Gaming Indie Developers talk 3D

We chat to indie developers about their thoughts on stereoscopic 3D in games.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2011/05/25/indie-developers-talk-3d/1

 

I remember back in 97 or something you could play Descent in 3D with Asus (Nana Mouskouri like) glasses and GForce2 card. And even back then it was still gimmick. You could even go back to the 80's or 60 or 50's periods of time, they try to enforce 3D to the consumers and it never lasted.

It probably will be accepted when you get 'holodeck' kind of 3D or is it 4D?

 

I'm in when there's something like an amalgamation between the relaxation/sensation room (don't remember what it's called) in Sunshine and the holograms from ye olde Star Wars movies. And none of this Kinect fuss. I want to relax in a comfy armchair. Until then, no 3D for me. Might take a while though... Some 30 years ago people thought we'd be zipping around in flying cars today. Can't see that happening anytime soon.

 

I don't think any of us would have expected support in terms of indie releases due to the extra work it would take them. I'm fairly surprised to hear Garry Newman say it would be around 5 lines of code to implement. Combine that with a little research and a discussion with ATi and Nvidia then he should add that support for those wanting to make use of it. I expect throwing ragdolls around in 3D would work just as well as batting zombies in Left 4 Dead. Although if the iZ3D drivers etc make it work without the indies needing to do anything then great.

The mention of the 3DS reminds me why I'm disappointed with mine. The 3D on the 3DS works great for me and actually added to the Ghost Recon game experience like Paul Taylor suggests his walls in Frozen Synapse would work. Same style. But the lack of games is driving me mad. Coupled with the lack of non-cute-stroking-puppy-games ... Aaargh! = 3DS failure incoming?

 

Nice article, this has been the most interesting 3D feature of the week so far imo. It's always nice to hear from some indie devs, and I think I pretty much agree with 3D being too much of a gimmick atm.

 

Until they figure out how to do 3D that works for everybody then its not much good. Ive tried 3D in the cinema with those roy orbison glasses (watching AVATAR) and last week I tried shutter glasses. 3D just does not work for me. With shutter glasses the only difference I saw was a flickering image.

 

Me too. My father didn't see the flickering effect at all, and my brothers say they can hardly tell & it didn't bother them, but the flickering drove me absolutely crazy when I tried it. 3D has a long way to go before I'll become interested enough to spend money on it.

 

I think the opinions of the indie devs are the most interesting and perhaps the only ones worth listening to because they're possibly the only informed industry commenters who don't have a vested interest or a gun to their head about these kinds of fads.

Companies like ATI and nVidia would have us all believe that if you're not watching in 3D, you're not a real gamer, you don't care enough, you haven't invested enough, you're missing out.
In reality, so many of us see that this is all being pushed by the companies and not by consumer demand because the majority of consumers simply don't give a **** about 3D, even those of us who regularly spend stupid amounts of money on our hardware for a good experience.

 

It's so incredibly easy to do an anaglyph shader for games and Minecraft uses a large array of fairly impressive shaders anyway so my personal think that the 3D effect in Minecraft is a little satirical joke.

 

There's no 3D option in Fatal Optimization planned, nor will I even try to implement one.

I'm blind in one eye. I'd not even be able to test it myself, and my wife can't see 3D without headaches. I'd rather people could actually see to navigate.

BTW, I'll be posting the newest screens from FO soon, there is actually progress and it will be on display at PlayOnCon in the US soon.

 

Again that's the huge difference between indie games and huge corporate outfits who continually find new gimmicks to push their BS rehashed products down our throats. Just give it enough time with disappointing sales and the 3D gimmick will disappear, making way for the next fad.

On the other hand, surround gaming has genuinely and legitimately changed my whole gaming experience and I'll never go back to a single display--can't say that much for 3D though...

 

So to be clear, we've had only two 'true' or native 3D games;Avatar and Crysis 2. The rest are 3D , as in works,kinda like forced AA, but not designed around 3D? BF3 will obviously join these two with its explicit 3d - rendering a unique frame for each eye. Until 3D makes full use of the z axis for ''in front of the camera' rendering, projectiles etc, won't really leap out.

 

Ive found that with avatar 3d , found it hard to focus on the pictures and dont remeber much about it being 3d apart from the odd bit , same with toy story 3 3d. i get eye strain watching the films does that mean 3d isnt for me?

 

Completely agree. I had the choice, go 3D or go surround. I chose surround and by god did I make the right choice. Obviously surround 3D is an option but I don't like playing all my games at the lowest detail settings and spending a grand on graphics cards each year

I'm not against 3D and quite like it when it's done right (very rarely so far) but until it's glasses free I really couldn't give a ****.

 

All this talk of 3D imagery, and no mention of the slide back to 2D sound...

 

Oh look, more anti-3D soapboxing from bit-tech. Why don't you guys let people decide for themselves about 3D and focus on some real content please? We get it, 3D is horrible lens flare gimmick AIDS and we will die if we use it. Now let's move on, please?

Oh and I find it hilarious how everyone who gets headaches from 3D therefore declares the whole concept to be inherently rubbish. Science has proven about 15% of people can't see in 3D - it's your brain that's defective, buddy. Don't expect anyone to admit that anytime soon though lest they bruise their own ego.

This whole anti-3d crusade is so incredibly tiresome considering it's COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. If you don't like it, don't use it. But all this incessant whining from all corners of the internet like 3D killed your sister really needs to stop...

 

Funny; I thought we were asking others for their opinions, rather than voicing our own. I also thought we heard from the other side of the industry in the two previous articles...

 

Still 4 articles left. Will be interesting to see what they cover.

(edited for clarity) The difference between a modding site like this creating articles on other tech that attracts all sorts of points of view, and a site like Meant To Be Seen that attracts 3D enthusiasts and creates articles based on 3D tech is pretty clear.

added:

I've just realised I've left myself open to nerd-rage. So, to clarify, I mean that Meant To Be Seen should be used for 3D enthusiasts, MacRumors for Apple, Bit-Tech for modding ... specialist sites for each requirement and then the reader is able to rejoice like a pig-in-mud with like-minded people. The danger is that the reader can get caught up in over-rejoicing ie. Cult of Mac. If you look at a site like T3, they aim at the casual geek market and are generally pro-tech. In their reviews you don't really hear them say that a type of tech doesn't work, you just get reviews and scores based on how well the item performs at that time given it's current limitations. So for example, if you really can't wait for anything better, then buy this product.

Ideally I want a tech site that combines Bit-Tech with T3. Unbiased 100% prime-geek reviews covering everything tech. Rather than have someone review a 3D related product who has always had the opinion of 3D not working, giving them headaches, uncomfortable glasses on top of their prescription lenses, feeling of nausea, motion sickness, etc - I want to see a review of 3D tech that says to me "Out of these 5 solutions for enjoying 3D, number 4 is the best. It has limitations, but for now if you want to experience 3D this is what you need.". That would be a review of 3D tech based at people who are interested in 3D tech, rather than "It gave me a headache, clearly 3D is not ready yet". Which fuels only people who don't 'get-it'.

added:

It will be interesting to see how much positivity is contained in the next 4 articles that is aimed at people who like 3D tech and are genuinely interested in it's progress ...

 

I disagree based on this article. They spoke to three devs and two of them said they couldn't see the 3D effect or it made them ill. That's like asking deaf and dumb people what they think of karaoke. Based on the responses they seem as (un)informed about 3D as any of us. They have not seen a benefit or a market so have not learned about what is involved.

3D gaming is in its infancy and I think it will probably develop and improve along with the display technology. I think Mirror's Edge would be the type of game that would be improved with 3D.

 

Yeah, I'm sorry, could have phrased that better, I sounded kind of hostile. I'm just sick of all this debate and the venom against 3D. If you don't like it, don't use it. I do appreciate your investigating the issue but again: 3D is entirely optional. So when it really comes down to it this "debate" is over nothing - I don't quite see the point in all this internet fussing over whether any particular individual thinks it is or isn't rubbish. And to me, bit-tech articles have indeed come across as having a clear editorial slant whether they were meant to or not.