Nintendo Announces 3DS

[Typhoid]

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

Wait wait wait wait.
Hold the train.
Are you comparing the 3DS to Avatar?
Because two major differences I can point out:

3DS will be over 100 dollars.
Avatar was 18.
3DS has a screen a few inches wide.
Avatar's was stories high.

Not to mention Avatar wasn't '3D', it was a new technology James Cameron invented; so to actually compare the visuals of the two expecting Avatar-esque 3D in a handheld that will most likely give no more than a Goosebumps holographic keychain circa 1994 image is sort of funny.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Wait wait wait wait.
Hold the train.
Are you comparing the 3DS to Avatar?
Because two major differences I can point out:

3DS will be over 100 dollars.
Avatar was 18.
3DS has a screen a few inches wide.
Avatar's was stories high.

Not to mention Avatar wasn't '3D', it was a new technology James Cameron invented; so to actually compare the visuals of the two expecting Avatar-esque 3D in a handheld that will most likely give no more than a Goosebumps holographic keychain circa 1994 image is sort of funny.

The only point I am making bringing up Avatar is that its sales clearly show that consumers are ready for 3D.

I haven't experience the film-3D myself, and neither have you. From what I've read from reviews of the Fuji cameras, though, is that it looks pretty damn good when it works.

And I'm not sure how you think Avatar wasn't 3D... 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...

[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.

[Typhoid]

Which you still are dodging the issue on, I think.

I was never talking about sales, and I rarely ever comment on sales.
Especially future sales.
Nobody can comment on how it well sell.
It hasn't sold yet.

[thatmariolover]

Here's a video...

[Angrist]

Haha .

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I was never talking about sales, and I rarely ever comment on sales.
Especially future sales.
Nobody can comment on how it well sell.
It hasn't sold yet.

Originally Posted by typhoid

That is 100% what I was getting at.

Say what?

And saying nobody can comment on how it will sell is kinda silly. Is that a joke? I already did comment. Lots of people comment on future sales all the time. It's like the main argument of all console warz.

So basically, going back to your first comment, you were trolling, and then you used a bunch of circular logic to make it seem like you weren't. That is pretty much my conclusion. If you disagree, well, that's fine because it's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Man you've convinced me about How to Train your Dragon...I just sent a text to my girlfriend trying to talk her into going tonight to see it in 3D.

Did you end up seeing it?

[Typhoid]

Say what?

I mean specific figures when I refer to "sales" opposed to something 'selling'.
Blame the painkillers.
I don't consider saying "I don't think it will sell because ___" talking about sales, I've always viewed talking about sales as specific figures and all that jargon.

And saying nobody can comment on how it will sell is kinda silly. Is that a joke?

Somewhat, it was. Because as I was saying it, I was commenting on it. But I also meant nobody can be sure how many units it will move because it's all just speculation.

If you disagree, well, that's fine because it's just my opinion.

Now you're getting it.

[Typhoid]

Also, if I recall - didn't the Virtua Boy fail miserably?

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Also, if I recall - didn't the Virtua Boy fail miserably?

It did but it's not really a fair comparison. The 3D was so different then, using the anaglyph 3D technique with alternating black and red patterns for the left and right eye (similar to old movies using the blue/red glasses). The 3D was terrible, monochromatic, and caused massive headaches. The effect doesn't work nearly as well as say, the parallax barrier screens that the DS is supposed to use. Newer polarized 3D glases (with shutters) can still cause headaches but they're much more usable for longer periods of time. It will be interesting to see how your head will feel with the new (glasses free) 3D.

If the 3D looks great, that's fine and dandy. I'm more worried about what they'll leave out in focusing on the 3D functionality.

[Typhoid]

I'm more worried about what they'll leave out...

Fun.

[BreakABone]

This isn't from the 3DS, but a simple example of how 3D can possibly work I guess