|
I haven’t been to E3 this year,
so I can’t actually tell you what the 3D display games have actually done with
all that Z [depth]. Of course, I have watched the videos but, given the nature of the
technology, I didn’t actually learn all that much. But that doesn’t stop me
from hoping that, despite the tragically unfashionable glasses you have to
wear, gamers are keen to have 3D in their homes.
But it’s not the hardcore early adopters that I am thinking about
here - I want 3D displays to succeed because they will make games easier to
“read”, and therefore play, especially for casual gamers.
Anyone who has run a game with a 3D environment, specifically one
with any hint of free roaming, through user experience testing for casual or
younger players will know it can be a pretty demoralizing thing to behold. It
makes you want to make games the old fashioned way – make them and throw them
over the wall straight into the market, without knowing the problems and then
shout at the reviews if they’re bad.
Honestly, the ignorance is bliss, after
all, games are reviewed by experienced adults who have highly honed skills,
they can cope with anything, as long as it’s what every other game does.
Everyone else, at least everyone except for a few million hardcore game
players, is different, they find your game awkward to play, and they don’t
blame themselves they, quite rightly, blame you.
I am convinced it’s the Z depth that’s the sticking point here. You
might keep your action pretty much in a 2D plane, but if that plane is in the X
and Z then be prepared to watch players struggle. These problems are not
insurmountable. Iteration, usability testing and the time to do them both
allows you to fine tune your controls, find the visual cues in the environment
that lead the player astray, refine the geo to eliminate snags and chokes, and
stop driving your poor test subjects crazy.
We will always have to do these
things to make good games, so we should be following this process regardless of
display technology but 3D displays will offer a level of environment
readability that’s beyond anything we can currently do.
3D displays also provide an effective increase in real estate.
Pushing and pulling game elements through the Z plane creates a sense of space far
beyond a normal 2D display. As elements are separated by depth the brain finds
it easier to distinguish between all the elements on offer.
The HUD, in
particular, will no longer be something that needs to be picked out from the
rest of the screen through excessive highlights and prompts. Action within the
HUD will also be easier to emphasise to the player. It will be possible to draw
their eye more effectively towards critical HUD information by pushing an
element towards them, so it comes closer then moves further away, like current
pulsing methods but a lot more forceful. You might think this isn’t much of a
problem but getting less experienced players to notice the HUD is a constant
battle.
For the reasons above, and a whole lot more that I haven’t found
yet, I am hugely interested in 3D displays. They have the potential to grow the
console market well beyond its current boundaries. Even better, fingers
crossed, my job will get easier.
|
For my QA viewpoint on 3D gaming check it out here: http://theundergrowth.com/cdumpmag/?p=442
Maybe, because I only see 3D in media. (my real-world vision is flat).
Personally, I'm absolutely nuts over my Mitsubishi 3d display combined with Nvidia's 3d vision tech. I was also there on day one to pick up a Virtual Boy. I was the only guy who actually liked the thing, but now, we've got the tech to actually pull it off. No more 4 color red, red, red, and black, I can actually play Left 4 Dead at full framerate and resolution while zombies run toward me (not just get bigger). I can play Dirt 2, and have the hood of my car start at the end of my desk, pushing out into an actuall world, not a flat representation.
Jonathan has a lot of good points here. With stereoscopy, "reading" a scene becomes hugely easier. Example: fps games almost universally feature some kind of arrow that points at the direction of incoming fire. In 3d, you can see where tracers are coming from without this crutch. Example: in Defense Grid, it quickly becomes very difficult to disentangle the intertwining over and under paths from each other on a flat render. With stereoscopy, everything pops into clarity.
Sure, stereoscopy could easily end up to be a fad, just like it was the last ten times. However, we are the people who make it or break it. So have a little love :)
By the way, I don't think it contradicts anything anyone has said yet, but in real life you can't use stereoscopic vision for anything over about 5m away, and it's barely useful for anything out of arms reach. Movement, and in particular sideways movement (strafing, in FPS parlance), is far more important, and scene analysis is more significant than either. I'm sure Maurício can confirm that very few tasks are hindered by a lack of stereo vision. Catching a flying mosquito is the only one I can think of at the moment!
In response to the forum animosity, I think a lot of the hostility comes from the fact that when most people talk about how much they love 3D media, they are really talking about how much they enjoyed Avatar. While I loved the special effects and give a lot of credit to the good use of 3D space (rather than just having a flat picture in which something comes out at the audience), the movie was *unbelievably* awful from a script perspective. It is more than a little alarming to have a movie with such a stunningly horrible story get so much praise- especially to gamers as an audience already wary of high budget projects that are all graphics and no gameplay.
Stereoscopic images have been around since the mid 19th century (with 3D movies as early as 1890) and while they have their place, I don't think that it marks the future of gaming. I see 3D as being an important part of future titles but only after the technology allows for natural viewing, without glasses.
I was highly skeptical about 3D, until I saw this report from MIT's TechReview:
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/25524/?a=f
Summary: Head tracking + selective projection.
It's pretty feasible to imagine an extension of this technology to more than two people; and it's also feasible that this will be commercial in 10-15 years. That might sound like a long time, but personally 2000AD doesn't feel that far back.
The biggest problem that I can see is that pointed out by @Korey; forced focus. I love to look around at the environments, especially when the plot is thin! What I can't stand is being forced to focus on a single area of the screen. I don't wear prescriptive lenses, but I feel like I need them when I cannot focus on a blurry background. Ironically, I'm wearing (3D) glasses at the time!
I'm not sure what the future solutions for this are. Solving this would be easier for real-time content, but surely nigh impossible for content captured at a fixed focus? And still it will require detecting changes in eye lens shape. Talk about technically difficult.
What's more, we already handle most of necessary components to realize a virtual 3D environment. Stereoscopic 3D just adds one more layer with no functional benefits, just reduced performance, resolution and/or display brightness. I don't just not like 3D, I think gaming and movies are better without it. Avatar certainly was for me.