The New Difficulties In Making a 3D Game 190
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the reach-out-and-shoot-someone dept.
from the reach-out-and-shoot-someone dept.
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."
Re:If you can turn it off (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:If you can turn it off (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
20 feet. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gimmicky? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>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
This is hardly news. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Crosshairs shouldn't be that hard (Score:2, Insightful)
It's interesting that you mention red dots; the way they work is with a parabolic mirror with the LED at the focus, so to your eye it appears at optical infinity. You also never look down a sight with both eyes; you'd probably strain yourself trying to focus on the dot. Were I developing a realistic stereo shooter, I'd have it work similarly to the real world; the "scope" mechanism would only be visible in the player's dominant eye. No depth, no problem.
Will the real 3D please stand up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Out of the box (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ask Nintendo for advice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like PowerGlove foretold the failure of the Wiimote?
Re:The "Real" Difficulty in making a 3D Game (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember people saying the same thing about CD-ROM games. The first ones sucked, and many people could not imagine the technology ever being used for anything worth playing.
Same for polygon-based games, actually. They looked awful, and everyone was like "what a useless gimmick, hand-drawn sprites look so much better, 2D will never die".
The naysayers have always been wrong, time after time after time. Why do you think this will be the one time they're right?