Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Sony Games

Don't Go 3D For 3D's Sake, Says Sony 132

Posted by Soulskill
from the out-of-their-depth dept.
Sony is determined to push 3D graphics into the realm of gaming, but the company seems to be aware that quality, not quantity, is what can win over gamers. They've been telling game developers to take the plunge only if it makes for a better gaming experience, and not just to take advantage of an industry buzz word. Sony's Mick Hocking said, "We need to, and we're trying to encourage everyone to learn about 3D properly and come and talk to us so we'll support them when they convert the games. But only deliver the best quality 3D. As we've seen in some other industries, if you make great quality 3D, in film you could say Avatar – it's the most successful film of all time, it's the highest grossing film of all time – but since then that hasn't been followed up with the same degree of success. ... If people see great quality 3D it does enhance the experience. It's a great feature for a game. But if they see poor quality 3D it can put them off. Unfortunately some people are producing poor quality 3D, in all mediums. Over the last 12 months we've seen TV, film, some games, where the quality hasn't been there. It's just a case of people need to understand how to work with 3D, how to make it technically correct and then how to use it creatively. Only add 3D where it makes a difference to the gameplay experience. It must add something. Don't just add depth for the sake of it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Don't Go 3D For 3D's Sake, Says Sony

Comments Filter:
  • by Nursie (632944) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @02:31AM (#36832270)

    The handful of games and handful of 3d blurays available do not make 3d in the home compelling.

    Put aside complaints about 3d tech, stupid glasses, whatever. Heard them all, I don't hate the tech like a lot of other folk. I even bought a 3d tv because it was a good tv in the price range I was looking for anyway.

    I never get to use it!

    And here in Australia they seem to want $60+ for a 3d bluray version of cloudy with a chance of meatballs, or Monsters vs Aliens. Seriously. Bad selection, bad prices. These things will kill it stone dead even if all the naysayers don't.

  • by Ruke (857276) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @02:40AM (#36832324)
    Sony... making a reasonable point? NO! We hate sony! Game developers everywhere, make shitty 3D games just to spite Sony!
  • Re:Ah, Avatar... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drb226 (1938360) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @02:41AM (#36832328)

    Dear James Cameron,

    Why, oh why, couldn't you just stick with 2D filming? (Worked fine for Titanic, right?) You have caused probably a decade of suffering. We can only hope that eventually the 3D fad will die out and only be used in projects where it is appropriate.

    Sincerely, pretty much all Slashdotters.

  • In other words... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Veggiesama (1203068) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @03:02AM (#36832402)

    In other words, Sony is saying, "Hey consumers, it's the developers' fault for using buzzwords we helped promote. We know 3D sucks ass right now, but come on, give us another chance! Remember Avatar? Come on, remember?"

  • by acehole (174372) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @03:39AM (#36832506) Homepage

    How about making a decent game without stupid gimmicks or one that doesn't play a cutscene every two steps.

  • by kiddygrinder (605598) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @04:27AM (#36832654)
    Dude, it's sony. They're only pissed people are making shitty 3d content so they can't sell the tonnes of hardware they made hoping for another analogue->digital tv goldmine.
  • Not just games (Score:4, Insightful)

    by senorpoco (1396603) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @04:33AM (#36832682)
    Watched the new Harry Potter last night in 3D at the behest of my housemate. It was a good story told well but 3D added nothing to it. The depth of view effect was nice but having to accommodate 3D filming means they rely overly on slow panning shots and the like a lot of the film's shot selection seemed to be based on trying to shoehorn the direction into the format. Also due to the limitations on frame rates many of the action shots simply became a blurry jaggedy mess.
  • Re:Ah, Avatar... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 21, 2011 @04:35AM (#36832690) Journal

    Sincerely, pretty much all over the age of 14. FTFY. And I agree Ferngully II [hubpages.com]...errr...I mean Avatar would have been just as nice and MUCH less of a skull thumper without the 3D. I thought Cameron had the better idea years ago, when he was talking about 60FPS film instead of 24.

    And am I the only one that just gets massive headaches from the crap? If anything this new stuff gives me worse headaches than the 70s crap did or even the 90s Nvidia crap. And I've noticed that even though the stores are pushing 3D TVs like crazy everyone I know that has bought a new big screen didn't go for the 3D and when I asked them why there was always someone that it didn't work for, be it the husband/wife or BF/GF. I have a feeling a lot of folks are just gonna avoid it like they did in the last three go arounds.

    And do we REALLY need crap jumping out at us as we play our games? with a good widescreen there is already so much purty and boom booms on your average AAA FPS that I find it hard not to just gawk and get my ass blown off and they are already so much immersion they can make you jump, so do we REALLY need "Dr Tongue's 3D house of bullets" to enjoy the game?

"Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain

Working...