I feel the PS4 so far is underwhelming. Who agrees?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by metalgrinch (455 posts) -

I played with the demo versions set up at Best Buy stores, and tried a bit of a few games, including FIFA 14 and Knack, and I got to see Killzone in gameplay, and I've gotta say, I wasn't really wow'd all that much. The controller looked pretty cool and was more comfy in my hands than the Dualshock 3, and the graphics looked a coat prettier and cleaner than the PS3, but overall, it just wasn't ENOUGH to demand a purchase.

The gameplay in these games felt just the same, if not a bit worse than many of the late-era PS3 tites. There was nothing really innovative in how the games felt. In terms of looks, like I said, it was prettier, but in a way it looked almost TOO clean and sharp for its own good. Some of the smoky effects in Knack were pretty neat, but it's just not enough to warrant me to spend $500 on a system and one game. And Killzone was just too standard; lots of it looks like it could've easily been done on the PS3. Especially since the amount of harddrive space for each game is just freaking ungodly.

I right now have $500 in Best Buy gift cards that I saved up over the past year, and I was going to put it all to the PS4 and a game, but I was thinking of putting it towards a 3D LED TV instead. I just feel I would get more value considering all the PS3 games I could be playing in 3D, and perhaps wait until the PS4 has something greater to offer later on. What do you all think?

#2 Edited by KHAndAnime (14245 posts) -

All next-gen is really about is better graphics and hardware. If that doesn't entice you, then don't upgrade. Shadow Fall is clearly a vast improvement over anything on consoles in terms of graphics and that's what people are paying for. And honestly, 1080P + 60 FPS in a multiplayer game does feel next-gen compared to the 720P + 30 fps games we have now. If you already don't have a great TV, you should probably work on getting one of those first before you get a PS4.

#3 Posted by Grieverr (2755 posts) -

Truth be told, the 3D in these games is underwhelming. And I love 3D, so I think that's saying a lot. Also remember that launch games are usually not overly impressive. I saw enough glimpses of things that the PS4 will be doing in the future to get me excited over getting it. The physics and particles in Knack is tech that I think will be awesome in other games.

That being said, it's your chunk of cash, and if you do not feel the PS4 is worth it, then you shouldn't buy it. The PS4 is not going anywhere soon, so when you feel its far enough of the PS3, you can buy it then (and maybe at a lower price).

#4 Posted by XspidervenomX (292 posts) -

What would overwhelm you?

#5 Posted by blueboxdoctor (2402 posts) -

I get what you're saying, and it makes sense. I want to get a PS4 by Christmas so I can get through the PS3 games I still have to beat. But as a fan of KZ I'm definitely looking forward to the new one and while I don't by any means need a PS4, I basically just want something new to play with.

But waiting is a good idea. There are a lot of cool looking games coming next year and you may be able to get a good bundle deal or something throughout the course of 2014.

#6 Posted by MarcRecon (6096 posts) -

You state the obvious my friend, most people who are familiar with new hardware know that it will take some time for developers to show off the consoles power. To tell you the truth, if the PS4 didn't come with such a low price tag I wouldn't be getting it at launch.

Right now for me, the PS4 is just an additional media hub with a whole lot of potential.

#7 Posted by BH14 (1723 posts) -

I wouldn't judge a system based off launch titles. Lets all remember that launch titles tend to be weak especially If you have a lame tv, I would definitely get a very good TV before a PS4. There will be a ton of great tv sales around black friday and xmas. Plus, it is always best to wait to purchase a new system for plenty of reasons like waiting for a price drop (it may be $100 cheaper in 2 years and may come with a game), wait for bigger library of great games, wait to get any bugs out of the launch systems if it should have any, etc..... The biggest reason that I am waiting is that I have a huge amount of games in my PS3 backlog that I want to play before I get the PS4.

Better graphics doesn't necessarily mean better game. I am waiting like a year or 2 for the PS4.

#8 Posted by metalgrinch (455 posts) -

Well, for the record, I play my PS3 on a 55" Samsung slim LED, and all the games look fantastic. As of late I've been really into films and blu-rays, and really want a 3D TV, and would love to play 3D PS3 games. My TV isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but as of right now putting my gift cards towards a TV seems a wiser investment than a new game system that I will only play ONE game on. That would be Killzone, and that's only because I'm a Killzone fan, bc the graphics of what I've seen only look a couple of baby steps greater than the PS3.

#9 Posted by KHAndAnime (14245 posts) -

@metalgrinch said:

Well, for the record, I play my PS3 on a 55" Samsung slim LED, and all the games look fantastic. As of late I've been really into films and blu-rays, and really want a 3D TV, and would love to play 3D PS3 games. My TV isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but as of right now putting my gift cards towards a TV seems a wiser investment than a new game system that I will only play ONE game on. That would be Killzone, and that's only because I'm a Killzone fan, bc the graphics of what I've seen only look a couple of baby steps greater than the PS3.

Is your TV 1080P? If it's a relatively large 55" TV and you think $500 would get you a better TV from Best Buy, something tells me that your TV isn't that great. 3D is a gimmick and won't add anything substantial to your viewing experience. I wouldn't upgrade your TV for that alone. To me, the graphics between Killzone : SF and anything on the PS3 is a night and day difference. It's just as big of a difference as the leap from the Xbox to the 360 in my eyes.

#10 Posted by kingoflife9 (1987 posts) -

I actually googled ps4 is underwhelming because I thought I was the only one. They need to hire a young american regular gamer and put him in charge of something like making a more appealing franchise.

#11 Posted by D3dr0_0 (3501 posts) -

Yeah it's better that you wait until a game that interest you shows up.

#12 Edited by DuaIFace (535 posts) -

What I hate about these demo kiosks is hardly any of them are being displayed on a HDTV that would actually let people see what the major differences are. It's very noticeable. I do agree though, NO ONE should be buying consoles at launch anymore---or games for that matter. Shit is never worth it. Not even when you have cash to burn.

#13 Edited by hyksiu (1062 posts) -

The games will most likely run much smoother than on ps3 and also the best games are yet to be announced. We don't know what the other sony studios are doing. So I am certain that by this time next year it will be a must to own a ps4. Or maybe on the first price drop.

#14 Posted by trugs26 (5742 posts) -
@DuaIFace said:

What I hate about these demo kiosks is hardly any of them are being displayed on a HDTV that would actually let people see what the major differences are. It's very noticeable. I do agree though, NO ONE should be buying consoles at launch anymore---or games for that matter. Shit is never worth it. Not even when you have cash to burn.

Yeah you're right about that. Even though it's exciting getting a console at launch, it's hardly worth it. But as a gamer, I guess it's kind of obligatory to support the console and to get it started :P But for your every day kind of person, they should definitely wait a while for a console to establish a library (and potentially get cheaper and/or have bundles) before jumping in.

#15 Edited by ewalthour (769 posts) -

I disagree whole hardily to not wait to get the ps4 until a worthy game comes out because u will only have to wait until 6 months from now. I think ps4 games will be more innovative a lot sooner than last current console. The sytem is worth it now with games costing the same as ps3 but look better. The price drop for ps4 isn't coming for at least 1 1/2 yrs. I couldn't wait that long. I think the ps4 is easier to program with than ps3 by far.

I agree most ps4 launch games don't blow me away especially the demos on the kiosk but soon u will see what the ps4 can do. It took at least 3-4 yrs before ps3 games look good to me. I think mgs,the next uncharted and watchdog alone will be worth the purchaser and I know 2/3 are coming out next yr. My ps3 was day one launch and it is still alive and well. I think ps3 wasn't worth launch day one purchase but I think mgs was the game that made me get it and mgs back then was exclusive to ps3=

#16 Edited by nicecall (432 posts) -

Most games won't look much better since they are all 1920x1080. you and me and probably most others are already gaming at 2560x1440 or higher on our pcs, or even gaming at 1080p still but with AA and supersampling cranked up, so games aren't gonna look any better on these new consoles... best we can hope for is better framerates and bigger environments.

This 'next gen' they call it isnt very next gen, the cpus and gpus are all weak in power compared to pc components. Not sure how they will hold up and if this gen will last very long. the ps3 had a cpu inside of it that was more powerful then most of our pcs cpus at the time. and even the xbox 360 had a 3 core cpu that was very powerful for 2005. I didn't even have a good 2 core until 2008, almost 3 years after the 360 released. these 'next gen' consoles have 8 core cpus, clocked under 2 ghz, this doesn't seem as futureproof as the last gen consoles. Anyone think this next gen will be able to last 8 years?

#17 Edited by bezza2011 (2687 posts) -

It's about the long haul not the short haul. For me if games are looking better now then it's a wise investment, fact is if i wait for games to come out which look amazing then that means i have a load of games to get aswel i may aswel buy now buy the few games there are which are worth buying and then gradually build up my collection which is my intention this gen around. 7years ago i had just come out of high school, this time i have a full time job and have the money.

@nicecall i believe they will i mean all I'm thinking is that ps3 and xbox 360 pulled off amazing feats with uncharted/the last of us and gears of war/halo and that was done with 256mb of ram, this time around were getting 8gb of ram plus a custom built gpu and 8cores i mean, if a ps3 can pull off uncharted what can a ps4 do.

#18 Edited by md4man (14 posts) -

If you are not looking forward to any new games coming out now, there's no need to buy the PS4 now. You may as well wait until you need one for a game you really want. It's not like it will be harder to get one later.

As far as 3D TVs are concerned, I strongly recommend you get one. It may be a gimmick but it's a gimmick that provides me with hours of enjoyment. Well-done 3D really enhances the movie experience. 3D, when added the right way, does the same for gaming. Motorstorm Apocalypse in 3D: Unreal! 3D seems not to be for everyone but for those of us that like it, it adds an additional element that is worth having.

On which 3D TV to get, I recommend the best LG LED TV you can afford. I have 3 of them now (5600, 6700, 8600) and all of them have amazing picture quality and nice features. I am very happy with them all.

#19 Posted by nickscho (517 posts) -

It may help to think of it this way and use an analogy: PS4 and XBOX1 do not raise the level of games, but they do raise the level CAP.

It'll take years for the systems to actually level up. We've seen this before. Don't judge a system based off launch. 360 and PS3 launch titles looked terrible to games today, and were only a small step up from the end of the PS2 era games. The difference between those launch titles and today's titles, is almost 7 years. That's a long, long time.

#20 Posted by Geminon (1095 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

@metalgrinch said:

Well, for the record, I play my PS3 on a 55" Samsung slim LED, and all the games look fantastic. As of late I've been really into films and blu-rays, and really want a 3D TV, and would love to play 3D PS3 games. My TV isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but as of right now putting my gift cards towards a TV seems a wiser investment than a new game system that I will only play ONE game on. That would be Killzone, and that's only because I'm a Killzone fan, bc the graphics of what I've seen only look a couple of baby steps greater than the PS3.

Is your TV 1080P? If it's a relatively large 55" TV and you think $500 would get you a better TV from Best Buy, something tells me that your TV isn't that great. 3D is a gimmick and won't add anything substantial to your viewing experience. I wouldn't upgrade your TV for that alone. To me, the graphics between Killzone : SF and anything on the PS3 is a night and day difference. It's just as big of a difference as the leap from the Xbox to the 360 in my eyes.

bullshit it doesnt add anything. games like assassins creed 3, uncharted 3, and several others look AMAZING in 3D. having that extra depth really sucks you into the experience. i dont think there is a single other feature that can have a greater effect on immersion.

#21 Edited by KHAndAnime (14245 posts) -

@Geminon said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@metalgrinch said:

Well, for the record, I play my PS3 on a 55" Samsung slim LED, and all the games look fantastic. As of late I've been really into films and blu-rays, and really want a 3D TV, and would love to play 3D PS3 games. My TV isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but as of right now putting my gift cards towards a TV seems a wiser investment than a new game system that I will only play ONE game on. That would be Killzone, and that's only because I'm a Killzone fan, bc the graphics of what I've seen only look a couple of baby steps greater than the PS3.

Is your TV 1080P? If it's a relatively large 55" TV and you think $500 would get you a better TV from Best Buy, something tells me that your TV isn't that great. 3D is a gimmick and won't add anything substantial to your viewing experience. I wouldn't upgrade your TV for that alone. To me, the graphics between Killzone : SF and anything on the PS3 is a night and day difference. It's just as big of a difference as the leap from the Xbox to the 360 in my eyes.

bullshit it doesnt add anything. games like assassins creed 3, uncharted 3, and several others look AMAZING in 3D. having that extra depth really sucks you into the experience. i dont think there is a single other feature that can have a greater effect on immersion.

I can't think of any other single feature that has been more lauded as a gimmick and/or inducing of headaches. Good sound and picture is key to good immersion. 3D is key for a novelty experience. Good for 13 year old kids and not much else. I've heard the PS3's 3D is particularly weak compared to 3D technology on the PC, which is unsurprising, considering its methods of 3D and weak hardware.

#22 Posted by Geminon (1095 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

@Geminon said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@metalgrinch said:

Well, for the record, I play my PS3 on a 55" Samsung slim LED, and all the games look fantastic. As of late I've been really into films and blu-rays, and really want a 3D TV, and would love to play 3D PS3 games. My TV isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but as of right now putting my gift cards towards a TV seems a wiser investment than a new game system that I will only play ONE game on. That would be Killzone, and that's only because I'm a Killzone fan, bc the graphics of what I've seen only look a couple of baby steps greater than the PS3.

Is your TV 1080P? If it's a relatively large 55" TV and you think $500 would get you a better TV from Best Buy, something tells me that your TV isn't that great. 3D is a gimmick and won't add anything substantial to your viewing experience. I wouldn't upgrade your TV for that alone. To me, the graphics between Killzone : SF and anything on the PS3 is a night and day difference. It's just as big of a difference as the leap from the Xbox to the 360 in my eyes.

bullshit it doesnt add anything. games like assassins creed 3, uncharted 3, and several others look AMAZING in 3D. having that extra depth really sucks you into the experience. i dont think there is a single other feature that can have a greater effect on immersion.

I can't think of any other single feature that has been more lauded as a gimmick and/or inducing of headaches. Good sound and picture is key to good immersion. 3D is key for a novelty experience. Good for 13 year old kids and not much else. I've heard the PS3's 3D is particularly weak compared to 3D technology on the PC, which is unsurprising, considering its methods of 3D and weak hardware.

and yet 3D movies still sell very well at the box office.... and nintendo felt it necessary to design an entire handheld around the experience, and it is probably the best selling piece of hardware on the market right now.... and pretty much every TV can do 3D now... and 3D blurays are selling quite well....

such a "gimmick"... sure.

go see Gravity in 2D and 3D.... then come back and tell me which is a better experience. gimmick my ass.

gaming and 3D go together naturally, and provides an extra level of immersion that cannot be duplicated in any other way. 3D is only going to become more prominent... not less.

and aside from all that, there is nothing like experiencing a movie made to be seen in 3D in IMAX 3D. just because it is popular on the internet to call 3D a gimmick does not make it the truth. it just makes you a tool for following along with it.

#23 Edited by nickscho (517 posts) -

@Geminon said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@Geminon said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@metalgrinch said:

Well, for the record, I play my PS3 on a 55" Samsung slim LED, and all the games look fantastic. As of late I've been really into films and blu-rays, and really want a 3D TV, and would love to play 3D PS3 games. My TV isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but as of right now putting my gift cards towards a TV seems a wiser investment than a new game system that I will only play ONE game on. That would be Killzone, and that's only because I'm a Killzone fan, bc the graphics of what I've seen only look a couple of baby steps greater than the PS3.

Is your TV 1080P? If it's a relatively large 55" TV and you think $500 would get you a better TV from Best Buy, something tells me that your TV isn't that great. 3D is a gimmick and won't add anything substantial to your viewing experience. I wouldn't upgrade your TV for that alone. To me, the graphics between Killzone : SF and anything on the PS3 is a night and day difference. It's just as big of a difference as the leap from the Xbox to the 360 in my eyes.

bullshit it doesnt add anything. games like assassins creed 3, uncharted 3, and several others look AMAZING in 3D. having that extra depth really sucks you into the experience. i dont think there is a single other feature that can have a greater effect on immersion.

I can't think of any other single feature that has been more lauded as a gimmick and/or inducing of headaches. Good sound and picture is key to good immersion. 3D is key for a novelty experience. Good for 13 year old kids and not much else. I've heard the PS3's 3D is particularly weak compared to 3D technology on the PC, which is unsurprising, considering its methods of 3D and weak hardware.

and yet 3D movies still sell very well at the box office.... and nintendo felt it necessary to design an entire handheld around the experience, and it is probably the best selling piece of hardware on the market right now.... and pretty much every TV can do 3D now... and 3D blurays are selling quite well....

such a "gimmick"... sure.

go see Gravity in 2D and 3D.... then come back and tell me which is a better experience. gimmick my ass.

gaming and 3D go together naturally, and provides an extra level of immersion that cannot be duplicated in any other way. 3D is only going to become more prominent... not less.

and aside from all that, there is nothing like experiencing a movie made to be seen in 3D in IMAX 3D. just because it is popular on the internet to call 3D a gimmick does not make it the truth. it just makes you a tool for following along with it.

Do you know the definition of "gimmick?" "A Method used to attract attention, usually for profit."

Method to attract attention: Please look at every movie poster for almost every animated movie rated PG or G for the last 5 years. Or, watch children's TV for about an hour, and let me know if commercials targeted at them mention 3D. Then, go over to Best Buy or Amazon and look at the covers of most blu-rays that have come out and the last year, and tell me what you see plastered across the top. But it's very hard to deny that studios use 3D in most movies as a gimmick.

Profit: This is an easy one. Tell me the difference in ticket prices at the theater, or prices on blu-rays, between the 2D or 3D version of the same film. Then get back to us.

I'm not saying 3D doesn't improve some movies. That's not my argument (Avatar, Life of Pi and Gravity come to mind. And yes, I saw Gravity on 3D IMAX and I was floored by how amazing it was), but it certainly is used to sell tickets for bad movies (Resident Evil). So take the time to open a dictionary before you call someone else a tool, when in fact you are the type of person who will most likely spend double ticket prices after after being advertised to.

Edit: And a movie doing well at the Box Office doesn't make it good. But, if you still want to use that argument, do a Google search and you'll see that 3D revenue in the US has hit an all time low for 2013.

But hey, maybe you're right. I'm sure kids ask their parents to take them to the movies because the ads really sell how brilliant the writing is in a movie like "Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3D." And nothing gimmicky at all about this Spy Kids picture:

#24 Posted by XspidervenomX (292 posts) -

I'm not sure I would be too excited about an in store demo on a tiny TV..LOL Im guessing you used no features???, HOw was the Multiplayer..?? This was just a bit of a trolling post. Those Tacos weren't very good, I didn't eat them but I saw them.

#25 Edited by BH14 (1723 posts) -

The facts are 99% of the 3d haters are people who don't have a 3d tv or never even tried 3d before (movies or games). Going to Sears and watching the demo 3d glasses doesn't count. Who is anyone to tell anyone else that they shouldn't enjoy their 3d movies and/or 3d games because it is a "gimmick"?

So are Avatar or the Avengers in 3d garbage movies because they have it in 3d? No. There are plenty of bad 3d movies but I think there are plenty of bad 2d movies as well... Maybe they made Avatar and Avengers in 3d so some viewers can enjoy it more.

And with netflix and cablevision offering 3d, it is more reason to give 3d a shot.

#26 Posted by _Judas_ (756 posts) -

3D in both gaming and movies is such bullshit... only time I would watch a movie in 3D is at the movies...

I'm pretty excited about the blu-ray driver in the PS4. The PS3's blue-ray was praised as being pretty good compared to other blu-ray players. and even besting _most_ of 'em. Hopefully, the PS4's blu-ray will prove even better. Go Sony!

#27 Posted by Geminon (1095 posts) -

@nickscho said:

@Geminon said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@Geminon said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@metalgrinch said:

Well, for the record, I play my PS3 on a 55" Samsung slim LED, and all the games look fantastic. As of late I've been really into films and blu-rays, and really want a 3D TV, and would love to play 3D PS3 games. My TV isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but as of right now putting my gift cards towards a TV seems a wiser investment than a new game system that I will only play ONE game on. That would be Killzone, and that's only because I'm a Killzone fan, bc the graphics of what I've seen only look a couple of baby steps greater than the PS3.

Is your TV 1080P? If it's a relatively large 55" TV and you think $500 would get you a better TV from Best Buy, something tells me that your TV isn't that great. 3D is a gimmick and won't add anything substantial to your viewing experience. I wouldn't upgrade your TV for that alone. To me, the graphics between Killzone : SF and anything on the PS3 is a night and day difference. It's just as big of a difference as the leap from the Xbox to the 360 in my eyes.

bullshit it doesnt add anything. games like assassins creed 3, uncharted 3, and several others look AMAZING in 3D. having that extra depth really sucks you into the experience. i dont think there is a single other feature that can have a greater effect on immersion.

I can't think of any other single feature that has been more lauded as a gimmick and/or inducing of headaches. Good sound and picture is key to good immersion. 3D is key for a novelty experience. Good for 13 year old kids and not much else. I've heard the PS3's 3D is particularly weak compared to 3D technology on the PC, which is unsurprising, considering its methods of 3D and weak hardware.

and yet 3D movies still sell very well at the box office.... and nintendo felt it necessary to design an entire handheld around the experience, and it is probably the best selling piece of hardware on the market right now.... and pretty much every TV can do 3D now... and 3D blurays are selling quite well....

such a "gimmick"... sure.

go see Gravity in 2D and 3D.... then come back and tell me which is a better experience. gimmick my ass.

gaming and 3D go together naturally, and provides an extra level of immersion that cannot be duplicated in any other way. 3D is only going to become more prominent... not less.

and aside from all that, there is nothing like experiencing a movie made to be seen in 3D in IMAX 3D. just because it is popular on the internet to call 3D a gimmick does not make it the truth. it just makes you a tool for following along with it.

Do you know the definition of "gimmick?" "A Method used to attract attention, usually for profit."

Method to attract attention: Please look at every movie poster for almost every animated movie rated PG or G for the last 5 years. Or, watch children's TV for about an hour, and let me know if commercials targeted at them mention 3D. Then, go over to Best Buy or Amazon and look at the covers of most blu-rays that have come out and the last year, and tell me what you see plastered across the top. But it's very hard to deny that studios use 3D in most movies as a gimmick.

Profit: This is an easy one. Tell me the difference in ticket prices at the theater, or prices on blu-rays, between the 2D or 3D version of the same film. Then get back to us.

I'm not saying 3D doesn't improve some movies. That's not my argument (Avatar, Life of Pi and Gravity come to mind. And yes, I saw Gravity on 3D IMAX and I was floored by how amazing it was), but it certainly is used to sell tickets for bad movies (Resident Evil). So take the time to open a dictionary before you call someone else a tool, when in fact you are the type of person who will most likely spend double ticket prices after after being advertised to.

Edit: And a movie doing well at the Box Office doesn't make it good. But, if you still want to use that argument, do a Google search and you'll see that 3D revenue in the US has hit an all time low for 2013.

But hey, maybe you're right. I'm sure kids ask their parents to take them to the movies because the ads really sell how brilliant the writing is in a movie like "Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3D." And nothing gimmicky at all about this Spy Kids picture:

im sorry, but "gimmick" carries a heavy negative connotation along with it, and there is nothing negative about 3D. movies and videogames are for entertainment, and if 3D increases the level of entertainment for a viewer then it was worth it. not every movie has to be a complete masterpiece like Gravity or Avatar. Some movies you can go to just to be entertained for 2 hours, and not have to think. and you know what? those spykids movies or what have you are fun for little kids, obviously, or they wouldnt have had such an audience. little kids like dumb things... that doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed to partake in them.

and as to your comment "And a movie doing well at the Box Office doesn't make it good".... actually, that is EXACTLY what it means. popular opinion determines what is good and bad, as much as haters like to deny that. if the majority of people like something, and spend money, then it is considered "good". Fads are considered good... but opinions change... something can be good one minute, and not good the next, hence why fads fall out and die eventually.

in terms of prices, i have never paid more for a 3D movie OR bluray than i have for the standard movie or bluray. i can easily get movie tickets at Costco for my local theater that cost less than matinee prices and use them for 3D movies, and Amazon ALWAYS has 3D blurays on sale the first week they come out for around the same price as the standard bluray. its not my fault other people are dumb and dont shop smart.

i do not need to "open a dictionary" to understand what the word means, thanks. you basically just threw your entire post out the window by saying that. clearly im the only one around here that has a level head and isnt a douchebag internet hater.

#28 Posted by KHAndAnime (14245 posts) -

@BH14 said:

The facts are 99% of the 3d haters are people who don't have a 3d tv or never even tried 3d before (movies or games). Going to Sears and watching the demo 3d glasses doesn't count. Who is anyone to tell anyone else that they shouldn't enjoy their 3d movies and/or 3d games because it is a "gimmick"?

So are Avatar or the Avengers in 3d garbage movies because they have it in 3d? No. There are plenty of bad 3d movies but I think there are plenty of bad 2d movies as well... Maybe they made Avatar and Avengers in 3d so some viewers can enjoy it more.

And with netflix and cablevision offering 3d, it is more reason to give 3d a shot.

No. I have plenty of experiences with 3D. It's just not a particularly good feature. I've always found it poorly used, disorienting, and distracting. Due to the different focus on objects in 3D, I find the image quality typically always suffers compared to the 2D counterpart. Movies that work well with 3D were particularly built with 3D in mind (no exception). But 3D is really a one-trick pony, and isn't actually any more immersive or realistic feeling than a quality 2D image. To me 3D effects remind me of a pop-up book. I've seen Avatar in 3D at IMAX (a real 4:3 IMAX), and I've seen plenty of games and movies on 3D TVs. It's more embarrassing wearing the 3D glasses more than it is enjoyable.

If you like 3D, cool. I just think there are more important things to worry about than a new TV's 3D capabilities. And 3D doesn't make mediocre-looking 720P games (PS3 games) look as good as state-of-the-art 1080P games (PS4 games). Doesn't even come close.

#29 Edited by Jaysonguy (37828 posts) -

3D gives you reduced visual fidelity

Anyone who is happy with reduced visual fidelity is wrong