Ron Gilbert doesn't like 3D glasses

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 6 July, 2010

"Will always be a problem."

Wearing glasses to play games in 3D "will always be a problem", the creator of classic adventure series Monkey Island and upcoming downloadable title DeathSpank has said.

Ron Gilbert, who has worked on some of the most-loved titles of all time, reckons 3D gaming will only become popular when tellies that can display 3D without gamers having to wear glasses are released.

"I didn't see the 3DS, so I can't tell you about that specifically," Gilbert told Eurogamer in an interview published today.

"I know that I hate 3D movies. I find them disturbing. Although I did see a demo of somebody playing World of Warcraft in 3D, which I thought was pretty cool. So I don't know. I haven't had enough experience with it and the games to really know.

"I do know wearing a pair of glasses as you play a game is going to be a big problem. Maybe, down the road, when TVs can do 3D without glasses and all of those things, I think that's when you might see it become popular. But I think wearing the glasses is always going to be a problem."

Last week president of Sony's Worldwide Studios Shuhei Yoshida defended 3D glasses, saying: "If you really want a big theatre experience, of course you have to wear glasses.

"With the latest technology, the glasses are light and you kind of forget you're wearing them after a while."

Sony went big on big-screen 3D at E3 2010 last month. At its press conference specs-wearing attendees were treated to a live gameplay demonstration of Killzone 3 running in 3D. And you might have seen adverts for 3D-enabled Sony televisions doing the rounds, too.

Gilbert was chatting to Eurogamer to discuss DeathSpank, which is most definitely not 3D enabled. It will be available for download on 13th July on the PlayStation Network for $14.99, and 14th July on Xbox Live Arcade for 1200 Microsoft Points (£10).

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (50) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Retroid #1 2 years ago

    He speaks the truth.

  • GamesConnoisseur #2 2 years ago

    And so the raging arguments goes on.... Personally agrees with his comments, but likewise shared by many and yet the are those who also says it's not a problem.

    Just accept this is not going to go away quickly or swept under the carpet, either it will get accepted as normal or it will remaind an issue.

  • iHAZaCHEEZ3burger #3 2 years ago

    When the God Ron Gilbert speaks, you listen.

  • StueyBoy16 #4 2 years ago

    Couldn't agree more with old Ron.

  • Doctor_What #5 2 years ago

    I wear glasses to play games all the time...

    I'm on the fence with this stuff: no glasses would obviously be better, but glasses aren't that bad either.

  • RodHull #6 2 years ago

    I love you Ron Gilbert.

  • Subi #7 2 years ago

    "With the latest technology, the glasses are light and you kind of forget you're wearing them after a while."

    The glasses you get in cinemas are indeed light, but they don't have any electronics or batteries in them like the home ones Sony is proposing. :)

    And yeah, glasses wearer here also, so I'd have no problem wearing just the regular polarizing glasses that something like RealD uses. I'm assuming Sony rejected them for home use because of the loss of light.
    Edited by Subi at 06/07/10 @ 12:28

  • DrDamn #8 2 years ago

    @Subi
    You lose half the resolution with non-active glasses.

    Can we not just copy and paste the comments from one of the other 3D news stories. It's all getting a bit tiresome now.

    I'll happily wear glasses, headset for comms and headphones for audio if needed and it enhances the experience.

  • woodnotes #9 2 years ago

    I though this was about that mind-numbingly irritating and unfunny Welsh idiot.

  • Boomerang #10 2 years ago

    Has anyone elxplained why we get these silly little articles based on interviews with copy-and-pasted content in? Seems rather pointlessly fleshy. Like Wayne Rooney's face.

  • insincere_dave #11 2 years ago

    3D glasses are for teh gayers.

  • Tricky #12 2 years ago

    /thumbs nose at all the 20/20 vision gits

    I wear glasses every day and it's not an issue. Even those of you who have good eyesight wear sunglasses, so what's the beef?

  • Arwin #13 2 years ago

    The lightest shutter glasses I've seen are Samsung's and they only weigh 30 grams. I'm 100% sure that the non-active shutter glasses I've used in the cinema have all weighed more than that.

    I wear glasses most of the time too, and even having those other glasses over mine wasn't an issue. Monsters vs Aliens looked great in 3D by the way on that Samsung I tried (the most expensive one in the shop, they had 9 models from various manufacturers ranging from 1450 euro to 3000 euro - not what you'd expect from 'cutting edge' tech in the store at launch, so it's clear to me that a lot of TVs sold in the future are going to be at least '3D ready' )
    Edited by Arwin at 06/07/10 @ 12:57

  • Ryze #14 2 years ago

    Standard '3D TV' thread cut/paste comment:

    Most people aren't taking into account that the next consoles will need to have monster GPUs to render 1080p/60 3D. If Sony / Microsoft aim for this, then there'll be little chance of them taking a 'Wii-like' technology sidestep to save costs.

    3D works best when V-sync'd, so this BODES VERY WELL for 2D framerates and elimination / minimising of tearing in the next gen, for those who DON'T upgrade their TV sets.

    It'll be near impossible to create a game that simply doesn't work for those without 3D displays, so calm the nonsensical hate, children. Even larger 2D panels will get cheaper, so it's a win/win.

    We'll all benefit from the push to 3D.

    ...but yeah - paying up to £100 for a single set of shutter specs ruins the concept of investing loads in a 3D TV set, as you'll have to turn 3D off when your friends come round.

  • Gormless #15 2 years ago

    His brother Rhod is a lot funnier.

  • kangarootoo #16 2 years ago

    "The glasses you get in cinemas are indeed light, but they don't have any electronics or batteries in them like the home ones Sony is proposing"

    The shutter glasses are still very light. The cinema ones weigh as much as cardboard, whereas the electronic ones weigh little more than a bulky pair of sunglasses.

  • callum9999 #17 2 years ago

    Subi - have you ever actually worn the powered 3D glasses? They aren't heavy at all - I'm sure they do weigh a bit more than cinema glasses but while I was wearing them I didn't notice much of a difference.

  • miiiguel #18 2 years ago

    They do need to come up with something at least much cheaper, I'm not seeing many families spending 4x150Eur on 3D glasses alone, if not this tech will be confined to a niche (who already uses headsets; headphones, etc., to enhance the experience).

  • NorUraeus #19 2 years ago

    yay, another boring discussion about 3D glasses and pricing

  • Subi #20 2 years ago

    @callum9999: Fair enough, it's been a while since I last wore them. I remember doing some prototyping with some powered glasses about ten years ago, and with them it wasn't so much the weight as the massive headache.

    Still, it will be cool when we're all walking around wearing them like in Halting State. :)

  • GrumpyLlama #21 2 years ago

    I'm old enough to remember the 3D craze in the 80's with the red and green glasses. The it was going to be the next big thing It was everywhere, movies, comics and even a few games. It was all crap. Jaws 3D anyone. I think it was smello vision (scratch and sniff) that eventually killed it off. It's a fad. Like rara skirts and arctic rolls. Don't believe the hype ; )

  • DrDamn #22 2 years ago

    @GrumpyLlama
    Yeah cos this is *exactly* the same thing ...

  • FireMonkey #23 2 years ago

    @DrDamm - "You lose half the resolution with non-active glasses"

    No you don't.

    The data format used by Sony is the same for any type of glasses. Polarised, active shutter and any other methods that may arrive (or even glasses free TV's) will have a 1080 (potentially unscaled) x 1440 resolution (well 1080 x 1470 but 30 pixel height area is used for timing rather than display).

    If I could afford it I'd get the polarised rather than shutter as there will be less flicker, and no electronics (and so will be light light and have no batteries). Just a pity they are going to cost so much more than the TV's that work with active-shutter.

  • GrumpyLlama #24 2 years ago

    DrDamn said
    @GrumpyLlama
    Yeah cos this is *exactly* the same thing ...

    They said in the 80s that the technology was much better than in the 50s, and it was, but it was still crap. No matter how much you want it not to be the case. The tech is still rubbish. Its expensive, doesn't work for a large proportion of people and makes alot of people barf. I contrast 2D displays are cheap and works for everyone. I now I sound like a ludite but I really can't see this catching on in the way that the entertainment industry is hoping for.

  • teabagger #25 2 years ago

    The whole glasses issue is not ideal but it's being blown way out of proportion. Watching TV standing on your head while balancing a radish on each of your feet is inconvenient, wearing glasses really isn't. As someone who has worn them for well over 20 years I feel qualified in this area. Also they look a lot less ridiculous than some of the sunglasses I regularly see people wearing, so again I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

  • Retroid #26 2 years ago

    I watched Jaws 3D in the cinema (on original release) with polarised glasses, it was *much* better than any of that green & red glasses crap.

    Was it something I desperately wanted at home? No.

    Glasses in cinema? Fine. Glasses when you're at home and just want to watch TV? No.

  • Retroid #27 2 years ago

    Oh, and as for people who're saying they wear glasses and can't see the fuss, I pointed out to my otherwise-eager glasses-wearing inlaws that most 3D TVs need you to wear glasses to get the effect and it instantly turned them off the idea.

    I think there's a definite reason that there's a huge lack of glasses on the starstruck people in adverts for 3DTVs.

    edit: somehow left out the point of mentioning my inlaws, namely that they're glasses-wearers curious about 3D
    Edited by Retroid at 06/07/10 @ 16:23

  • DrDamn #28 2 years ago

    @Firemonkey
    How do you think a polarised solution works? Why you don't get a flicker? It doesn't matter what the source is, it is the method of display which is halving the resolution. It displays both left and right in a single frame with polarisation ensuring your left eye sees odd lines and right eye sees even lines, hence a maximum of 540 lines will be seen by either eye on a 1080p set - unless the display is much higher resolution to begin with.

    http://www.netblender.com/main/resources...

  • DrDamn #29 2 years ago

    @GrumpyLlama
    "doesn't work for a large proportion of people"

    Care to put a figure on that and provide a link?

  • GrumpyLlama #30 2 years ago

    @DrDamn

    As far as vomiting no I don't have any figures, its purely anedotal, but the incidense of squint in childhood is about 3% so without correction they only see in 2D anyway (interestingly they seem to function perfectly well without 3D with only limitation seeming to be flying aircraft). Obviously people with strobe induced epilepsy should probably avoid them. Also from personal experience trying to get anyone under the age of 3 to wear glasses is very difficult.
    Edited by GrumpyLlama at 06/07/10 @ 16:09

  • DrDamn #31 2 years ago

    @GrumpyLlama
    You completely missed out blind people there. We really shouldn't bother with 3D TV because blind people will never be able to appreciate it.

  • GrumpyLlama #32 2 years ago

    @DrDamn

    I think its you thats missing the poin.t The incidence of blindness in 1 eye is about 4% of the population. These people can watch 2D TV with no problem and function without a problem in society. I am sure these are not the only people who can't use this technology, they are just an example. I'm just saying I don't think it adds enough to the experience to exlude a large proportion of the population, not to mention the expense or the inconvienence. I may be wrong but until the tech catches up with the expectation it will just be a fad

  • Tio #33 2 years ago

    Correct me if I am wrong , but wouldn't people who wear glasses to play games/watch TV have to not wear them so they can wear the 3D glasses?, meaning they wouldn't see it as clearly, or do these glasses(3D) go on top of the normal glasses that people wear?

  • DrDamn #34 2 years ago

    @GrumpyLlama
    I think the key point you are missing is that all these 3D games are perfectly playable in 2D too. People will miss out on some of the experience but not the game itself - most people will have the choice. So why should tech companies not be exploring these things just because 4%, 10% or 20% of the population can't use it? The choice is all I'm after.

    As to whether it does add to the experience - obviously that's a personal thing, but there are plenty who think it does. The conclusions of articles on this very website concur and that is with the drawbacks and simplified graphics taken into account.

    Have you actually seen or tried real game demos displayed on one of the new TV sets?

  • DrDamn #35 2 years ago

    @Tio
    You are wrong :). The 3D glasses are designed to fit over regular glasses. I've never had a problem with any of the sets I tried - though I have fairly slim glasses.

  • JimmyT67 #36 2 years ago

    I have to wear glasses everyday but then i listened to Ron and now i've decided Ron is right and so now i am chucking them away!

    tes yhey hsve fone noe i dom't jnow ehy o eber meedwd yhem

  • drhappy #37 2 years ago

    correction eurogamer, 1200 msp is actually 15 usd as well, not 10 usd.

  • Chufty #38 2 years ago

    Everyone just needs to think about how it is possible for a TV to display a DIFFERENT image to EACH eye WITHOUT glasses and regardless of where you are in the room.

    Such technology is the stuff of science fiction, so you better get used to these glasses.

  • sega #39 2 years ago

    I'm not really sure why people are pointing out the fact millions of people wear glasses anyway. The problem with 3D glasses is simply inconvenience. You put them on just for the game you're playing (or movie you're watching) - whereas regular glasses you wear all the time and are a necessity for some people to see properly. If those people had a choice, they'd choose not to wear their glasses.

    The biggest problem comes from the fact most people don't watch TV on their own. Most watch as a family, with friends, with their partner etc. A gamer or a movie fanatic might not find a problem with it but would a family wear a pair to watch TV whilst one parent is also trying to keep an eye on the kids and the other doing the ironing? Would somebody fork out for half a dozen pairs of glasses for a movie night with their friends? Would you invite a date round to watch a movie at your place if you had to wear unflattering glasses infront of each other?

    It's pointless telling people on internet forums it's no big deal and to just "get over it" - you have to tell it to the entire nation who even find it a pain having to search for a remote control, never mind pairs of 3D glasses.

  • DrDamn #40 2 years ago

    @Sega
    Putting them on for a particular thing is very similar to a headset for online gaming, a set of headphones to keep the noise down or maybe reading glasses for example :). I take the point about an inconvenience, but this is for an upside of a potentially better and more immersive experience.

    "A gamer or a movie fanatic might not find a problem with it"

    Well quite, but this is a gaming website is it not? This is what we are actually discussing. I'd never really consider it for movies, it's nice but certainly not for all films. Gaming on the other hand is a very good fit. It's something a lot of people do sat alone, so number of glasses is not as big an issue. Let's not forget that should you have 4 people wanting to watch/play and only 1 or 2 pairs of glasses you can take it in turns or ... watch/play in 2D - that applies to movies too, even if you bought the 3d version you can get the tv to display in 2d.

  • sega #41 2 years ago

    You speak the truth, DrDamn, but I think that's what will be the downfall of 3D in the home. It's an immersive experience for gamers, it does look cool and you can always share glasses or switch to 2D. However we need more than just gamers to buy into this if it's to take off - everyone needs to adopt into for it to be worthwhile to make games in 3D. People most probably wont see the point in it if they have to share glasses or turn the 3D off if there's too many people - they'd expect it all the time.

    For the record, I'm not writing off 3D or calling it crap or anything. I just can't see people taking it up in the same way they did with HD TVs. There's just too many barriers in the way and even I, as a gamer and film addict (and that loved 3D Avatar at the cinema) I simply can not get excited about buying a 3D TV. Even if they came right down in price - they just seem to be that little bit too much of a hassle for me - so I'm sure the more "casual" gamer and movie watcher would need even more convincing than me.

  • DrDamn #42 2 years ago

    @Sega
    They won't need convincing though. Games and enthusiasts can drive it for now, in a few years all big tvs will support it though. It'll just be another tick on the list of features. Then if you have just bought any new tv it will be spend £30 on a pair of third party specs - if that - and you are there. It will sneak into peoples houses by stealth :)

    It will never be for general tv - it's not meant to be, but for "event" stuff - big new blockbuster releases, the world cup in 2014 etc. I think it will catch on.

  • callum9999 #43 2 years ago

    Sega - the Sony glasses are actually pretty stylish in my opinion - like decent sunglasses. As to your family scenario - there is a simple solution. If you don't want to spend £500 on glasses for your family then DON'T BUY A 3D TV. Whether you accept it or not, there are plenty of people who want a 3D TV so giving them the choice to buy it is far better than refusing to allow anyone to buy it because many families don't want it.

    Perhaps we should get rid of 18 DVDs? After all, many people like watching films as a family and they won't be able to with these films...

  • Retroid #44 2 years ago

    callum9999: "If you don't want to spend £500 on glasses for your family then DON'T BUY A 3D TV."

    The technology needs to be mass-market to survive properly, and it needs to be cheaper to be mass-market.

  • man.the.king #45 2 years ago

    As a few others have stated, I would happily wear glasses if it tends to enhance my gaming experience.

    As far as all the criticism of Sony-sponsored 3D goes, what I think is, if tomorrow Microsoft were to suddenly start supporting glasses-based 3D, more than 50% of the naysayers on here would do an about-face and start singing praises of 3D gaming (glasses or otherwise), enthusiastically discussing the potential for 3D in Halo: Reach and GeOW3.
    Edited by man.the.king at 07/07/10 @ 02:30

  • Ryze #46 2 years ago

    Glasses are a small inconvenience in the living room, but the COST is prohibitive.

    It'll take a VERY long time before enough content is 3D for us to need the glasses on all evening. It'll be just for the length of a movie or game session.

    The big issue in the living room is BUYING £100 GLASSES for each person who happens to be in the room, or else having to switch off the 3D.

    What happens when you're watching 3D footy, and a mate comes round to visit? You then have to turn 3D off, unless you have a pair of glasses for him to wear as well.

    I do believe that the 3DS method will make it to the mainstream, but with 'webcams' built into the top of the TV, using face tracking and altering the angle of the image to maintain the 3D effect for several people at once.

    Sounds complex, but very possible. It means that we'll be able to video Skype without a tablet / laptop, also.

  • dfooster #47 2 years ago

    look if you want 3D badly enough NOW the glasses are not an issue.

    the main issue is the fact that companies are employing different techniques to provide 3D which is confusing the consumer and the prices are currently too expensive for mr average.

    until there is an industry standard, like when VHS beat betamax, or when blu ray beat HD dvd then not many people will adopt the technology for fear of getting burnt financially.

    for one of these techniques to win the technology has to work for a whole family sat around a tv at home at different angles and distances. the glasses are secondary to this in my opinion for this to take off really big. if glasses are required to achieve family viewing then so be it. people will get used to it.

  • DrDamn #48 2 years ago

    @dfooster
    I don't think the analogy with VHS - Betamax really works. There aren't 3D content types competing against each other. The 3D content is 3D content - two views (one for each eye) - how the display interprets this and puts it up for viewing isn't a standards issue - it's a preference. There are a few variations in how the 3D content is presented - but all the TVs accept these.

    The situation is more like LCD vs Plasma. Both types of technology can display broadcast TV. Which is better for you is a preference.

  • pantherboy #49 2 years ago

    If Ron Gilbert doesn't like it, forget it.

  • Ryze #50 2 years ago

    @DrDamn

    The Active shutter glasses need to be standardised if they're to take off in any meaningful way, however. No chance I'd be buying different brands for different rooms or visits to other people.

    It's a bit of a mess at the moment...