PDA

View Full Version : [suggestion] Starcraft 2 in 3D?



horror
01-23-2010, 06:59 AM
With the release of Avatar, and 2 feature length films to follow, 3D is making a comeback.
Would 3D work for Sartcraft 2?

3D is the New Waggle (http://au.wii.ign.com/articles/106/1060992p1.html)

This article is from IGN, about the rise in 3D technology for home entertainment systems, although the cons outweigh the pros. But, upon reading this, the most complained about downside was the extra pair of goggles a player would don, and that the extra clunkiness would take away the realism to an adventure and make the player look stupid in front of onlookers.

Now, I'm sure that many of you computer wizards, like me, don't have 20 people watching you play games (or more importantly, care about 20 people watching you play games, with dorky glasses on). As to the realism, I'm sure goggles, added to the headphones and microphone, would just complete the headset and make you the commander you always wanted to be.

This is probably a dumb topic, but with the drought of posts/topics, I thought I'd have my first stab at a thread.

PhanttoM
01-23-2010, 07:42 AM
According to the NVIDIA 3D Vision list (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_3D_Games.html), there are quite a few games that already support 3D.
People just don't have the 3d glasses or the 120 Hz monitors nessesary for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Starcraft 2 made it on the list.

I see many people calling 3D "just a gimmick" in a negative way.
I agree that as it is right now, it is just a visual gimmick. But lets remember, so is "better graphics" - It may not add anything to gameplay, but it will look cool.

Edfishy
01-23-2010, 08:11 AM
http://mtbs3d.com/images/newsite/logo2.jpg
(www.mtbs3d.com)
Meant To Be Seen 3D (http://www.mtbs3d.com/) is a great website to learn about the stereographic 3D (or S-3D) technology in video games, as well as get tips on the proper settings and eye-wear. The owner of the website keeps up to speed on the latest in the technology and does regular reviews of games that support S-3D technology, reviewing not only just the game but also how well the developers used S-3D within the game.

If you have some anaglyphic (Red/Blue) glasses (poor man's stereo 3D), you can watch some of their YouTube videos of the games running in S-3D, or download the "sView" application to view hi-res screenshots.

From personal experience, I found that the S-3D gets more "wow" factor from first/third person games, but in an RTS game like Company of Heroes the added depth can actually impact your tactical decisions in a very good way. Now, StarCraft 2 does not include as dynamic terrain or as much in-game realism as CoH to have depth terribly effect your game strategy in S-3D, but it may help to easily distinguish all those bunched up units a bit easier.

Interesting to note: big game developers had actually begun to really start supporting S-3D in the past year or two (before "Avatar" put the technology on the map) with games such as Resident Evil 5, Arkham's Asylum, H.A.W.X., and Left 4 Dead getting attention for any coding artifacts that may occur with the technology. Resident Evil 5 even had its cinematics rendered in both 'normal' and S-3D in anticipation of users using the technology more in the near future. Imagine if StarCraft 2's cinematics got the same treatment?

I've been a big proponent of S-3D for years now, and even though there are some glaring issues with the technology, I'm not seeing putting on the eyeware any less cumbersome or silly-looking then putting on some good gaming headphones. Both simply enhance your in-game perception (3D sound, 3D depth) and in my opinion is well worth it.

In anycase a race is on to develop an eyeware and sweetspot-free version of the technology. Only a matter of time.

Gradius
01-23-2010, 10:14 AM
Story Mode in S-3D would be so amazing. And what about colossi stepping over cliffs?

ArcherofAiur
01-23-2010, 12:01 PM
We had a thread on this over at TL. If you have the hardware (graphics chip, monitor, glasses). Then you will be able to play Starcraft in 3d.



Now if you could only get a 100 foot screen and Imax surround sound :p

The_Blade
01-23-2010, 12:07 PM
Well, there are some new computers being developed by a group of students. They are basically tables that support touch and voice, yet they are aiming for real 3d graphics. This guys play warcraft, sooo... Guess they might work in inspiration of RTS games.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LXAqdh4-hcw&hl=es_MX&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LXAqdh4-hcw&hl=es_MX&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>The video is quite primitive, yet this program went even farther as people started to donate.

I haven't followed the progarm lately (a year or so), yet Microsoft started working on their own softwares. Even if the first program was canceled, Microsoft should support this RTS gaming technology.

TheEconomist
01-23-2010, 12:10 PM
All nVIDIA has to do is implement StarCraft 2 3D in their drivers. Blizzard doesn't have to do anything (other than give them some simple support if they need it).

Basically, it will be done.

Norfindel
01-23-2010, 12:19 PM
I wonder why are 120 Hz monitors necessary, if cinema has only 24 frames per second.

MattII
01-23-2010, 12:35 PM
I'm not sure I understand it totally, but the article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate) provides an explanation.

GnaReffotsirk
01-23-2010, 12:45 PM
Well, there are some new computers being developed by a group of students. They are basically tables that support touch and voice, yet they are aiming for real 3d graphics. This guys play warcraft, sooo... Guess they might work in inspiration of RTS games.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LXAqdh4-hcw&hl=es_MX&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LXAqdh4-hcw&hl=es_MX&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>The video is quite primitive, yet this program went even farther as people started to donate.

I haven't followed the progarm lately (a year or so), yet Microsoft started working on their own softwares. Even if the first program was canceled, Microsoft should support this RTS gaming technology.

I always thought of this a scam. They use a projector, and their "table" just assigns mouse movements. I gave up the fight as soon as there wasn't much to support my claim even to myself. But since multi-touch is there, I'd assume these guys have fallen behind the race.

All I'm saying is that they don't have to do things from scratch at this point.

On-topic, it seems this tech is yet too expensive and cumbersome. But it's a step to far greater things. I would rather have my RTS played in a totally virtual world, but that could be 30 to 50 years from now.

And that brain-to-game interaction could prove both enjoyable and stimulating when applied to RTS gaming.

Just keep the codes locked from responding to "I need more coffee" commands though. :D

RedPineApple
01-23-2010, 12:55 PM
Well,

I think SC2 in 3D would be pretty neat if it was properly enhanced in a manner that would benefit an RTS.

As far as 3D goes..
There will come a point within the next decade or two where graphical development is going to hit a wall. The only way designers are going to be able to enhance the game beyond that is going to be in both interaction and perspective (3D, 360 degree immersion, etc.) So I think it is safe to assume that we have only scraped the surface of 3D in gaming.

Norfindel
01-23-2010, 01:40 PM
I'm not sure I understand it totally, but the article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate) provides an explanation.
The motion blur stuff is the more convincing reason.
Still, i think they're are being too restrictive by choosing 120 Hz displays only.
3D "halves" the framerate, and most LCD displays only support up to 60 Hz or 75 Hz. That means 30 to 37.5 fps 3D on most of today's monitors. I think that's ok for "standard" players, even if some people only settles for the best, and won't accept less than 60 fps.

TheEconomist
01-23-2010, 01:44 PM
Believe me, if they could make 3D work on these more widely used monitors then they would. They're missing out on an enormous amount of product share and profit. They would not do this if there wasn't a good reason.

Brutaxilos
01-23-2010, 02:28 PM
i would love to see cinematics in 3d ;D

Pandonetho
01-23-2010, 03:13 PM
I have a computer that can support 3D, and I have Battlefield 2 (which says is supported in 3D). And I have a pair of 3D glasses that I got from the theaters after watching Avatar.

How do I enable 3D mode? Or do I have to buy a new copy of the game? Since I bought it in 2005. I'm really curious to see how playing in 3D would be like.

Crazy_Jonny
01-23-2010, 04:14 PM
3D is probably something I would never use for StarCraft 2, but it would be interesting to see it implemented into a RTS (has that ever been done before?).

ArcherofAiur
01-23-2010, 04:15 PM
3D is probably something I would never use for StarCraft 2, but it would be interesting to see it implemented into a RTS (has that ever been done before?).

Yes you can play WC3 in 3D.

Crazy_Jonny
01-23-2010, 04:37 PM
Yes you can play WC3 in 3D.

Orly, then I don't see why you can't play SC2 in 3D.

TheEconomist
01-23-2010, 06:41 PM
I have a computer that can support 3D, and I have Battlefield 2 (which says is supported in 3D). And I have a pair of 3D glasses that I got from the theaters after watching Avatar.

How do I enable 3D mode? Or do I have to buy a new copy of the game? Since I bought it in 2005. I'm really curious to see how playing in 3D would be like.

You need 200$ nVidia glasses. Those movie theater glasses won't work. This is entirely different technology.

Also, you'll need a 120Hz monitor; not just a good computer.

Zahar
01-23-2010, 08:51 PM
According to the NVIDIA 3D Vision list (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_3D_Games.html), there are quite a few games that already support 3D.
People just don't have the 3d glasses or the 120 Hz monitors nessesary for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Starcraft 2 made it on the list.

I see many people calling 3D "just a gimmick" in a negative way.
I agree that as it is right now, it is just a visual gimmick. But lets remember, so is "better graphics" - It may not add anything to gameplay, but it will look cool.

Agreed, using that logic VGAs are just a gimmick. Let's all just play text games or, at best, Supreme Commander all the way zoomed back.

I have Nvidia 3d vision. A lot of games have problems because they where not developed with it in mind (2d objects are specially annoying because they are always on the wrong plane). But in the games that run it well it's very interesting.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 is being developed with it in mind. I'd not be surprised if more and more games followed the trend. It doesn't damage the game for people that doesn't use a 3d device at all and it nicer for people that care about the visual presentation or VIDEOgames :)

Edfishy
01-23-2010, 08:54 PM
Using the nVidia stereo drivers (available at www.nvidia.com) you can give the 3D thing a shot using anaglyphic Red/Blue glasses in most games.

What you'll quickly find though is that since most older games weren't designed with S-3D in mind, you get things like reticules right in front of your face, or UI elements in uncomfortable positions. You'll also get a headache after 20 minutes of gameplay, so it's definitely more for the fun of it with Red/Blue anaglyphic glasses then anything else.

Gifted
01-23-2010, 09:14 PM
From what I remember, I remember them talking about SC2 being available in Stereoscopic vision (pardon spelling or even an incorrect word) This may actually be cohesive to allow 3d to be played.

Xyvik
01-23-2010, 11:13 PM
at the moment 3D gaming is only an overpriced gimmick heralded by nVidia, a company I refuse to support in any manner, shape, or form.

To put it bluntly, 3D hasn't even fully taken off in movies yet, where they have the big budget. Avatar gave me a headache half-way through and I'm going to rest my eyes before I venture out to see it again (if I do). 3D isn't going to add anything to gaming for a long time for the simple reason that, just right now, DX11 hasn't really added anything to gaming. Sure, AvP will help with that (tesselation on the alien models, for starters) but we are a LONG way from 3D.

Also to put it bluntly, there's nowhere near enough reason to have 3D in SC2. All it will do is make the cinematics look pretty. SC2 is lacking in the full strategic depth to make 3D depth worthwhile. A game like Supreme Commander could conceivably make use of 3D, but even then that would be limited. The game would have to be designed from the ground up to utilize 3D, and -then- it would make sense to put it in an RTS.

Do I like the idea? sure do! Plotting strategies based on realistic 3D terrain and having units that react in real 3D way, such as a 3D Homeworld, would be beautiful.

There's just no real place for it in SC2, except as eyecandy. And there's no way in hades I'm paying nVidia for eyecandy.

Pandonetho
01-24-2010, 12:34 AM
Avatar gave me a headache half-way through

Avatar gave me a headache 10 minutes in.

ArcherofAiur
01-24-2010, 12:37 AM
Avatar gave me a hard#$

Nicol Bolas
01-24-2010, 03:03 AM
Agreed, using that logic VGAs are just a gimmick. Let's all just play text games or, at best, Supreme Commander all the way zoomed back.

Nonsense. There are legitimate reasons to hate this "3D" nonsense.

1: It's a brutal hack, and it shows. It doesn't look that good. It's not particularly convincing of an effect.

2: It's falls on its ass the minute your framerate drops below 120. A frame drop or two, and suddenly the effect is broken.

3: It is physically painful to many people.

I'm all for 3D displays. But only real, legitimate 3D displays. No glasses tricks. Nothing like that. Project a 3D image that I can see from various angles and see around.

Until we get something real, I don't want to hear about it.

horror
01-24-2010, 04:42 AM
Story Mode in S-3D would be so amazing. And what about colossi stepping over cliffs?

The original idea was for the effect of colossi and reapers to look super cool jumping cliffs :cool:, and watching your base after you hear "nuke detected", and seeing a missile come from the sky and fall :cooler:


I wonder why are 120 Hz monitors necessary, if cinema has only 24 frames per second.

only certain cinemas show 3D in non-anaglyphical formats. There are different projectors used, that polarizes the light.


Believe me, if they could make 3D work on these more widely used monitors then they would. They're missing out on an enormous amount of product share and profit. They would not do this if there wasn't a good reason.

uhh, that's why it's till in development by groups like Sony...


What you'll quickly find though is that since most older games weren't designed with S-3D in mind, you get things like reticules right in front of your face, or UI elements in uncomfortable positions. You'll also get a headache after 20 minutes of gameplay, so it's definitely more for the fun of it with Red/Blue anaglyphic glasses then anything else.

It only gives you a headache because of the polarization. I think.
Polarised 3D Glasses (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized_3D_glasses)


at the moment 3D gaming is only an overpriced gimmick heralded by nVidia, a company I refuse to support in any manner, shape, or form.

To put it bluntly, 3D hasn't even fully taken off in movies yet, where they have the big budget. Avatar gave me a headache half-way through and I'm going to rest my eyes before I venture out to see it again (if I do). 3D isn't going to add anything to gaming for a long time for the simple reason that, just right now, DX11 hasn't really added anything to gaming. Sure, AvP will help with that (tesselation on the alien models, for starters) but we are a LONG way from 3D.

Also to put it bluntly, there's nowhere near enough reason to have 3D in SC2. All it will do is make the cinematics look pretty. SC2 is lacking in the full strategic depth to make 3D depth worthwhile. A game like Supreme Commander could conceivably make use of 3D, but even then that would be limited. The game would have to be designed from the ground up to utilize 3D, and -then- it would make sense to put it in an RTS.

Do I like the idea? sure do! Plotting strategies based on realistic 3D terrain and having units that react in real 3D way, such as a 3D Homeworld, would be beautiful.

There's just no real place for it in SC2, except as eyecandy. And there's no way in hades I'm paying nVidia for eyecandy.

saying 3D hasn't taken off yet is like saying tv never took off 50 years back. Which it didn't. Yet. Polarised 3D with plastic glasses isn't good because of the cheaply made glasses. The actual I-Max 3D glasses are durable. imagine the first televisions made with materials used today. they'd probably fall to bits.

You're right in saying all 3D will do is make the game look pretty. But by saying that, you may as well port Starcraft 2 to your Super NES. Hey, all a computer's gonna do is make your game look prettier. And don't come telling me how much better the new infestor model looks compared to the old model.

practically, that's all 3D is. Eyecandy.
Also, for the record, when I started this thread, I wasn't talking about nVidia or some other 3rd party developer slapping their crappy patches to my kick-arse game, i was going for something on the lines of Blizzard releasing a patch in the next, say, 5 years (possibly Starcraft 2's release), or adding the feature to starcraft 3 (ha, by the time that comes out, you'll be able to taste the game). Anything not made by Blizzard would be tacky, and Blizzard making it a last minute decision would be tacky. When i started this thread, i had envisioned Blizzard building features from the ground up for 3D, and taking as long as they do to get it "just right" as the would-be motto goes.


Nonsense. There are legitimate reasons to hate this "3D" nonsense.

1: It's a brutal hack, and it shows. It doesn't look that good. It's not particularly convincing of an effect.

2: It's falls on its ass the minute your framerate drops below 120. A frame drop or two, and suddenly the effect is broken.

3: It is physically painful to many people.

I'm all for 3D displays. But only real, legitimate 3D displays. No glasses tricks. Nothing like that. Project a 3D image that I can see from various angles and see around.

Until we get something real, I don't want to hear about it.

To answer your argument:

1: The technology is still growing, and will continue to grow for the rest of civilization, just like tv

2: mhm, just like every other 2d game. "Hey there was a glitch, and super mario went through the wall. OMG what do you mean, super mario's not real?"

3:The technology is still growing, and will continue to grow for the rest of civilization, just like tv

I copy pasted 1 and 3, because they were generally the same

And lastly, Nic, if you can prove to me that they'll ever be able to project an image that's the real 3D deal in the next 1,000 years, without glasses tricks, or anything like that, you can take me out to dinner. For free. It's virtually impossible to create a 2D image that's actually 3D. It's contradictory.
Project a 3D image that you can see from various angles and see around? only one place you'll get that dude, and it's called real life.



Peace out :)

Zahar
01-24-2010, 06:29 AM
Nonsense. There are legitimate reasons to hate this "3D" nonsense.

1: It's a brutal hack, and it shows. It doesn't look that good. It's not particularly convincing of an effect.

2: It's falls on its ass the minute your framerate drops below 120. A frame drop or two, and suddenly the effect is broken.

3: It is physically painful to many people.

I'm all for 3D displays. But only real, legitimate 3D displays. No glasses tricks. Nothing like that. Project a 3D image that I can see from various angles and see around.

Until we get something real, I don't want to hear about it.

1 - It's pretty good on games that run well with it. It's a matter of compatibility really, some stuff (as 2d images) completely ruin the experience because they appear on the wrong plan, but that's because they where made without 3d in mind. The 3d part of the games usualy works like a charm. You should try Dawn of War 2 with them, it looks so bland without in comparisson that I can no longer play it without the glasses. Mass Effect 1 is also beautiful, but the 2d objects are really boring because they appear in the center of the screen and are bright (targeting system and item popup circle are 2d objects). It feels VERY 3d tough.

2 - It's not that hard to run. I have a somewhat modest system (my VGA is still a Geforce 8800GTX) and Modern Warfare 2 runs flawlessly in 3d. Fallout 3 looks great but suffers major framerate drop. It really depends on the game code, and games that fully support it will probably run smooth. Battlefield Bad Company is being build to support it and I can't wait to fly a helicopter in 3d. It's possible I'll have to upgrade my system to play newer games on 3d tough, because it does cause a framerate drop. Not that I'd not buy a DX11 VGA when nvidia launched one anyway, so...

3 - It tires me more than the "normal" monitor, but not that much. I played for 4, maybe 5 hours the day I bought it and I never reached the "headache" level, just minor disconfort. Mind you, 5 hours. Never felt a thing playing 3 hours straight. It's personal tough. The documentation (of the product and in research material) says it becomes more and more confortable as your eye muscles get more used to the focus shifts at new ranges you are not used to.

3d without glasses? I hope you can live many, many years. Holograms are not gonna happen for a long time.

IT's not perfect, but works really well. Once most games are compatible, playing without it will be exactly like playing in an old computer with a sucky VGA - of course, you can still play everything, but without the eye candy. And for some reason a lot of people seem to hate eye candy, so they can have fun that way.

Me? I want all the candy I can have. And the fact that blockbuster movies are being launched in 3d and making huge money proves a lot of people agree with my taste for candy. :)

Norfindel
01-24-2010, 07:49 AM
It's not a brutal hack, it's just showing each eye what it needs to see. One of the things that cause headaches (cutscenes to different dephts) aren't so frequent in games, and a game designed for 3D could have less of them. It would be very interesting for games in 1st person perspective.


It only gives you a headache because of the polarization. I think.
Polarised 3D Glasses (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized_3D_glasses)
From what i readed, there seems to be two main motives:
- Scene changes with different dephts.
- Rotation without head movement.

Those make your brain wonder WTF is going on :p

Polarization has nothing to do with it. There are polarized sunglases out there, and you can use them all day without any ill effects.

.

PhanttoM
01-24-2010, 08:01 AM
I see many people calling 3D "just a gimmick" in a negative way.
I agree that as it is right now, it is just a visual gimmick. But lets remember, so is "better graphics" - It may not add anything to gameplay, but it will look cool.

Despite having said the above:
I'll have to admit that I haven't even cared about HD (blu-ray) until now, simply because higher resolution movies falls under what I'd call "eyecandy/gimmick" - which is something that falls into a lower priority.

But the way I see it now, I'll be getting + 2x eyecandyness instead of just one.

It is a very very small, but necessary step towards "true 3D".
Frankly I'm more interested in seeing big curved PC monitors for peripheral vision. (Like what you currently can do with 3 monitors and ATI eyefinity)

***EDIT***
ATI eyefinity + 3D vision.....mwuahaha!!

Edfishy
01-24-2010, 09:38 AM
What you'll quickly find though is that since most older games weren't designed with S-3D in mind, you get things like reticules right in front of your face, or UI elements in uncomfortable positions. You'll also get a headache after 20 minutes of gameplay, so it's definitely more for the fun of it with Red/Blue anaglyphic glasses then anything else.
It only gives you a headache because of the polarization. I think.

I was referring to the red/blue glasses giving you a headache, not the LCD shutter / polarized. :)

Xyvik
01-24-2010, 04:16 PM
***EDIT***
ATI eyefinity + 3D vision.....mwuahaha!!

Now THAT is something I would pay for...considering I already have Eyefinity...mmm...

Yeah, I like eyecandy. I also like functionality. 3D RTSs, if made improperly, could actually DISTRACT from the strategy. If made properly, the 3D would be involved in the strategy. See the difference?

Nicol Bolas
01-24-2010, 06:17 PM
1: The technology is still growing, and will continue to grow for the rest of civilization, just like tv

No, it won't. It's a crappy idea. It will not develop and improve. It will be replaced by something that actually works.


2: mhm, just like every other 2d game. "Hey there was a glitch, and super mario went through the wall. OMG what do you mean, super mario's not real?"

What? You're comparing a gameplay glitch that kills you to a graphics glitch that absolutely destroys the illusion it's trying to create. Especially when the gameplay glitch is a known, fixable bug that affects everyone equally, while the graphics hiccup only affects people trying to run 3D screens.


And lastly, Nic, if you can prove to me that they'll ever be able to project an image that's the real 3D deal in the next 1,000 years, without glasses tricks, or anything like that, you can take me out to dinner. For free. It's virtually impossible to create a 2D image that's actually 3D. It's contradictory.

It's impossible to create a 2D image that's actually 3D... isn't that what we're talking about? A 2D image that is made to look 3D.

And I wasn't talking about making a 2D image look 3D; that's what this stupid hack is. I'm talking about projecting a 3D image. As in, takes up physical, tangible space, like a diorama.

Hell, in 1000 years, we won't need even that. We'll have direct neural interfaces, and the idea of looking at a screen of any kind will seem quaint.

Edfishy
01-24-2010, 07:24 PM
Well, enjoy your neural interface in a thousand years. :rolleyes:

In the meantime I've been quite satisfied with the results of the current S-3D tech. What convinced me was the moment I gave Mechwarrior 4 a go with it, and without the glasses the mountain in front of me seemed... well.. right in front of me. Put on the glasses, and suddenly I really understood my environment. I literally felt tactically deprived from then on playing Mechwarrior 4 without being able to see the depth. If only the UI elements weren't coded incorrectly for S-3D, it'd be like the game's necessity of sound.

MattII
01-24-2010, 08:12 PM
3D's never going to work right until you get holograms working, or a full headset (a little screen in front of each eye rather than one big screen, and with headphones built in as well).

Norfindel
01-25-2010, 08:19 AM
It's impossible to create a 2D image that's actually 3D... isn't that what we're talking about? A 2D image that is made to look 3D.

And I wasn't talking about making a 2D image look 3D; that's what this stupid hack is. I'm talking about projecting a 3D image. As in, takes up physical, tangible space, like a diorama.

Hell, in 1000 years, we won't need even that. We'll have direct neural interfaces, and the idea of looking at a screen of any kind will seem quaint.
But remember: each human eye is a 2D device. If you have only one eye available, you lose depth perception, and the brain has to guess what's at what depth from what it knows, but it's much easier to fool.

If you show each eye exactly what it would see in a real 3D scenario, with diopter correction as to make them focus at the right distance, there's not much difference with a real scene from an optical point of view.

With a 3D helmet with mini-screens for each eye and head tracking, you could turn around, and see a full 3D world. Even if something can be projected all over a room in 3D somehow, how can that make you see something at a distance beyond the room's size?

ArcherofAiur
01-25-2010, 09:51 AM
Hell, in 1000 years, we won't need even that. We'll have direct neural interfaces, and the idea of looking at a screen of any kind will seem quaint.


And flying cars.

Nicol Bolas
01-25-2010, 01:55 PM
With a 3D helmet with mini-screens for each eye and head tracking, you could turn around, and see a full 3D world.

That is not what is being discussed. What is being talked about is pure 2D fakery: using shutter glasses to make a screen look like it is displaying something with depth.

Further, what you're talking about is not very useful for an RTS. Particularly one that has 2D gameplay.


And flying cars.

Why would you need flying cars? To carry around that useless meat-sack of a body? No need. Just plug your brain in and go wherever you want.

Norfindel
01-25-2010, 04:04 PM
That is not what is being discussed. What is being talked about is pure 2D fakery: using shutter glasses to make a screen look like it is displaying something with depth.

Further, what you're talking about is not very useful for an RTS. Particularly one that has 2D gameplay.
Shutter glasses work with the monitor to give an independent image to each eye, so they mostly should work. The bad thing, is that you can still see the monitor's edges.

Yeah, i don't think it would make too much difference to use *any* kind of helmet/glasses 3D in SC2, it would just be an interesting feature, but wouldn't be anywhere nearly as useful as in a FPS, or the like.