Topic: Why isn't 3D considered as innovative as HD?

I'm in no way trolling, and am actually legitimately interested why this seems to be the case with most gamers.

I've always seen both HD & 3D (stereoscopic) to be nice visual upgrades to gaming, but don't innovate much in terms of actually how we interact with games.

For some reason though, HD seems to be treated as a huge step forward in gaming innovation, while 3D is "just a fad" (and I'm not specifically talking about 3DS here, but it is probably the most talked about regarding the use of 3D in games).

So, what did HD do for gaming that was so innovative, that the depth brought in by 3D doesn't compare to?

Don't get me wrong, I have a PS3 & 360 in addition to my 3DS & (non working) Wii, so I'm not trying to say that HD isn't cool or innovative, I'm just perplexed as to why it's seen as so much more significant to how we play games than 3D is, when to me, they both came off as little more than nice visual upgrades.

Because, to the average "gamer", the only thing that matters is the graphics, and HD is more detailed.

How is more pixels innovative? I think the most innovative thing in gaming, tech-wise, is Physx. Definitely adds to the realism in games that do it right, like Borderlands 2 and Planetside 2

I don't think HD was ever considered innovative. It was more of a evolution rather than new thinking.

Well, I don't think either are considered particularly "innovative" (in video game terms). I would imagine the reason 3D gets labeled as a fad whereas HD doesn't is because HD is a clear and obvious improvement to visuals that's here to stay (or to be improved upon), whereas 3D has proven to be a fad time and time again (and isn't as obvious an improvement to visuals as it often completely ruins them and your eyeballs like on the 3DS...) 3D has come and gone for decades now (3D movies were a big thing in the 1950s) and each time it's faded away.

To be honest, I don't think anyone considers HD innovative. So the comparison is kind of a non starter to begin with.

But practically speaking, I think the difference between them is simple:

The likes of motion controls/3D gameplay = innovative because it changes how games are played.

HD = seen as merely a step forward, maybe a necessary one but not an innovation.

3D (3DS/movie style) = sometimes not seen so much as innovative because for the most part, it doesn't affect the gameplay/content.

On that basis, I guess you could say HD and 3D are seen as about as innovative as each other... not very.

@RR529
For me at least, I would have to say that they are of at least equal visual significance. This argument is probably somewhat slanted due to the fact that many gamers have yet to acquire a 3D display/system, and thus are in denial. At the end of the day, both HD and 3D can provide the user with a denser image and a more engrossing experience.

PS. I've been playing DKCR with my TV's 3D upscaler, and it's like warm honey in my eyes! (okay, maybe not the best analogy)

Because some people don't see 3D very well, and it can be easier to play certain games on a flat screen. HD on the other hand isn't innovation, just a graphics upgrade. HD is here to stay, because no one is going to go backwards with their tech.

HD is seen as the bigger innovation because it allows for a larger variety of color and greater detail to be shown to the player. 3D, on the other hand, doesn't add a whole lot to the mix besides depth. While the perception of depth will be an essential part when attempting to create virtual reality experiences, depth on its own does barely anything in both enhance the player's experience and the developer's flexibility of their tools.

IM with you on this but at least only HARDWAREmanufacturer are not going backwards, many software developers are. See the rise in Indygames and LOW-res PIXEL graphics have long been accepted as valid art style for something thats running on a HD system yet makes it look like its a 20 year old game. Im perfectly fine with that I just bring it up that sometimes even "less" is more and can add to an experience. I still enjoy crips pixel art no matter what my setup can put out!

Because it sucks and get sold after 10 minutes.

Because when people think 3D, they want things to come out of the screen and grab then, but those hard core "gamers", they want better graphics over gameplay i suppose.

Because HD has become the modern standard of electronic visuals, while 3D has too many inconveniences (Headaches, child development problems, glasses, having to sit at the right spot to view it if glasses are not involved, etc) to become the standard. In fact, unless its inconveniences can be overcome, it'll eventually fall back into a niche, thus being proclaimed as a fad.

High definition can enhance the experience depending on the game, whereas 3D cannot.

I wasn't aware either of these were considered innovative. I agree with CM30 and xilef.

Why are people pulling out that old (and inaccurate) gameplay > graphics excuse in this thread?

This specific thread is comparing two technology enchancements that have the sole purpose of enhancing the graphics.

I thought the 3D enhanced games like Kid Icarus a good bit.

Shrugs

I prefer the 3D. It actually enhances the gameplay experience in some cases (Super Mario 3D Land, Pushmo, etc.) Otherwise, it just looks neat.

because Innovtive isn't a word.

Do you guys know what HD is? It's not good graphics. It's more dots. That's it. And there wasn't a big jump in pixel count when the PS360 came out. You could be playing games in the almighty HD if you had even a halfway decent computer monitor ten years ago. The Gamepad is not HD. It's about as HD as a Gamecube. HD is not an innovation.