"i dont think itd be to great for most games [...] movies on the other hand"
You've got it totally backwards. It's much much better in games. Most movies are upconverted to 3D, games are natively 3D. And with games, the ability to control where you are and where you're looking... it makes it much more intense. The main reason you have any sort of understanding of a 3D environment in games with a 2D display is that you're able to move around, watch objects get closer and further from you, see near objects moving faster on the screen than far objects... that creates a mild comprehension of a 3D environment. You don't get all of that in movies. When you add that to actual perceived 3D from 3D glasses, it becomes a totally different, potent experience.
"3D -> crappola. It is more distraction then anything."
I wonder, do you walk around with one eye closed all the time? That 3D stuff, it's such a distraction. Who needs it?
I do find the ending note for this article to be pretty amusing. This isn't the first case of 3D zombies--Resident Evil 5 is officially 3D ready. Minecraft has a stereoscopic mode (granted, with cyan/magenta glasses). Heck, Call of Duty: World at War worked with the exact same 3D technology as Black Ops will, and that also let you get 3D zombies.
3D with FPS is a very powerful experience. Trying to explain it to someone who hasn't done it (and no, theme park and movie presentations don't count) is like trying to explain color to the blind. It's not about the look of the game, it's about the feel of the game. Even if the graphics of the game are garbage, the objects that are depicted look very real. In Morrowind, the low-polygon models with crappy textures look like those paper cutouts that you glue together into 3D shapes, but animate and right inside your screen. And when you get a game with realistic visual effects, high-poly models with good textures, it's just... it looks pretty darn real. If you squint and ignore the bezel, you can't tell the difference between what's on your screen and what's not. I frequently find myself reaching for the screen to see if I can guess where the actual surface of the screen is, because when you're viewing 3D imagery extending behind the screen, you really can't tell where the screen itself is, short of seeing how close your hand is to the bezel.
I will say that 3D for FPS is typically plagued with a few issues: when you approach a wall and your face is 6 inches from it, your gun still typically extends a few feet out from your body, so the gun appears to be further from your body than the wall it's clearly in front of. Your brain gets mixed signals: the gun is further away than the wall, but in front of it--it's disorienting at worst, and can even look like your "gun" is actually a 3D carving out of the wall. Additionally, iron sights don't work--if you have both eyes open you have the same problem you would in the real world, you can see two sights or two targets, depending on what you're focusing on. That's why you would normally close one eye for precision shooting. But if you do that in 3D, your aim is always off, because in the stereoscopic 3D rendering, it offsets your eyes to the left or right of where they would be in 2D rendering. This could be fixed if the game had a setting for the dominant eye you use for iron sights, and it lined up that camera appropriately when in 3D mode (how's that for immersion, when you want to snipe you literally have to close one eye to get a good shot). I'm hoping that Black Ops will address both of these issues, as they're things that are immediately obvious the first time you play.
Haters will hate and say that 3D is a gimmick, 3D is an excuse to sell new hardware, 3D doesn't help gaming at all, they can't see 3D, they didn't like Alice in 3D, they just bought a 70" non-3D TV, Avatar cost too much, anything they can to trash talk 3D directly or by association. It's all nonsense. 3D isn't mainstream (but for under $500 you can get a 3D display and 3D kit for your computer, not bad if you're in the market for a new $150+ display to begin with) and it's not perfect, but it's no more of a gimmick than color. You don't need it to get the gist of what's going on, and you can watch a black and white film and still enjoy it, not everyone can perceive color correctly, and just because a film has color doesn't mean the color will be used intelligently... but I think we can all agree that color is a natural thing to include in film. The only difference between color and 3D in this respect is that color had its adoption battle some decades ago, so it's welcome, expected and affordable--3D isn't as much.