Actually reviewers don't mention the HD aspect anymore because everyone owns an HDTV. Also 3D has so little to do with the game why bring it up?Bread_or_Decide

Sony has no choice to push it because they have so much invested in it. They know its terrible too, but they are already too committed to back out now.

Fizzman

Except 3D isn't exclusive to Sony or the PS3. Many 3rd party devs are including 3D in their games like the developer for the games, Green Lantern, Thor, Batman Arkham City, Captain America, Enslaved, COD: Black Ops, Sonic Generations, etc. Heck there are even some 360 exclusives that support 3D like GeoW 3.

The video game industry is supporting it, it's already in many of the games we own, why can't we get a review for a feature many have and some use.

[QUOTE="TankBusterJenn"]

Personally, I believe it's developers focusing on being general and "accessible" as possible to get the most sales. They are going for the cawwadooty teenager/young adult audience when the age of the average gamer is 37 and they have been playing video games for 12 years.

Also, day one DLC and pre-order which allows developers to drum up sales without people even playing the game. So they can make a crappy product and still make money because so many people pre-ordered.

dzaric

Although i agree with all the points you made, IMO Its the constant blueprinted crap the keep chugging out to the point where creativity everything ends up being ether the same or greatly similar. Rarely does something come out that is new and fresh, and when it does those end up being the "great" games. But, creativity is a risk in this business, and this business, like many others, want to minimize the risk at the expense of creativity. This is a necessity to an extent, but i just feel that the industry at its present state has gone too long far with the same formulistic games, and that creativity is necessary at this point.

Because 3D gaming is a big joke and no one cares about it?

Fizzman

If that upcoming 3D monitor from Sony gets a price drop I'll jump on it. 500 bucks is just to steep for me now that I have to pay for college to.

But I agree that 3D quality should be included somewhere in the review.

I think people need to remember that gaming is nothing more then entertainment and as long asgamers are entertained and the developers and publishers make some money everyone is happy.

All these comments from people claiming that games are getting dumber or games trying to appeal to abroader audience is a bad thing is silly. People make it seem like there was a magic system or magic gen. in the past that had nothing but games that were art and never had to deal with movie based games, shovelware, cash ins or just poorly made games. There was no such time. Since the beginning of gaming developers have made games that would entertain you enough to keep youpumping in the quarters. They have also taken advantage or marketers and made games based on franchises to sell two items in one move. And of course there have been games that are made by developers who love gaming and want to make something beautiful or amazing. But people need to realize that even within these great devs the games vary.

You have devs that make a beautiful minimilistic game like SOTC and ICO. Or you can have a dev make an action oriented game with little to no plot but is a lot of fun to play like Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden. One dev doesn't love gaming more then the other, they are just entertained by gaming differently just like everyone else.

Gaming is alive and well making plenty of money and selling plenty of merchandise aside from games now. I just finished seeing Drake beat up some pirates while selling me a sub for Subway. There is no death or dying only publishers complaining about not having enough money which is something they will do no matter how much they earn.

I find that a lot of reviews give an incredibly brief one sentence mention of the feature, but I think it's time we started seeing a whole paragraph.

EDIT: and when they do mention it, it's as though they are speaking to people WITHOUT 3D equipment. They say things like, "It's a nice feature if you have a 3DTV, but it won't ruin your experience if you play it the conventional way." Well, no kidding! How about some mention of cross talk?

donalbane

I agree. As I said, it doesn't have to take up the whole review but a brief paragraph that mentions an ingamefeature is not unrealistic to ask for. I mean it's part of the visual presentation that they spend so much time on in reviews anyways.

Lack of interest amongst consumers I'd guess.

3KindgomsRandy

Yea, but as a reviewer they can't just pick and choose what to ignore. Especially if it wouldn't add much work. It's as simple as using an IN GAME MODE for 3D and determining if they think the image is great or not. They don't have to play the WHOLE game in 3D. Just give us an idea of depth.

Besides, if the gaming industry is interested in 3D enough to spend the money converting their games to support it, making a 3D handheldand advertise their 3D capability how can any self respecting gaming review site ignore what the gaming industry is supporting.

I see a lot of people typing in "Because nobody cares or because few people have a 3DTV".

Well the truth is reviewers constantly nit pick and talk about every minute addition or detail in a game whether they effect gamers or not. These are the same people that will compare 360 and PS3 multiplats by zooming in frames in a situation that would never exist in a gaming situation to freeze the picture and nitpick a jaggie here or there. As I said not everyone cares that the PS3 version or 360 version has slightly better AA or detail, especially if they are gaming on an SDTV or only own one system. I actually think that 3D capability is a pretty big feature to omit. I mean it's advertised right there on the box and many huge games are using it like Batman Arkham City, Uncharted 3, etc.

I don't really see a good reason for ignoring a huge feature that gamers may use. I would like to know the 3D image quality of a game and I know I am not alone.

I get that most people don't have 3D capability but that shouldn't stop a reviewer from giving the audience a good idea of the 3D quality of a game. I mean theoretically not everyone has a TV that can play a game in 1080p or even in HD yet they spend ample time on visual presentation which means little to the person that playsgames onan SDTV.

I am new to the whole 3D gaming thing and so far it has been a blast, especially with GOW: origins which was SICK in 3D. But I have found that 3D quality for games varies as much as anything else (I am looking at you crappy 3D version of Sly Cooper collection) and it would be nice if reviewers took the time to mention it's quality as well, seeing as it's yet another thing that can immerse a player into a game enhancing the overall gaming experience.