3D gaming and why it is a concept that should die just like motion controllers

[Erniesrubberduk]

Unfortunately, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[HEADING=1]TECH ALERT![/HEADING]

games and movies operate on completely different systems. CGI movies are pre-rendered, and in order to make them 3d, you have to have an extremely complex, binocular camera setup, it has to be unbelievably precise, and that is very hard to do. Very expensive.

Games on the other hand, are actively rendered from a 3d model in the computer, that means that all you have to do in order to make a 3d game is to double render the game, which happens over 30 times a second in your consoles cpu anyways. Take the two renders, color shift them, and offset them on the screen.

3d Games won't cost all that more, if any at all. It's just a few lines of code, and once its been written it can be copy/pasted (more or less), from game to game. At the very worst, the graphics will take a small hit. And maybe the next generation of consoles will have the same graphics as the current gen... with 3d.

Yeah but what precentage of the consumer knows that do you think?

I don't want to start any arguments here, but could you clarify why it would matter how high a percentage the consumer-base knows how the 3D actually works and why the only extra cost is the hardware? Surely since all the actual work done in making something 3D is done by the companies who create the products and all the consumer has to do is get some 3D hardware, put on some 3D speccies and play the game.

If a high percentage of consumers doesn't know how 3D would work on a game, ingorance would be exploited by jacked up prices on such hardware.

 

[Jordi]

I don't see whats with all the hate on 3D gaming, and this same arguement stands for touch screens and motion controllers too.

Its an entirely new concept, something which may possibly add a whole new element to the way you play videogames.
Okay it might flop and become a cheap gimmick which is almost forced onto players (like motion controllers seem to) but its an experiment.
It might go the way that basic 3D graphic went and lead to a whole load of awesome! I mean look at the original doom, that was a brilliant game, especially for its time.

So i say let them have a go at trying something new, cause who knows it might work out brilliantly. My money is honestly on it not working out very well, but its still worth a shot.

I was going to say almost exactly this. Touch screen, motion control and 3D all represent new input and output methods (or modalities) that could potentially greatly enhance games. The fact that some may feel that this hasn't happened yet does not mean that the potential isn't there. It is to be expected that new technologies are not immediately used well, but it is also very important that they are used so that we can learn how we should use them.

I understand that people would prefer not to wear (extra) goggles, but I wonder if it would still be a big deal if the effect turns out to be worthwhile. Furthermore, 3D televisions are already being developed that don't require the use of goggles. They have other issues (blurry image), but all I'm saying is that this is new technology and innovations are still happening. The technology will probably get better and better, and this improvement will be accelerated if it is actually used.

What say we all go back to isometric 2D and use all that freed-up processing power for making AI that doesn't suck?

I can understand the desire for developers to focus less on graphics and more on other aspects of games. However, I still think that beautiful and lifelike graphics (including 3D) can significantly add to the gameplay experience. Furthermore, I'm no game developer, but I think that the main problem with AI is not processing power (although that's also an issue), but the fact that we don't know how to make artificial intelligence no matter how much power we have.

 

[Wolfram23]

3D is getting very gimmicky in the movie realm. Can be great but unecessary and we pay more for the movie due to needing an extra projector and polarized lenses and a special silver screen and of course the new polarized glasses they give you when you buy a ticket. 3D gaming will not cost more for the games. It will cost more for the set up. Right now a 120mhz TV is about $3500 on the cheap side. Alternatively you can do the "movie theatre" set up with dual projectors but then you need to try to perfectly align them which is tough and done poorly will result in blurred images. As far as image sharpness and quality go, it shouldn't be affected. Polarization or shutter glasses make each eye see only one of the two images. This is exactly how you see in everyday life. Each image is shifted slightly and your brain puts that linear distance between identical points into depth perception. Depth perception in many, many games will be exceptionally awesome. FPS would just be great, but one genre that would really really benefit is the racing sims. The most difficult part of playing a racing game is when you first try it out. You pretty much always fly off the course. Why? Because you have no idea how fast you're going or how close the corner really is. Takes practice to get a feel for the depth. With 3D vision it would look like reality... just rendered. You'd really feel how fast you're going and how quickly a corner is approaching. Another genre is any game where you wield a melee weapon that is not a 2d side scroller. I love Demon's Souls but judging that distance is tough and takes a lot of practice. If you really could see the depth of field it would be as easy as reaching out your hand to open a door (IRL). I doubt you ever reach out and grasp the air 3 inches in front of the door knob...

The biggest issue at this time is cost and ergonomics. People ***** and moan about the glasses. I partially agree that it's not fun to wear them for extended periods but I had no issues sitting through Avatar. And boy did it look great! It gave me a slight vertigo feeling when they were climbing those floating rocks. The reason it had blurry images at times was due to when they used 2 cameras instead of CGI rendering, therefore the cameras focus beyond the foreground and then the foreground looks fuzzy. 3D, but fuzzy.

In the end, OP, you should probably figure out a thing or two about what you're talking about before spouting nonsensical crap about how there's some kind of correlation between movie and game prices.