Posted by lil_cheeks (118 posts) -

I am a huge fan of technology and always have to at least try out gimmicky hardware and peripherals.  The latest craze of 3D doesn't quite translate to gaming in my mind and i would actually rather not even bother with it.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for pushing technology but if gaming in 3D is just like watching movies in 3D then i just don't see the benefit.   
 
This morning i just so happened to open an old Gamepro magazine from March of 1994.  Yes, i do keep all my game magazines and look through them once in a while....total nerd i know.  Anyway, I opened it to the Cutting Edge section because its interesting to see what was on the horizon in 90's and if it every ended up becoming anything.  
 
The article title was "Taking You into the Technology of Tomorrow" and it was all about virtual reality.  Here are some quotes from the article that got me thinking: 
 
"As far-out as this setup sounds, it may be reality soon."  - referring to the latest VR hardware 
"If RPI's game plan is successful, the company's on-line system will be operational next year.." 
"RPI has three unnamed on-line VR games in development" 
"...game developers such as Electronic Arts, Origin Systems, and Spectrum HoloByte are working on game codes for VR gaming" 
"...some computer games already have VR tracking capability programmed into them..."  
 
Now after reading through those you would have thought we were all going to have VR in our homes by 2005!  Why did it never become anything more?  Probably because technology wasn't quite there yet, and you have to have clunky hardware to use it, and very few developers were on board.  Sound familiar?  Sure does, sounds like 3D to me. 
 
Again i am not against innovation in games, without it we wouldn't be playing on-line, using motion controls, or even using dual thumbsticks on controllers but i don't want innovation to become the only concern.  Without keeping focused on whats working today (great games, great graphics, great sound, great stories) i feel like we may see games of lower value because everyone is trying to push something that just isn't ready yet.

#1 Posted by lil_cheeks (118 posts) -

I am a huge fan of technology and always have to at least try out gimmicky hardware and peripherals.  The latest craze of 3D doesn't quite translate to gaming in my mind and i would actually rather not even bother with it.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for pushing technology but if gaming in 3D is just like watching movies in 3D then i just don't see the benefit.   
 
This morning i just so happened to open an old Gamepro magazine from March of 1994.  Yes, i do keep all my game magazines and look through them once in a while....total nerd i know.  Anyway, I opened it to the Cutting Edge section because its interesting to see what was on the horizon in 90's and if it every ended up becoming anything.  
 
The article title was "Taking You into the Technology of Tomorrow" and it was all about virtual reality.  Here are some quotes from the article that got me thinking: 
 
"As far-out as this setup sounds, it may be reality soon."  - referring to the latest VR hardware 
"If RPI's game plan is successful, the company's on-line system will be operational next year.." 
"RPI has three unnamed on-line VR games in development" 
"...game developers such as Electronic Arts, Origin Systems, and Spectrum HoloByte are working on game codes for VR gaming" 
"...some computer games already have VR tracking capability programmed into them..."  
 
Now after reading through those you would have thought we were all going to have VR in our homes by 2005!  Why did it never become anything more?  Probably because technology wasn't quite there yet, and you have to have clunky hardware to use it, and very few developers were on board.  Sound familiar?  Sure does, sounds like 3D to me. 
 
Again i am not against innovation in games, without it we wouldn't be playing on-line, using motion controls, or even using dual thumbsticks on controllers but i don't want innovation to become the only concern.  Without keeping focused on whats working today (great games, great graphics, great sound, great stories) i feel like we may see games of lower value because everyone is trying to push something that just isn't ready yet.

#2 Posted by Broitman (151 posts) -

God i hope so I don't think I can take a future of uncomfortable glasses, slight nausea, and hearing about how James Cameron was a visionary until I die.

#3 Edited by PenguinDust (12517 posts) -

Well, I do think there is a future in 3D gaming but it's going to have to be (A) glasses-free, (B) viewable from any angle, and (C) resistant to causing nausea/headaches in viewers.  Until the technology gets past those humps, it will continue to be a fad.  Of course, just because it is a fad doesn't mean it can't be around for a good long time.  I'd be willing to assert that DDR has had its day in the sun and Guitar Hero-like games are approaching the sunset of their prime, but both were significant parts of gaming history.  3D could follow in this tradition and find an audience who is willing to put up with the expensive glasses and the motion sickness.  Of course, prices are going to have to come down, but progress will take care of that.  

 "...in the year 2000..."
 
Remember G4TV's competitive multiplayer show, Arena?  Originally the program was hosted by Wil Weaton (Star Trek) and some other guy.  Later, it was a big dude from American Gladiators and a fresh faced Kevin Pereira.  They had a segment where the two teams played America's Army with VR helmets and weapons.  It was ridiculous, and thankfully the concept never took off. 
#4 Posted by kalmis (1558 posts) -

 Interesting point but difference between 3D and VR is that the big electronic companies and likes of James Cameron are pushing 3D as well. These people must really believe in the technology. And/or know somwthing we don't.
Personally I am not interested in any of it either. Well except for maybe Nintendo's 3DS. Besides Virtual Boy they haven't ever really failed on the HW market.