I haven't seen a movie yet in 3D that I thought looked good -- that is, the 3D always makes it look fuzzy and adds such little depth anyway. Yes, even the mediocre-movie-at-best Avatar just looked fuzzy and dark in 3D. People told me, "You have to see it at such and such a theater, because the 3D is so much better there, and where you saw it, it does kind of svck." So I went to the fancy schmancy theater and saw it again, and it looked pretty much the same. Then I saw a few more movies in 3D, and it was the same thing with every one. So now I'm done with 3D unless the technology takes a huge leap forward. Any loss in picture quality isn't worth a little more depth.

I haven't seen any video games in 3D, but I'm assuming it's the same. With Todd saying he "couldn't care less" about 3D (gaming), what do you think, and would you want it in Skyrim?


Links: http://www.gamingunion.net/news/i-couldnt-care-less-about-3d-says-skyrim-director--5872.html
http://www.psu.com/Bethesdas-Todd-Howard-couldnt-care-less-about-3D--a012336-p0.php

I think we should at least have the option to play in 3D. Then if you don't like 3D, don't use it and if you like it, then you can turn the feature on. Personally I love it, I think it adds a lot to the immersion aspect of gaming.

3D is a worthless gimmick to me.

current "3D" (note the quotes, they are very important) is a gimmick at best. the technology has a long way to go before it's comfortable at the very least. it's cool, but gets old really quick, and adds nothing to immersion or enjoyability.

I will go with Godd for this one... couldn't care less.

It's a fad like motion gaming.

3D, at least until it can actually be implimented in such a way that it doesn't cause headaches in 10-20% of people using it, is just a gimmick.

PS: Yes, to those who say otherwise, 3D does cause headaches in a significant portion of the population, because it causes your eyes to try forcing themselves apart. This stresses your ocular cortex and your eye muscles themselves in ways they were never meant to be stressed.

[censored] 3-D games.

No
At the moment its just a gimmick and a way of trying to get you to spend a fortune on hardware thats barely useable. When its been around for a good few years, is tried and tested, has a decent amount of stuff to play, the price has dropped, and its hard to get non-3D stuff then I'll get it.

The day console platforms and the major gaming companies that I respect start selling their souls to the 3D fad, is the day any shred of faith I have left in humanity is destroyed. I can sort of get behind the gimmick with the 3DS, as there are no glasses required and from what I've heard the 3D can be optional. Anything beyond that however I can't stand. Especially since I'm part of the population that can't watch anything in 3D without getting a headache or severe eye strain. If they must incorporate 3D, I'd rather it be optional at best, rather than forced upon us. If the series ever forcibly makes us deal with 3D aspects, I'll stop purchasing their products. It's as simple as that. No series is worth endless headaches.

3D movies don't impress me.I prefer seeing movies the old way.Don't judge me wrong, 3D is...outstanding tech and so on, but is isn't my thing.
I'm fine with playing Skyrim the way I play any other game, without any glasses before my eyes.So, yeah, I couldn't care less, either.

I'm like Todd and couldn't care less about 3d.

3D svcks. I'm waiting for holographic gaming. You know, true 3d.

Who cares if Todd cares? If we are talking about PC, it will work anyway thanks to nVidia 3d vision and ATI's anolog, we just won't have fancy 3d menus like in Crysis 2, if it's consoles - did anyone even hoped they will have enough performance for it to work out?

And no, I don't care about it. I wouldn't buy any 3d stuff unless I had won a lottery or something and wouldn't know where to put my money.

EDIT: But agree, would be cool to play Skyrim in front of a 55 inch LED 3D TV (with a PC hooked to it for the best graphics)

I don't own a 3D TV so couldn't play Skyrim in 3d even if I wanted to - which I don't. I have fonder memories of the 3D at places like Disney Land than I do of the current tech they use.

3D is the easiest way to make a good-looking game or movie look blurry and terrible.

3D technology isn't real 3D. It's 2D that is made to look 3D when you wear special glasses.

I don't see it being technology that lasts very long.

I'll stick with standard. It still looks great.

Agreed.

SInce I will likely be playing Skyrim in sessions longer than a few hours. The idea of wearing color blurring and headache inducing glasses to play it would make me sick. No thanks. My hope is that developers of future games don't waste an ounce of energy and time to that technology.

That largely depends on how it's set up. In cinemas that happens because they didn't allow for people sitting in the front rows, or for some cinemas having bigger screens. That is inexcusable.

For gaming, where people are playing on a huge variety of different sized screens, at very different distances, the problem is both worse and less. Worse because there's much more opportunity for eyestrain, less because, unlike in a cinema, you have the potential to fine-tune the depth and separation generated by your graphics card's 3D drivers. So you can avoid one big source of eyestrain, but it takes some fiddling to do it.

At the moment I think 3D isn't worth the hassle, but if it were improved then I'd love to use it.

3D is just a gimmick.. and wouldn't even be possible on a 360 on the scale of Skyrim due to size of the files alone.. Killzone 3 had to use the entire Blu ray disk for it and look how small it is compared to it

Somewhat accurate. What causes the eyestrain is the actual LEVEL of the effect initiated. It's got much less to do with how far away from the screen you are than the amount of 3D effect that's in place. For example, on a scale of 0-100, a 3D level of 25% causes your eyes to separate and stress less than a level of 75%. Regardless, if any technology causes impairment in more than an inconsequential amount of the population (say 0.5%), it shouldn't be utilized at all.

Besides, it's not even "3D", it's 2D with adjusted images that essentially amount to being out of focus.

This

Todd hates 3D and I love Todd.

3D is a phase and not the future. The future is in holographic technology and we aren't there yet. In the meantime I don't want any gimmicks like 3D or kinect.

Am I supposed to get rid of my boy's DSi and buy him a 3DS because, what, it's the latest thing? No chance. Skyrim in 3D? Why? It's the old trick, stick a carrot in front of a donkey and he'll lead you to a market. Except this is a pale, skinny carrot that's been painted to appear nicer, yet tastes worse. Same as the Wii, the controller 'revolutionising' gaming. No, it got people to part with good money for sub-par games, that's the name of the game with gimmickry.

Well, I'm enjoying my 3D setup. Everyone else can hate on it if they want, it won't spoil my fun.