Two growing trends have made themselves inescapably popular lately, and I'm not entirely sure why: 3D and motion controls. Both have proven themselves to be permanent, or at least long-term, additions to gaming.
What stands out to me about 3D is its novelty. It may look better nowadays, but it's still just as fad-tastic as it was back in the days of red and blue paper glasses. It's fun once, but people generally don't want to fork over hundreds of dollars for 3D hardware that's only going to give them a migraine. Nintendo learned that lesson the hard way, and that's why the 3DS is now a more affordable headache inducer.
In the case of movies, it might be worth a couple extra bucks to see a really visually impressive film in 3D once, for kicks. That doesn't mean it's worth it to buy a $1,000 3D TV and watch the same film at home.That also does not mean that that film, or other films that follow, should cater to 3D from the start. That cheapens the cinematography and produces cheesy shots like actors reaching for, or something flying at, the camera. This is exactly what happened with Avatar, which was only successful because of it's fantastic visuals (it's Dances with Wolves in space, people.) Just beacause it worked for James Cameron doesn't mean it will work for you. If James Cameron jumped off a bridge, would you do that, too? If it was in 3D, apparently so.
The effects of this can be seen in dozens of films, even as recently as Captain America: The First Avenger, when Cap threw his trademark shield at the camera more than once. This sort of thing is almost insulting as a viewer, like it's assumed that audiences won't enjoy the film if you don't throw something at them. Shots like these would never have happened if the movie hadn't been planning from the start to release in 3D "and 2D in select theaters."
Movie companies can get away with selling expensive 3D theater tickets because the profit margin is big enough to be worth it even if viewer turnout is lower for 3D than 2D. As long as it keeps making money, right?
Game-wise, 3D can improve players' immersion for games like Dance Central, although, again, players would have to shell out more than a shiny penny for a 3D TV and enough glasses for everyone playing. The glasses part might not be a problem for long, but the price will be. Until a full-on virtual reality game is possible, 3D in gaming remains as much of a novelty as 3D in movies. On a side note, I want my Johnny Quest game (but with much better graphics)!
This leads me to my next topic, motion controls in gaming. In some ways, motion controls are great for gaming. In the last few years, they've drawn casual gamers to consoles and brought in money that's helped the industry grow. On the other hand, many hardcore gamers consider motion controls unsavory and sometimes just plain cheesy. When you step outside the super mainstream (not very far outside it, mind you), motion controls are gimmicky at best and infuriating at worst. Sure, the technology's improving, but it's still very apparent that motion controls are still in their infancy.
The technology behind motion controls, specifically Kinect, shows incredible potential, but mostly in non-gaming fields. Kinect has been hacked to do everything from drawing with your hands in mid-air to assisting surgeons in the OR. The motion control game that holds its own against the yearly AAA lineup is a rare beast indeed, although it might exist in Metal Gear Solid: Rising.
Where do motion controls and 3D go from here? They really only have two options: improve drastically or fade away like all the other fads.
What stands out to me about 3D is its novelty. It may look better nowadays, but it's still just as fad-tastic as it was back in the days of red and blue paper glasses. It's fun once, but people generally don't want to fork over hundreds of dollars for 3D hardware that's only going to give them a migraine. Nintendo learned that lesson the hard way, and that's why the 3DS is now a more affordable headache inducer.
In the case of movies, it might be worth a couple extra bucks to see a really visually impressive film in 3D once, for kicks. That doesn't mean it's worth it to buy a $1,000 3D TV and watch the same film at home.That also does not mean that that film, or other films that follow, should cater to 3D from the start. That cheapens the cinematography and produces cheesy shots like actors reaching for, or something flying at, the camera. This is exactly what happened with Avatar, which was only successful because of it's fantastic visuals (it's Dances with Wolves in space, people.) Just beacause it worked for James Cameron doesn't mean it will work for you. If James Cameron jumped off a bridge, would you do that, too? If it was in 3D, apparently so.
 |
| See? This is why we can't have nice things |
Movie companies can get away with selling expensive 3D theater tickets because the profit margin is big enough to be worth it even if viewer turnout is lower for 3D than 2D. As long as it keeps making money, right?
This leads me to my next topic, motion controls in gaming. In some ways, motion controls are great for gaming. In the last few years, they've drawn casual gamers to consoles and brought in money that's helped the industry grow. On the other hand, many hardcore gamers consider motion controls unsavory and sometimes just plain cheesy. When you step outside the super mainstream (not very far outside it, mind you), motion controls are gimmicky at best and infuriating at worst. Sure, the technology's improving, but it's still very apparent that motion controls are still in their infancy.
The technology behind motion controls, specifically Kinect, shows incredible potential, but mostly in non-gaming fields. Kinect has been hacked to do everything from drawing with your hands in mid-air to assisting surgeons in the OR. The motion control game that holds its own against the yearly AAA lineup is a rare beast indeed, although it might exist in Metal Gear Solid: Rising.
 |
| Ah, slicing up watermelon: The true way of the sword |
No comments:
Post a Comment