| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (45)

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 7:08AM Foetoid said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
PS3. It can only do EVERYTHING. Even make you puke while playing! :D

I jest of course. I wonder if this applies to the 3DS. I've heard the non-glasses version of the 3D tech doesn't quite have the same nausea-inducing effect.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 1:06PM Wiizer said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Foetoid

Actually, I was watching Dr. Oz and the nausea from 3-D is caused by damage to an inner ear bone.

If people are getting sick at the movies, it's a symptom of something broken inside their ear which helps with equilibrium. Here's the link:

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/symptoms/Dizziness/hic_What_is_Dizziness.aspx
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 4:32PM PeterPanana said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Foetoid My eyes must be damaged already...I'm having a hard time reading that first comment...
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 7:11AM prodigy69 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sorry but 'not likely' doesn't fill me with confidence :D
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 9:38AM FZero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@prodigy69 this is science. they can never tell you something is 100% certain anyway. never confuse science with absolutist truth
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:21AM Ashkental said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@prodigy69

Don't worry...

3d is just the calm before Hologram!

Then we won't need glasses and it won't affect our eyes! Just hang on a few more years, japan people already want to make the 2022 World cup in Hologram display.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 7:20AM Puertoricarious said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
i like how "there's no evidence that it would" translates to "it probably doesn't." that's good science, alright.


Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 7:35AM Haelie said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
She gave me long-term ocular damage with ...

*channeling my inner Magnus Pyke*

SCIENCE!
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 7:40AM lSpam said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Puertoricarious
Actually, yes it is, assuming they ran tests.
For instance: there's no evidence that eating chocolate would cause brain hemorrhages, so it can be reasonably deduced that eating chocolate probably doesn't.
The problem is that you can't prove a negative - you can't PROVE that something DOESN'T do something, because you can't really record the lack of a reaction. So the 'probably' acts as a qualifier.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 10:17AM Fhaze said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@lSpam

It does nothing to say where the supposed "myth" comes from, how the initial findings were flawed and how his are better. I would be cool if somewhere in the article it said "to protect against lawsuits, nothing more" or something to that affect but there is not even that. I assume you read the article where it states that younger kids should not be playing at all as it could really hurt their eyesite.

As for your example about chocolate is so flawed that it is ridiculous. Nobody eats a piece of chocolate and thinks, wow that is causing some bad things to happen in my brain. However people do view 3D movies and games and think "wow, this hurts my eyes" or "this gives me a headache". So you can record a reaction, 3D is perfected and most likely safe for everyone when the same person says "wow, this is totally enjoyable".
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:38AM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Fhaze

People get headaches, eye fatigue, and headaches from staring at 2D screens too. It's also not advised to let youngsters stare at TV screens for long periods while their eyes are still developing. What makes this any different?
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 12:32PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Chibi Chaingun

Apparently they get 2x headaches according to my last post. :P
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 2:07PM Fhaze said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Chibi Chaingun

From the article:
""Children are not born with the ability to use both eyes together, they do not have any true binocularity at birth, and they certainly do not have stereoscopic vision." It is possible that 3D could harm developing eye muscles.""
AND
"the expert pegged the appropriate 3D viewing age even lower than Nintendo."

The article doesn't talk about any studies, just a respected doctor giving his opinion. I assume you read the article right?
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 3:11PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Fhaze

I assume you read my comment. You'd see that I didn't discount the idea that watching 3D for young children may cause eye development problems, I only reminded that the same has been said about 2D TV screens and monitors for small children's eyes that are still developing. I also addressed that the feeling of eye fatigue or headaches is not limited to 3D. It can happen with a book, a TV, or anything where your eye muscles are working to focus. I have no idea why you pasted a bunch of quotes.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 5:37PM Puertoricarious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@lSpam

uh....if they ran tests, then they'd have evidence, right? did you even read my comment? my entire point was that drawing conclusions (positive OR negative) within a vacuum of evidence is stupid, and your reply is "but it's smart if they run tests!" you don't say.......
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 7:21AM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think there's a link between being uncomfortable with 3D and motion sickness. It's purely anecdotal, but everyone I know that has problems with 3D also easily get motion sickness.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:44AM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@LaughingTarget

I agree. My parents couldn't stomach (2D) movies like Cloverfield, it made them nauseous. They tend to complain about 3D slightly too, but more of a dizzy complaint. Video games also bother them. None of the above bother me at all.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 3:22PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Chibi Chaingun

Great, now I want to go watch Cloverfield AGAIN!

THANKS!
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:06AM Jacksy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eye strain and headaches are a clear sign that its also likely 3D could be eye damaging because its causing something rather than no symptoms at all. 3D is considered old technology to some, but even then it really hasn't been in the market for long or sold in mass quantities. With that said, I'm more than 100% sure someone will suffer from something because of 3D tech, after all, "not likely", is like saying its not 100% safe, someone somewhere will die....hehe ...well, not likely.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:30AM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Jacksy
...and fast flashy games can cause seizures for some, 2d screens can cause eye strain, and sitting for prolonged gaming sessions can technically cause blood clots. I'm not worried about those, I'm not worried about 3D.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 10:19AM harusame said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Chibi Chaingun
And playing Mario Party on the N64 can make your palms bleed.

Gaming is so dangerous it should be classified as an extreme sport.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 12:31PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@harusame

Wireless controllers also zaps your sperm. Tru story
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 3:22PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@harusame

Dear god those Mario Party memories....

The tug of war still haunts me...

YOU CAN'T BEAT IT WITHOUT GETTING BLISTERS!
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:32AM Cap Morgan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ahhh, my eyes!!

"but there's no evidence it can cause permanent harm "

I'm pretty sure the tobacco industry said this line a few times........
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:42AM Evil Pikachu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't care if I vomit or get eye strain, its worth it!
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 9:31AM oJMan240o said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It certainly hurts my brain to look at.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 9:38AM Nekki said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hope there's a bundle that comes with a vomit wiper, so i don't have to stop playing when i feel nauseous.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 10:22AM HasteMakesWaste said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
pre order bonus: The 3ds comes with pills for being nauseous in a cool mario flavor.....
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 10:28AM Aziz S said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eye-Poker 3D 5000, Griffin, are you referring to a real Bravia model?
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 10:44AM greyseal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Other than looking at exceptionally bright light, there's really nothing that does "long term" damage to your eyes. Reading in the dark, staring at computers... it can cause eye strain and fatigue, but that's related to the muscles around the eye, and exhaustion of the iris. Your lens and retina are fine, and once the muscles recover, you're normal again.

Even ophthalmologists will lie (perhaps unintentionally) to people, and tell them that they need glasses because of all the reading they did, and so on. It's just not true.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 12:29PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@greyseal

I even asked my eye doctor about it and she said if anything, 3D is good for your eyes as it strengthens the muscles and coordination between your eyes and your brain. She said some people lack that coordination and can't see 3D in real life and it requires working on that coordination to fix the problem.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 10:58AM pluupy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So it won't cause "PERMANENT" harm but it'll definitely do harm. =_=
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 12:34PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@pluupy

What harm?
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:10AM Tezz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
some people can barely play games because they have a type of motion sickness, where their brain can't accept that it sees you moving but you remain stationary.

feeling motion sickness symptoms while using 3D is not proof that it is causing your body long term damage, its just your brain going "woah, woah, woah, this cant be right".
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:21AM jynxycat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think I've sat and watched half a dozen 3D movies so far, including Avatar (which was fairly lengthly in run time), and I've had no issues with discomfort or whatever. Heck, if anything, it ruins the experience when I watch it home on regular DVD :|

I must be the only one though.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 12:21PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jynxycat

I'm with you! I even have a 3D projector at home. I never experience discomfort even with long 3D gaming sessions. I have Avatar on Blu-Ray, but MAN I really have a hard time not seeing that movie in 3D! I have the 3D trailer at least...
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:25AM chris2sy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm subjecting my own eyeballs to the 3D games regularly. I haven't noticed anything yet. When I go cross-eyed from it like in that movie The Jerk, I'll let you know.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:52AM Cheusi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I doubt any tests have been done to prove it's safe, nevermind long-term use. He wasn't even that certain; "not likely." Besides, there have been many examples where scientists/doctors have paraded something as fine to be proven wrong later.

Guess time will tell. Either way, if it takes off, I'd hope better content would be made for it rather than the cheesy 'things flying at you.' Like sunglasses...
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 3:24PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All this 3D talk keeps making me mad that I don't have a 3D TV/video card yet...
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 4:16PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Thrasher666

Have you tried any 3d games yet? I played Batman AA on pc with a 3d monitor and video card a week ago... It was one of the coolest advancements I have seen in a LONG time in regards to gaming!
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 4:17PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Thrasher666

As much as I love 3D, 3D on the PC is a pain in the ass. I have a 3D projector and nVidia 3D Vision. It's a pain updating the 3D Vision drivers. ALSO, my PJ isn't compatible with Sony's 3D on the PS3. GRRRR. I'm waiting for a cheap HDMI 1.4 3D PJ to upgrade to.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 5:52PM JCDoe said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Here's what I don't get: if simulated 3d (via polarized glasses, shuttered glasses, parallax barrier, or whatever) causes nausea, why doesn't "real life 3d" (aka "looking around in the real friggin world") cause nausea?

I mean, they work the same: two slightly different images are presented to each eye, and the brain puts those images together to create a "3d" picture.

Is there something about the techniques used for 3d that causes nausea? Is it the frame rate? Do shuttered glasses do it? If so, shouldn't some techniques not cause nausea?

/em just doesn't get it.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:28PM Tezz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JCDoe real life, different objects are different distances away from you, but cinema 3d tries to trick your brain into thinking a 2d surface has areas which are further away from each other, my understanding is that your brain has problems adjusting to that, not all people experience this though, only some.
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 9:46PM JCDoe said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tezz

I think you missed the point of my question.

I'm aware that everything on a computer or video game screen is equidistant from the eyes, compared with reality where there really is depth. But we aren't talking about true 3d, we're talking about the "perception" of 3d. The reality here is irrelevant; only the perception is meaningful.

3d is perceived through because the eyes are side-by-side, which means that each takes in a slightly different picture of what is in front of them. You can test this for yourself by looking at something with one eye closed, and then the other eye closed. The object shifts slightly back and forth, right?

These two images are sent to the visual lobe in the brain, where the images are combined into a 3d representation.

So, my question remains, how can someone "perceive" 3d when it is real, but not when it is simulated?
Reply

Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:31PM 2late2die said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dr. Mark Borchert a.k.a. Doctor Obvious!
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW