The Third Dimension: A Nice Place to Holiday?
by Rob Vicars | Wednesday 7th July 2010
After this year's E3, it seems '3D' can no longer be uncomfortably ignored and ushered awkwardly out of the room whenever it brings attention
to itself in conversation. Whilst the role reversal with motion controls has this year seen Nintendo not really bothering and Microsoft and
Sony flailing their arms boisterously yelling 'guess who's tardy to the party', the other BIG PUSH by two thirds of the Big Three is of
course STEREOSCOPIC 3D, or variants thereof.
It seems sometime a couple of years ago, in a fancy marketing office perched on a medium-depth circle of hell, some important men with fancy suits and fancy bank accounts sat around thinking "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GOLDEN CURTAIN RAIL HOOKS. How can we get more golden curtain rail hooks? Spend the money we've already got? Certainly not. What we need to do is take our drying up cinema business and drag the people back through the door by their collar beating them with a picture of James Cameron and telling them what to like." This worked. Tremendously well. And things don't work tremendously well without Sony hearing about it. Sure enough, Sony put their size 13's in and started wildly waggling them about until they had a piece of the action. Suddenly 3DTVs and 3D games, and 3D pictures and 3D music, and 3D hair dryers and 3D aftershave and 3D novelty socks, we can't escape the third dimension, we must enter it to be considered in anyway an acceptable human being.
The extent to which Nintendo were already planning their move is a little negatable really. Before long, they announced the 3DS. The six-millionth incarnation of the DS, the original of which was conceived in 10,000 BC, and yes, this new one has 3D capabilities. BUT. Aha, there is a but. You don't have to wear 3D glasses. The effect however is entirely impossible to convey without seeing the actual thing in front of you. So good luck with the advertising on that Nintendo. Most recently, a Sony rep was actually reported saying SCE and Nintendo should WORK TOGETHER, encouraging a coalition of sorts. Essentially this was more of a plead for Nintendo to stop making fun of their 3D glasses. Stop picking on us Nintendo, it hurts our feelings.
So there we are. That brings us up to date with the extent to which we're currently having 3D inserted vigorously down our throat whilst we gag. Violently. Unfortunately, however, it's bad news for Sony because a recent study has shown that;
3D DOESN'T MATTER.
From its inception to its execution, 3D has shown it isn't important. Certainly, Sony are (naturally) touting the technology as the next revolution in gaming, over, in fact, its own new motion sensing gear Playstation Move. But then Sony have invested all this money in its 3DTVs, and stand to make much more money from it all. So they would say that really, wouldn't they.
For me though, 3D isn't even an advancement. It's backtracking. 3D has been around for years. In fact a Channel 4 documentary on The Queen has 3D footage shot in 1953. That same year the original House of Wax was released in 3D at the cinema. It's a concept older than Ghandi's old hat. And its heavy (re)appearance in the cinema, resulting in the highest grossing movie in the history of everything ever, simply gives weight to the idea that 3D is nothing more than an existing medium, applied to current, modern day technology and painted onto the cinema format in a desperate, straw-grasping attempt at a novelty that'll get the masses throwing their wallets and keys and house deeds and children at the PICTURE HOUSES once again. After that worked it was soon apparent to that little marketing office on the medium-depth circle of hell that the same technology could be span to a similar degree into TVs, and thousands and thousands of pounds could be charged to the consumer for these new, next-generation sets. Suddenly 3D is backed by the biggest TV company in the world, and as a result, it spills over into gaming. All of a sudden we're aggressively man handled and shook by a balding, trouser-braces-wearing 57 year old yelling BUT 3D IS JUST SO IMMERSIVE YOU KNOW over and over again. And in fact, that statement is a complete lie. Everyone with a base ability to use the principal senses knows 3D has the immersive quality of a chipstick diorama. And it isn't half as delicious. Namely this is because, rather than it being actual 3D, it's 2D images staggered in front of you, slightly closer than before. Which really is a bit like saying, Hey try this new sandwich... well okay it's not new, it's a standard BLT BUT we're going to feed you all the bits one after the other in quick succession and charge you THRICE as much. Sort of. Okay it bears no similarity to that example, but regardless it's still a preposterous let down in regards to revolutions and gaming benchmarks and other such expletives that are being racketed about by the proprietors.
Further developments on the Nintendo venture into the third dimension has seen developers working on 3DS titles reporting that the machine has the potential to run better looking and better performing games, if they lost the 3D. Naturally 3D is going to take processing power and ask for extra juice from the video card, or the portable version thereof, all of which could go straight back into the games. So now it seems we're substituting the ability to make games better in favour of a tacky, rehash novelty. Is it me, or is that just ludicrous? It's like missing some vital pages in a book so you can have a lenticular front cover. Or eating the book, in a misconstrued attempt to further understand the story.
3D does for games what Chris Moyles has done for the advancement of the human race. Nothing. In fact it's detrimental, and frankly to call it a revolution seems so far off the mark, it makes me wonder if these companies backing it really have any concern as to the future of the gaming industry at all, or are they literally only concerned with lining their pockets further still? Perhaps that's being harsh. You can never say never, but I find it very hard to visualize myself being particularly immersed or even impressed by the reaches of 3D technology, at least as it stands. At least until it actually starts being three dimensional. The novelty still serves its purpose as a novelty, and in that it's an adequate addition to general entertainment technology. But what we're hearing is the echoes of intention that expect far more than this. It seems like the third dimension might not be the worst holiday destination, but you'd never want to move there.
Simply, it feels like a bit of a sub-par excuse for the next step, in terms of what we could be aiming for in this day and age. As usual, for all my scepticism on the matter, there's enough hazy-eyed, sedated individuals with too much money who are prepared to buy whatever they're sold to make it a worthwhile venture for any multi-billion dollar company, be that in cinema, TV or any other format it's applied to. I simply cannot see the advantage of watching the same picture, but with bits cut off and appearing slightly closer to your face than before, whilst wearing a pair of plastic glasses. Between this and motion controls, it's going to be a disappointing decade if this is all the 20-teen gaming leap has to offer. I'm going to stay on the edge of my seat, but I'll be waiting a while to leap off it in amazement I think. The 'revolution' is yet to come boys and girls.
It seems sometime a couple of years ago, in a fancy marketing office perched on a medium-depth circle of hell, some important men with fancy suits and fancy bank accounts sat around thinking "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GOLDEN CURTAIN RAIL HOOKS. How can we get more golden curtain rail hooks? Spend the money we've already got? Certainly not. What we need to do is take our drying up cinema business and drag the people back through the door by their collar beating them with a picture of James Cameron and telling them what to like." This worked. Tremendously well. And things don't work tremendously well without Sony hearing about it. Sure enough, Sony put their size 13's in and started wildly waggling them about until they had a piece of the action. Suddenly 3DTVs and 3D games, and 3D pictures and 3D music, and 3D hair dryers and 3D aftershave and 3D novelty socks, we can't escape the third dimension, we must enter it to be considered in anyway an acceptable human being.
The extent to which Nintendo were already planning their move is a little negatable really. Before long, they announced the 3DS. The six-millionth incarnation of the DS, the original of which was conceived in 10,000 BC, and yes, this new one has 3D capabilities. BUT. Aha, there is a but. You don't have to wear 3D glasses. The effect however is entirely impossible to convey without seeing the actual thing in front of you. So good luck with the advertising on that Nintendo. Most recently, a Sony rep was actually reported saying SCE and Nintendo should WORK TOGETHER, encouraging a coalition of sorts. Essentially this was more of a plead for Nintendo to stop making fun of their 3D glasses. Stop picking on us Nintendo, it hurts our feelings.
So there we are. That brings us up to date with the extent to which we're currently having 3D inserted vigorously down our throat whilst we gag. Violently. Unfortunately, however, it's bad news for Sony because a recent study has shown that;
3D DOESN'T MATTER.
From its inception to its execution, 3D has shown it isn't important. Certainly, Sony are (naturally) touting the technology as the next revolution in gaming, over, in fact, its own new motion sensing gear Playstation Move. But then Sony have invested all this money in its 3DTVs, and stand to make much more money from it all. So they would say that really, wouldn't they.
For me though, 3D isn't even an advancement. It's backtracking. 3D has been around for years. In fact a Channel 4 documentary on The Queen has 3D footage shot in 1953. That same year the original House of Wax was released in 3D at the cinema. It's a concept older than Ghandi's old hat. And its heavy (re)appearance in the cinema, resulting in the highest grossing movie in the history of everything ever, simply gives weight to the idea that 3D is nothing more than an existing medium, applied to current, modern day technology and painted onto the cinema format in a desperate, straw-grasping attempt at a novelty that'll get the masses throwing their wallets and keys and house deeds and children at the PICTURE HOUSES once again. After that worked it was soon apparent to that little marketing office on the medium-depth circle of hell that the same technology could be span to a similar degree into TVs, and thousands and thousands of pounds could be charged to the consumer for these new, next-generation sets. Suddenly 3D is backed by the biggest TV company in the world, and as a result, it spills over into gaming. All of a sudden we're aggressively man handled and shook by a balding, trouser-braces-wearing 57 year old yelling BUT 3D IS JUST SO IMMERSIVE YOU KNOW over and over again. And in fact, that statement is a complete lie. Everyone with a base ability to use the principal senses knows 3D has the immersive quality of a chipstick diorama. And it isn't half as delicious. Namely this is because, rather than it being actual 3D, it's 2D images staggered in front of you, slightly closer than before. Which really is a bit like saying, Hey try this new sandwich... well okay it's not new, it's a standard BLT BUT we're going to feed you all the bits one after the other in quick succession and charge you THRICE as much. Sort of. Okay it bears no similarity to that example, but regardless it's still a preposterous let down in regards to revolutions and gaming benchmarks and other such expletives that are being racketed about by the proprietors.
Further developments on the Nintendo venture into the third dimension has seen developers working on 3DS titles reporting that the machine has the potential to run better looking and better performing games, if they lost the 3D. Naturally 3D is going to take processing power and ask for extra juice from the video card, or the portable version thereof, all of which could go straight back into the games. So now it seems we're substituting the ability to make games better in favour of a tacky, rehash novelty. Is it me, or is that just ludicrous? It's like missing some vital pages in a book so you can have a lenticular front cover. Or eating the book, in a misconstrued attempt to further understand the story.
3D does for games what Chris Moyles has done for the advancement of the human race. Nothing. In fact it's detrimental, and frankly to call it a revolution seems so far off the mark, it makes me wonder if these companies backing it really have any concern as to the future of the gaming industry at all, or are they literally only concerned with lining their pockets further still? Perhaps that's being harsh. You can never say never, but I find it very hard to visualize myself being particularly immersed or even impressed by the reaches of 3D technology, at least as it stands. At least until it actually starts being three dimensional. The novelty still serves its purpose as a novelty, and in that it's an adequate addition to general entertainment technology. But what we're hearing is the echoes of intention that expect far more than this. It seems like the third dimension might not be the worst holiday destination, but you'd never want to move there.
Simply, it feels like a bit of a sub-par excuse for the next step, in terms of what we could be aiming for in this day and age. As usual, for all my scepticism on the matter, there's enough hazy-eyed, sedated individuals with too much money who are prepared to buy whatever they're sold to make it a worthwhile venture for any multi-billion dollar company, be that in cinema, TV or any other format it's applied to. I simply cannot see the advantage of watching the same picture, but with bits cut off and appearing slightly closer to your face than before, whilst wearing a pair of plastic glasses. Between this and motion controls, it's going to be a disappointing decade if this is all the 20-teen gaming leap has to offer. I'm going to stay on the edge of my seat, but I'll be waiting a while to leap off it in amazement I think. The 'revolution' is yet to come boys and girls.