The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You may be wondering about what is meant in the title? Well, although games are designed and perceived as 3d worlds, they are still shown on a 2d screen, and are still interacted with in only 2d... usually simply with a "jump" button to allow some 3rd dimensional freedom.
So... how do u solve this? Simple... make a Holodeck!
Ok, so it's not easy- but there is a way...
Does anyone here know Jez San? He's head of Argonauts, and in the top 100 rich list after having sold the hardware part of the company. Anyway, before he sold the company, they reveilled a new display device that escentially projected a 3d image above it! Now... if only they could get an and release it! (Although no news has been heard)
Another idea is one that the US military uses to track its tanks. It's a horizontal screen that you look down onto, but the image is in 3d! Fantastic... if only someone could make a cheap version of it!
The final idea for display devices that I have just remembered is a new type of TV... the program is filmed from several angles, and these are then converted into a signal to the TV, where they are remade... in 3d! Like the virtual boy's display, but only you don't need to look into gogles, and when finnished will be i full colour and high resolution. This idea is being developed by some top Japanese company (I think that it is Toshiba).
Now. How to interact with this world? Well, we've tried 3D gloves, and big virtual reality boxes are a bit big! But thinking about it, all controllers are the same- plastic with coloured buttons on... can no-noe think of something better? Maybe some sort of eye-tracking device that could tell how far away you were looking? Maybe not.. but something needs to be used!
Anyway, my final point. Some of you may ask "Why not play games as they are... anyway, this new 3D environment would be too hard to get lots of people to adopt, and will also alienate so many gamers." The answer is this... "Eventually in the future of gaming this idea will be faced... and conquered. It's enevitable, and this being the FOG means that it's totally relevant"
I'll see u in 50 years when we plug ourselves into games ala eXistenZ ;)
Sonic
So... how do u solve this? Simple... make a Holodeck!
Ok, so it's not easy- but there is a way...
Does anyone here know Jez San? He's head of Argonauts, and in the top 100 rich list after having sold the hardware part of the company. Anyway, before he sold the company, they reveilled a new display device that escentially projected a 3d image above it! Now... if only they could get an and release it! (Although no news has been heard)
Another idea is one that the US military uses to track its tanks. It's a horizontal screen that you look down onto, but the image is in 3d! Fantastic... if only someone could make a cheap version of it!
The final idea for display devices that I have just remembered is a new type of TV... the program is filmed from several angles, and these are then converted into a signal to the TV, where they are remade... in 3d! Like the virtual boy's display, but only you don't need to look into gogles, and when finnished will be i full colour and high resolution. This idea is being developed by some top Japanese company (I think that it is Toshiba).
Now. How to interact with this world? Well, we've tried 3D gloves, and big virtual reality boxes are a bit big! But thinking about it, all controllers are the same- plastic with coloured buttons on... can no-noe think of something better? Maybe some sort of eye-tracking device that could tell how far away you were looking? Maybe not.. but something needs to be used!
Anyway, my final point. Some of you may ask "Why not play games as they are... anyway, this new 3D environment would be too hard to get lots of people to adopt, and will also alienate so many gamers." The answer is this... "Eventually in the future of gaming this idea will be faced... and conquered. It's enevitable, and this being the FOG means that it's totally relevant"
I'll see u in 50 years when we plug ourselves into games ala eXistenZ ;)
Sonic
Page:
Bonus wrote:
> 3D graphics in terms of computer images do not mean real 3D, they
> stand for vector and polygon created images, rather than having
> prerendered sprites, i.e. the difference between playing the Clasic
> Outrun and then looking at GT3, this is quite a silly topic on a
> situation which everyone already understands, so why bother???
Yes... but mathmatically they are defined 3D objects... they have length, width and depth... which means, mathmatically, they are true 3D... Its the presentation of the data that makes it 2D not the information itself (which is 3D)
> 3D graphics in terms of computer images do not mean real 3D, they
> stand for vector and polygon created images, rather than having
> prerendered sprites, i.e. the difference between playing the Clasic
> Outrun and then looking at GT3, this is quite a silly topic on a
> situation which everyone already understands, so why bother???
Yes... but mathmatically they are defined 3D objects... they have length, width and depth... which means, mathmatically, they are true 3D... Its the presentation of the data that makes it 2D not the information itself (which is 3D)
But why do we need real 3D games?? I'm quite happy playing them on a TV, rather than having a Star Trek style Holodeck.
New Jimmy wrote:
> What Sonics trying to say is to give gamers a true impression of a
> 3D reality a separate image would need to be projected onto each
> eye....hence twice the processing power would be needed.
Not so... we'd just need to use a widescreen picture format... which some games already support...
> What Sonics trying to say is to give gamers a true impression of a
> 3D reality a separate image would need to be projected onto each
> eye....hence twice the processing power would be needed.
Not so... we'd just need to use a widescreen picture format... which some games already support...
SonicRav wrote:
Indeeed.. I have seen these.
> Basically they are glasses that project and image into your eye
> (like a tv). The difference is they do this in such a way that it
> looks like you are playing on a huge 50 inch screen a few meters
> infront of you.
No, no, no... I know what you mean... but I'm ot talking about them... :)
BUT!
the point of this topic is about 3d gaming.
> Maybe if they made the 2 images supplied by the glasses work like a
> 3d image so they have depth, and objects need to be focused on,
> rather than everything being on a 2d projection, then thes ewould
> solvr the original problem. The only problem is that this WOULD need
> lots more programming, and won't happen for a while.
This is how the orinal headsets worked... 2 LCD screens attached to the goggles, each displaying a slightly displaced image... rather like those view finder toys from the 70's ... They still make them... they sell for about 500 quid... but they gave a max res of about 300x300 of something... (although I think they may have them up to 640x480 now, I was never that bothered to find out)
Indeeed.. I have seen these.
> Basically they are glasses that project and image into your eye
> (like a tv). The difference is they do this in such a way that it
> looks like you are playing on a huge 50 inch screen a few meters
> infront of you.
No, no, no... I know what you mean... but I'm ot talking about them... :)
BUT!
the point of this topic is about 3d gaming.
> Maybe if they made the 2 images supplied by the glasses work like a
> 3d image so they have depth, and objects need to be focused on,
> rather than everything being on a 2d projection, then thes ewould
> solvr the original problem. The only problem is that this WOULD need
> lots more programming, and won't happen for a while.
This is how the orinal headsets worked... 2 LCD screens attached to the goggles, each displaying a slightly displaced image... rather like those view finder toys from the 70's ... They still make them... they sell for about 500 quid... but they gave a max res of about 300x300 of something... (although I think they may have them up to 640x480 now, I was never that bothered to find out)
BTw bonus, i take your point that everyone understands about vectors etc... but must point out that that is NOT what this topic is about at all! The FOG might lead to REAL 3d games... and that's what we're on about
Sonic
Sonic
Bonus wrote:
> 3D graphics in terms of computer images do not mean real 3D, they
> stand for vector and polygon created images, rather than having
> prerendered sprites, i.e. the difference between playing the Clasic
> Outrun and then looking at GT3, this is quite a silly topic on a
> situation which everyone already understands, so why bother???
MAybe you don't understand the topic? The idea is to make 3d games that appear in a 3d form... not on a 2d screen where everything can be viewed at once. This would allow you to use perspective in games making things like MGS more intense.
Now, back to the topic...
*********************************
I have just thought of a way to make 3d games work!
*********************************
How about, you generate images from one perspective as they are at the moment. Then you generate images from the exact same 3d engine, but from about 10 cm to the right. Then project one image into one eye, and they other image into the other eye... hey presto! 3d image! Now all u need is a powerful computer, and a way to interact with this 3d plane to make it worthwhile
Sonic
> 3D graphics in terms of computer images do not mean real 3D, they
> stand for vector and polygon created images, rather than having
> prerendered sprites, i.e. the difference between playing the Clasic
> Outrun and then looking at GT3, this is quite a silly topic on a
> situation which everyone already understands, so why bother???
MAybe you don't understand the topic? The idea is to make 3d games that appear in a 3d form... not on a 2d screen where everything can be viewed at once. This would allow you to use perspective in games making things like MGS more intense.
Now, back to the topic...
*********************************
I have just thought of a way to make 3d games work!
*********************************
How about, you generate images from one perspective as they are at the moment. Then you generate images from the exact same 3d engine, but from about 10 cm to the right. Then project one image into one eye, and they other image into the other eye... hey presto! 3d image! Now all u need is a powerful computer, and a way to interact with this 3d plane to make it worthwhile
Sonic
3D graphics in terms of computer images do not mean real 3D, they stand for vector and polygon created images, rather than having prerendered sprites, i.e. the difference between playing the Clasic Outrun and then looking at GT3, this is quite a silly topic on a situation which everyone already understands, so why bother???
Armatige Shanks wrote:
They've released newer, cheaper models more
> recently... they are about 500 quid now... and are only a little
> bigger than sunglasses... they've even had support on quite a few PC
> titles...
however due to the size of the screen... the max
> resolution isnt amazing... and 500 quid is a pretty hefty sum of
> cash to pay for something that most people probably think will just
> end up stuck on a shelf after the first five minutes playing?
Indeeed.. I have seen these. Basically they are glasses that project and image into your eye (like a tv). The difference is they do this in such a way that it looks like you are playing on a huge 50 inch screen a few meters infront of you.
The reason these are supported it simply becuase they don't make 3d images... they just mingle with the output for a monitor... in theory any game could use them with no more programming
BUT!
the point of this topic is about 3d gaming. Maybe if they made the 2 images supplied by the glasses work like a 3d image so they have depth, and objects need to be focused on, rather than everything being on a 2d projection, then thes ewould solvr the original problem. The only problem is that this WOULD need lots more programming, and won't happen for a while.
LLet the FOG role on!
Sonic
They've released newer, cheaper models more
> recently... they are about 500 quid now... and are only a little
> bigger than sunglasses... they've even had support on quite a few PC
> titles...
however due to the size of the screen... the max
> resolution isnt amazing... and 500 quid is a pretty hefty sum of
> cash to pay for something that most people probably think will just
> end up stuck on a shelf after the first five minutes playing?
Indeeed.. I have seen these. Basically they are glasses that project and image into your eye (like a tv). The difference is they do this in such a way that it looks like you are playing on a huge 50 inch screen a few meters infront of you.
The reason these are supported it simply becuase they don't make 3d images... they just mingle with the output for a monitor... in theory any game could use them with no more programming
BUT!
the point of this topic is about 3d gaming. Maybe if they made the 2 images supplied by the glasses work like a 3d image so they have depth, and objects need to be focused on, rather than everything being on a 2d projection, then thes ewould solvr the original problem. The only problem is that this WOULD need lots more programming, and won't happen for a while.
LLet the FOG role on!
Sonic
Page: