Sony Says 3D Can Give Gamers an Edge Online

JdaS

New member
Oct 16, 2009
712
0
0
The 3D bits sounded like complete bullshit yet again. Although I did agree with that HD/SD part. My friend's TV has a shittier video quality than mine, a fact which was made quite clear during our co-op run of Transformers: WFC, where, when warned about cloakers or ammo by me, he'd sometimes respond with: "Where?".
 

VanityGirl

New member
Apr 29, 2009
3,472
0
0
I call bullcrap.
Quit trying to sell me on 3D. :mad: Damn you Sony, I will not buy a 3D TV.

*runs away*
 

deadguynotyetburied

New member
Jun 3, 2010
322
0
0
Honestly, am I supposed to find it compelling and persuasive when someone who sells 3D gaming hardware, 3D games and 3D televisions tells me that 3D will give me a competitive advantage in games? They're never going to say anything at all that suggests there's no point to buying their product. When gamers I know tell me the same thing, or when I hear this from a game critic whose biases I'm accustomed to filtering, that might suggest 3D actually means something. This reads like advertising, and nobody with any sense tries to form an intelligent opinion by reading ads.
 

Threesan

New member
Mar 4, 2009
142
0
0
I find the claim to be perfectly reasonable. Stereoscopic depth perception is an environment humans (and their predecessors) have evolved in for a long time. The ability to fairly accurately and very easily and quickly gauge distance and relative distance with a mere glance is automatic and easy to take for granted. We are certainly capable of estimating distances using the apparent sizes of objects of known size, but this is somewhat akin to trying to play a sport with a patch over one eye. We would, however, still have "depth-of-field blurriness" eye lens focal length adjustments at our disposal, under our own direct control (as opposed to simulated depth of field being focused externally by the renderer based on the positioning of the aiming reticule -- that it is external is significant in that our brain is not innately aware of the focal length. This is a shortcoming that may never be fully overcome).

So, yes, (theoretically) stereoscopic vision aids in depth perception and helps you judge, for example, when to brake for a turn. It can also help differentiate foreground elements from background elements instantaneously and inherently.

ultimateownage said:
That's complete rubbish. It just confuses you with random crap popping out.
No, for the same reason 2D games don't confuse you by drawing random crap [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJyCppPNEeM], or drawing objects in the wrong place on the screen. Or, for the same reason we don't feel compelled to flee the 2D theater when an image is projected onscreen of a steam locomotive coming out of a tunnel roughly towards the camera.

Virgil said:
I set up my PC to play games in 3D recently, and I would actually say that this is, in general, not true. 3D looks awesome, but I found that it does not give you a much better sense of distance.

On the contrary, because the HUD elements in most games are not a part of the 3D world, they float above the game like they were stuck to glass on a window right in front of you. This is fine, in general, but it does mean you need to re-focus your eyes to look at the HUD elements instead of the game world, which you don't need to do on a 2D display. I'm sure designing the game from the ground up to handle 3D could make this better, but most games still need this kind of information display, and I don't think that will change.
Is this not exactly how real HUDs actually operate?

Banana Phone Man said:
What visual cues are you going to notice in 3D that you won't in 2D that makes you think "Oh hell, I need to break now" (in a racing game). A bend? Just a really good, realistic and in your face bend. Honestly I think this is just a little silly and a poor excuse to try and see the good side of 3D.
Particularly when people seem to be trying so hard to deny even the possibility of anything remotely resembling a selling point. There are cons to 3D, but they should not be taken to simply erase the pros.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Ever driven a car with one eye closed or obstructed? Did anyone find it in any way hard? Well you've lost ALL stereoscopic depth perception which is EXACTLY what this stereoscopic 3D offers and that is all it offers WHEN IT EVEN WORKS!

Sereoscopic 3D is fraught with technical difficulties because of the problems with depth of field and people view the screen from so many different distances, angles and dilation between each eyeball. It is NOT just enough to inter-lay two parallel fields of view and send one to each eye, that is NOT ENOUGH! Only an amateur would think it is that simple and professionals who espouse it are LIARS!

You know what would give a REAL advantage? HIGHER FRAME-RATE! I'm fed up of consoles' pitiful standard of 30-fps that usually dips to 20-fps in active scenes. Higher native resolution too... not blow up onto a bigger screen, I'm talking native 1080p.
 

Banana Phone Man

New member
May 19, 2009
1,609
0
0
Threesan said:
Banana Phone Man said:
What visual cues are you going to notice in 3D that you won't in 2D that makes you think "Oh hell, I need to break now" (in a racing game). A bend? Just a really good, realistic and in your face bend. Honestly I think this is just a little silly and a poor excuse to try and see the good side of 3D.
Particularly when people seem to be trying so hard to deny even the possibility of anything remotely resembling a selling point. There are cons to 3D, but they should not be taken to simply erase the pros.
I'm not saying that cons of 3D get rid of the pros of 3D I'm just saying that at the moment they out weigh them by a lot. As far as I know there haven't been any major reasons why I would want 3D over what I already have. If there are major selling points to 3D I still have yet to hear them and to me the ability to judge distances (which I can do fine without 3D) is just not a selling point.
 

Virgil

#virgil { display:none; }
Legacy
Jun 13, 2002
1,507
0
41
Threesan said:
Is this not exactly how real HUDs actually operate?
It is in real life, but it's far less efficient than in a 2D game, where you can pick up the information without needing to have your eyes adjust focus. Sometimes realistic behavior isn't a selling point. In this case, unlike what Sony is trying to push, this additional realism does not give you an "edge".

Though less relevant because Sony focuses on consoles, this same conflict also makes any game where you need to click on objects in 3D space (RTSs, MMOs, etc) much more difficult to play. The mouse cursor is typically also a HUD element, and therefore running on a different depth level. Focusing on either the object or the cursor makes the other go out of focus and show double, making it harder to select objects. World of Warcraft has an option, when running in 3D, to make the mouse cursor retain its focus by rendering it at the depth of whatever is under the cursor, but this makes mouse movement feel very odd since the mouse is now jumping depths all the time.

That's the funny thing - the 3D rendering part is fantastic, but it's all the little details and interaction that end up having issues, and will need to be worked out. So far, I haven't found the benefits that 3D brings making up for the performance hit the awkward areas bring, but the general experience of gaming in 3D has been worth that tradeoff to me.
 

Croaker42

New member
Feb 5, 2009
818
0
0
Virgil said:
Donnyp said:
3D gaming doesn't involve things trying to pop out of the screen at you, or at least it won't for good games. Like bad 3D movies, I'm sure crappy games will try to do that too. But it makes the screen seem more like a window than a flat display. It's hard to explain without seeing it.

If you have glasses and can remember it, it's kind of like the first time you ever got them - you probably never noticed how much you were missing until you put them on and saw what everything should look like. It's very impressive when you see it in action though - it's a subtle effect that you really notice when it's not there.
I remember that glasses for the first time feeling. My vision was really bad when they found out I was having trouble seeing. And yes when first putting them on it was like looking at everything for the first time.

In this you make a really strong point and have effectivly pushed me to give more thought to to 3D gaming.

Thanks Virgil.
 

steamweedlegoblin

New member
Apr 28, 2010
185
0
0
I've never played or seen a 3D game in action. I don't need to. I don't need to see it to know that I don't give a damn about it. That's not because I think it's a gimmick. I don't. It does sound neat. But I still don't care about it. Why? Because it'll be a cold day in hell when I shell out another bucket of cash for another stupid television when I JUST upgraded to HD! So...screw you Sony.

Now the 3DS, on the other hand...that is something I'll probably buy. Nintendo is reliable enough to not overprice their new tech to unreasonable levels.
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
I'm not paying +/-£2000 to have a slight edge at pwning the 5 other people that play racing simulations
 

chemicalfire

New member
Nov 10, 2009
100
0
0
I heard playing games in 3D will make you more attractive to the opposite sex and can even cause spontaneous puberty.
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
the edge will be that your eyes get tired faster so you stop playing and then go have a life? thus beating everyone else online who's still playing =P hehe
but no really, I'll wait until the technology to become "the norm" if that were to happen. don't usually go for the stuff when they're still new and experimental (and expensive and not very good...)
 

The Singularity

New member
Jun 3, 2008
222
0
0
Well this will swing two ways. What a lot of the people saying 3D will suck is because of things that abuse 3D just to make it a gimmick, like when stuff pops in front of your face or something. Bad games, of course will do this. But on the pro side, good games will be able to use it to make everything look better, like Avatar did with it.
So crappy 3D games are going to be crappy and awesome 3D games are going to be awesome.
 

velcthulhu

New member
Feb 14, 2009
220
0
0
I don't really see why 3d is viewed as just a gimmick. What about platformers? Are you honestly telling me they wouldn't benefit from depth perception? I've missed hundreds of jumps that were accurate in the plane of the screen because I misjudged distance in the 3rd direction.
 

Threesan

New member
Mar 4, 2009
142
0
0
Virgil said:
Threesan said:
Is this not exactly how real HUDs actually operate?
It is in real life, but it's far less efficient than in a 2D game, where you can pick up the information without needing to have your eyes adjust focus. Sometimes realistic behavior isn't a selling point. In this case, unlike what Sony is trying to push, this additional realism does not give you an "edge".

Though less relevant because Sony focuses on consoles, this same conflict also makes any game where you need to click on objects in 3D space (RTSs, MMOs, etc) much more difficult to play. The mouse cursor is typically also a HUD element, and therefore running on a different depth level. Focusing on either the object or the cursor makes the other go out of focus and show double, making it harder to select objects. World of Warcraft has an option, when running in 3D, to make the mouse cursor retain its focus by rendering it at the depth of whatever is under the cursor, but this makes mouse movement feel very odd since the mouse is now jumping depths all the time.

That's the funny thing - the 3D rendering part is fantastic, but it's all the little details and interaction that end up having issues, and will need to be worked out. So far, I haven't found the benefits that 3D brings making up for the performance hit the awkward areas bring, but the general experience of gaming in 3D has been worth that tradeoff to me.
The mouse is an interesting point. I wonder if a solution might be to relegate the cursor (or any HUD elements?) to either the left or right eye, at the user's discretion.

Alternatively, I'm trying to imagine setting the HUD further back in the scene, sort of in the mid-ground. I wonder if that would create an odd effect, having an object drawn with more depth but visible through the solid 3D scenery that would otherwise cover it.

As another alternative for the mouse cursor, perhaps it could be aligned along one eye, so that eye would see it flat, while the other eye might see a (translucent?) 3D extrusion, effectively from the first eye to the terrain, or perhaps only extending somewhat but not entirely up from the terrain to the first eye. Again, the effect might be odd.

Hm: Ironsites in 3D, with the option left to the physical player to close the off eye or not -- recovering some of the lost visibility, areas hidden from one eye behind the weapon, but not the other eye. You can also sort of see partially around/through something like a rollover bar on a dune buggy, or see more through foliage you're hiding in or behind. You can also expose slightly less of your face to peer around a corner with one eye rather than the bridge of your nose.

I imagine parallax/depth/height mapping would be more impactful in 3D. (I wonder about normal+specular mapping, but it seems like "it should work out OK".)
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Jonsbax said:
Gotta love how eveyone who has actually tried 3D games tell that it's actually a pretty neat effect while everyone bashing 3D at every turn have not, judging by how none of you talk about your horrible first-hand experiences. If someone would write a how-to book about not making yourself seem like a jackass, the first chapter would advise you not talk about things you don't know anything about.

I'm not really buying into what Sony is saying about 3D giving an edge in online, but 3D is most likely going to be a big thing someday soon, no matter how much you're scared of everything new.
true, people will bash what they haven't tired yet. people hate Sony's Move, and 95% of people who bash it haven't even held one yet.