MonstaMunch: I'm not sure if this was sarcasm, but seriously, this is silly. How far do you want to take that line of reasoning? I mean, if they put a 3D cow on a TV in your living room, are you going to complain that the cow isn't "real" and it doesn't even smell right? It's entertainment. It draws you in with tricks and illusions, but at the end of the day, it's TV, and TV isn't real....
Titanium: It's actually a surprisingly easy distinction. To a program, 3D means to distribute points in a x/y/z plain to achieve a theoretical 3D environment. If you would project these dots into a RL room, that 3D "picture" would be transformed into real 3D structure. It's not 3D if you make your eyes squint a bit for one picture and squint a bit less for another. A dynamic layered projection of these images (basically pieces of paper at various distances from your eyes) could be considered 3D.
Unfortunately (or not, depending on the point of view), most people want to avoid overly complicating things, so we just call it 3D and get it over with.
You don't need to "squint", at least not with a decent setup. The way depth perception happens, whether it be from "real 3D" or "fake 3D" leads you to conclude the same result, that what you're seeing is three dimensional. I'm not going to get into a debate about the philosophical principles regarding whether believing that something is "real" makes it so in this context, but I'd argue it makes little difference (again, depending on the equipment you have). And again, I wasn't suggesting that it is real in the first place, I'm just asking where you draw the line, and what difference it makes.
Like I said in the first place, for all the hate being spewed on the subject here, I don't see any reason why anyone would think 3D in general is a bad thing. At worst, it means consumers get a bit more choice, and at best it gives you some cool little toys to play with.
