Ebert: I Hate 3D, And You Should Too
Roger Ebert is at it again, but this time, he's not specifically singling out video games. However, the fact that gaming will soon embrace new 3D technology - and that the PlayStation 3 is now a functional 3D system that will play 3D movies - makes his statements relevant.
And despite his recent claims that video games can't be art, some of you might actually agree with Ebert on this subject: can 3D be considered a 100% positive thing for movies (and for games)? Is toiling in that dimension worthwhile? Does it enhance the experience as advertised? Well, Ebert has given six reasons as to why he hates 3D, and we leave it to you to judge those reasons. The very first case he makes against the technology is an interesting one, at the very least; it's called "It's the waste of a dimension:"
"When you look at a 2-D movie, it's already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, 'Look how slowly he grows against the horizon'? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing."
He goes on to talk about how it "adds nothing to the experience" (what would "Casablanca" gain from 3D?), and the fact that it can indeed be a distraction. Personally, I haven't really seen enough movies in 3D to form any sort of opinion, and I've never yet played a game in 3D. However, I can understand his points and in some ways, I do think 3D is a bit silly and its effects are somewhat over-exaggerated. I'm wondering how it might be for games, though...if it's interactive, maybe it really would enhance the experience.
4/30/2010 10:34:57 AM Ben Dutka