Nintendo Announces 3DS

[Typhoid]

The 3D on such a small screen would be ridicuterrible, I think. The illusion would look tacky, and lame. Because say you're looking at the middle of the screen playing Mario; Awesome, Mario is in 3D! Now say you have to do something near the edge of the screen; The 3D would be ruined because the screen is so small, and 'real life' is within your direct peripheral vision, ruining the illusion.

3D is only good, or great when you can't see the edges of the screen.
Even Avatar looked like shit when you peered off to the sides.

I don't think I caught this before, so I think I misunderstood you. You're talking sales, then. I think you're saying, the 3DS won't sell well until consumers get used to the idea, namely with consoles first.

That is 100% what I was getting at.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

The 3D on such a small screen would be ridicuterrible, I think. The illusion would look tacky, and lame. Because say you're looking at the middle of the screen playing Mario; Awesome, Mario is in 3D! Now say you have to do something near the edge of the screen; The 3D would be ruined because the screen is so small, and 'real life' is within your direct peripheral vision, ruining the illusion.

3D is only good, or great when you can't see the edges of the screen.
Even Avatar looked like shit when you peered off to the sides.

Ok, personal opinions are fine and good.

But when it comes to sales...

That is 100% what I was getting at.

So -- in terms of sales -- considering what I said about the PS3 3D and media post-Avatar, how do you think that consumers are not ready for 3D-handhelds?

[Typhoid]

So -- in terms of sales -- considering what I said about the PS3 3D and media post-Avatar, how do you think that consumers are not ready for 3D-handhelds?

Because say you're looking at the middle of the screen playing Mario; Awesome, Mario is in 3D! Now say you have to do something near the edge of the screen; The 3D would be ruined because the screen is so small, and 'real life' is within your direct peripheral vision, ruining the illusion.

3D is only good, or great when you can't see the edges of the screen.
Even Avatar looked like shit when you peered off to the sides.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Well is there anyone who is still that impressed with 3D anyway? I mean I really wasn't very impressed with Avatar in 3D, I mean it was pretty, it was in 3D, I was ok with it. Honestly though, it's kinda an old gimmick, they're trying to bring it back. EH?

Someone wake me up when they have holographic shit please.

[Fox 6]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

Well is there anyone who is still that impressed with 3D anyway? I mean I really wasn't very impressed with Avatar in 3D, I mean it was pretty, it was in 3D, I was ok with it. Honestly though, it's kinda an old gimmick, they're trying to bring it back. EH?

Someone wake me up when they have holographic shit please.

Then it'll be like Sean Connery is in your living room......... or bed room..........

[TheSlyMoogle]

Originally Posted by Fox 6

Then it'll be like Sean Connery is in your living room......... or bed room..........

Ahh no, that would be when they make virtual reality happen.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

Well is there anyone who is still that impressed with 3D anyway? I mean I really wasn't very impressed with Avatar in 3D, I mean it was pretty, it was in 3D, I was ok with it. Honestly though, it's kinda an old gimmick, they're trying to bring it back. EH?

Someone wake me up when they have holographic shit please.

I agree - I would prefer to see a movie not in 3D, given the option.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

Well is there anyone who is still that impressed with 3D anyway? I mean I really wasn't very impressed with Avatar in 3D, I mean it was pretty, it was in 3D, I was ok with it. Honestly though, it's kinda an old gimmick, they're trying to bring it back. EH?

Someone wake me up when they have holographic shit please.

Well, despite yours and Vamp's opinions, I think the sales numbers of Avatar clearly show that most people are still impressed by 3D.

Personally, I would never bother to see a movie in 2D if it was meant for 3D, given the option. Vamp, if you had to see Avatar again, and had the choice, would you really watch it in 2D rather than 3D? Why?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Well, despite yours and Vamp's opinions, I think the sales numbers of Avatar clearly show that most people are still impressed by 3D.

Personally, I would never bother to see a movie in 2D if it was meant for 3D, given the option. Vamp, if you had to see Avatar again, and had the choice, would you really watch it in 2D rather than 3D? Why?

I saw Avatar in 3D and 2D - don't get me wrong, I thought that the 3D was really cool. If I were going to watch it again I wouldn't really have a preference, but I would probably go 2D just for cost reasons, and so I wouldn't have to wear glasses.

But, looking at Clash of the Titans that is coming out, they have been advertising that pretty heavily as being in 3D - but I will definitely be seeing it in 2D the first time I watch it, then I might go back later and see it in 3D if it's really good.

Right now I feel like the 3D affects are still mostly gimmicky, and that the 2D version is more of the "true" movie. I sort of get the same feeling I do when I see something in full screen that was shot in wide screen. Avatar did a really great job of using 3D to enhance the world rather than trying to throw things in your face. Maybe if future movies continue doing that then my mind will change.

However, that being said I'm much more excited about the new Sharp TV that adds yellow to the RGB gamut. xD

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I saw Avatar in 3D and 2D - don't get me wrong, I thought that the 3D was really cool. If I were going to watch it again I wouldn't really have a preference, but I would probably go 2D just for cost reasons, and so I wouldn't have to wear glasses.

But, looking at Clash of the Titans that is coming out, they have been advertising that pretty heavily as being in 3D - but I will definitely be seeing it in 2D the first time I watch it, then I might go back later and see it in 3D if it's really good.

No no no, do NOT see Clash of the Titans in 3D. It was filmed in 2D, and 3D was only tacked on later after Avatar was released and the movie studios saw $$$ in their eyes. When movie studios do THAT, then yes it is entirely a gimmick. That's studios trying to cash in on the 3D craze ushered in by Avatar, by trying to pull a fast one on consumers.

On the other hand, How to Train Your Dragon was made specifically for 3D, and is 95% on RT with 77 reviews.

Right now I feel like the 3D affects are still mostly gimmicky, and that the 2D version is more of the "true" movie. I sort of get the same feeling I do when I see something in full screen that was shot in wide screen. Avatar did a really great job of using 3D to enhance the world rather than trying to throw things in your face. Maybe if future movies continue doing that then my mind will change.

However, that being said I'm much more excited about the new Sharp TV that adds yellow to the RGB gamut. xD

Yes, I agree. If a movie is filmed in 2D and meant for 2D, then I despise the studios that then force it into 3D for a quick buck. It's like watching some old black and white movies that were later technicolored, it just looks terrible.

And yeah I saw a commercial about that the new Sharp TV with yellow added. That sounds like a gimmick to me, I fail to see how one extra color adds all that much, when we've been creating all the colors of the rainbow and everything in between for decades with RGB. But if reviews say otherwise I will be a believer.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

But those are two different points, and the 2nd is not a valid reason for the 1st. Namely --

1. The 3DS will do poorly in sales because the consumer is not yet ready for 3D. I submit that this is false for the reasons given, namely the humongous success of Avatar.

2. The 3DS will do poorly in sales because the 3D technology on the handheld doesn't work that well, for the reasons you gave, or others. This could be a valid point, but no one outside of Nintendo yet knows how well it works.

So, really, it sounds like the reason that you think it will do poorly is number 2 and has nothing to do with number 1.

I think the 3DS will do very well regardless, for Angrist's reasons. Unless the 3D film screen makes playing 2D games suck and Nintendo changes everything else about the DS, then really it's just an added bonus, which doesn't hurt anything.

[Typhoid]

yes, Cameron invented or had invented a lot of the stuff to make the visuals in his movie as amazing as they were, but it's still 3D...

Avatar was to 3D what current movies are to silent films.

[Typhoid]

The 3DS will do poorly in sales because the consumer is not yet ready for 3D. I submit that this is false for the reasons given, namely the humongous success of Avatar.

Avatar was 3 hour 20 dollar movie.
The 3DS is a handheld game system with a screen smaller than your hand.



I don't know what you're not getting about the fact that the 3D illusion is ruined when you look off screen. 3D in any movie is shit when you're looking at things not in 3D.

Being that the screen is so small, the real world will always be in your peripheral vision, unless you're jamming your face against the screen.

I wasn't saying people aren't ready for 3D as a whole. 3D has been around for 20+ years.
I said 3D hasn't been tested in consoles or handhelds, so nobody including myself can definitively say it will or will not work. Which is why I'm stating opinions which you feel have to be needlessly argued with.

3D is tacky. It's a fad.
The reason Avatar sold well was because it wasn't standard 3D, it was like 3Dplus, not to mention it meshed real visuals with CGI seemlessly.
It didn't sell well because of 3D.
3D being viewed as successful is a by-product of Avatar releasing it in 3D.
If they didn't do it in 3D, and just had the human/CGI mesh, would you say that the next handheld should combine CGI and real life characters? Why not focus on that, instead.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Avatar was 3 hour 20 dollar movie.
The 3DS is a handheld game system with a screen smaller than your hand.



I don't know what you're not getting about the fact that the 3D illusion is ruined when you look off screen. 3D in any movie is shit when you're looking at things not in 3D.

Being that the screen is so small, the real world will always be in your peripheral vision, unless you're jamming your face against the screen.

I wasn't saying people aren't ready for 3D as a whole. 3D has been around for 20+ years.
I said 3D hasn't been tested in consoles or handhelds, so nobody including myself can definitively say it will or will not work. Which is why I'm stating opinions which you feel have to be needlessly argued with.

I'm not arguing your opinion on the matter. I'm arguing about sales. Which you still are dodging the issue on, I think. As for "needlessly arguing", well yeah, this is all in fun, I'm just having a bit of a fun (IMO) discussion.

3D is tacky. It's a fad.
The reason Avatar sold well was because it wasn't standard 3D, it was like 3Dplus, not to mention it meshed real visuals with CGI seemlessly.
It didn't sell well because of 3D.
3D being viewed as successful is a by-product of Avatar releasing it in 3D.
If they didn't do it in 3D, and just had the human/CGI mesh, would you say that the next handheld should combine CGI and real life characters? Why not focus on that, instead.

Well, I agree with that, but I think our terminology is differing. I would say movies in 3D before Avatar, broadly speaking, were a fad. Avatar, in my opinion, is 3D. Anything else shouldn't be considered so.

(I am probably overstating that a bit, because Avatar is actually the only movie I've seen in 3D, though I've seen some clips of crappy versions of 3D in 3D.)

But, in my opinion, that doesn't mean Avatar's combination of CGI and real life characters is the only 3D worthy of the name 3D. I would consider any film that is filmed in 3D and meant for 3D, as worthy of the name 3D. The Dragon movie probably being one of them.

So, real 3D is not a fad, in my opinion. It is here to stay.