Jump to content

Shigeru Miyamoto - "3D is the future of gaming"


NecroMorrius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Because we are already provided with enough visual information from our games to react as quickly and as effectively as is humanly possible. I'd like to see a test carried out with 'pro' gamers especially.

Also, because whenever I've played 3D games, immersion/novelty aside, it has been clear to me that there was no improvement in my skills. Nothing was easier or any different, it just demonstrated to me an approximation of the relative distances which I was already perfectly capable of unconsciously and instantly estimating.

"These cows are small. But those cows are faaaaaaaaar away".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, but I don't think any game has been made without the assumption that it'll be played in 2D. You're talking about testing your skills on 2D games retrofitted with 3D.

I'd imagine something like a baseball game where you had to time swings and catches from first person would be extremely difficult in 2D compared to 3D for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, though I suspect not. I'd like to find out. It'll be a long time before we see a game that only plays in 3D, and even then I'm not convinced it wouldn't work fine in 2D, short of the creation of a new genre about guessing how deep featureless holes are etc.

Like Dimahoo said, it's never been about performance, they're selling it as an immersive experience. This can only be gauged subjectively, so it's ultimately up to the consumer whether 3D becomes popular or not - everyone will buy it once, but will they keep up with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, though I suspect not. I'd like to find out. They'll never make a game that requires 3D any time soon though.

Well, that's more of the problem really, until we get holographics worked out (2012 at least for home TV holographics from the sounds of things) and everyone gets on with the tech fine you're basically going to have to make a game nominally playable in 2D as well.

I think things like the impending glasses-free Android handsets should make things for interesting from a game design standpoint; I'd be very happy to make a little 3D-only game in a few months and sell it for a couple of pounds to phone users, but Konami aren't going to release Amazing Super Fuck You If You Don't Like 3D Rangers on the PS3 are they?

Some games, like Tumble for instance, I'd love to play in 3D because moving objects about in 3D space precisely would really benefit from it. I hear it does make the game easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think things like the impending glasses-free Android handsets should make things for interesting from a game design standpoint; I'd be very happy to make a little 3D-only game in a few months and sell it for a couple of pounds to phone users, but Konami aren't going to release Amazing Super Fuck You If You Don't Like 3D Rangers on the PS3 are they?

Haha, no. That sounds awesome though.

The game I'm most looking forward to trying out is actually the new Layton. I wonder if they can come up with any '3D' puzzles? That's one game where they can try lots of different tiny things and see what sticks.

Or what about Warioware :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eurogamer RR review

But Ridge Racer's true depth – and our never-ending affection for it – derives from the way it draws you into the zone, and the sense of depth beyond the glass of the main 3D screen is like a hand at your throat, drawing you into the image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we are already provided with enough visual information from our games to react as quickly and as effectively as is humanly possible.

So you don't think, for example, a football game played in 3D would improve your ability to place where a falling ball will land on the pitch? Or a platformer played in 3D would enhance your ability to judge how much further over a gap the next ledge is?

It's no great surprise to state that "games currently give us enough information". If they didn't, they wouldn't be particularly well designed. Mario platformers eschew realistic shadow tech in favour of a simple patch directly beneath the character, regardless of the light source, in order to help you gauge your position in the air. Shooters typically test your skills at aiming within the flat plane of your screen. Gameplay is designed with this in mind. But it's another matter to state that this is the limit of of human reaction. It stands to reason that the less you have to work out from visual cues and estimates, the faster you will be made aware of the nature of a scene.

I also realise there is a blurry distinction between improving "immersion" and improving "performance", which will lead to disagreement over the exact degree of improvement.

Also, because whenever I've played 3D games, immersion/novelty aside, it has been clear to me that there was no improvement in my skills. Nothing was easier or any different, it just demonstrated to me an approximation of the relative distances which I was already perfectly capable of unconsciously and instantly estimating.

Which games did you play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which games did you play?

Err..... on the 3DS I've played Nintendogs and Ocarina.

As for other 3D games, loads. My mate got a 3D setup and we went through most of the games in his Steam account trying them out.

I don't see any grey area between performance and immersion. One can be measured objectively, the other is a subjective measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing was easier or any different, it just demonstrated to me an approximation of the relative distances which I was already perfectly capable of unconsciously and instantly estimating.

"These cows are small. But those cows are faaaaaaaaar away".

This is the thing that gets me, people make out that in games that exist now that we're all blundering into walls, like those people on infomercials failing at doing simple household tasks because they're not using the "Whizzinator Pro".

I know how big a tree is, or a desk, or a car, and I can tell the scale of the environment by these things at a glance. Those who can't are Father Dougal. I'm not even sure it's possible to create a gameworld so alien it's impossible to tell the scale of things without 3D, but even if it were I imagine it wouldn't be desirable due to the issues with navigation it would present, making such a world the opposite of modern accessible user-driven design.

It's no great surprise to state that "games currently give us enough information". If they didn't, they wouldn't be particularly well designed. Mario platformers eschew realistic shadow tech in favour of a simple patch directly beneath the character, regardless of the light source, in order to help you gauge your position in the air. Shooters typically test your skills at aiming within the flat plane of your screen. Gameplay is designed with this in mind.

It gives designers an extra tool in the developers toolbox for helping and guiding players, granted. But it can't be relied on as heavily since quite a few people can't see 3D, and will never usurp those old techniques. Mario is forever going to have his patch shadow in 3D games (old 3D as in not analogous to 2D - no wait, not 2D like SMB 3 both ways - no wait, we need a new name for this stuff).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, is anyone saying that?

Not to that extent, but people have said on threads for ages that it will really help in identifying braking points etc in driving games. How you'll have a better idea of distance to a corner etc. But I don't think you will. Its a snazzy effect that will make the game look different, possibly more immersive, but I can't believe it will make them easier to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this, which I thought was interesting.

New York, March 17 (IANS) Popular perception ascribes our ability to gauge depth to a pair of eyes. But we can judge depth with a single eye also, something that has puzzled scientists, till now. Now, a University of Rochester research team believes it has discovered the answer in a small part of the brain that processes the image from a single eye as well as the motion of our bodies.

The team, led by Greg DeAngelis, has published these findings in the latest online issue of the journal Nature.

“It looks as though in this area of the brain, the neurons are combining visual cues and non-visual cues to come up with a unique way to determine depth,” says DeAngelis.

The finding implies that the brain uses an array of methods to gauge depth. In addition to two-eyed “binocular disparity”, the brain has neurons that specifically measure our motion, perspective, and how objects pass in front of or behind each other to create an approximation of the three-dimensional world in our minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distance is often faked too, such as the wraparound skyboxes or tiny model villages meant to represent far away objects. Vistas like this:

Would cease to work, wouldn't they?

Not really, as we lose our ability to perceive distance full stop after several hundred metres anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think anyone expecting massive game changes at this stage is going to be disappointed, but thinking about Wario Ware on the 3DS, combining 3D with motion control and use of the camera, AR etc. should produce some interesting results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, as we lose our ability to perceive distance full stop after several hundred metres anyway.

You've taken me wrong - I'm talking about objects/vistas which are in reality very close to the player, and appear distant in 2D thanks to clever trickery from the developer. 3D would give away the trickery with these, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't understand why anybody would be against 3D, just like I didn't understand the backlash when the announcement came that the 360 was going to be HD. I bet some of our grandparents balked when colour TV took over from black & white too and called it a gimmick.

Just put it in the line of moving images, sound, colour images, stereo sound, polygonal 3D, surround sound and it makes perfect sense. We constantly innovate our media to come closer to our natural way of sensing things, whether it's sound or vision. With the intention to draw us in further, to immerse us into the worlds that the creators craft for us. Stereoscopic 3D is just another step to bring this closer. Gimmicky? In the beginning it probably will be. Essential? No, but neither are colour or surround sound. Perfect? Nope, but the first soundtracks on movies were also a crackly mess. But it is another step to total immersion and we will see excellent examples of this technique being used.

But in a couple of years, if I'm still alive and this forum is still around, I'll be dragging up this thread and have a good hearty laugh at the naysayers, just like we did last year when I brought up some old thread dominated by HD sceptics who now all play their Xbox 360s, PS3s and BluRay movies on a enormous full HD flat panel screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to that extent, but people have said on threads for ages that it will really help in identifying braking points etc in driving games. How you'll have a better idea of distance to a corner etc. But I don't think you will. Its a snazzy effect that will make the game look different, possibly more immersive, but I can't believe it will make them easier to play.

You will have a better idea of a distance to a corner, because it requires less estimating. How much of an impact this will have on your ability to get around said corner is another matter. I'm not sure driving games will benefit the most. I don't think there are many current games that would benefit a humungous amount, but I believe that in a lot of genres there is a benefit greater than none.

I don't think we're all walking into walls, flailing our arms around wildly. I could happily wear an eyepatch for a day and not be too put out by it, but I'd rather not.

A lot of them are exaggerating how hard judging positions and distances are in 2D, yeah.

Oh well, boo to them. Don't let them mess up an otherwise interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've taken me wrong - I'm talking about objects/vistas which are in reality very close to the player, and appear distant in 2D thanks to clever trickery from the developer. 3D would give away the trickery with these, right?

For my money "model villages" and skyboxes don't work that well in 2D either, but yeah, you'd have to do a different trick. Been a while since I visited Ilyium but it's just a skybox with some 3D models of buildings over it. Assuming the 3DS uses the Z-buffer data to determine the depth of pixels for the 3D output, if you want to push those 3D models into the background you could probably overwrite their portion of the Z-buffer with some "realistic" values you calculate in a little piece of code to simulate them being deep, deep in the background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you need depth separation beyond a certain point? Don't your eyes use a focus similar to 'infinity' on a cameralens where everything further away than a certain distance is considered 'far'?

Well, yeah, there's that too, and the 3DS isn't going to accurately do depth perception beyond a certain amount anyway. You'd want to render everything in the far background (ie anything you knew the player couldn't realistically approach, like a hill miles off in a racing game or a skybox or a cloud) into a single 2D skybox with a single maximum Z-plane value then use that as the skybox that the near background, middleground and foreground objects are rendered over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.