Spring RTS Engine

It seems like a safe bet that it'll actually use a real 3D display and no camera cheating method. Actually it probably is going to be Sharp's new 3D display:

http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/100402.html

Cheating? If it looks like it has depth how is that cheating?

Because if your playing a harry potter game and cant crawl through the display to escape the real world then its obviously cheating at 3d

It's cheating in terms of giving the illusion of 3D on a standard 2D display by estimating the viewer's position and adjusting the "camera" position of the game according to that. It's different from how a "real 3D display" works. I didn't do any critics on the quality / value of both approaches...

Master-Athmos wrote:It's cheating in terms of giving the illusion of 3D on a standard 2D display

Learn about the advantages of a "real" 3D display for yourself then and how it's different from the camera approach...

bullshit

there is no "real 3d display". There are stereoscopic displays.. and there are other tricks which give the illusion of 3d. A "Real 3d" display would generate a 3d model taking up real space in the real 3d world.. currently these displays only exist in the realm of science fiction with perhaps the occasional tech demo giving a glimpse of what may be possible someday.

Real 3D display = look out of the window

What? Wolfenstein 3D wasn't in 3D?

consider the implications:

stereoscopic vision: gives depth perception

this new idea (whatever its called). no stereoscopic depth perception.. but you can move your head to look behind things on the screen or turn the screen to look at an object from a different angle just as if you were rotating the object in your hands.

This could actually have gameplay implications while stereoscopic vision is a mere gimic in comparison.

Master-Athmos wrote:It's cheating in terms of giving the illusion of 3D on a standard 2D display by estimating the viewer's position and adjusting the "camera" position of the game according to that. It's different from how a "real 3D display" works. I didn't do any critics on the quality / value of both approaches...

Yeah, this. It's not actually displaying a different image to each eye. It's just creating the illusion of having a "window" by using head-tracking to display depending on head's position.

I'd wager it will feel confusing, since objects will move relative to your head like they're in 3D, but will appear in 2D.

In short: it will look like 3D if you have only 1 eye.

the human brain has no problem reading a 3d representation from a 2d image. Watching tv is not confusing. When the camera rotates around an object there is not the slightest problem from tv to eye to brain.

matrix "bullet time" doesn't sound like much, but the effect is quite remarkable. Why would having control of the position of the camera make it any more confusing?

momfreeek wrote:the human brain has no problem reading a 3d representation from a 2d image.

Only the male human brain, they did studies...

"Gimmick" is a word gamers have been conditioned to believe can apply to anything that is out of the ordinary. Think about the number of things you've heard about that have been called gimmicks. Natal? Gimmick. Wii? Gimmick. PS Eye? Gimmick. Motion control? Gimmick. Thinner and lighter console revisions? Gimmick. High color depth? Gimmick. PS Move controller? Gimmick. Surround sound? Gimmick. HDTV? Gimmick. 1080p vs 1080i? Gimmick. Rumble? Gimmick. Netbooks? Gimmick. Touchscreens? Gimmick. Macro keys? Gimmick. Extra mouse buttons? Gimmick. Illuminated keyboards? Gimmick. Bloom? Gimmick. HDR? Gimmick. Motion blur? Gimmick. Multiple displays? Gimmick. 3D displays? Gimmick.

For goodness sake people, "gimmick" can be literally translated as "something we've never seen done effectively before". It's the word that companies apply to their competitors' products if it's something they don't have. Normally I wouldn't think it odd that an unusual features is being called a gimmick, but nobody here has even SEEN an autostereoscopic display, whether implemented in a good way or bad.

What I've read on the subject is that it seems to work quite well, although it has limitations on where you have to hold the display relative to your eyes - which, being a handheld, isn't such a big deal.

3D displays enhance immersion. Let's say they enhance immersion by just 10%. Do you want to NOT have that, just to show the world how unnecessary 3D technology is? Well that's fine, since the 3D effect is switchable. But like surround sound, rumble, motion control, touchscreen control, extra buttons, dual screens, and many other technologies, it can and will add a little bit more to your experience assuming it's properly done.

What's more, implementing 3D rather than just throwing even more extra processing power into the 3DS means that games will still be cheaper to develop than on competing systems. 3D is basically driver-level, it requires very little if any extra work on the part of the developer, and in exchange the games look better and feel more immersive.

What have we really been working on all these years? Since 1994 when I first played Descent, everything in computer gaming has been working towards better immersion. If you can overcome the "more shaders = better" programming you've been taught is absolute, you will realize that immersion doesn't just mean how shiny something is, it's how lifelike and real it is. 3D isn't the greatest thing ever, and probably a year or two down the road Nintendo will release one with a screen that does the effect better. But regardless, shunning a new technology you've never seen just because you can is ridiculous.

The end of it all is this: high-end consoles are, in my opinion, killing gaming. Without something like the DS - a system that's cheap to develop for, where expectations aren't high to begin with - you are going to see nothing but more of the same. You all know what I'm talking about. Sequels, brown, testosterone, Halo, CoD 8372, ... it's ****ing depressing.

But now the DS has had its day, people have higher standards, 3D-everything is the latest trend, and Nintendo isn't screwing around, they've surprised everyone with a device that's got two cameras, a gyro, two high-res glasses-less 3D touchscreens, built-in rumble, longer battery life, and a SoC that's more powerful than their actual home console, and we haven't even necessarily heard everything there is yet. Backwards compatible to boot. Your move, Apple, Sony, Microsoft.

I have a stereoscopic 3D display as my primary monitor. It's far from perfect, but it was inexpensive and provides great fun. It's a very enjoyable gimmick. Plus, no batteries required.

I had a pair of active shutter glasses at one point, paired with my old 19" CRT. I'd still be using them, but keeping my FPS at 45-60 is hard enough, getting it to 120 for a proper experience on any modern game would be... forget about it.

@ Caydr

As a Wii owner who has seen a fair bit of the breadth of the game design that motion control offers:

Yes, it's a gimmick. The stylus on the DS isn't, nor is the pointing device on the wiimotes... but the motion control? Definitely.

@ Caydr

momfreeek wrote:This could actually have gameplay implications while stereoscopic vision is a mere gimic in comparison.

what I meant was:

momfreeek wrote:This could have gameplay implications which would make stereoscopic vision seem a mere gimmick.

no-one called 3D a gimmick.

Pxtl wrote:As a Wii owner who has seen a fair bit of the breadth of the game design that motion control offers:

Yes, it's a gimmick. The stylus on the DS isn't, nor is the pointing device on the wiimotes... but the motion control? Definitely.

Ah-ah-ah, I said "well-implemented"... I think. Didn't I say that? Anyway...

TBH I don't consider first-gen wiimote control to be well-implemented. However it's not strictly a hardware limitation, developers aren't implementing the already-limited functionality very well at all, even more recently.

It's very much a similar story to the way that stylus control, dual screens, and pretty much everything to do with the DS was an orgy of fail until developers figured out the right and wrong ways of doing things.

The trouble with motion control is that, unlike with the DS where developers figured out early on that making people blow on the mic for every action or some stupid shit like that was a bad idea, Wii developers for whatever reason still think they need to implement motion control in every obnoxious way possible.

There are examples of good motion control though. I liked the way you could tilt your controller in NSMB:Wii to rotate platforms, for example. People liked it in Punch-Out (I'm waiting for the price to drop still), Boom Blox, No More Heroes, Red Steel, etc.

I think the problem is just one of accuracy, which Natal is supposed to address. The PS3... "thing" is supposed to be much more accurate as well, and with motionplus, Wiimotes are quite good as well. But I don't think it will be until the next full console generation that motion control really becomes something more than an irritation 90% of the time, since it will be a standard feature by then that developers can count on always being available and highly accurate.