Thoughts on 3D movies, tv, and gaming

[Astro Gnocci]

isn't 3D just a new "special effect" ?

Are special effects "bad" ?
No.
But anything that relies on any technological aspect to be its main selling point sucks.
If in 10 years 3D is so widely used than no one even notices it anymore, then i won't care about it. Until then, it's probably gona keep pissing me off more than anything else.

[Lena_P]

3D isn't "new" considering it was a huge fad in the early 50's. In fact the MGM musical "Kiss Me Kate" was filmed in 3D back in 1953, as was "Dial M for Murder" in '54, and they were on the tail end of the fad. There was a resurgence of 3D films again in the early 80's, and again it died out pretty quickly. It seems like Hollywood just becomes obsessed with 3D every 30 years, and even after all this time they've never really gotten the hang of it.

[GuruGuru214]

It's not 3D that's new so much as it's the current 3D technology that's new, and that's why it's so huge now. 3D movies have been around forever, but the whole polarized light technique is still cutting edge, so naturally it has to be obsessed over.

[SHODANFreeman]

Originally Posted by GuruGuru214

It's not 3D that's new so much as it's the current 3D technology that's new, and that's why it's so huge now. 3D movies have been around forever, but the whole polarized light technique is still cutting edge, so naturally it has to be obsessed over.

The polarized 3D crap has been around for 70+ years.

[GuruGuru214]

Well...I don't know what their excuse is, then. IMAX certainly isn't new, so it's not that. And I doubt that the production costs for the dual 3D projectors have really dropped so much recently that it would spark such a huge boom. Maybe it is just a revolving fad, coming back every 30 years like a damn comet.

[banishingseraph]

Well the difference in technology for 3D is from how I understand it the new 3D televisions doesn't pop out at you. It actually makes everything have depth. So instead now it's supposed to be like you can see everything as if it was just a window there. From the only review on the technology that I've read they said that it doesn't have much of a lasting impact and the glasses even have a bit of weight to them since they have to communicate with the television.

I agree with Lena P that the whole thing is a fad that keeps cropping up. My problem with it though is the fact that it's annoying. We are trading substance and go camera shots for the fact that it looks like something might possibly pop out at you? It's like if Telltale told you that they were going to make a 3D version of the first season of Sam and Max but it would have blissful Max for the whole thing and the jokes were being removed entirely. I know I'm being slightly more dramatic but it happens. The remake of Clash of the Titans was awful. They didn't think about the story line or the characters they only thought of how best to showcase a movie in 3D. While it might look cheesy I'll take the original any day.

[VeronicanPlay]

3D is all well and good, but I don't want to watch 3D in a Cinema. It's was ok fun when they tried to include it to a kids show here in Denmark where you had to put these dumb huge paperboard glasses with the red and blue colours.

But I am a huge fan of 4D movies, had a great time when I watched a little movie in Lego Land and Thorp Park. And the added physical effects was even more fun.

So little movies meant for it is ok, but don't include it to the big screen, its to strenuous on the brain.

[Lena_P]

I literally know next to nothing about how films are made (unlike quite a few of the people on these forums and apparently half of the people who work at Telltale), but I've kind of wondered if the reason Hollywood doesn't make good use of 3D is because it's the opposite of how they usually film things?

I mean, it seems like most of the time film makers are faking the shots you see. They're not in a huge mansion, they're in a relatively small set. The actors weren't really ten feet from that massive fireball, they were fifty feet away and were actually stunt doubles. It seems like it'd be hard to create a sense of depth when it didn't exist in real life.

But animated features shouldn't have that problem, should they?

[GuruGuru214]

This is the same sort of problem we've always had in the console war. Look at this last iteration, the Wii received a lot of criticism over Nintendo's decision to not make such a graphically high-powered console, while Sony and Microsoft were trying to see who had the bigger penis better graphics. And a large subset of gamers ate it up. However, Nintendo was striving to create a more innovative and affordable console, and it worked. The Wii has sold almost as many consoles worldwide as the other two combined, and my only real lament would be that the lack of a hard drive is sometimes a hindrance. Except that there's still that good chunk of the subculture that still places graphics on a pedestal above all other features of a game. For example, from a section of this article, talking about Alan Wake:

Originally Posted by David Wong

I'm browsing around gaming blogs and message boards and I'm getting worried. I see dozens of comments like this:



Oh-oh. What's the complaint that has everyone up in arms? Is there a cheap twist at the end? Is the main character two-dimensional? Is there a frustrating minigame where you have to carefully groom Alan's pubic hair?

No. It turns out somebody took a screenshot of the game, zoomed in 500 percent and counted up the pixels to make sure every frame was rendering at the maximum 720p resolution the Xbox 360 is capable of.



It turned out some parts of some frames weren't. All hell broke loose.

And because people throw fits like this over graphics, because so much of the consumer base places them on this pedestal, the Wii often gets passed over for certain titles because it can't keep up graphically. That's bullshit. I don't regret opting for the Wii as my console of choice, but it's gotten to the point where I can't get by with it as my only console anymore, and I'm having to save up for a PS3.

And my point in bringing this up here is that this isn't just limited to gamers, it's just that many of them are particularly bad about it so they make a good example. My point is that our culture is, like the article says, obsessed with shiny things. And as long as media companies see that it works, they'll continue to produce media that favors visuals over substance.

[Avistew]

I couldn't agree more with Guru. Sure, it's great to see how far technology can go and all, but so many people favour game graphics/ movie special effects / dubbing by big stars, etc that it becomes the focus sometimes.
Don't get me wrong, good graphics, good special effects and a voice actor who happens to also be a big star can all be fine. But because they happen to work with the rest, not as a minimum requirement regardless of quality.

Anyways. I wouldn't have a problem with 3D if I could actually see it. As long as they keep making both versions available I'm ok with it, though, I'm not against it on principle or anything like that.

Also, I'm very happy with the Wii. At some point around... March, I think, my husband suggested we get another console, though. He was interested in the X-box 360 due to the... Bioware, is it? titles. I couldn't care less about either the PS3 and Xbox 360, but he put me in charge of researching which would be better because "I'm good with these things", apparently.
I asked a few people, got pretty set on not wanting the PS3, talked to more people while mentioning I was leaning towards the 360, got lots of opinions about how the 360 sucked...
Long story short, the choice was: neither. And now, 3 or so month later, we're both pretty happy we didn't get either (we were actually talking about it recently).

So... I don't think it's that essential. But of course I'm less of a gamer than most people here, and I've always favoured handheld anyways (didn't have to share them).

[Rather Dashing]

...excuse me if I'm overstepping any bounds, Guru, but how...er, is this rant related to the discussion of this thread?

[Astro Gnocci]

Originally Posted by GuruGuru214

My point is that our culture is, like the article says, obsessed with shiny things. And as long as media companies see that it works, they'll continue to produce media that favors visuals over substance.

Well. I just lost my rant on the subject because the forum didn't let me post it, but this sentence sums it all up anyway, so 'ill leave it to that.

Technology sucks anyway. Off to throw this computer out the window and start living like a caveman.

[Avistew]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

...excuse me if I'm overstepping any bounds, Guru, but how...er, is this rant related to the discussion of this thread?

There are similarities. Wanting everything to be 3D and wanting to add more pixels and wanting to add more CGI and so on are similar.

Originally Posted by Astro Gnocci

Technology sucks anyway. Off to throw this computer out the window and start living like a caveman.

Technology rocks. But the point of technology isn't, in my opinion, "let's push this specific thing more and more and more!" but "let's use technology to fit our needs". These things are too one-tracked for my tastes. Technology isn't a single track thing, it's more like a tree, each new improvement can lead to many different things. Why only focus on a specific aspect and try to push it past a reasonable point?

And why, as a consumer, wanting something bigger every time there is a new release? "It HAS to have better graphics" or "it HAS to be a long movie" or whatever, I just find that ridiculous. Why don't you try to enjoy the game or movie as a whole? Graphics and special effects and the like are only tools use to tell the story (if there is one). Caring only about these is like caring about the font of you book more than its words. Or even caring more about the cover. It just beats me. Technology is a means, not an end. It's good to find ways to improve it constantly, but don't lose sight of the end, because if there isn't one, what's the point?

[GuruGuru214]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

...excuse me if I'm overstepping any bounds, Guru, but how...er, is this rant related to the discussion of this thread?

What Avistew said. The weird thing is, this isn't the first time recently that I've posted somewhere and used a somewhat distant analogy without tying it as securely to the main subject as I intended.

But yeah, my point was that this is a problem prevalent in multiple aspects of our culture, and the video game thing is just a more exaggerated example of the problem behind 3D movies, driven by the same cultural flaw, and as such, I felt that it did a better job of illustrating that flaw.

[Astro Gnocci]

Originally Posted by Avistew

Technology rocks. But the point of technology isn't, in my opinion, "let's push this specific thing more and more and more!" but "let's use technology to fit our needs". These things are too one-tracked for my tastes. Technology isn't a single track thing, it's more like a tree, each new improvement can lead to many different things. Why only focus on a specific aspect and try to push it past a reasonable point?

And why, as a consumer, wanting something bigger every time there is a new release? "It HAS to have better graphics" or "it HAS to be a long movie" or whatever, I just find that ridiculous. Why don't you try to enjoy the game or movie as a whole? Graphics and special effects and the like are only tools use to tell the story (if there is one). Caring only about these is like caring about the font of you book more than its words. Or even caring more about the cover. It just beats me. Technology is a means, not an end. It's good to find ways to improve it constantly, but don't lose sight of the end, because if there isn't one, what's the point?

Don't worry, i pretty much agree and was just trying to be funny.
As you said, technique is only a tool.
A hammer doesn't suck and is actually pretty cool and useful. But hanging a hammer on the wall in a museum would sound pretty stupid, wouldn't it ? (maybe they'll do in a few centuries tho, in some exposition about our barbaric age, but hey that's not the point).
It's the obsessing about technique that sucks and somehow makes me wanna run away from anything "shiny".

So yeah, you're right, technology doesn't suck, but hanging it on walls does.
Ooga Booga.

[banishingseraph]

Originally Posted by GuruGuru214

But yeah, my point was that this is a problem prevalent in multiple aspects of our culture, and the video game thing is just a more exaggerated example of the problem behind 3D movies, driven by the same cultural flaw, and as such, I felt that it did a better job of illustrating that flaw.

It really compared well once the connection was there and it's easier to see several other connections to industry problems that are exemplified in 3D. The fact that it's not about making a better product, that they aren't looking at what people are wanting to see, the way that they are looking for the easiest route to making a buck. It's all there. It's really not me being upset over 3D or feeling that it shouldn't be there. It's more of how it reminds me of all the other things that bug me about the industries that I patronize and I think that I'm not the only one that feels that way. But as always I could be wrong, and I could be rambling.

[GuruGuru214]

Originally Posted by banishingseraph

But as always I could be wrong, and I could be rambling.

Except that the general consensus seems to be that you're right. Not that that necessarily means anything, but I'm inclined to think it does. Of course, I'm part of that consensus, so...

[DarkStar Runner]

Well, we've managed to pick up a 3D TV (thanks to my dad's birthday). I must say, it's actually quite splendid. Sure, it's ridiculously expensive, but playing games in 3D gives them an entirely new depth. It's not all about things popping out. It's more of adding more detail to the environment. The Blu-Ray doubled with 3D gives it an absolutely stunning experience.

Sure, the glasses are fairly silly, but they work really well.

[patters]

I don't know if anyone has said it here but

"come back when I have a holodeck, ala Star Trek"

The 3DS is most definitely a step in the right direction, with being able to scale the 3D on a slider (which may be analogue) along with not needing glasses. On top of this there are those that have only sight in one eye, who are entirely deprived of the experience with current tech. 3D is being pushed out the door faster than it should as Sony are in a hole financially. Hitachi are ahead of them with the physical tech, which is the screen used in the 3DS.

[Neikron]

I don't mind the occasional 3D movie here and there, but I don't think I could play a game, as long as they are, in 3D. It would be far too exhausting. Hopefully the 3DS (glasses-free) technology will start something new.