Slashdot Mirror
The New Difficulties In Making a 3D Game
eldavojohn writes "MSNBC spoke with the senior producer of a new stereoscopic 3D game called Killzone 3 and highlighted problems they are trying to solve with being one of the first FPS 3D games for the PS3. The team ran into serious design problems, like where to put the crosshairs for the players (do they constantly hover in front of your vision?) and what to do with any of the heads-up display components. Aside from the obvious marketing thrown in at the end of the article (in a very familiar way), there is an interesting point raised concerning normalized conventions in all video games and how one ports that to the new stereoscopic 3D model — the same way directors continue to grapple with getting 3D right. Will 3D games be just as gimmicky as most 3D movies? If they are, at least Guerrilla Games is making it possible for the player to easily and quickly switch in and out of stereoscopic 3D while playing."
I can turn off sounds in most games as well. Including a toggle doesn't necessarily make it a gimmick, but rather if it hurts the experience and people prefer playing with 3D off.
I played WoW in 3D at the nVidia booth at Blizzcon last year and the game looked fantastic, it really did. However the interface was a huge problem. In 3D-WoW, the interface is closer to you than the game world, so if you're focusing on something in the world, your interface elements all split into 2. This is particularly weird when trying to click on things in the game world. If you focus on the creature or whatever, you have 2 mouse cursors. If you focus on the cursor, there are two creatures.
After a while you do get used to it, but it is definitely a huge gameplay issue that will keep 3D gaming in the gimmicky realm unless a game is designed to address it, either by having no interface or having an in-the-world interface, like Dead Space for instance.
But seriously, games do look amazing with properly calibrated 3d glasses (shutter or polarized, not red/blue lenses!) but it will most likely never be anything more than a neat gimmick.
When was the last time you could turn 'color' off in a game?
You mean like how televisions allow the viewer to reduce or remove the amount of color on-screen, whether the viewer is watching traditional programming or a videogame? Or like how during the transition from greyscale to colour broadcasting, it was important for most stations to make sure their content was useful to people with both types of television?
3D is a gimmic, and the fact they offer you the ability to turn it off WHILE playing means it's not required to immerse you in the gameplay.
3D isn't for everyone, at least in its current incarnation. That doesn't necessarily make it a gimmick. Is surround sound a gimmick just because it's not actually required in order to appreciate most films and games?
The developers in this case are smart enough to realize that not everyone who plays their game is going to have a 3D display. Therefore they have to make the game playable in 2D. Making a big-budget game that *required* 3D today would be commercial suicide.
I don't have a 3D TV, and I probably won't for quite awhile. But I do think it's an interesting technology.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
>>Will 3D games be just as gimmicky as most 3D movies?
Yes, yes they will - but moreso, and with gusto. But gimmicky doesn't have to be bad - the Wii and Nintendo DS libraries are chock full of gimmicky games that are actually quite good. Actually, most blockbuster games in history have been filled with fairly new exploits of gimmicks hamfistedly attached to a narrative.
Video games are marketed on the idea that an analog of yourself is being placed somewhere, with something interesting to do. The very definition of a game is tied to goals that exist only for you to solve - its gimmicks all the way down to the simplest games of rocks and sticks.
Ain't nothing wrong with gimmicks.
Ryan Fenton
When was the last time you could turn 'color' off in a game?
God, this makes me feel old but have you ever actually played/owned an atari 2600? That console actually had a switch to turn off the color in the game. Now get the hell off my lawn before I turn your ass black and white.
Monstar L
Uh, no. Not at all. All it takes is changing: frame.render_everything(position); to: lframe.render_everything(position - offset); rframe.render_everything(position + offset); Maybe not even that. Many of the PC 3d solutions do all that just in the driver. They run into some problems, primarily with the HUD, but they usually work just fine. Hell, OpenGL has had support for 3D at the API level for years, maybe since the beginning. Nobody uses it, but it's there. This is the reason why CGI films work better than studio films when converted to CG. All you have to do is render everything twice from a slight offset. This article wasn't really about the technical problems, which are minor. It was about the design problems: how do you present information to the player in 3D?
Really? I've had the capability to use 3D in many games since the late 1990's with the Elsa Revelator brand of Riva TNT cards, that supported hard-wired LCD Shutter glasses, meant to be used with CRT displays and refresh rates of 100Hz+. NVidia has had 3D support for a long, LONG time now (Check out the "Supported games" list). That they're now posting guidelines for it, and helping developers out if they request it (Their TWIMTBP program) doesn't negate that.
... I feel that I might have some worthwhile knowledge of Stereoscopic 3D games.
First off, 3D in games isn't as gimmicky as 3D in movies, not by a long shot. If the dev programs the game with 3D in mind, then things like the UI, blood splatters don't pull you out of the 3D experience.
Like games that have the blood splatter on your screen? Looks killer on 3D.
Games like Left 4 Dead (1 & 2) the 3D is very, very good on it. It makes zombie killing a little more realistic.
Need For Speed World? While the 3D isn't perfect on it (some ghosting), the game is a lot better to play in 3D.
Titan's Quest and Torchlight in 3D is have to play to understand. The game looks like toys or something while you are playing.
Some games, like Alien Breed the lighting is messed up on it, so it doesn't look good in 3D, but if they fixed that, would be killer.
As for the gun sight, ya, that matters. What nvidia does with 3D Vision is has a "laser sight" you can toggle on and off (you have to turn off ingame targeting crosshairs) if the game doesn't do the 3D on it correctly. I don't use it much, but some games like Fallout 3 you have to use it. And yes, Fallout 3 is better on 3D.
Honestly, dev's don't have to do much extra but test their games under 3D to see what elements need to be fixed. Games that are made in a 3D engine already have what is needed. Unlike TV or Movies, the games are made from 3D models, so getting the 2nt camera viewpoint is easier to do, and why games look way better then any 3D movie can.
Plus I don't think people understand, buying a 3D TV doesn't mean you can start playing 3D games. For example, 3D Vision users need the 3D vision hardware, a 120khz Monitor (that's supported, currently most tv's aren't) to get 3D gaming. Cost is just over $500 (Acer GD235HZ 1080p monitor & 3D Vision). Not to mention running a game is 3D means your cutting your normal frames per sec down by half. So you need some powerful video cards to play the latest games (that are being made with 3D in mind) with decent frame rates, which normally mean 60fps.
Need for Speed World. Normally, I can do 1080p at 60fps with all settings maxed. But to get 60fps, I have to cut the graphics down to medium. If I don't, the 3D in the game doesn't look right, tends to cause headaches & eye strain more. Which is more or less true with most of the games.
Granted the Nvidia GTX 460 1G cards are cheap and give great fps, mainly in sli. but still, that's another $500 cost.
So $1000 will get you a great 3D gaming setup, that can play 3D movies, if you get a bluray player for your computer.
3D in games is great as long as it's does right. And it takes some playing around with the 3D to figure out what works for you. Will most gamers want/need it? No. Besides entry cost is sort of high, it doesn't work good for every type of game, and there's sort of a split on what to get between PC & consoles/tv/bluray 3D players.
I think the biggest problem with 3D is no standards. This isn't a case of tech that is going to be adopted by everyone, so having standards is important for market growth.
You don't want to have to buy a 3D HDTV, a 3D bluray player (ps3), and a 3D Monitor & 3D kit for your pc.
Like with 3D bluray movies. With hardly any of those movies being released, they stupidly make them exclusive bundles with 3D hardware. I mean, wtf? Instead of making 3D movies easier for early tech adoptors, they make it harder.
I still haven't found any decent 3D movie downloads yet, so I don't even know how they look on my setup. But I got it for gaming, and it does gaming well, and I'm very happy with spending the money I did on it. Anyone that comes over and sees games in 3D, start wanting to get it.
Be seeing you...
I had 3D glasses for my old games computer a few years ago. (The drivers only worked with CRT's.) Some people had no problems, while others got headaches after just a few moments. I was fine for an hour at a time. I think newer tech makes 3D much more comfortable though.
Anyway, stereoscopic gaming was great! A couple of experiences:
WoW
Wandering in a cave, cave walls are made up of mottled bitmaps...
Monoscopic: Even though the map shows a branch in a cave, it can sometimes be hard to find it, and one walks back and forth to see if it's there.
Stereoscopic: You simply cannot miss the branch. The cave now looks like a proper shape, that just happens to be patterened with mottled bitmaps.
Rome: Total War
- You get a better feel for distances, so you can see exactly when to tell the archers to unleash a volley of arrows against advancing troops for maximum effect.
- You get a better idea of how well catapults will be able to shoot over the crest of a hill, or whether the rocks will hit the hill/fly over the enemy.
- Also, position the camera among those being shot at, and see the cloud of arrows coming at you. Awsome! =)
Basically, with a sterescopic view, you get a much better idea of the lay of the land, and distances (and therefore timing).
To me, 3D vision helped so much, that it almost felt like an unfair advantage. Almost.
If you are watching a "regular" movie, be it photographic or CGI, the 3D world is mapped onto the 2D screen When your eyes see this 2D image, you brain is able to use all the cues that are available in the mapped 2D image and it reconstructs the 3D world that was used to create the 2D image. Therefore, a "regular" move IS IN 3D.
When you see a stereoscopic "3D" image, even if it is an old ViewMaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viewmaster, all that you are getting is extra horizontal parallax that is provided by having different 2D images for the left and right eye. You are not even getting vertical parallax, so you can't see the top and bottom of things, just some extra details on the left and right of objects. Although this is noticeably different then the 2D picture image, it is still not the same as natural real world vision. So in a basic way stereographic images are not much closer to 3D then a regular image.
Because of the very limited and specialized nature of the stereo information, it is easy to create situations that cannot occur in the real world, resulting in a very confusing experience. Breaking frame is one example. This is when the "3D" object crosses the edge of the image, and it can completely destroy the illusion. Also, normal "flat" cinema uses foreground/midground/background to organize the visual composition of shots, and this becomes much more complicated when stereo is involved.
In some ways "flat" 2D is better, because it uses a uniform transformation to map from 3D to 2D. In doing stereo, the scene composition has to include intra-ocular distance information, and this adds difficult decision making for composing the scene. (Yes, the stereo mapping is mathematically uniform, but the composition restraints are different depending on the shot set up.)
There is a massive body of knowledge in how to use "flat"images that goes all the way back to he introduction of perspective in the Renaissance, and has been further developed with the invention of photography and moving pictures. Stereo has yet to prove that it really provides any kind of advancement for image presentation.
Why is Snark Required?