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

I deciphered the patents(took like 10 minutes of reading and looking at images), and Nintendo did infringe the patent. Sharp's is not reliant on a CPU conversions and such. Nintendo lost the case because of the combination of a CPU that decodes the images directly onto the display in one device(which is what 3DS was designed to do) vs. a seperate source being input and displayed on the display SEPARATELY which was included in Sharp's.
Whether Nintendo knew this or not is unknown to us obviously.

@Lan but you need more pixels to show all the polygons :/

I think in general, it is a matter of the high investment cost to go 3D. I think many people who invested money in a good HDTV where not willing to spend even more money on a 3D HDTV a few years later. Also you need a 3D Blu ray player and a high speed HDMI cable along with your 3D TV just to watch 3D movies not to mention that fact that before passive 3D tech, active 3D glasses were about $100.00 each.

Fortunately I waited a long time before upgrading my 720p Vizio TV to my current Samsung LED 3D HDTV. The thing is AMAZING! It is passive 3D and came with 6 pairs of 3D glasses and for my 3D Blu ray player I picked up a 320 GB PS3 from Fry's Electronics for 199.99. Actual 3D content filmed in 3D look amazing like Avatar and Hubble 3D. What makes this TV beyond awesome is that it can convert any 2D image into 3D in real time. My wife and I enjoy watching Stargate Atlantis in HD and in 3D. It is like looking out a window and 3D games like like God of War Chains of Olympus and Wipeout HD are a sight to behold. I think the best viewing experience is HD in 3D combined.

With all that being said, like movies when game developers like Nintendo make games with 3D in mind rather than tack it on the end of a game it goes from being a fad or gimmick to actually an important part of the gaming experience.

I really hope more people are able to experience what good 3D looks like. Now if they would only release the 3DS XL in black to I can finally upgrade to a bigger screen on my 3DS I would not be surprised if more "hard core" gamers were not put off from experiencing 3D gaming at least in handheld form because of NOA's refusal to release the 3DS XL in more adult colors. The 3DS XL looks likes a kid's toy and I think that more than anything is adding to the idea that 3D gaming is a fad aimed at kids rather than an innovation in gaming.

HD is actually becoming obsolete, due to bluray being better then HD.
Even the new X-Box is going to have a bluray player, so they can make bigger games.

So Nintendo is even more behind, because HD is the new retro.

Good god.....a blu-ray disc is the medium that holds the HD content. Something can be in HD and not be on a blu-ray, one does not require the other. A blu-ray is only a DVD with more storage space.

I still can't believe what I just read.....

He's not exactly wrong.
Digital HD containers are still not as good as the BlueRay disc container.
Though h.265 will improve digital containers.

But we are talking about HD as in high definition (aren't we?) and this guy seems to be confusing an output (HD visuals) with an input (blu-ray disc), believing that blu-ray and high definition are somehow in competition with each other.

Most people confuse HD with the transition from fullscreen to widescreen, which happened at the same time, but was every bit as much of an innovation as the HD itself. With both of those combined, you could do things that required a lot more detail, like writing on the walls, and you had a lot more real-estate to work with on-screen, so HUDs could be a lot smaller and you could have a wider field of view without the screen looking warped. This is important for multiplayer shooters in particular, as you could see more of your surroundings and see more enemies at a time. If you wanted your character to be more detailed, you could zoom out farther and the detail would still show.

Why I think 3D is more of a fad is because it still doesn't work well. A flat screen suspends your disbelief of flat images because it still works naturally, like a moving painting. Once things are in 3D we expect them to respond like other real-world 3D objects, like changing the perspective on the object when you move your head, and even more subtle things like changing the focus of the two cameras as you change the focal point of your eyes. Those two things alone can cause a lot of people headaches without the 3D even being done badly, it has nothing to do with their real-world depth perception, and it's subconscious so there's nothing they can do about it. Just like the transition from SD flatscreen to HD widescreen, there needs to be a change in the hardware of the viewing device itself before 3D can be accepted. Either the screen must function like a window where the perspective changes as you move around, or the device must be something other than a television, like a VR HMD with at the very least some form of head-tracking.

In other words, I like the Oculus Rift, and think that's the future of 3D, regardless of the fact that they have to sacrifice HD to do it.

Ah, yes.
I see your point.

I think people are expecting 3D to be virtual reality... Though I want to get my hands on a rift development kit... hmmm.

It think 3D is pretty good. I've played console games in HD 3D, and I'd rather play it like that. There is a good amount of depth, and they expect you to control movement on screen looking at it straight on to avoid viewing angle problems. They can add layers of screens to make it more viewable from different angles, but that would take more resources, and woukdn't matter if you're sitting where you're supposed to.
All TVs will eventually have 3D built in, much like how every TV in stores are HD now. You don't have to use it, but it's awesome for the people that actually enjoy it.