3D gaming

[Rapture_Rising]

Any thoughts...

I would be interested in what it could look like and a rumor going around that sony will release an update "summer 2010" (which for me is winter) which will give games and blu-ray movies 3D options.

Im not to sure about Xbox 360 and microsofts venture in to 3D.

Any games you would like to see in 3D?, Personally 2 games i would like to see are Gran Turismo 5 and Crysis 2.

But on the down side it wont be for another few years that 3D will trule be implimented in a way that is more then a gimmick used to sell more games. If 3D is proven to add to the experience and atmosphere to the game then i would be glad to wear those goofy glasses.

[Wamplet]

Hopefully, it won't catch on.

Holographics is where it should be heading anyway.

[Jiminator]

nvidia already has a 3d gaming setup for some $200. You need a fast computer, an 8800+ gpu and a 120Hz lcd monitor. works pretty much with all games.

[Parkar]

It's awsome in the games that is properly suported.

Need for Speed: Shift and Left 4 Dead works great and more then anything the more clear view of the world you get in stereo is why I won't go back to playing those games in "mono". The brain picksout individual objects much quicker when you have actual depth then a flat picture. The WOW it's 3D effect passes fairly qickly but it definatly adds to the experience.

It's to bad most games are unplayable in 3D due to post process effects and shadows not working as well as games that has a broken crosshair that can't be turned off.

Edit: It's the Nvidia setup Jiminator mentions I have.

Also forogot to comment on the holographic thing. I feel that is even more of a gimick in some sense. Sure you get true 3d space graphics but it just seems pretty limited in gaming application besides being far away from rendering anything even remotely close to a colour 2d screen in terms of quality. Talking about starwars style homograms here. If you goolge a bit you should be able to find some info on actual working prototypes but it's still at the point of drawing a few dots in the air. Very interesting stuff nontheless.

If you are talking about some form of virtual holographic screens or glasses then I agree that it would be awsome but I see that more of an evolution of todays stereo screens. Also not sure if there is anyone actually working on anything like that yet or if ther are even any theoretical idea of how to do it.

In some sense I think doing Matrix like stuff might even be closer then true highquality holograms.

[Wamplet]

I didn't mean just for visual, i meant interaction as well, like the holographic keyboards and such. Instead of using a keyboard though, you would actually press an elevator button in a game or interact with something.

I'm not sure if games will be able to do that, but it would be neat. :)

[8IronBob]

Guess that AMD/ATI may need help getting on board with this. They have nothing to compete with nVidia/AGEIA that I know of, so to get true 3D gaming, that may be something that they'll have to battle back with.
Even if the Radeons have something, whether or not DisplayPort, HDMI, or DVI connected to the right type of monitor will get the same result, that's something that may have some time to catch on.

[Altered Reality]

Hopefully, it won't catch on.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg
I didn't mean just for visual, i meant interaction as well, like the holographic keyboards and such. Instead of using a keyboard though, you would actually press an elevator button in a game or interact with something.

I'm not sure if games will be able to do that, but it would be neat. :)
Do you realize that you're dissing an existing technology just because it's worse than something that doesn't exist and probably never will? Why don't you say "I hope hybrid cars won't catch on, teleporters is what it's all about"? Why don't you bash computers that run on electricity in favor of "computers that run on happy thoughts"?

[Jiminator]

yeah man, that holographic technology will make blow up dolls a thing of the past...

[Wamplet]

3d technology already exists for games and has for years.

It has not caught on for mainstream gaming.

I hope it remains that way, because if it was the way of the future, you would think they could have something out by now.

Developers don't focus on that, so it's just going to be a gimmick whenever it is implemented.

Bring something with more functionality and purpose like a holographic input system and we'll talk. ;)

The large 2D flatscreen monitors do a fine job of displaying 3d content as it is.

[8IronBob]

We'll soon see if that holds true when Avatar is released on Blu-ray (of course that's movies, but you know where I'm getting at).
Of course, the DVD version won't be capable of the same 3D effects as Blu does, and that movie may start selling DLP TVs and Blu-ray players.

[Wamplet]

Do you realize that you're dissing an existing technology just because it's worse than something that doesn't exist and probably never will? Why don't you say "I hope hybrid cars won't catch on, teleporters is what it's all about"?


It might help to specify which type of hybrid you refer to. The ones that use batteries provide just as nasty environmental damage from their batteries (just like the old cars) as does your regular old combustion engines. Just because they don't pollute the air as they run, doesn't mean they won't pollute the ground when they are no longer in use.


Why don't you bash computers that run on electricity in favor of "computers that run on happy thoughts"?

because then i would be the one posting the facepalm pic at you for suggesting something completely rediculous. At least the holographic computer interfaces i am referring to exist in some forms already. :) It is in the best interest of developers to focus on that rather than having to wear 3D glasses and not be able to do anything other than just sit there. Go the extra mile and make something viewable in 3D actually useful and serve a purpose by allowing you to interact with it. As stated already, the 3D technology exists and is sparingly used. If it was worth its salt, it would be mainstream, but it's not and can only serve a niche market at best.

[Sang]

What's the difference between this fancy new 3D stuff and what we have now? I ask because I have never seen it in action.

[Wamplet]

What's the difference between this fancy new 3D stuff and what we have now? I ask because I have never seen it in action.

I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume they mean something like the Avatar movie, where you use 3d glasses and play a game like that.

I know a few games support 3d glasses and a lot of people get headaches from wearing them according to reviews.

I'm not sure if those 3d glasses are the exact same as the movie glasses set up or not, but what else would there be? :confused:

Also, I would lump the mutiple monitor surround systems in this discussion as they are meant to serve the same purpose of immersing you in a 3D experience.

[axion]

3d technology already exists for games and has for years.

It has not caught on for mainstream gaming.

I hope it remains that way, because if it was the way of the future, you would think they could have something out by now.

Developers don't focus on that, so it's just going to be a gimmick whenever it is implemented.


How much extra work is it for a dev team to implement support? Most games are already in 3D you just don't see the depth, all they need to do is add a second camera/perspective slightly different than the first and voila, at least that's what I would think. Anyone care to enlighten us?

[Jiminator]

ok, there are a lot of different technologies. most of you have seen the red/green, you can probably find an nvidia driver to support that, with glasses and voila, instant 3D. issues being the picture sucks, but hey, it is 3D.

Now the current movies, I think they used polarized lens filters on the projector, polarity changes for each image. Same type of concept where you have lens filters you rotate to remove glare. The 3d glasses are aligned in 90 degree different directions so each sees different images.

For computers, they use lcd shutter glasses. most 3d games include z-buffer info, which means the gpu has enough information to render two different images from two different perspectives. The glasses have an IR sensor. An IR emitter is located on the monitor and it tells the glasses which lens to dim per frame. You have to have a great system for this since your frame rate gets cut in half, and your lcd monitor really needs to render 120 FPS for a good experience. As said there are issues with shadows, backgrounds, etc appearing flat in a 3d world.

[Rapture_Rising]

ok, there are a lot of different technologies. most of you have seen the red/green, you can probably find an nvidia driver to support that, with glasses and voila, instant 3D. issues being the picture sucks, but hey, it is 3D.

Now the current movies, I think they used polarized lens filters on the projector, polarity changes for each image. Same type of concept where you have lens filters you rotate to remove glare. The 3d glasses are aligned in 90 degree different directions so each sees different images.

For computers, they use lcd shutter glasses. most 3d games include z-buffer info, which means the gpu has enough information to render two different images from two different perspectives. The glasses have an IR sensor. An IR emitter is located on the monitor and it tells the glasses which lens to dim per frame. You have to have a great system for this since your frame rate gets cut in half, and your lcd monitor really needs to render 120 FPS for a good experience. As said there are issues with shadows, backgrounds, etc appearing flat in a 3d world.

I think the type of 3d they are trying to incorparate into game is stereoscopic 3D, which is the old red and blue image, but nowdays its more refined then that. from the pictures on some recent Kotaku articles it just looks like two of the same image overlapped to make the illusion of depth. Some 3D glasses shown at this years CES look more refined and less goofy then the old paper with cellophane lenses.

heres a Wiki article about stereoscopy and the different types

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy

[JackpotDen]

I prefer my gaming like I like my gaming :

2d and independent.

Thoughts : It should go to hell, along with useless touch screens. they are good for VERY FEW things. Phones are not where you should be having a touch screen. A public information kiosk is.

[Jiminator]

Thats a silly statement. sort of like saying you prefer your tv to be black and white to avoid the color issues they may have had in the beginning.

[Parkar]

Supporting stereoscopic 3D is not very hard for the developers at all. Nvidias solution works at the driver level so any game that uses Direct 3D works to some degree at least.

The only thing that is usualy a problem is post process effects asume that the driver is rendering exactly the view the game asked it to. This results in ghosting artifacts where stuff like self shadowing is floating in the air next to a character rather than on top of it.

That and the fact that HUD based crosshairs thats just placed in the middle of the screen don't work. In games that allow you to disable the crosshair this is usualy not a problem as the driver can overlay a depthbased crosshair replacing it.

Other then those two only game specific gameplay stuff might break to some degree since it wasn't designed with stereo view in mind. Ironsights probably being the most common issue in action games.

All of these should be fairly easy to solve for the developers.

[Jeff]

I think games look pretty good as is. However, I guess as some sort of evolution thing that people think that there needs to be another thing after what's currently out there.

For example, back in the day, we had games which were only on 2D like Packman and such. Then they went to 3D using video cards (what we have out now), so by evolutionary standards, people think there needs to be something after what we have now. As for true 3D games, I think they look fine as is, but that's just me. Having something jump out at me is fine, but I don't know if such a cool thing on the grand scheme of things.

If you take TV for example, they had black and white, then color, then SD (good quality), then HDTV (best stuff). That kind of evolutionary path makes sense.

[NutWrench]

I'd like to see more advances in AI and physics. A game as recent as Borderlands should not still be using Quake 2 level AI to drive its characters. With more people using multi-core machines and video cards capable of DirectCompute, these features should be much more advanced than they currently are.

[Jeff]

I was thinking of something yesterday about hooking up some old computers and network them together to perform a certain task. I know there's multi-core and all that out there now, but Intel and such is talking about parallel computing being in our future sometime in the next 10 years or so.

However, most games are GPU bound, so I guess that's where SLI comes in. Not too many games rely purely on a CPU to function.

There was a guy who built a supercomputer (http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=220) out of a bunch of PS3s which I thought was kind of cool.

[Water12356]

Personally this "3D" is just an expensive gaming fad to me.

[Jiminator]

multiprocessor supercomputers are somewhat obsolete, replaced by both cloud computing and also the super gpu computing. In terms of raw power nothing can beat a quad-sli system with cuda, depending on the cards may be like having 1000 cores or more with each new generation.

[peoplessi]

Supporting more players one 1 screen would be one advantage of 3D. You would lose the 3D effect though.

http://www.bitcauldron.com/images/multiview_all.jpg
source: http://www.bitcauldron.com/applications.html

If done well, I'm all for it. I see no reason to keep back "just because".

[Parkar]

I think games look pretty good as is. However, I guess as some sort of evolution thing that people think that there needs to be another thing after what's currently out there.

For example, back in the day, we had games which were only on 2D like Packman and such. Then they went to 3D using video cards (what we have out now), so by evolutionary standards, people think there needs to be something after what we have now. As for true 3D games, I think they look fine as is, but that's just me. Having something jump out at me is fine, but I don't know if such a cool thing on the grand scheme of things.

If you take TV for example, they had black and white, then color, then SD (good quality), then HDTV (best stuff). That kind of evolutionary path makes sense.

There is still lots of limits with what is possible to render today. In terms of pure detail such as poly counts and texture resolutions we don't need much more to realise almost any idea. There is still tons of improvements that can be done in terms of how that is actually rendered. The light models used in games are still pretty much a huge hack and only reason stuff looks so good in games is carefully considered use of a bunch of different approximations and workarounds.

But that's getting a bit of topic though. Stereoscopic viewing is more or less just a hardware thing though that I doubt will have much effect on how games are really made. It has much bigger implications for the making of movies. For games it's a pretty obvious direction to go and my prediction is that sometime within the next two decades every computer screen/TV designed for gaming will allow stereo view without clunky glasses etc. As long as glasses are neede it won't get to widespread but once it's just a button on your remote or screen that's when it's going to go mainstream.

Another thing is that it's not the wow that thing jumped out of the screen that makes the experience better. In gaming it's more about helping your brain build a model of what it is seeing and just improving the imersion.

Your brain does a pretty good job by just seeing a perspective view of something that is 3D and even better if things are moving around but it's nothing compared to actual stereoscopic visuals. The most obvious thing for me is playing racing games. I usualy have a realy hard time getting a feel for how close I am to cars just next to me or infront of me. I tend to run straight into cars a lot when doing overtakes but in NFS Shift that only happens when I do a real mistake toehr then thinking the car is further away then it is.

Usually it's not that game play impacting but it's defiantly more fun to play when you have a better sense of your surroundings.

Since TV seems to be taking the 3D route as well your comparison kind of fails.

games:
B&W 2D -> low def Color 2D -> lowdef Color 3D -> highdef 3D -> stereosopic 3D
TV:
B&W -> Color -> Hi def -> Stereoscopic 3D

In some sense the TV just skips the true 2D part since an orthographic camera would be pretty impractical. An orthographic camera would be kinda interesting though. A camera that needs to be the same size as what it is capturing is kind of funny thought to. I think I must check if anyone has ever made a lense that only lets parallel light through. This is definatly getting of topic though :).

I'd like to see more advances in AI and physics. A game as recent as Borderlands should not still be using Quake 2 level AI to drive its characters. With more people using multi-core machines and video cards capable of DirectCompute, these features should be much more advanced than they currently are.

I think the problem here is that implementing more advanced AI is a hell of a lot harder then coming up with new ways to make things prettier. Someone also needs to come up with a way to make reuse of the AI easier. Because you don't want a programmer or team of programmer to work for thousands of hours working on this awesome AI and then have to pretty much start from scratch on the next game. Making a general purpose AI library is not an easy task either since almost every game will have different representations of the world and different goals for the AI.

I think there is also this kind of threshold you need to get over which is stalling the development of more interesting AI. What I mean by this is that you will get a lot more stuff going on under the hood but the result for the end user might at first be even worse then what you get out of today's traditional game AI. I am no expert on AI and have only done some scripting of very basic fps enemies in Unreal so this is just me thinking out loud.

I think you can see a little bit of this in Far cry that tried to make a bit more interesting ai that tries to find you and does some suprising interesting stuff from time to time but at times (maybe even more often) it's instead super stupid or accomplishes superhuman feats. While on the other hand you have a game like f.e.a.r whose AI doesn't use any fancy stuff(afaik) but is very well designed and scripted for the environments in the game and gives the player a very good experience.

The super short version (since again this is kinda of topic) is that I don't think more advanced AI has much to do with the performance of the hardware. In fact it was probably a long time since it was limited by hardware.

Edit: peoplessi, that's a very good point I had not even considered. Split screen without splitting the screen seems like a no brainier once you have a stereo view.

[wayskobfssae]

Virtual Boy!!!

[8IronBob]

Virtual Boy!!!

Well...that was a start, but was a failure in the consumer market...the idea was there, but wasn't meant to be.

[Pansa]

Now the current movies, I think they used polarized lens filters on the projector, polarity changes for each image. Same type of concept where you have lens filters you rotate to remove glare. The 3d glasses are aligned in 90 degree different directions so each sees different images.

Those linerar polerisations are SOOOO last gen ^^.
Its what was used in certain amusement park rides.

The current tech is one step further.

To present a stereoscopic motion picture, two images are projected superimposed onto the same screen through circular polarizing filters of opposite handedness. The viewer wears low-cost eyeglasses which contain a pair of analyzing filters (circular polarizers mounted in reverse) of opposite handedness. Light that is left-circularly polarized is extinguished by the right-handed analyzer, while right-circularly polarized light is extinguished by the left-handed analyzer. The result is similar to that of steroscopic viewing using linearly polarized glasses, except the viewer can tilt his head and still maintain left/right separation.

So basicly the polarisation isn'T fixed and seperated, but the change of polarity over time(distance) is.

[prophecy holder]

Personally this "3D" is just an expensive gaming fad to me.

This, just like with other thing it will be expensive and then forgotten in a short time.

[peoplessi]

What other thing? So far I haven't seen anything that would suggest it to be forgotten in "a short time". nVidia is seriously pushing 3D - you missed CES completely? Or why do you think it's short lived?

[Paroxysm]

Because it's impractical and primarily useless. They try 3d once a decade and it always sucks and then burns after the public gets over the fad.

[Pansa]

Because it's impractical and primarily useless. They try 3d once a decade and it always sucks and then burns after the public gets over the fad.
But the quality of the experience hinges on TECH, and tech is evolving.

Was the "virtual boy" a desaster? Of course, it vastly overestimated the 3d part over every other aspect of design and aesthetics.

Additionally imho its more a question of implementation what distiguishes gimmick from serious endevour.

Aparently the new drivers take some of the prior devestating effects into account (Especialy the part about 2D elements aparently has improved so drasticly, that its no longer a major issue).

[Steve]

If it's really really amazing then sure, I'd like to see more and will buy the crap that goes with it. If it's a lackluster affair... then a big haha to the companies hyping the shit out of it.

In other words, I'm on the fence until I actually try it.

[The Stinger]

Isn't this the same technology they use in those 3D movies, were you get those glasses which that each side off and on in a succeeding fashion?

Actually I'm sure it is, and though it was fun in the theaters but it doesn't really add anything. Though I've only seen it in Ice Age 3, which might not fully take advantage of the effect.

[Jiminator]

uh, if you have not seen avatar, then you need to, to appreciate the changes in the technology

[peoplessi]

Isn't this the same technology they use in those 3D movies, were you get those glasses which that each side off and on in a succeeding fashion?

Actually I'm sure it is, and though it was fun in the theaters but it doesn't really add anything. Though I've only seen it in Ice Age 3, which might not fully take advantage of the effect.

There are multitude of possibilities on the techside, you only mentioned 1. Current 3D movies have either active or passive glasses. The active ones being like you described, shutter based most often.

There are even solutions that don't need 3D glasses to work, but need the viewer to be in a certain angle from the display. There are issues, but the pace of advances made is rapid.

[The Stinger]

What I really like (and it has been posted here before), is the head tracking 3D effect this guy made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
Even in the video it looks like the targets are moving outside the screen.
Downside: Only 1 person can experience it.
Starts at 2:45.

[peoplessi]

Yeah, that's very cool. It must be somewhat similar to the methods that the "glassless" 3D screens use - but with the exception that you only have that one "sweet spot".

[Paroxysm]

Head tracking is a far more useful technology for games. Aside from having a more convincing illusion of 3d it can have an actual effect on gameplay.

[axion]

Supporting more players one 1 screen would be one advantage of 3D. You would lose the 3D effect though.

http://www.bitcauldron.com/images/multiview_all.jpg
source: http://www.bitcauldron.com/applications.html

If done well, I'm all for it. I see no reason to keep back "just because".

Here's a neat little video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT4G2Y3zx4c) that shows a screen being used to show two different images to two different users simultaneously without glasses, from the new Range Rover. Of course this is restricted to specific viewing angles but it looks pretty cool.

[Sayantan]

Just a heads-up, if you wanna play good old Quake3 using 3D glasses (red-blue, etc), try ioQauke3 (http://ioquake3.org/). :)

[Rapture_Rising]

I was just doing some research on 3D and how Sony plans to implement this and the thing is it seems that if that Sony cant implement 3D to the current range of HD TVs then i think its not worth doing because like any new technologies through history, 3DTVs will be expensive and out of reach to the majority of the market for at least 4 - 5 years, considering that some people out there dont even have a LCD or plasma TVs yet. Currently there is Anaglyph, which is the old red and blue cardboard glasses and IMO it is worth further developing and implementing this technology until the upcoming 3DTVs are more affordable and more 3D content becomes avalible.

I think that the jury is still out with 3D and without witnessing 3D first hand i think at the moment it is still just a fancy gimmick but utlmately useless.

[peoplessi]

You make this conclusion, even though you haven't seen 3D in action at all? :) How interesting, I've yet to see a technology that goes backwards as it matures.

[Rapture_Rising]

You make this conclusion, even though you haven't seen 3D in action at all? :) How interesting, I've yet to see a technology that goes backwards as it matures.

I never said that 3D technology is bad and i would love to see it in action, all i was saying is that if sony are dedicating all their time to making 3D Blu-Ray compatible players that only work with specialised TVs, they should be dedicating their time to be making 3D accessible to everyone with a normal HD LCD or Plasma.

[Sang]

i think its not worth doing because like any new technologies through history, 3DTVs will be expensive and out of reach to the majority of the market for at least 4 - 5 years

I think you rendered your own criticism invalid when you said "like any new technologies throughout history".

This included cars, computers, CD players, DVD players,... whatever you can think of. Would you then have said "let's go with something less optimal because it'll cost a lot" too?

It always takes time for new technologies to fully integrate into society, but once they do it's always worth it.

[Rapture_Rising]

I think you rendered your own criticism invalid when you said "like any new technologies throughout history".

This included cars, computers, CD players, DVD players,... whatever you can think of. Would you then have said "let's go with something less optimal because it'll cost a lot" too?

It always takes time for new technologies to fully integrate into society, but once they do it's always worth it.

I guess your right about that... But personally I think that 3D technology will take about 10 years of solid development for it to become more then a fancy gimmick.

[peoplessi]

For your average consumer, you might be correct. In gaming it's something nVidia is pushing now, not 10 years from now.

[Altered Reality]

Just a heads-up, if you wanna play good old Quake3 using 3D glasses (red-blue, etc), try ioQauke3 (http://ioquake3.org/). :)
If you use the iz3D drivers (http://www.iz3d.com/driver) and the GLDirect wrapper (http://devilmaster.altervista.org/gldirect.html) you can play the "vanilla" Quake 3 in stereoscopic 3D too. Note that the wrapper is necessary because the iz3D drivers can only enable stereoscopic 3D with Direct3D applications: the wrapper extends the compatibility to many OpenGL games, among which Quake 1 and 2, the DXX Rebirth port of Descent and the Doomsday engine-based ports (but unfortunately, not the games based on id Tech 4).

[Sayantan]

If you use the iz3D drivers (http://www.iz3d.com/driver) and the GLDirect wrapper (http://devilmaster.altervista.org/gldirect.html) you can play the "vanilla" Quake 3 in stereoscopic 3D too. Note that the wrapper is necessary because the iz3D drivers can only enable stereoscopic 3D with Direct3D applications: the wrapper extends the compatibility to many OpenGL games, among which Quake 1 and 2, the DXX Rebirth port of Descent and the Doomsday engine-based ports (but unfortunately, not the games based on id Tech 4).

I'd really be interested to see some newer games with Anaglyph 3D thingy. Maybe some mod or patch or something. :)

[Altered Reality]

I'd really be interested to see some newer games with Anaglyph 3D thingy. Maybe some mod or patch or something. :)
So use the iz3D drivers and set them up for anaglyph mode. As long as those games use Direct3D, it's highly probable that they will work.