E3 2010: 3D

One of the biggest topics going into E3 was 3D stereoscopic gaming. In an earlier post I laid out some challenges facing 3D and after the show I feel confident that all of those points were validated, though to be fair these were not hard to deduce. At the show I was finally able to play 3D games, as well as observe others playing and I developed some distinct impressions and followup thoughts from my June 8 post.

Stereoscopic 3D generally still requires a 3D capable TV for it to work and that is still expensive. I did get to try out Gears of War 2 on a dev kit using an "aftermarket" 3D solution where the code was modified, allowing it to be viewed in 3D on a traditional HD television using glasses. This solution from Darkworks functioned, but wasn't that impressive. Darkworks also let me play Gears of War 2 in 3D on an actual 3D Samsung television (and using a different, more expensive pair of Samsung 3D glasses) which I admit did look much better. Still, the 3D did not make the game much more fun. While I did not expect any amazing console 3D gaming without glasses, it was still somewhat disappointing that no other company came out of the woodwork with a solution that could pull it off. Maybe at GDC 2011? Anyway, the best looking 3D console content was on an actual 3D TV.

Based on the above, Sony was generally the place to be for trying out 3D gaming. The first game I checked out was Sony's fighting game for the Move controller which, interestingly, was also in 3D. (This is what MBA students call "synergy.") I'll save the problems with that game and Move for another post, but the 3D took several tries to get working and once it did it failed to impress. I know the code was not final, but as someone with 15 years of martial arts training including many types of boxing, this game was a big let down and the 3D looked bad.

But the fighting game was the lowpoint at Sony's booth. After that disappointment I finally played Gran Turismo 5 in 3D. I must say graphically the game looked great in 2D, but what else would you expect from this franchise? The 3D looked crisp but it did not have as much punch as much as I would have wanted it to. After a few minutes I didn't notice the 3D anymore and I was actually wanting to play it in 2D so I could ditch the glasses and focus on the game.

By far the best looking game in 3D at Sony's booth was Killzone 3. For one, the 3D seemed to calibrate faster and function better once it got going, but that may have been due to the person running the demo station on the second floor of the Sony booth knew what he was doing. Killzone 3's use of 3D looked stunning, though again it did not immediately appear to have an impact on gameplay.

Also at Sony's booth I played a generic feeling racing game that actually reminded me the old Carmageddon (see picture in this paragraph) games on PC of the 1990s, else their take on Disney's recent Split/Second racing game. The problem was that there was so much going on the screen that the 3D effect actually felt distracting.The big takeaway from Sony's booth about 3D is that it works and while it may sometimes look really cool, it does not add much to gameplay. In some cases it was downright distracting. In all cases, you had to wear the glasses which was still annoying. I'm a little concerned that the quality of the 3D visuals may actually vary by TV manufacturer. I'm sure Sony's TV division is going to want SCE to push the message that 3D gaming on PS3 "looks the best on a Sony TV" even though that would be in conflict with the the idea that the PS3 should be hardware agnostic when it comes to which TV you use. While a traditional 42" HD 1080p TV from Samsung may have a slightly different picture quality from the Sony Bravia of the same spec, the functionality of the resolution and refresh rate differences (if any) should not be a material difference in what games look like on the them. With 3D, because Sony has so much invested in the technology, you have to wonder what the marketing message will be come later this year.

As for Microsoft, 3D was not part of its messaging or anything it presented at the show. The unspoken message is that the 360 can do 3D, but for now Microsoft is not focusing on it. That said, Crysis 2 will be 3D playable on PS3, 360 and even PC, so at least we know Microsoft will have a toehold in that market if nothing else.

As for Nintendo, that's coming in a future blog post.

The final takeaway about console 3D gaming: it's going to happen but it's going to take a while for highly compelling content comes out, particularly content that has 3D as part of the gameplay and not just as eye candy.

E3 2010 Aftermath...

Now that E3 is finally over, I will be doling out sporadic blog posts about some finding, perhaps even posting some photos. It was an interesting show this year, probably louder and certainly more crowded last year. Two NBA Finals games at Staples (Tues and Thurs) made things even more hectic but it was still fun and, as with 2009, I'm glad E3 is back from the '07-'08 sham of a show it was those years. Topics I plan to cover:

• Microsoft Kinect
  
• Sony Move
• Sony 3D
• Nintendo 3DS
• The new trend music games that won't save the genre
  
• THQ's booth awesomeness (hint: 8 foot tall Space Marine)
• EA's Star Wars MMO
• Cloud gaming
  
• Best and worst games I got to play
  

Crysis 2 in 3D

So Crytek showed off 3D footage of Crysis 2 at today's EA conference. You can't see the 3D effect on the internet but at the conference some people were impressed. I'm glad to see some actual core 3D content announced, and it will be for 360 / PS3 / PC. That's great, but you still need to play with glasses and on console you'll need a really expensive new 3D capable TV, too.

Pre-E3 2010: The challenge facing 3D stereoscopic gaming

The following is a list of reasons why I think 3D stereoscopic will be a disappointment in 2010 on consoles. The Nintendo 3DS is a different market segment that should actually do okay. Console 3D gaming will be closer to epic fail than win. There is simply no way it will be as revolutionary as the movie and TV industry PR departments would like to make us believe it will be, and this includes Sony despite it having won me over in the last year with the PS3 Slim, Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, God of War 3 and Kevin Butler among other things. Let's get right into the list of reasons:

1) It's an expensive upgrade in a tenuous consumer economy. You mean I have to buy another new HD TV that's more expensive than regular HD flatscreen 1080p TVs? Seriously? Paying a little extra to see a movie in 3D at the theater is one thing. Shelling out another $2000 to have it in the home is another.

2) 3D movies are overrated. Yes, they do well at the box office and I am partly to blame. I saw Avatar in the theater 3 times, all in 3D. I admit I liked the movie, despite not caring deeply about the story or characters. But in watching the non-3D BluRay version I don't miss the 3D at all. The things I liked about the movie, mainly the action, art direction and the effects still look great. Yes I liked the 3D in the theater, but I forgot the i noticed the second and 3rd time I saw it the 3D gave me a headache. So then I went to Bestbuy and watched a 20 minutes of the Monsters vs. Aliens demo with the glasses. I think it was on a Samsung. Yes, the 3D functions, but it made the movie look worse. I actually thought the movie itself had solid animated crossover appeal that worked perfectly fine in 2D. The 3D implementation was beyond annoying. The movie looked artificially plastic, even ugly. I didn't find the 3D immersive...I found it distracting. 3D movies are hot right now and in the theater they make sense, but outside animation and CG films I'm distinctly bearish on them. But by that logic, wouldn't I want my games in 3D since they are by definition all animation and CG? No. No thanks. The industry has to prove how it impacts gameplay in a positive way. Every core gamer I have spoken to, especially employed men in their 20s and 30s with money has a highly skepitcal perspective on it and at best is saying "prove it" before they'll consider. All these studies saying people are curious about 3D does not mean willingness to spend on it. Of course we're all curious given how much hype has been generated by PR.

3) 3D uses more processing power. I won't get too technical, but its going to tax processors more to make games work in 3D, especially high end graphics showcases in shooter and action genres that appeal to that all important core gamer with a PS3 who is supposed to be an early adopter. This isn't necessarily a show stopper, but initially this will make it harder to engineer high end games in 3D, such as Killzone 3.

4) The glasses. I don't care what the producer of Avatar thinks, marketing is not going convince me that I should like wearing the glasses. Simply saying people accept glasses in the theater and have been wearing glasses for centuries does not mean they will be accepted for home TV/gaming.

5) The games this year are going to be marginal or irrelevant. Any new tech will take time to implement well. Even EA CEO John Riccitiello is bearish on high quality 3D games coming out this year. This has actually been true of motion control gaming on the Wii. Only Nintendo has really put out any great games on the Wii that use motion controls well but how much do you really need the motion controls? The Wii was a multi year fad, not a revolution.

6) TV industry PR departments are talking about how awesome 3D without showing any real proof from consumers. If this is true then whatever they show at E3 next week must be awesome. If they fail to impress at E3 then you know whatever they have for this fall will be terrible. I predict Sony will fail to impress us with the 3D. Not even the almighty Kevin Butler will save it.

7) Microsoft is barely making any waves. Yes they signed the deal with LG to have 1000 3D demos in stores in Korea. Outside of that, all they are saying is that they are looking into it and will have announcements later this year. But they have too much invested in Natal to distract themselves with 3D. Otherwise Microsoft needs to get its strategy in gear.

8) Current lack of standards in 3D implementations. This gets back to the glasses problem. If I buy a Sony 3D TV with compatible glasses (that are not cheap either) will those glasses work with a Panasonic TV? If my friends come over to watch Monsters. vs. Aliens on my Samsung, I'm going to need glasses for all of them and they can't bring their glasses unless they also have Samsung 3D TV.

Until I see something interesting in 3D console gaming at the show next week, I staying very bearish on this.