James Cameron and Ubisoft's Stereoscopic Video Game

Now we demand flying cars!

Posted 22 May 2008
Follow us on... Facebook Twitter iGoogle RSS
Share on... Twitter N4G digg Facebook Slashdot
According to James Cameron, Ubisoft already has a '3D' version of the game of his upcoming film, Avatar, up and running. Well, to be exact, the build of the game uses a standard Xbox 360 and those 3D spectacles to make the game stereoscopic.

Cameron reckons this technology is the future of entertainment, including gaming. "Stereo production is the next big thing", he said. "We are born seeing in three dimensions. Most animals have two eyes and not one. There is a reason I think."

Superb logic there from the man who brought us Titanic.

Of the game Cameron uttered, "You are in the game. This is the ultimate immersive media."

Avatar tells the story of an ex-marine who gets caught up in hostilities on an alien world. There's a catch, however. As an 'Avatar' he has a human mind stuck in an alien body. SPOnG dearly hopes that the stereoscopic element of the game will prove to be the immersive experience Cameron promises - not just a gimmick.

The game and film are both due out next year.

Comments

Spammer? All posted links are "nofollow", every spam post is edited or nuked.

Humans Rule OK

1/5
haritori posted on 22 May 2008 12:56
"We are born seeing in three dimensions. Most animals have two eyes and not one. There is a reason I think."

Depth Persception would be a main reason!
2/5
schnide posted on 22 May 2008 14:09
Isn't Cameron stating that rhetorically? That's how I read it. The guy's not exactly a dumbass.
more comments below our sponsor's message
3/5
haritori posted on 22 May 2008 14:14
He is yes but its far to obvious to work i feel.
4/5
Tim Smith posted on 22 May 2008 14:26
schnide wrote:
Isn't Cameron stating that rhetorically? That's how I read it. The guy's not exactly a dumbass.


Why does saying something rhetorically make it any less (or indeed more) stupid?

Cheers

Tim
5/5
schnide posted on 22 May 2008 16:16
Tim Smith wrote:
Why does saying something rhetorically make it any less (or indeed more) stupid?


He's stating it's obvious why we have two eyes instead of one, with the understatement insinuating that it's because we have depth of vision. That's how I saw it.

Polls

Online Multiplayer or Not for you?


Results | All Polls

. . .