[suggestion] Starcraft 2 in 3D?

[Edfishy]

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]

***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]

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]

Well, enjoy your neural interface in a thousand years.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.