Is 3D gaming the next step?

[Rob2600]

I posted this in another thread, but I'm curious to see what everyone thinks:

Now that 3D technology has been simplified and perfected in movies like Chicken Little, Monster House, The Nightmare before Christmas, and Meet the Robinsons, why not apply that same 3D technique to video games?

I saw Monster House and The Nightmare before Christmas and was impressed with how far 3D technology has come. To view the 3D effects in these movies, all I needed to wear was a simple pair of lightweight plastic glasses...no goggles, helmets, or headsets. The 3D effects were quite convincing throughout and were particularly dramatic in several scenes.

Is there a reason why this can't be the future of video gaming? Imagine if Nintendo's next console came with a simple pair of 3D glasses. Getting to play a new F-Zero, Metroid, Super Mario, or Legend of Zelda game in 3D would be exciting.

[diskoboy]

To paraphrase South Park:

"Sega's already done it."

Sega used the same technology that is currently used in theaters.... Two seperate pictures are shown side by side on a special screen, one for each eye. the lens in one eye tuns completely black, while the other stays open. Then vice versa.... Played at normal speed, it creates the illusion of depth. That process is known as polarized or Field sequential 3-D.

the red/blue process is known as analaglyph (sp?). And it hurts peoples eyes after a while. That version of 3-D is way out of date.

Segascope was what lured me over to the SMS, and the effect was done quite well. The only thing is, they need to start doing (depth) 3-D with disposable glasses, like the ones at theaters. The 3-D goggles that are currently out there, are just too expensive.

[Rob2600]

Sega's already done it. ... The only thing is, they need to start doing (depth) 3-D with disposable glasses, like the ones at theaters. The 3-D goggles that are currently out there, are just too expensive.

That's my point: the technology has been simplified and perfected so that now, instead of wearing expensive electronic goggles like back in the Sega Master System days, we just have to wear simple cheap plastic glasses. The effect is just as good now.

The glasses are so inexpensive that I don't understand why game developers aren't already applying 3D technology to their games and including a pair of glasses with them. I think it'd be a fun addition, especially in racing games and first-person shooters. 2D and 2.5D games would look cool, too.

How much longer do you think it'll be before 3D catches on in video games and becomes standard, if ever?

[Trebuken]

This generation of gaming is showing how far creativity can go, and that providing new gaming experiences can go. Nintendo is leading the charge with their controller.

I would imagine we'll see this sort of 3D in five to ten years. They could certainly do something now but it would not approach the clarity of say Monster House. The cost of producing it would be large as well.

That's my expectation anyways. More processing power and lower developement costs are what is needed before it can happen effectively; 'the way we imagine it'.

[diskoboy]

How much longer do you think it'll be before 3D catches on in video games and becomes standard, if ever?

I don't think it will really be a standard. I think 3-D with actual depth, will always be just a novelty.

[CartCollector]

The disposable glasses require a special projector and can't be used with a CRT/LCD/Plasma/etc.

[Lord_Magus]

heh... for a split second there after reading the title, I thought this topic had traveled here in time from the pre-PS1 days or something :)

Anyway... As Discoboy already explained, this technology basically feeds us two separate images (one for each eye) at a high frequency. This "tricks" our minds, and the 3D illusion is born.

However, the main problem with creating an artificial 3D image in this aspect is that because it isn't natural, the mind and eyes need to compensate by working overtime to process it, which can become tiring after a short viewing. I actually started working on a project/game using a variation of this technique a while ago, but dropped it before I got too far for this exact reason: the eyes just get too strained after a while. (and this is coming from a person who has near-perfect eyesight and can sit through a 6 hour gaming session without even blinking :) )

The thing is that when you're watching a movie on a huge screen in an IMAX theater (or similar), the 3D image covers your field of vision almost entirely - after a short while you can adapt to this, which makes the whole experience much more tolerable. However, if you do the same thing on a small TV in your living room, you will get tired very soon, because the eyes need to process both the "artificial" 3D coming from the screen, and the "natural" 3D coming from everything else around it. This is somewhat similar to what happens when one views 3D autostereograms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram): while you're looking at them everything seems fine, but after you re-adjust to your "normal" viewing you can really feel the strain on your eyes.

Another problem (out of many) for this technology is that the main point of focus is predetermined by the image itself - the objects aren't actually truly 3D, and thus when we try to have a closer look at that nice fish seemingly swimming right in front of us, the change in our eyes' focus means the 3D illusion is mostly lost. Furthermore, focusing on objects according to their distance is something we instinctively do, but when we try to do so while watching an artificially created 3D image it leads to (yep) even more eye-strain and headaches.

Some people don't have a huge problem with this, but I think that the amount of people that actually do are enough to prevent a technology like this from becoming mainstream. So until developers/hardware manufacturers find a way to feed a "natural" 3D image to our minds, we're stuck with 3D-like games on a 2D screen (which in my opinion still have a loooong way to go before they reach their full potential anyway) ...

[diskoboy]

The disposable glasses require a special projector and can't be used with a CRT/LCD/Plasma/etc.

Exactly.

But there has to be a way it can be done without having to sync the picture and glasses up electronically. Especially with the technology we have now.

I'm sure it could be done...

[cyberfluxor]

The thing is that when you're watching a movie on a huge screen in an IMAX theater (or similar), the 3D image covers your field of vision almost entirely - after a short while you can adapt to this, which makes the whole experience much more tolerable. However, if you do the same thing on a small TV in your living room, you will get tired very soon, because the eyes need to process both the "artificial" 3D coming from the screen, and the "natural" 3D coming from everything else around it. This is somewhat similar to what happens when one views 3D autostereograms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram): while you're looking at them everything seems fine, but after you re-adjust to your "normal" viewing you can really feel the strain on your eyes.
You're evil. I began reading off-tangent wiki entries into some crap about cross-eyed photos and my brain began to hurt.

[diskoboy]

You're evil. I began reading off-tangent wiki entries into some crap about cross-eyed photos and my brain began to hurt.

That was similar to how the 3-D effect was achieved on the Virtual Boy. (just 2 moving or still images both with the perspective's moved about half an inch apart - not the 'magic 3-D' effect like on those old posters..)

Hence the eyestrain.

(I used to be obsessed with 3-D movies when I was a kid, if you guys haven't figured that out by now... :) )

[Icarus Moonsight]

Video games being an audio, visual and tactile sensory experience it's only logical to enhance these aspects. Then so is exploring other senses such as smell and taste or even other methods of interactivity like say, machine-mind interface. Tin foil hats are at the ready!

[Rob2600]

Video games being an audio, visual and tactile sensory experience it's only logical to enhance these aspects.

I figure we already have 3D sound, why not 3D visuals, too?

Would we really need a special projector to view images in 3D? Can't a powerful video game console output two slightly different images and alternate them very quickly on a standard TV?

[Rob2600]

As Discoboy already explained, this technology basically feeds us two separate images (one for each eye) at a high frequency. This "tricks" our minds, and the 3D illusion is born.

However, the main problem with creating an artificial 3D image in this aspect is that because it isn't natural, the mind and eyes need to compensate by working overtime to process it, which can become tiring after a short viewing. ... Some people don't have a huge problem with this, but I think that the amount of people that actually do are enough to prevent a technology like this from becoming mainstream.

Good point. Perhaps the solution would be to make the 3D mode an option in games that can be enabled or disabled, just like in Rad Racer back in 1987, except now the effect would actually work.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'm thinking there could be a few bottlenecks with 3d visuals on consumer sets. Refresh and signal band come to mind. Perhaps HD sets could handle the task but, I don't know. Would be neat IF it's even possible.

[Jorpho]

Remember that thing ABC and NBC did a few years ago, where they included 3D in a few episodes of their sitcoms? 3rd Rock from the Sun, Home Improvement, and Spin City are the ones I recall doing it, though the glasses (and the special broadcasts) weren't available here in Canada. That was a sort of 3D that worked with a standard CRT, apparently.

Still, it would be kind of gimmicky to include that in a game.

[FantasiaWHT]

Anyone ever use a 3-D method of viewing a topographic map? In middle school I remember doing that, and it didn't involve red/blue or rapidly strobing images... just a special set of glasses set a specific focal length above the map. Anyway something like that could be used in video games?

[Rob2600]

Anyone ever use a 3-D method of viewing a topographic map? In middle school I remember doing that, and it didn't involve red/blue or rapidly strobing images... just a special set of glasses set a specific focal length above the map. Anyway something like that could be used in video games?

I'm not familiar with what you're describing, but it sounds interesting. I think a simple, cheap pair of polarized 3D glasses is still the way to go though. In terms of user experience, it's as easy, straightforward, inexpensive, and foolproof as 3D viewing can get.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Glory Days 2 on the DS was supposed to ship with a pair of 3D glasses, but it didn't. It was supposed to use a type of 3D that may be what FantasiaWHT is descibing. Apparently, the image would look totally normal without the 3D glasses, but if you put them on, you get a 3D sense. I don't know how good that 3D is, though. It's possible that that stuff is still built into the game and they just didn't include the glasses. You should be able to recreate this type of 3D glasses by just popping one lens out of a pair of sunglasses, so I should try it in the game and see if it still works. I don't have any sunglasses, though.

I'd love to see 3D get used more in games (especially console games, I'm not sure I see the point in handheld games like Glory Days 2). I think the same technology used on the Master System would be perfect. It would probbaly be even more ffective today (the original Master System glasses often didn't darken 100% so you were left with a bit of a ghost image that could ruin the 3D effect) and that certainly wouldn't be too expensive or too difficult to implement.

It would surprise me if this actually happened, though.


...word is bondage...