suffer with these obstacles . If you think that  smiling to a person and saying hello to them is wrong , then that's your perspective. To me, I always appreciate people being kind to me..always. How do you not know that by showing your sympathetic to them makes them feel they live in a world were other people actually do care and that they have support from others if they need it. I would not like to live in a world if you were the leader. I strongly disagree with everything you said.
#38 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

3D makes my head hurt after a while. I tried to play Killzone 3 for a couple of hours in 3D and I got the worst headache I've ever had since my 24 hour Sims 2 marathon. 
 Maybe in a decade or two when we have nanomachines that administer headachemedicine, but not now

#39 Posted by Recostar (118 posts) -
@ProfessorEss: I have to agrea, there really isn't enough 3D content out there to keep people entertained for long periods of time.  It's guys like me that are trying to create more 3D Videos that we need out there right now.  I don't know if your a sports fan but 3D can also apply to this as well. I can see sports prolonging the desensitization of the 3D effect . Imagine seeing a great  tackle up close in 3D, that could be pretty cool. 
#40 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -
@Chabbs0 said:

You have put quite a lot of efforst into writing this post.

it would be nice to have more OPs like that arround. 
 
good read, I can't convince myself to buy a 3d TV yet, Not hate it.. but I'm not whiling to spend the extra money on that... considering I bough a big ass LED Aquos last year. 
#41 Posted by brainwins (253 posts) -
@Recostar: So how do I watch these videos? Which of all the technologies should I use? 
Also, it'd help if there was an standard already. Instead of charging the users so much for almost experimental technologies.
#42 Posted by melcene (3056 posts) -

My problem with 3D, even as an "option" is that we're getting to the point in stores where a large amount of the TVs have 3D capabilities.  Which means I'm stuck paying more for an "option" I don't necessarily want.

#43 Posted by mikey87144 (1797 posts) -

I've been to 3 3D movies, (Avatar, Toy Story 3, and How to Train Your Dragon), and while I didn't think they would do anything great before it started I have to admit that the effect was pretty good. Especially Toy Story 3's Day and Night short film. Anyway I haven't been compelled to play any 3D games despite the fact my TV supports it. I just don't want to wear those glasses for a long stretch of time.

#44 Posted by keris (170 posts) -

Here's the thing though, none of this is real 3D. If there's a miniature woman standing in front of me, I should be able to lower my head and see her panties under her skirt. Unless it's that, it's not 3D. It's just a unsatisfactory imitation of actual depth. 
 
Manipulatable holograms projected into real world space is the kind of 3D I want. Glasses-required or glasses-free, the current "3D" isn't any more immersive than the 3D objects projected onto a 2D plane I get already. I only see the current technology as a stop gap and learning experience for 3 dimensional UI design, nothing more. With that said, TrackIR-enabled(or other head tracking technology) paired with glasses technology actually makes sense and provides some of the functionality I desire. However, that only services one person.  
 
Yeah, I don't really see this technology going anywhere.

#45 Posted by PenguinDust (12558 posts) -
@Recostar:  Your response opens by substituting equal access, the physical means that creates a sense of normalcy with your original comments of solace.  The latter is what I found grievous since it came off as superior.  I never meant to infer that physical accommodations should not be made to equal the playing field for the handicapped to to those of the fully capable.  Actually that goes to the exact point I was making; being treated as equals is the desire.   I do believe that smiling to a person and saying hello and thinking that will somehow make their lives better for the moment is disrespectful.  I don't appreciate false kindness or niceties generated from guilt.  Again, I am not talking about ramps or parking spots, I am talking about how a person views and approaches another.  The "poor them, it's so sad" attitude taints whatever follows.  It's patronizing and does nothing but make the "smiling" person feel good about themselves. 
#46 Posted by Franstone (1135 posts) -
@Recostar: I have nothing against 3D, I'm gonna jump on that bandwagon as soon as I can...
Just curious, what do you consider "good 3D?" 
Are you only talking games here through Nvidia 3D Vision or are there certain movies that stand out for you?
#47 Edited by Recostar (118 posts) -
@PenguinDust said:

@Recostar:  Your response opens by substituting equal access, the physical means that creates a sense of normalcy with your original comments of solace.  The latter is what I found grievous since it came off as superior.  I never meant to infer that physical accommodations should not be made to equal the playing field for the handicapped to to those of the fully capable.  Actually that goes to the exact point I was making; being treated as equals is the desire.   I do believe that smiling to a person and saying hello and thinking that will somehow make their lives better for the moment is disrespectful.  I don't appreciate false kindness or niceties generated from guilt.  Again, I am not talking about ramps or parking spots, I am talking about how a person views and approaches another.  The "poor them, it's so sad" attitude taints whatever follows.  It's patronizing and does nothing but make the "smiling" person feel good about themselves. 

Your perspective is understood, but at what point do people define the  line  when  showing simpithy becomes patronizing . It took compassion and caring  to implement  changes in society so they could have accommodations. It's the people that smile  and say hello, the ones that make an effort  that are helping to make those changes . Where does the line draw ?  It all starts with kindness . If everyone lived by your rules imagine the way society would be, just a terrible place to live in. If your smiling at a person to show them kindness ,it's usually because you do care, that in itself means its not  "false " kindness. Its a funny contradiction.
#48 Edited by Recostar (118 posts) -
@Franstone said:

@Recostar: I have nothing against 3D, I'm gonna jump on that bandwagon as soon as I can... Just curious, what do you consider "good 3D?"  Are you only talking games here through Nvidia 3D Vision or are there certain movies that stand out for you?

Good 3D is very relative, and if your talking about PC gaming in 3D  there are many options to choose from. What forces  the game to render in 3D is the drivers,and currently there are 3 company's that I review there drivers for stability and quality of  3D. IZ3D ,Trideff-DDD and also Nvidias 3D Vision drivers. What I consider as a good PC 3D game is one that doesn't consist of to many anomaly's. In some games the drivers don't seem to render the shadows properly,others it could be ground textures or water reflections. as long as the game has no anomaly's and is an actual fun game to play then I consider it a "Good 3D game"  . Just for example; Batman: Arkham Asylum  looks amazing on Nvidias 3D vision and  its perfect, not one anomaly . Adding  that the game is actually really fun to play makes it a great 3D game.
#49 Posted by Bucketdeth (8024 posts) -
@phish09 said:
@Bucketdeth said:
@crusader8463 said:
And as someone who can never use 3D, like millions of other people around the world, because I was born almost blind in my right eye I say fuck Sony and 3D. Nothing can be the future when it automatically keeps such a huge portion of the populace from ever using it, and it can never become main stream because of it. So here's to hoping this 3D fad dies a quick painful death and is something we can all laugh at in the near future as one of those stupid things no one understood why it went on for as long as it did.
Just because you can't use it doesn't meen millions of others can't, that's like taking ice cream away because your lactose intolerant.
Poor English, but a good point.
I know, I've always been a retard when it comes to typing out what I'm trying to say.
#50 Posted by Grumbel (910 posts) -
@Sin4profit said:
I'm not into 3D because, science... When they can make a 3D TV that can detect the convergence of my eyes then we'll talk. 
Exactly, the problem with 3D isn't that it is bad by itself, but that the current implementations are so damn primitive and they have been for 15 years as shutter glasses are nothing new. They give you some sense of depth, but not actually an realistic reproduction of the real experience. If they would couple 3D TV with some Kinect head tracking to shift the viewing angle depending at how you look at the scene, they still wouldn't be able to fix the convergence issues, but at least that way they could give you an actually 3D experience instead of just sterosopic stuff. My dream setup of course would be a VR helmet along with head and eye tracking, done right it could give you an incredible experience, but hardly anybody seems to actually develop the technology for that, thus the resolution from 3D glasses still suck rather badly.
 
Another issues is also simply the games, slapping 3D onto them afterwards never really works, things like cross hairs or the weapon always feel off, some texturing tricks that look fine in 2D look tend to look worse in 3D, as it becomes much more obvious that 3D structure in a texture is just painted on and not actually 3D.
 
At this point 3D is still simply to immature to be really worth it, maybe that will change in the future, but given how long it has been around (longer then 100 years if you count early experiments) and given that it still suffers from all the basic problems, I wouldn't hold my breath. The best part of 3D is probably that the TVs and monitors will all be able to display 120Hz or more instead of being maxed out at 60Hz, which can benefit good old 2D gaming.