Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Displays Television Games Entertainment Hardware Technology

The New Difficulties In Making a 3D Game 190

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The New Difficulties In Making a 3D Game

Comments Filter:
  • by blincoln ( 592401 ) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @10:47PM (#33485408) Homepage Journal

    ...just make it work more or less like a real-world "red dot" gunsight: a translucent marker that appears to hover a few feet in front of the weapon, as long as the user is looking through the sight. I always thought it was a really clever optical design - it's as if (for aiming purposes) the weapon is a couple of meters long, which makes it much easier to determine where the shots are going to go.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • I think that's the hard part.

      Think about developing a handheld game that needs to work on all screen sizes (iPhone, iPad, Android, Simbian, etc etc....). There have been efforts [] to minimize [] these problems [].

      Then think about the UI for a web page or game. There have been some pretty successful [] results [], while they are anything but simple.

      Now think about adding a 3rd dimension to all those problems. It's not as easy as saying "just make it realistic". There is a reason why lives [] are spent on UI []. It's n
  • by D J Horn ( 1561451 ) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @10:52PM (#33485432)

    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.

    • either by having no interface or having an in-the-world interface, like Dead Space for instance.

      I would think the easiest solution, which keeps current UI design relatively intact, is to transpose the interface on to whatever depth the item it's over is. For the mouse, that would be the click pixel. For the toolbars, put them at the depth of the environment.

      • by cgenman ( 325138 )

        In the article, they mention a problem with crosshairs popping forward and back too rapidly in 3-space. You could probably do something with a spring system and friction. And you might want to do some degree of scaling up and down for distance, but not a real amount. That's all degrees of polish, which we won't really understand well until several titles come out attacking the problem in different ways.

        • by Thing 1 ( 178996 )
          Or, instead of a crosshair, it could be a laser dot on the object you're pointing at. Of course, pointing straight up you wouldn't see it, and it would "wiggle about" as you moved across rough terrain etc, so perhaps a crosshair would still be needed even with this. I think I've seen this effect already in a game, actually.
    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      I remember the first time I played Duke Nukem and Prince of Persia. There were amazing games. The graphics of PoP, the immersion of DN, they were great. I am sure that some said it was just a fad and we would be back to Pac Man and Trade Wars, but fortunately we never did.

      The things about games is because there are never mission critical is that they do not have be designed conservatively. They can push the hardware, the interfaces, to the point that other applications would never attempt. Any game w

      • I remember the first time I played Duke Nukem and Prince of Persia. There were amazing games. The graphics of PoP, the immersion of DN, they were great. I am sure that some said it was just a fad and we would be back to Pac Man and Trade Wars, but fortunately we never did.

        I get the feeling you're not talking about the remakes, greybeard :).

        So, are we going to get Pac-Man 3D: The Pill Quest anytime soon ?-)

    • I don't understand how 'focusing' as you describe it can be a problem. Regardless of the simulated 3d, the distance your eye focuses on is the distance from you to the screen. The 3d effect is due to your eyes getting different pictures, not because you eye is actually focussing at different ranges.

      This is my main problem with 3D (live action) movies, the 3D effect is fine when you are looking at what the camera is focussed on but if you try and look at something in the foreground or background the effec
    • by Aladrin ( 926209 )

      You're saying that the current interface will kill 3D, but it's more likely that 3D will force game-makers to make a better interface. One that doesn't kill your immersion by making you use a mouse cursor to do things. One that doesn't make you look away from the action to make a decision.

    • 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.

      Or show the interface to just one eye.

  • Very simple. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by webmistressrachel ( 903577 ) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @10:56PM (#33485462) Journal
    On a real weapon, the laser "paints" the target - it looks as though it's actually on the spot where the bullet will hit. Simulate this, problem solved.
  • 20 feet. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by w0mprat ( 1317953 ) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @11:01PM (#33485486)
    Thats the answer. I had a aftermarket speed HUD in car that was designed to appear to be 20 feet or more in front of the car to minimize the need to refocus on a nearer object, but close enough it doesn't seem weird when tailgating or whatever. I understand this is done in factory models as well, and aircraft HUDs are also designed this way.
    • 3D LCDs don't have focus. Your eyes are always focused on the same point since they are just a flat screen like a 2D LCD. In fact they ARE just 2D LCDs, just displaying left and right images in rapidly alternating fashion. They do stereoscopic vision but nothing else. So you don't really focus on different points. Stuff does appear in front or behind other things, but it is all in focus, unless the game engine chooses to defocus something.

      • by tgibbs ( 83782 )

        When you "focus" your eyes on something in 3D, you do two things: you adjust the lens of your eye so that the light rays from the object are focused on the object, and you also adjust the convergence of your eyes to put the image of the object on a corresponding region of the retina of both eyes. With a stereoscopic image, you don't have to do the former, but you still have to do the latter.

        • by tgibbs ( 83782 )

          Oops, that should have been "the light rays from the object are focused on the retina.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by wvmarle ( 1070040 )

          Which gives very strange effects sometimes, when the creator decides to make parts out of focus. I had this when watching Avatar. Often they use the 2D technique of focussing on a person while blurring the background (to make it stand out). This looks natural - when you focus on something close by the background naturally becomes blurred (due to depth of vision and the double-image issue). However when you decide to have a look at the background instead, it suddenly remains blurred. While in reality your ey

          • by tgibbs ( 83782 )

            Yes, I noticed this with Avatar also. You feel like you should be able to focus your eyes, because you have converged the images, but you can't. Film directors like to use focus to direct attention, but I wonder if in a 3D film, it would be better to have everything in focus. Of course, that would require either a very stopped down lens (and a lot of light) or some fancy digital post-processing. Or perhaps it would seem odd to have everything in focus. I wonder if Cameron did experiments on this.

            • To me this looked like one of the "rough edges" of 3D tech of today. It looked like a 2D movie with 3D effects added to it. Those floating subtitles (I watched a Chinese subtitled version - not that I can read Chinese but that's how English movies are shown in Hong Kong) were also really weird. But reasonably easy to ignore.

              And Avatar also has a 2D version (if only to be able to release them on DVD/BR). So that would basically require them to make two movies, as a 2D movie with everything in focus will loo

              • by tgibbs ( 83782 )

                The glasses are big enough to fit over regular lenses. Avatar was designed from the outset to be 3D, and Cameron did substantial technology development, but it is still early days for 3D as a serious filmmaking technique.

                The problem with the "helmets" is there that is no way that you can actually run around in the 3D world because you'd bump into walls and trip over the furniture, so you still need a controller. Directing your gaze with a helmet instead of a joypad is not enough of a convenience to justify

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by cgenman ( 325138 )

                  The other problems with helmets are:

                  1. Resolution. They're tremendously expensive to make at any sort of resolution. You know that super-high definition LCD screen they finally came out with for the iPhone? That's still way too big for one eye of a visor, and not high enough resolution. Lower resolution screens just look like lots and lots of pixels.

                  2. Focus. Because of 1, there are lots of optical tricks used to get a higher-resolution image from a larger source down to the size needed to display at yo

                  • by tgibbs ( 83782 )

                    5. Too Private. This is a big issue that Nintendo bumped up into with the Virtual Boy. If nobody can watch you play, playing video games becomes an inherently anti-social activity.

                    Other people being unable to watch you play has not impeded the popularity of hand-held gaming systems and phone games. Even for games on console, the social interaction is mostly one way: people can watch you play, but you are too involved with he game to interact with them (an exception being turn-based games like bowling). But

          • by cgenman ( 325138 )

            It has been worse:

            Try Wario Land for the Virtual Boy. There are levels where the far background does not parallax (appear to scroll more slowly because it is farther away), but does appear to be farther back in the 3D effect. The worst is a moment in level 2, where the background appears to be deep away in 3D, and it parallaxes correctly horizontally, but breaks parallax scrolling completely vertically. I nearly threw up when I saw that.

            • I wonder if that's the reason why Sega pulled the plug. Their technology wasn't far enough to let things parallax correctly?
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by plastbox ( 1577037 )

            How about using the same type of lenses (in the 3D-glasses) that are routinely used in progressive bifocals, only rotated 90 degrees? That way, you could make the lens work harder to focus on something closer (have the lenses be more powerful closer to the nose) and relax more as you approach infinite convergence (when your eyes are parallel, whatever that is called).

            It still wouldn't solve the problem of actually blurring everything in the background when you look at something close (and vice versa) but it

            • I get the idea - works if all you do is looking straight forward, up or down. Not if you start looking left or right, then it breaks down horribly with both eyes effectively having different lenses through which to look.

              Not sure what the headaches come from really (I didn't have this issue when watching Avatar nor with some earlier 3D movies), but I would guess parallax may be a problem. Difference in distance between the eyes, some people may have their eyes so far apart or close together that the two ima

          • For a more realistic 3D experience the display would have to follow your eyes, and see what you focus on.

            In games this is not a problem, since everything is in focus anyway, unless the engine goes out of its way to defocus. In a movie, the only real fix is to also have everything in focus - impossible with a lens, methinks - or use an optical phased array for both recording and playback; in other words, a hologram that would let you focus on what you will.

  • Gimmicky? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @11:09PM (#33485510)

    >>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

    • by cgenman ( 325138 )

      I'd argue that 3D for games isn't just a gimmick, but actually makes you a better player.

      In driving games, knowing how far away a corner is can mean the difference between success and crashing horribly. Similarly, if you're lobbing a grenade at an opponent, you need to have an intuitive sense for how far away they are. In traditional 2D games, you have to build in lots of visual cues (straight lines, false shadows, distance blur, etc) to get even partway decent 3D estimations by your players. 3D screens,

  • Maybe they should ask the guys that were developing 3D games in 1995. Descent 3D comes to mind so does Hi-Octane both of which had 3D modes compatible with LCD glasses. HUDs and crosshairs were 2D. I worked for 3DTV [] company in 1995/6 - demo'ing Descent 3D at Comdex among other things. FU Microsoft for killing off 3D gaming for a good 10 years.
  • Why am I not surprised to read that the gaming industry is struggling with how to handle splattering blood in 3D.

  • by blankoboy ( 719577 ) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @11:33PM (#33485630)
    ....getting anyone to want to buy one. Please let this 3D fad die already.
    • by Nursie ( 632944 )


      Just because *you* hate it doesn't mean everyone does. Now that it's not much of a premium on a decent LCD or Plasma and the big manufacturers (Sony, LG, Panasonic, Samsun) are all in on the game, I don't see it going away any time soon.

      Why is it that the collected geeks of /. have such a problem with it anyway?

      • Because the stuff where HD and 3D would be used best is not the stuff that makes it to the TV or theaters.

        Planet Earth []? Fuck yes!

        Your every day sitcom or cop drama #52938? No thanks.

        • Planet Earth was shown in HD in the UK from launch... Amazing show. I am sure there will be 3D versions recorded in a few years. Love the BBC
      • by Eudial ( 590661 )

        Largely the only people who don't hate it are people who were suckered into buying a 3D TV, and are now in denial over what a ridiculous waste of money it was.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Haeleth ( 414428 )

      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?

  • by pecosdave ( 536896 ) * on Sunday September 05, 2010 @11:37PM (#33485666) Homepage Journal

    Check the Virtual Boy for prior art ideas. Obviously something so popular and successful can serve for further inspiration.

  • by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Monday September 06, 2010 @12:04AM (#33485802) Homepage Journal
    I still remember the discussions on how much 3D was Wolf3D almost 20 years ago.
  • by Nyder ( 754090 ) on Monday September 06, 2010 @12:32AM (#33485910) Journal

    ... 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.

  • by LongearedBat ( 1665481 ) on Monday September 06, 2010 @12:45AM (#33485960)
    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:

    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.
  • For games, stereo is not the right approach. Viewpoint adjusted by head tracking [] is. For recorded images like TV, you don't have the data to do that. But for a game, you have full 3D models and all the necessary graphics hardware. And, as that video shows, it just takes a few Wii Remote parts to do it. The effect is that, at long last, the screen becomes a window, rather than a surface.

    Since games tend to be played by one player per screen, the restriction that the view only works for one person is

    • I can understand this is maybe not of so much interest for console gaming since often you are talking playing in a room with more people on one display and this is a one person only technology. However PCs are designed for single person use, so this would work well. What's more, it would be rather cheap to implement. No new display needed, just a cheap IR camera to mount on the PC and something to wear on your head.

      I won't get a 3D glasses display for the computer. You need a new monitor, that does not have

    • by Aladrin ( 926209 )

      While that technique is really, really cool, I don't move around much while gaming. That means the effect is pretty much lost.

    • by Kegetys ( 659066 )

      Dedicated head trackers like TrackIR and Freetrack have allowed this for quite some time now.

      > When this is done well, the visual effect is spectacular. []

      This "window" effect only really works if you close one of your eyes though. In a video it looks good since you have no depth perception, but when you look at something like this with both eyes you constantly see that it is just a flat surface that is displaying a moving image and the wanted effect largely goes away.

  • by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Monday September 06, 2010 @02:02AM (#33486306)
    When you view the world with your regular (hopefully) pair of eyes, your brain creates a "3D" experience of what you see. It does this using many cues, including parallax (both horizontal and vertical), occlusion, shading of objects, shadows, and lots of other stuff. Many people with PhDs have spent a lot of effort trying to understand this process and they still have a long way to go.

    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 [], 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.

    • Its not the first time this sort of "3d" has had a day in the sun, it just never seems to last. Quake 3 supported stereo vision since its release, so 3d for games has been there for quite a while and yet its still not popular. I also think you have hit the nail on the head. Our brains are already getting most of the 3d out of a 2d image in the first place. The parallax is not a big addition and adds more problems that it solves. Hell in far shots (where close and far things are far away from the camera), p
      • by cgenman ( 325138 )

        Of course, for stereo vision at home you need a display capable of 120 Hz cycling, a little bluetooth dongle for timing, shutter glasses, and a relatively recent iteration of HDMI. All of these things the television makers have already done, and done cheaply. Now they're hoping to upsell this existing technology for a premium,

        The Sega Master System had 3d shutter glasses almost 30 years ago. It worked rather well, actually. But without the CPU strength to do much with the 3D, the $100 premium that the g

    • Therefore, a "regular" move IS IN 3D

      To some extent. On the other hand, most people can tell the difference between a "regular" movie, and a "3D" movie/game. Regardless of whether or not you say a "regular" movie is in 3D, there is some distinction somewhere in the brain, and thus there is room for preference.

  • by khchung ( 462899 ) on Monday September 06, 2010 @02:17AM (#33486348) Journal

    Just like a real gun sight, you only look through it with one eye. So just put the crosshairs and other HUD elements on either left or right eye (configurable), then when the player wish to aim better, he can close the other eye (just like aiming a real gun).

    For iron sight, even better, only the right (or left) eye would be aligned with the iron sight, the other eye would be looking down the barrel a but from the side.

    The HUD elements would appear as if the player is wearing a transparent display over one eye.

    • Just like a real gun sight, you only look through it with one eye. So just put the crosshairs and other HUD elements on either left or right eye (configurable), then when the player wish to aim better, he can close the other eye (just like aiming a real gun).

      Or, if you're cool like me, you can relax the muscles in your eye, and entirely defocus and ignore one eye. :D
      (Interestingly, my mother can do this too. I wonder if there's a genetic component.)

      You've got to be careful about putting stuff only on

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Fri13 ( 963421 )

      Only amateurs close other eye when aiming.

      I can shoot as well with both eyes, by both sides. No matter do I keep a rifle or pistol in my left or right hand/shoulder. I sometimes even aim by crossing the sight line. Few persons only can aim correctly without aiming by other eye only. Both my eyes are as well dominant. I can choose which one I use as primary. As a special jäger and a sniper I had lots of benefit from that in the army. All the close quarter movements inside buildings were easier as I had

  • I don't care at all for this stereoscopic shit they call 3D, what ever happened to the good old 2D platformers such as Sonic & Mario and all the others? Why is it that the majority of games these days are FPS of some variety that basically suck donkey balls? It used to be about fun, now it's about polygon counts & gore.
    • You might want to have a look at Owlboy [], then. A 2d platform'ish game coming to pc and xbox. It's also the winner of Norwegian Game Award 2010 [].

      From the jury's description:

      The game has a distinctive 2D retro style and is full of neat little details and surprises. It stays true to its 8- and 16-bit legacy while adding its own qualities and avoiding the risk of becoming just another bland copy. We believe that the mix of puzzles, smooth platform gaming and beautifully pixeled graphics will make Owlboy appeal to a wide range of age groups and gamer types, and each member of the jury would happily buy the game as-it-is today.

What this country needs is a good five cent ANYTHING!