After watching Avatar, gaming in 3D could potentially be really cool.

McRhea

Senior member
Apr 2, 2001
221
0
0
I was really skeptical of the "3D" in the new Avatar flick, but was surprised to find that it wasn't shoved down my throat, and was much more subtle. It wasn't too distracting, and I thought it added to the movie, especially in the jungle scenes. (The lush vegetation scenes are spectacular. Perhaps Crysis 5 or 6 will look like that, hah.) I felt that the 3D really enhanced the movie, and that 3D has finally become something that could potentially be really cool for games.

Let's not start an Nvidia vs ATI thing here people. Check those green vs red emotions at the door. This is just about 3D, not about who has the tech to do it, or the license, etc.

Instead let's talk about how cool gaming could be if games started to use 3D in a much more subtle way, not as a marketing gimmick or as a main selling point of the game. I don't want "SUPER AWESOME 3D" as one of the selling points, because then it tends to be forced down your throat and much more overdone or overhyped. Hopefully game studios can start to incorporate 3D into games just as any other current graphical tool, the way there is bump-mapping, AA, AF, dynamic shadows, volumetric effects (rain/fog), etc, in games now. This also means that if you hated 3D no matter how well done, you could turn it off, just like any other option.

I believe 3D could be really neat if it were used as any another tool, and not as a marketing gimmick or a selling point. (NOW WITH SUPER AWESOME 3D! All your friends will be jealous, get this game now!)

I know we've been down the 3D road before, but after watching Avatar I feel like we're finally getting somewhere with the technology, and can use it to enhance our experiences, rather than having it shoved in our faces (literally).

Everyone remember how "Lens Flare" used to be the huge thing in games? And then came "Bloom" and "HDR lighting"... all those things were over-hyped and over-done when the technology first came out, but now the developers are using those tools much more effectively. I feel like we could almost there with 3D as well. Yes? No?
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
Disagree. I thought the 3D was completely unneccessary in Avatar and I have no desire to see it in more movies, let alone in games.

I'd rather they focus on making interesting games and lay off the gimmicks.

KT
 

coloumb

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,069
0
81
3d gaming would be pretty damn cool - but it's currently a gimmick/too expensive for most people.

3d gaming wasn't generally used until the price of 3d cards add-on were cards were lowered and/or graphics card vendors started releasing their own 3d cards [nVidia, S3, etc]. Back in ye old days - 3dfx was the king, and you had to pay a huge sum if you wanted that cool 3d look in quake.

Hardware PhysX suffered the same issue - expensive add-on card that most people didn't want to buy because it's a luxury. Why buy an expensive card when you have acceptable software based physics? nVidia bought the company and now you have hardware PhysX on one single card - "invisible" to the consumer, but awesome when they use it.

3d gaming [Stereoscopic] will have to follow the same path. LCD manufacturers will have to build Stereoscopic capability into all of their displays so they can be used in laptops, pc displays, home tv displays, etc and it will have to be around the same price as current displays - it has to be "invisible" so the consumer can simply put on a pair of light weight glasses and enjoy the show/game.

IF stereoscopic does take off [predictions indicate it will take a few years] - then we'll see 3d gaming as the norm.

nVidia already supports 3d gaming:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_Main.html

Looks like all you need are the specs, the 3d ready monitor, and the game with support for 3d [reminds me of the PhysX add-on card].
 

TheUnk

Golden Member
Jun 24, 2005
1,810
0
71
Sorry, not a fan of the fast moving objects that flicker and the additional blur.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
This is not really new. DirectX in the past supported 3d Stereoscopic in the past, but it was never used. The reasons if I remember right, is that Stereoscopic tends to increase side effects such as headache, motion sickness, seizures, etc. Therefore it was never really pursued much in the past and Microsoft dropped support of it in later versions of DirectX. As KT said, it's more of a gimmick, and while cool for a few minutes, you'd not want to game all day that way.
 

McRhea

Senior member
Apr 2, 2001
221
0
0
This is not really new. DirectX in the past supported 3d Stereoscopic in the past, but it was never used. The reasons if I remember right, is that Stereoscopic tends to increase side effects such as headache, motion sickness, seizures, etc. Therefore it was never really pursued much in the past and Microsoft dropped support of it in later versions of DirectX. As KT said, it's more of a gimmick, and while cool for a few minutes, you'd not want to game all day that way.

I agree that 3D gaming has been a gimmick in the past, but I think that we are much closer to it being used as an additional tool to enhance the overall gaming experience now.

Sure there is flickering and some people will suffer headaches, motion sickness, etc, but if there is really decent 3D gaming support by developers, I think the flickering will be a non-issue. There are those that are sensitive, regardless of 3D gaming, and will develop headaches, motion sickness, or seizures. Nothing we can do about that though.

3D gaming (stereoscopic) will only take off if it's easy for the end user to implement (for less than $20-30), and the game itself is actually enhanced by the 3D views, not just a lame gimmick used to hype and sell the game. No one wants to play a game based soley on the fact that it's in 3D... we want interesting gameplay, good story, and FUN! The future of 3D gaming lies in using it as a tool to enhance the interesting gameplay, the good story, and the FUN bits of the game. Not as a stand alone gimmick. All we've had so far are gimmicks. We need some substance, some meat!

I really need to check out this Avatar demo to see how it handles the 3D gaming we're discussing here.
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
3d will take off as a successful niche once costs come down.
Right now you need:
3d ready display, so you have to buy a new, probably more expensive display.
Expensive shutter glasses.
And an extra fast computer so you can run a game at the 120hz necessary to get a good 3d effect.
 

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
After seeing the film twice (in 2D then in 3D), I've gotta say I much preferred the 2D due to the picture being brighter, clearer, and 'stable'. In the films the 3D wasn't 'in your face' the whole time but you could definitely tell when they switched film-cameras which (imo) was quite distracting when adjusting your eyes.

For that to be in a game... well I probably am gunna pass.
 

mwmorph

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2004
8,877
1
81
After seeing the film twice (in 2D then in 3D), I've gotta say I much preferred the 2D due to the picture being brighter, clearer, and 'stable'. In the films the 3D wasn't 'in your face' the whole time but you could definitely tell when they switched film-cameras which (imo) was quite distracting when adjusting your eyes.

For that to be in a game... well I probably am gunna pass.

Same thoughts here, I personally thought throughout the whole movie, I would be happier to watch this in 2D. There significant blur added from this method. Stationary, it's annoying, but when combined with movement, it's like terrible ghosting.

The image quality tradeoff is way, way too high and the 3D effect wasn't even that impressive.
 

tommo123

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2005
2,617
48
91
i thought that Avatar worked better in 3D. felt like i was pulled into the movie more than usual.

i do hope that we get 3D gaming. not what nvidia does now (render the frames twice and try to give you a 3D effect), but that the game was created with it in mind.

Avatar is the only film i've seen in 3D that i didn't think was shit (the 3D took something away IMO). games could be so much more immersive with 3D gaming.

plus, it gives nvidia/ATi a reason to sell ever beefier GPUs. lets be honest. gt200/ HD 4000 series was enough for most people. especially with games being just ported from the 360 for the most part. i hope the next consoles in 2012 or whenever support stereoscopic gaming
 

ussfletcher

Platinum Member
Apr 16, 2005
2,569
2
81
What, exactly, is a 3d ready monitor? LOL...

Well, I believe they are waiting for lcd manufacturers to bring a polarization capability to their panels. IIRC the new 3d uses alternating scenes of vertically and horizontally polarized light, that are slightly off center. Thus, the polarizing filter in one lens allows you to see one scene while the other filter lets you see the next. Put it together fast enough and your brain stitches it together into a more convincing 3d world than the old school red and blue technique (plus colors are rich and correct)
 

ussfletcher

Platinum Member
Apr 16, 2005
2,569
2
81
i thought that Avatar worked better in 3D. felt like i was pulled into the movie more than usual.

i do hope that we get 3D gaming. not what nvidia does now (render the frames twice and try to give you a 3D effect), but that the game was created with it in mind.

Avatar is the only film i've seen in 3D that i didn't think was shit (the 3D took something away IMO). games could be so much more immersive with 3D gaming.

plus, it gives nvidia/ATi a reason to sell ever beefier GPUs. lets be honest. gt200/ HD 4000 series was enough for most people. especially with games being just ported from the 360 for the most part. i hope the next consoles in 2012 or whenever support stereoscopic gaming

I believe that since the newish generation of 3d tech has evolved (probably first seen in Beowulf) it has added to most movies it has been in. I think that it would make for a great gaming experience.
 

Harabec

Golden Member
Oct 15, 2005
1,369
1
81
They're gonna have to solve the glasses thing. I went to see Avatar twice because I liked it, but as a glass-wearer, the extra filter (the 3d glasses they hand out) made the colors faded and the whole experience a bit detatched. You can't make an industry standard that annoys everyone who has glasses on.
 

jdlaughead

Junior Member
Jan 18, 2010
1
0
0
I know from playing the Game AGILE WARRIOR F-IIIX on my playstation one, wearing Sony Glasstron Glasses, which Sony discontinued. These glasses black out everything around you and you only see the 2 TV screens,in front of you, which give you a effect of a 61 inch screen. I was 25 minutes into the game Fly at about 1500 mph, rolling and dog fighting, when I started, getting air sick, I shut down, and it took 3 hours to get rid of the feeling. Never played the game since, although it is a great game. Sony at that time recommended that nobody under 16 use the glasses, and the glasses would automaticly shut down after one hour play. These were not shutter glasses.
 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
Disagree. I thought the 3D was completely unneccessary in Avatar and I have no desire to see it in more movies, let alone in games.

I'd rather they focus on making interesting games and lay off the gimmicks.

KT

What a simpleton

Avatar is the best application of 3D to date. I would totally welcome it into my gaming.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
What a simpleton

Avatar is the best application of 3D to date. I would totally welcome it into my gaming.

There were only 2 shots in the whole movie that made me think that 3D was cool. Other than that it was panning problems and tons of flickering. I'm not going to be easily impressed by throwing something shiny in front of me and that's what 3D is, just some gimmick to try to impress people and charge more for it and to make them buy new movies/hardware to play it.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Disagree. I thought the 3D was completely unneccessary in Avatar and I have no desire to see it in more movies, let alone in games.

I'd rather they focus on making interesting games and lay off the gimmicks.

KT

made it a dream world for me
felt like I was there. Much bigger emotional connection. Suspension of disbelief.
I hope we get more of them.