I've always been fascinated by 3D, because I have the mentality of a four-year-old child. Even though I realize that there's just not enough content to possibly justify early adoption, 3D tempts me, in a way that HD never did.
I was actually seriously considering getting a new 3D TV, glasses, a new computer with a compatible graphics card, maybe a PS3, the whole deal. But I don't think I will anymore. Glasses-based 3D, while it seems like a reasonable solution for solo play, seems more and more like an evolutionary step than a viable technology. I feel like it will be the Windows ME of 3D displays, and, once autostereoscopic tech is improved, it will be laughably obsolete.
So, yeah. I'm out now. I can wait it out for better, cheaper, more universal technology, and the better, more varied library of content that will exist when it comes out.
But I am still beyond pumped for the 3DS. It fascinates me, it doesn't require a multi-thousand dollar investment (I assume), and I am so happy that it will start with a healthy amount of support. (What was the last Nintendo system that launched with full third-party confidence?) The excitement for the system will allow the technology to be integrated into gaming very rapidly. Early efforts might be a bit rough, but I think that, once devs see what works and refine their techniques, the second and third generation software will be pretty mindblowing.
I am going to make an unrelated prediction that puppetry will be a prevailing theme of the 3DS. Yes, tiny interactive dioramas are perfectly suited to the system, and art design will reflect this symbiosis, with intentionally crude, paper-cutout levels of parallax in 2D games and little strings on the tops of characters. And MARIOnette will make its dramatic return, as virtual puppetry software.
Some people who have had problems/headaches with 3D say that the 3DS is a gentler tech. But people probably haven't had extended sessions with it yet. One nice thing is that going 2D gives you free anti-aliasing. Which the 3DS will need, with its crazy low resolution!
One nice thing is that going 2D gives you free anti-aliasing.
It's an inherent technique of having a render become downsampled in the framebuffer. The game is rendered off-screen at a higher resolution (800 x 240) before it is output to the screen. This is regardless of the 2D or 3D mode. Then, the resolution is vertically split in half (400x240 each) in the framebuffer using two separate frames (also rendered before it is output to the screen). Because the original rendered source is of a higher resolution, it can be downsampled to create an AA effect. However, the Super Sampled AA effect cannot be appreciated in 3D because the frame buffer splits the higher resolution into two separate lower resolution frames. But in 2D mode, the two frames are combined into 1 image in order to make the AA effective.
So in short, AA is always being applied (even in 3D mode), but you can't see it until the 2 frames are combined into 1 image.
It should be noted that there is a different kind of AA that goes along with perceiving 3D, and is more like a side-effect. The AA in 2D mode is a completely different method, and is precisely calculated for the images.
Stereoscopic 3D doesn't excite me much mainly because I haven't experienced it for myself, but I'm an open minded gamer. Although in my opinion, this gen hasn't proved motion as a viable gaming medium and we're already moving on to 3D, ADD much?
Still, tilt is awesome when done right. Wario Ware Twisted!! is one of the best GBA games.
Actually as poorly utilized as motion controls have been for Nintendo, I still feel like they made the Wii a lot more interesting to play. And on certain occasions they gave some pretty unique experiences.
1:1 has also been used as a buzzword. I wasn't saying that they are going to abandon motion though, just that it's still not well established as a viable gaming medium and they're already pushing something else onto us.
I like 3D and I've done a lot of my own programming/graphics experiments using some red/cyan glass. I can see why some people are skeptical, it's not a mature technology and that puts people off (these people are horrendously short-sighted but I digress). The human eye is designed to see things in a certain way and so it makes sense more than pushing even higher framerates and resolutions we should be modeling our visual output on how the eye actually works. If I were to double the horizontal resolution on an 1080p set you likely wouldn't see much of a difference because the eye has a finite resolution (in fact anything outside the tiny fovia of the eye is pretty low resolution and humans scan back and forth to actually see things). Right now we direct a huge amount of processing power to create things the eye can't even properly resolve at one time. Rather, we can use that extra resolution to project that information into the 3D plane. Now both eyes are receiving separate data and we can interpret more visual information. If you are a graphics whore this is likely the way that we will do better, rather than spitting out exponentially more powerful hardware with linear image quality gains.
It's not a gimmick, it's millions of years of evolution.
Like motion controls though it needs time to mature, it become cheap and more friendly to users. Of course you can't expect this to happen without something like 3DS that puts it as a major feature. Devs need experience, hardware manufacturers need feedback. 3DS won't be perfect by any means (and I expect a large amount of criticism from the usual suspects) but it represents a large stepping stone into making this technology better.