By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - NGP dead...3DS gimmicky...what should we play? Smartphones???

disolitude said:

According to everyone that has seen the Toshiba 3D TV without glasses at CES (and decided to post thoughts about it on AVSforum), the Tvs 3D effect blows chunks. It will most likely never be put in to consumer production but itll be for industrial use only.

I don't know some people didn't exactly hate it but they did say it has lesser 3D effects than the normal glasses 3D.



Around the Network
twesterm said:


Same goes for 3D with glasses. 

Maybe not for home application, but for a large scale theater like 3D effects glasses are the way to go for many years to come.

No one had a problem with 3D and glasses when theaters were doing it...now all of a sudden its a big issue to do the same thing at home. This is because the 3D payoff at home, on a 46 inch screen is not worth looking for 3D glasses, let alone wearing them for a few hours at a time.

 



disolitude said:
cyberninja45 said:

If 3d gaming is the future, and its is truly not feasible to have touch screen and 3d on the same screen.Then Nintendo wins because of the 3ds's dual screen form factor.

3D gaming on a 3.5 inch screen is not the future, no matter what anyone on this forum tells you...lol

Off topic...does anyone know if 3DS shows full 800x240 resolution in 2D for games? Or does it show 800x240 interlaced in 2D?

If its interlaced, I'll be quite dissapointed... thats less pixels than the PSP1 screen for christs sake, and that gives me an eyesore these days.

 

 

I was refering to pocket handhelds. And the psp line put themselves in a corner have made such a large screen. Reason being that if they wanted to put 3d in their future line, a 3d screen of than size and LED will be hugely expensive and will eat the battery life.



My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)



Conegamer said:
twesterm said:
disolitude said:
cyberninja45 said:

If 3d gaming is the future, and its is truly not feasible to have touch screen and 3d on the same screen.Then Nintendo wins because of the 3ds's dual screen form factor.

3D gaming on a 3.5 inch screen is not the future, no matter what anyone on this forum tells you...lol

 

 


Same goes for 3D with glasses. 

Agreed. However, it'l no doubt take several years to develop glasses-less 3D on the big screen...


Absolutely agree.

3D is glasses is about the best thing we have at the moment, but it's far from preferable.  Until we can get glasses-less 3D on a big screen TV that can be seen from multiple angles, 3D will never really be big thing.



disolitude said:
twesterm said:
 


Same goes for 3D with glasses. 

Maybe not for home application, but for a large scale theater like 3D effects glasses are the way to go for many years to come.

No one had a problem with 3D and glasses when theaters were doing it...now all of a sudden its a big issue to do the same thing at home. This is because the 3D payoff at home, on a 46 inch screen is not worth looking for 3D glasses, let alone wearing them for a few hours at a time.

 


No, people have problems with it in theaters too.  Those glasses suck and somehow just atract scratches and smudges without ever being touched.  On top of that, they are just horrible uncomfortable in every way imagineable, especially if you already wear glasses.

3D glasses at home sucks because the glasses are just so expensive and the reasons you said.  I have a friend that actually has a 3D TV but has never used the 3D because he just can't afford the glasses (he only got the 3D TV becaue it was on sale and happened to be as much as a normal TV for the same size).



Around the Network
twesterm said:
disolitude said:
twesterm said:
 


Same goes for 3D with glasses. 

Maybe not for home application, but for a large scale theater like 3D effects glasses are the way to go for many years to come.

No one had a problem with 3D and glasses when theaters were doing it...now all of a sudden its a big issue to do the same thing at home. This is because the 3D payoff at home, on a 46 inch screen is not worth looking for 3D glasses, let alone wearing them for a few hours at a time.

 


No, people have problems with it in theaters too.  Those glasses suck and somehow just atract scratches and smudges without ever being touched.  On top of that, they are just horrible uncomfortable in every way imagineable, especially if you already wear glasses.

3D glasses at home sucks because the glasses are just so expensive and the reasons you said.  I have a friend that actually has a 3D TV but has never used the 3D because he just can't afford the glasses (he only got the 3D TV becaue it was on sale and happened to be as much as a normal TV for the same size).


Well 3D is not meant for fast food like consumption at this point. Its still a controlled environment technology...People are buying these 3d TVs like burgers from Burger King, and then are wondering why things don't go as planned.

You have to have the right content for the 3D effect(hardest part), it needs to be on a big screen with no crosstalk, and you have to be in the right mood for it.

If those things are in place, glasses or not doesn't matter as much as you think. If those things are not present, its going to be a shit experience, no matter if you're wearing glasses or not. Its only when you're watching a terribly made 3D movie that you have time to bitch about how uncomfortable glasses you're wearing are.

I agree that somewhere down the road, no glasses 3D is going to be the more desired and superior method. But until they are able to perfect technology like this, it won't happen - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0KM8lzRCoQ



Conegamer said:
NiKKoM said:

.... but... I... already play more on my iPhone then on my handhelds.... >_>

...I'm just waaay ahead of you guys..

Oh yeah?

And what sorts of games do you play then?

That's my issue. Not enough quality and most games are either dodgy, pointless, boring or short

There are exceptions (Mirror's Edge is fun, Angry Birds of course), but there's no 'big' games like Monster Hunter or Zelda to my knowledge, or real system-sellers.

And that's the thing which is holding back smartphones IMO

Smartphones are not dedicated videogame systems. That's why there are only casual games on the platforms. They are phones and web browsers before they are  game systems. Remember that.

No one is going to buy a smartphone just because it has a stellar games library.



Snesboy said:
Conegamer said:
NiKKoM said:

.... but... I... already play more on my iPhone then on my handhelds.... >_>

...I'm just waaay ahead of you guys..

Oh yeah?

And what sorts of games do you play then?

That's my issue. Not enough quality and most games are either dodgy, pointless, boring or short

There are exceptions (Mirror's Edge is fun, Angry Birds of course), but there's no 'big' games like Monster Hunter or Zelda to my knowledge, or real system-sellers.

And that's the thing which is holding back smartphones IMO

Smartphones are not dedicated videogame systems. That's why there are only casual games on the platforms. They are phones and web browsers before they are  game systems. Remember that.

And that's the issue. They can't compete in the way that developers want them to until they become more sustainable platforms, which wil likely hapen sooner than later...



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

disolitude said:
twesterm said:
disolitude said:
twesterm said:
 


Same goes for 3D with glasses. 

Maybe not for home application, but for a large scale theater like 3D effects glasses are the way to go for many years to come.

No one had a problem with 3D and glasses when theaters were doing it...now all of a sudden its a big issue to do the same thing at home. This is because the 3D payoff at home, on a 46 inch screen is not worth looking for 3D glasses, let alone wearing them for a few hours at a time.

 


No, people have problems with it in theaters too.  Those glasses suck and somehow just atract scratches and smudges without ever being touched.  On top of that, they are just horrible uncomfortable in every way imagineable, especially if you already wear glasses.

3D glasses at home sucks because the glasses are just so expensive and the reasons you said.  I have a friend that actually has a 3D TV but has never used the 3D because he just can't afford the glasses (he only got the 3D TV becaue it was on sale and happened to be as much as a normal TV for the same size).


Well 3D is not meant for fast food like consumption at this point. Its still a controlled environment technology...People are buying these 3d TVs like burgers from Burger King, and then are wondering why things don't go as planned.

You have to have the right content for the 3D effect(hardest part), it needs to be on a big screen with no crosstalk, and you have to be in the right mood for it.

If those things are in place, glasses or not doesn't matter as much as you think. If those things are not present, its going to be a shit experience, no matter if you're wearing glasses or not. Its only when you're watching a terribly made 3D movie that you have time to bitch about how uncomfortable glasses you're wearing are.

I agree that somewhere down the road, no glasses 3D is going to be the more desired and superior method. But until they are able to perfect technology like this, it won't happen - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0KM8lzRCoQ

THIS THREAD IS SUPPOSE TO BE FOR HANDHELD GAMING PEOPLE!!!



My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)



cyberninja45 said:

THIS THREAD IS SUPPOSE TO BE FOR HANDHELD GAMING PEOPLE!!!


Id understand if OP came in and said this...but you kinda brought 3D in to this thread.