EA Disregards 3D Gaming, Acquires Swagger
There are a few massive publishers in the gaming industry, for whom the merest utterances can hold a huge effect on the entire world of gaming. One such publisher is EA, and the words EA boss, John Riccitiello, uttered to shareholders in the company’s annual meeting could very well likely change the direction of the industry altogether. In short, Riccitiello doesn’t believe in 3D gaming and doesn’t see the new medium being worthy of either his company’s time or effort. Bad news for the likes of Sony who has invested the cost of a small country into the 3D machine.
Even when the popularity of 3D hit its most recent peak, after Tim Burton’s god awful Alice In Wonderland inexplicably cracked a billion dollars thanks to the overpricing of 3D tickets, gaming has been slow to adopt thanks in large part to the scarcity of 3D capable TVs in the home.
Your average Joe has never really given the impression that 3D is anyway important to his or her gaming and it would appear EA have wholly accepted that truth by just about putting 3D behind them altogether.
A simple question then for our readers, do you even want 3D in your games?
Always nice to see a company talk some good common sense. The cost of entry is just too high and games don’t really benefit from it.
The most exciting thing about 3d gaming for ME is the fact that you can have two players playing full-screen ON THE SAME SCREEN!
I mean, I don’t give half a shit about the friggin pop-out features of the medium, but being able to play a racing game or a fps full screen with another person in the room is pretty damn exciting.
That being said I feel really sorry for Nintendo right now.
“You’re average Joe has” -> “Your average Joe has”
Indeed, thanks for pointing that out. I’ll have someone change it.
As much as I hate 3D movies for how they are overpriced, require glasses, and are somewhat headache inducing, I actually had a little hope to at least try 3D gaming on a big screen.
The thing is, with gaming, people expect to be burdened with a peripheral (whether it be a controller, headset, or guitar). The glasses would almost be a “natural” extension of that.
I think 3D gaming would induce less headaches as well, because the player controls the camera in most games and the movement of the character. The gamer’s eyes would always focus on the correct point to provide 3D – whereas theaters attempt to “trick” the eyes into focusing on the right thing on the screen, which isn’t very effective (in my experience).
I also kind of hoped it would provide a more immersive game environment – similar to controller rumbling – a little gimmicky, true, but nonetheless neat.
And lastly, C (commentor above) pointed out a really good use for it: 2 player gaming, with both players operating a full screen.
I thought when HDTVs (1080P) came out the real industries that benefited from it were sports broadcasting and video games. I see 3D similarly and was hoping to take a crack at my theory.
In the end though, I think 3D would be expensive. Everyone would need to buy new TVs and new consoles. Not worth it.
Never tried 3D gaming, don’t really care much either. 3D is way too hyped, I’d say.
one bandwagon EA wont be jumping on
3d is an ok effect as loong as it isnt emphasized. i understand it hurts some people’s eyes, but that hasn’t been the case for me. THe problem i have with it is when things are developed in 3d the 3d tends to become the focus, ignoring other important factors (like plot *cough avatar* or gameplay content) in favor of flashy graphics to emphasize the gimmick.
It is my opinion that 3d should treated as an optional enhancement. it shouldnt be necessary, and you shouldnt go out of your way to add it in. Nintendo got this one right with the 3ds. So far, out of all the games I have tried (aka lego pirates, loz oricana of time) , they both look and play excellent with the 3d turned off. when turned on the 3d isnt intrusive, and just adds a little level of graphical detail. but it does not affect your game play at all.