Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
That's largely what James Cameron's been saying all this time. "Bad" 3D is the stuff you see in the old anaglyph flicks designed to "jump" out at you, he's more intent on creating visuals that give an impression of depth and being in the scene.
It'll be interesting to see how Avatar turns out, I've barely heard anything about it.
The blind.
And pirates.
AJ2 soundtrack: NAME YOUR PRICE ON BANDCAMP! Album: BANDCAMP! iTunes Spotify Amazon UK
I'm not really interested in 3D televisions though. If I'm going to spend a shitload of money on 3D hardware, I want a huge stereo projector or a 3D head-mounted display with tracking.
Don't toss out your broken/unusable/worn out Nintendo (especially Gamecube/N64) controllers! Donate them to me!
Also, Up was so damn good in 3D. The sense of depth was great.
Sorry to be that guy but its 640x480.
And some of us still use it
HAHAHAH gold, gold
This neo-feudalism would be more tolerable if our betters had fancy titles.
3D is more useful for movies and games, though! At least realistically. With 3D, you can simulate depth so that the tiny people on your screen look like life-sized people who are just far away. For holograms, you'd need them to actually be life-size to appear so, so you'd need something like a holodeck.
I guess that isn't a very good argument, though, because a holodeck would be sweet.
Don't toss out your broken/unusable/worn out Nintendo (especially Gamecube/N64) controllers! Donate them to me!
People simulate depth with real 3 demensional objects all the time.
I still think this reiteration of 3d is a fad, and meant to keep the prices of TV's high because they cant push super HD for another 5 years/until broadcast resolution gets that high.
Edit: not the best example, but you can just as easily have a small person sitting a gianourmouse table that is built further in the background.
What steps back are they taking?
Well, one would think about the Wii vs PS3 debacle that they learned it is gameplay that drives the consumer, not technology. Video gaming is entertainment business, not a hardware business.
I pretty much feel the same way. The only reason Nvidia's been trying to push their "NEW AWESOMER!" 3D goggles on the PC is because developers have finally wised up and stopped pushing graphics just for the heck of it. Graphics hardware has been easily capable of whatever this generation of consoles can manage from the very start, and there's no reason for them to push things further.
Which means there's no reason to buy new hardware since there aren't any games that need it.
Enter: Advertising for a revolutionary new technology that will allow you to see things in 3D! All you need is to double your current graphics hardware and invest in a pair of $200 glasses!
Like all 3D stuff, it looks like shit when filmed.
Seriously? The Wii is your example of a console not being technology driven? The wiimote could have been a GameCube controller, it's the gameplay that's sold millions of consoles?
occasionallywearsahat.com, my rambly ramblings of ramble
Tricks like that only look natural when they're photographed, or when you have one of your eyes closed. Human depth perception tends to make them look unnatural and strange, which is what makes them interesting a lot of the time. They look crazy.
And, looking at them from the incorrect angle always defeats tricks like that, but the entire purpose of a hologram is that you can see it from different angles.
Don't toss out your broken/unusable/worn out Nintendo (especially Gamecube/N64) controllers! Donate them to me!
Holodecks. YES.
Give me a pair of glasses and a plastic gun, and so long as everything in my environment becomes part of the game, and I can kill things, I'll never take those glasses off.
But of course, there's always the peripheral side of the equation to consider. Developers have, and always will, take the path of least resistance. Developers will either A) Ignore it completely, since once again it's another peripheral they can't assume is owned by everyone, or B) Be completely lazy in its inclusion. Remember when 90's sitcoms got into this fad, and the only effect they ever did was moving a stick back and forth? We'll be getting the VG equivilant. The REAL innovation and use, like that James Cameron example above, will only be done by maybe one or two studios and still not justify the gimmick.
Pokemon Black code - 3009 7390 5907 Send PM if you add me
This is the greatest day.
Let me tell you about video games. Let me tell you about Homestuck
I have to wear contacts anyways...
That is how it is supposed to work.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/04/ps3s-new-3d-mode-captured-on-video-coming-in-2010-to-all-exist/
3D tech has gotten a lot better, but the fundamental stuff remains unless the devs actively configure for it. Menus, icons and often SFX and lightsources "pop" out of the picture with no correlation to the 3D image, because they're overlaid on top of the image.
Basically those parts also need to be made with 3D in mind as well, a simple software update won't fix them. Games with minimal interfaces have less of an issue with this, but even in-game visual effects can look as if they're floating on top of the scene because of how they're handled. It really depends on the game.
Looks like engadget either misinterpreted what was said or talked to someone that had no clue what they were talking about.
I saw a 3D movie in a 'regular' cinema which looked pretty nasty.. muted colors and eye-straining perspective. On the other hand, I saw a 3D thing at an IMAX cinema which looked amazing. The difference was night and day. If I could have my games looking like that, then yes please.
This.
The theatre we have in town is brand new, and has devoted one theatre to 3D films...looks amazing, and definitely shows off 3D well.
Also 3D anaglyph in HD actually works REASONABLY well. I watched the recent-ish episode of Chuck with the Purple and Yellow glasses and whilst colours weren't perfect (better than I've seen with other coloured glasses) the sensation of depth was pretty snazzy.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
This isn't Anaglyph, this makes use of shutter glasses. The glasses cost around $200 if we go by what Nvidia's currently selling on the PC (although I'd be willing to guess that Sony would sell them cheaper, I'd still expect at least $100 price tag).
And the main issue is performance. Films are OK, but most modern games struggle to maintain a consistent 30 FPS even after the resolution's been dropped from 720p. What you're asking the system to do now is render double the number of frames every second.
I assume it's because the options are either A.) Take off normal glasses and not see anything, or B.) Put 3D glasses over normal glasses and have the 3D glasses too far away to work.
I know it's not anaglyph, it uses LCD shutter glasses and syncs up with what's on screen. I was just commenting that even anaglyph isn't that bad now.
I heard they had cheaper glasses coming out ($20 to $30 but I'll have to dig out the source). LCD shutter glasses shouldn't be anywhere near that expensive. You can pick up two old fashioned pairs for use on a crt tv and the whole kit for displaying it for around £70 here. Ok the technology used to display it is different but the glasses are still essentially the same.
I've no idea why Nvidia's are insanely expensive.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
From what I've heard about the Nvidia glasses, they work OK going over regular glasses.
@ Grinch: I have no clue either, I don't really know how much the shutter hardware would cost. I know the set also comes with special software and IR receiver to communicate with the glasses (so you're not tied to the table by a freaking wire or anything), but I wouldn't expect those to push the price that much. I'm guessing it's at least partly to do with the fact that it's a niche item that they didn't expect to sell many of except to a hardcore market, at least initially.
Plus PC games have enough hardware issues as it is. Do we really need a game that only works with certain driver revisions of glasses too?
AJ2 soundtrack: NAME YOUR PRICE ON BANDCAMP! Album: BANDCAMP! iTunes Spotify Amazon UK
Stupid glasses are so stupid. Over a pair of normal glasses? Oh they are just even stupider now. And hey what's that pounding? Oh it is just a slow-growing headache yay.
I'm pretty consistently against the "wear glasses and look at a diffracted screen" style of 3D. Pop-out doesn't impress me enough to sacrifice comfort. And I don't think pop-out will become the norm in games any more than it will in movies.
Edit: Then, pending evidence of just how uncomfortable this would be for me to experience, I may like it. I've yet to be impressed by a 3D movie, but I also feel like 3D games have at least a little more to offer.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
PSN: SirGrinchX
Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
Right, which is why I said when, not now. And honestly, in this thread you have a number of people giving a massive shit about a company they likely don't own shares in, pushing a technology to improve a viewing experiance they don't care about. What gives?
p.s. those glasses? Retro as all hell.
I already hide my shameful gaming hobby with the zeal of a man with a freezer full of harvested alien livers in his kitchen, what's some silly head gear on top of that?