3D is all about presentation. It really is more realistic compared to 2D if done right. I would rather play games in 3D, but it's not really necessary which is the main argument here.
If it hurts your eyes, than obviously you're not going to like it. As for me, I could look at it all day, and I like it better than 2D. Even if the graphics are 2D styled with 3D enhancements, that's still better IMO.
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
I'd like to ask, to those of you who say that it's not innovative because a small number of gamers can't use it (due to headaches, ect), does that also mean that sound upgrades can't be innovative because deaf gamers can't experience them?
That group of people is far from small, I can assure you. Certainly larger than the amount of deaf people out there. That aside, though, that's still a rediculous argument to make. Sound systems were never meant to cater to deaf people. You're comparing people with explicit disabilities to regular people. A better comparison would be more like minute changes in sound that a large number of regular people would never be able to hear.
While I think that neither HD or 3d are really innovative as far as gameplay, I do think that 3d is really great as a graphical update. 3d really draws me into the game, more so than HD.
Never Gonna Give Mew Up!
3DS Friend Code: 1075-1253-2852 | Nintendo Network ID: NJanders
There were some 3D smart phones, but Nintendo's still looked better even without 720p. I think that's why Nintendo got sued, because they were able to make the 3D look more convincing by adding a sort of pseudo effect.
Virtual Boy isn't really an argument. We all know that was a failure, but 3DS is way more practical and functional than that could have ever been at the time.
NO. That is NOT why Nintendo got sued.
Nintendo was sued because it infringed patents. And it was found guilty of infringing patents.
Argue with this and I am reporting you. You have got to stop with this "I think" crap. It's always, always, a load of utter nonsense.
I'd like to ask, to those of you who say that it's not innovative because a small number of gamers can't use it (due to headaches, ect), does that also mean that sound upgrades can't be innovative because deaf gamers can't experience them?
All in all, it seems like the most legitimate reason mentioned is that it's more of a hassle than most people are willing to go through (with glasses, ect), which I'll agree with. I'm confident that as time goes on the tech will be improved, so hopefully they'll be able to alleviate some of the issues.
Also, can we knock it off with the Nintendo vs Sony stuff. It's irrelevant to the situation.
Ok, here's your 100% serious answer.
To make something visually effective in 3D, it actually requires a complete rethink in how it was made. The reason 3D meant anything to anyone is because James Cameron is a visionary and Avatar is a film that only really works, in terms of cinematography, in 3D. Watch it in 2D and it actually lacks impact.
HD, on the other hand, enhances the visuals without actually requiring a re-education on how to make visuals by the designer. It simply looks better and more detailed, and so 'taking advantage' of HD just means 'make more detailed environments.'
Because the 3DS has a tiny instal base (compared to cinema, lol, and HD consoles), there isn't much incentive to properly invest in 3D development by game developers right now. So what we get instead in 99% of cases is 2D games that have a 3D effect thrown in because it's a neat gimmick. There is incentive, however, to make details HD environments, as that is what the competition is doing.
At the end-consumer level, therefore, it looks like developers are being 'lazy' with 3DS games (as if people knew how much work goes into even the crappiest shovelware), but putting effort into HD development. Lots of consumers mistake that for a disparity in 'innovation'
There were some 3D smart phones, but Nintendo's still looked better even without 720p. I think that's why Nintendo got sued, because they were able to make the 3D look more convincing by adding a sort of pseudo effect.
Virtual Boy isn't really an argument. We all know that was a failure, but 3DS is way more practical and functional than that could have ever been at the time.
NO. That is NOT why Nintendo got sued.
Nintendo was sued because it infringed patents. And it was found guilty of infringing patents.
Argue with this and I am reporting you. You have got to stop with this "I think" crap. It's always, always, a load of utter nonsense.
What specifically IN THE PATENTS did they infringe on? Pantents are made to protect specific designs, but we still have yet to know exactly what design they copied, which is most likely confidential. Speculation is not against the rules of this forum. I did not state my reasoning as being fact in anyway.
Yeah, not sure what reporting him's gonna do. It's not like the instant-ban button. :/
Just out of curiousity, SCAR, but have you read up on this case? Is the info not there or have you just not found it? I'm not sure either way, since I don't care enough to read up on it, but a lot of people seem to know more than you do, or at least they seem like it.
Argue with this and I am reporting you. You have got to stop with this "I think" crap. It's always, always, a load of utter nonsense.
My, you get angry over stupid things. Just let him say his thing, there's no harm in it. Most people just ignore him anyways. Besides, as long as he's not being offensive or talking about taboo subjects here, he should be able to say what he wants.
Yeah, not sure what reporting him's gonna do. It's not like the instant-ban button. :/
Just out of curiousity, SCAR, but have you read up on this case? Is the info not there or have you just not found it? I'm not sure either way, since I don't care enough to read up on it, but a lot of people seem to know more than you do, or at least they seem like it.
The info is just simply not there as far as outside of the courtroom. I admit I do speculate quite often, but they are reasonable and completely possible. Saying patent infringement is the cause and leaving it at that is neglecting the specifics.
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
Yeah, not sure what reporting him's gonna do. It's not like the instant-ban button. :/
Just out of curiousity, SCAR, but have you read up on this case? Is the info not there or have you just not found it? I'm not sure either way, since I don't care enough to read up on it, but a lot of people seem to know more than you do, or at least they seem like it.
The info is just simply not there as far as outside of the courtroom. I admit I do speculate quite often, but they are reasonable and completely possible. Saying patent infringement is the cause and leaving it at that is neglecting the specifics.
I agree with your last point, but as for your other points...I just got back from reading the other thread. Let me give you some quick advice: don't use analogies. You are not good at them. Your analogies thus far have done nothing to further your point. You're better off just saying what you mean as plainly as possible. Perhaps your point will get across more easily.
High definition can enhance the experience depending on the game, whereas 3D cannot.
Do you perhaps have any examples of when HD was used in an innovative way?
I wouldn't say HD would be used for innovation ever, but it makes all the difference in games. In HD, games can reach their artistic vision much closer then they could on, say, the Nintendo 64. Look at the jump from OOT/SF64 to the 3D remakes. Then look at the concept art. Right there, you'll see why even slightly superior graphics would make reaching that vision easier, so HD is all the better.
3D CAN improve the experience though. Super Mario 3D Land is the only game I can think of that did this well though.
Yeah, not sure what reporting him's gonna do. It's not like the instant-ban button. :/
Just out of curiousity, SCAR, but have you read up on this case? Is the info not there or have you just not found it? I'm not sure either way, since I don't care enough to read up on it, but a lot of people seem to know more than you do, or at least they seem like it.
Bankai always seems like he knows more than everyone else.
Check out SUBLIME GAMER, my YouTube Channel
God loves you
There were some 3D smart phones, but Nintendo's still looked better even without 720p. I think that's why Nintendo got sued, because they were able to make the 3D look more convincing by adding a sort of pseudo effect.
Virtual Boy isn't really an argument. We all know that was a failure, but 3DS is way more practical and functional than that could have ever been at the time.
NO. That is NOT why Nintendo got sued.
Nintendo was sued because it infringed patents. And it was found guilty of infringing patents.
Argue with this and I am reporting you. You have got to stop with this "I think" crap. It's always, always, a load of utter nonsense.
What specifically IN THE PATENTS did they infringe on? Patents are made to protect specific designs, but we still have yet to know exactly what design they copied, which is most likely confidential. Speculation is not against the rules of this forum. I did not state my reasoning as being fact in anyway.
Bless us with your knowledge of patent law, please! In fact, everyone calling Tomita a patent troll should analyze the patents and disassemble a 3DS to amaze me with their sparkling intellect!
I'm not saying Tomita is right or Tomita is wrong. However, I will say that for some reason this thread keeps branching off into heated debates that are irrelevant to the topic put forth in the original post, and, thus, should be locked.
Do you perhaps have any examples of when HD was used in an innovative way?
Innovation is a misleading term when referencing and discussing graphics. The same reasons you think 3D is innovative is the same reason HD is yet to a higher extent.
Bless us with your knowledge of patent law, please! In fact, everyone calling Tomita a patent troll should analyze the patents and disassemble a 3DS to amaze me with their sparkling intellect!
Witty sarcasm. I like to be witty and I adore sarcasm. I like you.
3D has not yet been implemented in a game in a way that enables you to experience something you wouldn't be able to without it. Even in a game like Super Mario 3D Land it just makes it easier to jump on oddly-positioned clouds; it's not at all an essential part of the experience.
HD on the other hand (assuming we're talking about a leap in polygon count, say from the PS2 to the PS3) does enable otherwise impossible experiences. Uncharted 2 would be a worse game on the PS2.
3D has not yet been implemented in a game in a way that enables you to experience something you wouldn't be able to without it. Even in a game like Super Mario 3D Land it just makes it easier to jump on oddly-positioned clouds; it's not at all an essential part of the experience.
HD on the other hand (assuming we're talking about a leap in polygon count, say from the PS2 to the PS3) does enable otherwise impossible experiences. Uncharted 2 would be a worse game on the PS2.
It would be a worse game, yes, but HD is definitely not an essential part of the experience. It's no different from 3D vs no 3D. The game is still a fun game no matter, but the extra visual power improves it.
3D has not yet been implemented in a game in a way that enables you to experience something you wouldn't be able to without it. Even in a game like Super Mario 3D Land it just makes it easier to jump on oddly-positioned clouds; it's not at all an essential part of the experience.
HD on the other hand (assuming we're talking about a leap in polygon count, say from the PS2 to the PS3) does enable otherwise impossible experiences. Uncharted 2 would be a worse game on the PS2.
We're talking about HD resolution, not polygon count.
Currently Playing:
Switch - Blade Strangers
PS4 - Kingdom Hearts III, Tetris Effect (VR)
3D has not yet been implemented in a game in a way that enables you to experience something you wouldn't be able to without it. Even in a game like Super Mario 3D Land it just makes it easier to jump on oddly-positioned clouds; it's not at all an essential part of the experience.
HD on the other hand (assuming we're talking about a leap in polygon count, say from the PS2 to the PS3) does enable otherwise impossible experiences. Uncharted 2 would be a worse game on the PS2.
We're talking about HD resolution, not polygon count.
I should have figured.
I don't know enough about what HD actually means to participate, so although I very well may still think HD to be a superior visual graphical enhancement to games than 3D, I'm not qualified to say it.
Forums
Topic: Why isn't 3D considered as innovative as HD?
Posts 41 to 60 of 70
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.