The PC's been quietly at it for years, but it wasn't until Sony's recent reveal that it'll be building stereoscopic 3D support into the PlayStation 3 with an upcoming firmware update that the world really started squealing "Ooh! Ooh! We want that!"
It's a delightful idea – but given how divisive 3D cinema has proven to be, is all this techno-kerfuffle really worth it? Here's the case for the defence, and for the prosecution….
Five reasons you'll love 3D gaming...
1. 3D is easy and free to implement
For the Playstation 3, it's all happening via free firmware updates. For the PC, it's a patch or a driver profile. For the Xbox… well, Microsoft don't seem terribly interested as yet, but given its ongoing Wi-Fi dongle, hard drive and Xbox Live price gouging, expecting something sickeningly unreasonable if it does have a crack.
In general, though, 3D is something that, aside from the initial hardware investment, is going to quietly build itself into gaming anyway. Less so for developers – even 3D propagandist Blitz Games reckons supporting stereoscopy adds 10-15% to game budgets. Hopefully the returns will make that worthwhile.
2. The Avatar method
At the moment (ie with the primarily Nvidia-endorsed 3D on PC games) we're stuck in a bit of a halfway house of token depth effects and the occasional gimmicky pop-ups. This is the same mistake 3D films were largely making until Avatar, thinking theme park rather than immersion.
Once this really gets going – most likely once the PS3 firmware updates and Sony tellys arrive – we'll see games that do what Avatar did. So, incidental effects like weather, dense vegetation and scale rather than visual stunts. The result – game worlds that feel more alive.
3D IN MIND: James Cameron's Avatar: The Game is one of very few games to be designed with 3D in mind, rather than being loosely supported after the event. Unfortunately, it was rubbish
3. 3D encourages motion
Let's face it, we gamers aren't the most mobile bunch. And why should we be? Games only require interaction from our hands. 3D, though, is an encouragement to move our heads a little, to appreciate the new sense of the depth and admire how that severed arm really juts out of the screen.
When the vista in front of us seems more there, we're going to behave accordingly. Which means no more fat necks. Possibly.
4. Glasses-free 3D is coming
Autostereoscopic 3D is on the (hopefully) not too distant horizon, promising 3D games and video without the need for bulky glasses. There are multiple approaches to this in the works, but the core idea is similar to glasses-based stereoscopy - different images are fired at each of your eyes.
The difference is that the display, not the glasses, separates the picture. The likely key to this is a degree of face-tracking so that the image can adjust itself to your position, as in general autostereoscopy has a limited field of view, the effect breaking down if you don't look at it from just the right angle.
3D TV: One of Sony's admittedly very attractive 3D Bravia TVs. The range isn't exactly famed for its affordability, alas
5. 3D is really going to come into its own with motion control
3D + motion control (ie Project Natal et al) = Augmented Reality. Potentially. Once we have a world that looks more like our world, and that is interacted with in ways similar to how we interact with our world, the false belief by so many people that games are like films with button-pushing may fall away.
Games are about creating an alternative to reality, a landscape of imagination to let our brains run riot in. If the ancient stumbling blocks of flat, two-dimensional pictures and all-too-physical controls can truly be removed, virtual reality might finally become a, well, reality instead of a dead, embarrassing buzzword.
Your comments (4) Click to add a new comment
lankyboy
June 5th 2010
4. I don't agree with 3D being the standard for this decade. I think HD will be. You can't say that a a technology that supersedes an existing technology still in its infancy will become the standard.
What you have to remember is, its all about content. Many people still haven't switched to HD TV and a fancy new LCD/Plasma/LED tele (my parents being a prime example) because there simply isn't enough content out there to benefit from the cost outlay. At the beginning of HD, there was the format war that put people off and also about 3 TV channels. There are still under 50 channels in HD, none of which broadcast in full 1080/24p HD with HD sound (DTS MA or Dolby TrueHD) because there simply isn't the technology to stream that sort of data over a large delivery network (all HD broadcasts are currently in 1080i/720p at a severely compressed bitrate). Also, when watching SD tele, which IS the standard, a CRT tele will always win on quality unless you spend well over a grand.
Before 3D can even be though of as a 'standard' there needs to be far more content available, and also there needs to be much more HD content and less SD content to encourage people to move away from CRT to the newer TVs. There are no 3D blu-rays, no 3D games (at present) and no 3D TV channels. Just a ridiculous outlay for a yet another new TV, plus 3D glasses for the rest of your family (as each TV only comes with one pair) which will set you back even more of your hard earned, (£100 ish each pair).
The tech also needs to work properly. I'm what could be considered as partially sighted, in that i am practically blind in one eye. None of this 3D stuff works for me, it just gives me a really big headache. I've seen 3 3D films (including Avatar) and saw no benefit to them being in 3D and walked out with a massive headache and wishing i'd spent the money on watching 2 normal films instead.
Alert a moderator
karmanaught
February 21st 2010
3. Yeah, I'll just wait for the holographic displays with companion Microsoft Surface enabled coffee tables available at the local IKEA.
Alert a moderator
davidmacphail
February 21st 2010
2. I'm fairly certain 3D is going to become the standard over the next decade, it's inevitable really, much like the transition to HD was.
I certainly won't be an early adopter, i'll wait till the 3DTV's come down in price a good bit first. However sooner or later everybody is going to make the switch.
Alert a moderator
edgar78
February 20th 2010
1. I agree with you on most points; except the loss of color point. Sony's 3-D technology doesn't use polarized lenses. Sony's 3-D technology uses active shutter lenses. With this technology each perspective alternates at 60 HZ and the glasses block the correct eye in sync with the TV. With the active shutter technology there shouldn't be any loss of color. That being said I'm not sold on 3-D at all. I think it will get old very quick, and TV manufactuers are just trying to find some way to get us to spend more money on TVs.
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments