45 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 45. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 7, 2010, 10:31 |
Verno |
|
|
| I'm sure all 20 people with the hardware for this will care greatly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Path of Exile, Animal Crossing, Tales of Graces F
Watching: Survivorman, Justified, Silent Running |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 44. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 7, 2010, 08:03 |
Shadowcat |
|
|
So 3D games are now being referred to as 2D games, so that stereo 3D can be referred to as 3D? Oh great. What do we call regular 2D games?
And on that note: with Starcraft being a 2D game, this was a really confusing title. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 43. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 21:20 |
HoSpanky |
|
|
As for 3d (screen) in/for games, bring it on. Thinking of doing it just cos I heard Dirt2 support it.
I'd just like Dirt2 to support "not corrupting your save file if you earn an achievement online and it doesn't get reported to Microsoft before you log off". Or how about "the patch that makes the game go back to NOT forgetting to draw huge portions of the scenery."?
Those two reasons above are why I went from playing it every evening to removing it from my Steam games list.
play online for 10 minutes, get an achievement. play game again later, corrupt save file, start over. 13 hours single player, no issues. one more game online, get an achievement, goodbye savegame. Download "big performance update!" patch, watch as random large objects randomly disappear due to a super overeager culling algorithm. lose savegame to online gameplay again.
delete. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 18:51 |
Kosumo |
|
|
(how can you tell me buildings and units popping up out of the screen would be BAD? It'd be like playing tabletop games!).
The truth is that even with good 3D projection/display you never get the "popping out of the screen" effect, that's nothing but mis-informed maketing talk at best. The screen seems to have a level of depth into it, but never out of it. It's more like a portal form portal
I went and watch "live in 3d world cup game" (arg vs mex), was ok, nothing earth shattering. The thing is, is that it it still in it realitive infacey, I found they could not move the cameras very fast or you (I) would see alot of tearing (like V-sync) and flickering. I'm sure it will improve and get better over the coming years.
As for 3d (screen) in/for games, bring it on. Thinking of doing it just cos I heard Dirt2 support it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 17:24 |
Drayth |
|
|
3D increases immersion greatly, so long as it's not bothering you in some other way. As I've said, it works 100% fine with me, I've gamed in stereo over weekends up to 4 to 6 hours with no issues.
Having said that, one of the best stereo moments was in Half-Life.. I was in a pitched battle involving an Osprey over head. When I finally managed to RPG it it was directly over my head and I was staring straight up at it... so the debri came raining down "onto" my head..
I seriously just sat there slack-jawed for a moment. You're adding an element that is -missing- from your normal view. If anything it makes the game seem more real.
But like I've said, if you're one of the people that's getting headaches or eyestrain from the current method, then yeah that's totally distracting from the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 15:48 |
Eldaron Imotholin |
|
|
Mcboinkens wrote on Jul 5, 2010, 15:38:
We'll see, but I have a feeling it will make every game feel more arcadey...just made that word up, sorry. But I just feel it will ruin immersion rather than increase it, which is generally the whole purpose.
Couldn't agree more. In fact, I wanted to include your immersion part in my last post but since my Dutch brain was getting a headache just trying to support that statement in English I decided to just leave it out completely. But yeah: Amen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 15:38 |
Mcboinkens |
|
|
PHJF wrote on Jul 5, 2010, 14:03:
EVERY game would benefit from 3D. With movies there are obvious candidates like CG-driven action movies, but almost all games would be more entertaining in 3D. The aforementioned racing games, sports games, shooters, strategy games (how can you tell me buildings and units popping up out of the screen would be BAD? It'd be like playing tabletop games!).
Bottom line is there hasn't been a significant technological advancement in video games in a long while. We've got crisp AA (well, sometimes), anisotropic filtering, smooth animation, quality shaders and respectable poly counts. I'm all for any attempt to improve the experience. I'm fucking sick of people telling me games have plateaued, they're as good as they'll get. Bull shit.
We'll see, but I have a feeling it will make every game feel more arcadey...just made that word up, sorry. But I just feel it will ruin immersion rather than increase it, which is generally the whole purpose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 14:32 |
Eldaron Imotholin |
|
|
PHJF wrote on Jul 5, 2010, 14:03:
EVERY game would benefit from 3D. With movies there are obvious candidates like CG-driven action movies, but almost all games would be more entertaining in 3D. The aforementioned racing games, sports games, shooters, strategy games (how can you tell me buildings and units popping up out of the screen would be BAD? It'd be like playing tabletop games!).
Bottom line is there hasn't been a significant technological advancement in video games in a long while. We've got crisp AA (well, sometimes), anisotropic filtering, smooth animation, quality shaders and respectable poly counts. I'm all for any attempt to improve the experience. I'm fucking sick of people telling me games have plateaued, they're as good as they'll get. Bull shit.
I don't know to what people you're talking, but they must have no idea what they talk about. Games are indeed not as good as they'll get. Not by a long shot. But I feel like you're contradicting yourself there. IF games were indeed as good as they'll get graphic-wise, then it would be somewhat logical to say they'd benefit from a new technology approach like the 3D one. But since they aren't, that head-ache inducing crap can wait while graphics continue to improve. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 14:03 |
PHJF |
|
|
EVERY game would benefit from 3D. With movies there are obvious candidates like CG-driven action movies, but almost all games would be more entertaining in 3D. The aforementioned racing games, sports games, shooters, strategy games (how can you tell me buildings and units popping up out of the screen would be BAD? It'd be like playing tabletop games!).
Bottom line is there hasn't been a significant technological advancement in video games in a long while. We've got crisp AA (well, sometimes), anisotropic filtering, smooth animation, quality shaders and respectable poly counts. I'm all for any attempt to improve the experience. I'm fucking sick of people telling me games have plateaued, they're as good as they'll get. Bull shit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 13:36 |
Eldaron Imotholin |
|
|
HoSpanky wrote on Jul 5, 2010, 13:04:
Why is everyone talking about movies? This isn't about movies. This is about games.
If ANYTHING can benefit wholesale from 3D it's fucking video games.
I'll admit, this is true. gaining a depth of field in a racing game is going to help IMMENSELY with making turns...can't TELL you how many times I cut just a hair too early for a turn. It would also help with long-distance targets...is that airship a mile away, or just really tiny?
Still, I don't think I (personally) could put up with the near-instant headache it would cause. after watching avatar, my right eye was bloodshot for a day. I like to sit down and burn several hours at a time in a game, 3D (in its current form) has the potential to literally destroy my vision.
Again, my complaint is simply that they're apparently interested in 3d -in a game that would gain ZERO actual benefit from it- instead of getting AA working out the gate.
edited for excessive parentheses.
Exactly. Also what is said below: They will focus on the 3D bs instead of the game itself, which is horrible because games already suffer enough to suit the masses.
Buttomline of this all is that nobody really asked for this 3D stuff. It indeed just popped up for business purposes, to sell TVs etc. Increased quality for movies, like Bluray HD and all that.. that's all cool. Better engines for games, from KOTOR to Mass Effect 2 for example, that's all cool. That's what we truly want.
Wake me up when I can plug myself into a system and experience games The Matrix style. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 35. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 13:04 |
HoSpanky |
|
|
Why is everyone talking about movies? This isn't about movies. This is about games.
If ANYTHING can benefit wholesale from 3D it's fucking video games.
I'll admit, this is true. gaining a depth of field in a racing game is going to help IMMENSELY with making turns...can't TELL you how many times I cut just a hair too early for a turn. It would also help with long-distance targets...is that airship a mile away, or just really tiny?
Still, I don't think I (personally) could put up with the near-instant headache it would cause. after watching avatar, my right eye was bloodshot for a day. I like to sit down and burn several hours at a time in a game, 3D (in its current form) has the potential to literally destroy my vision.
Again, my complaint is simply that they're apparently interested in 3d -in a game that would gain ZERO actual benefit from it- instead of getting AA working out the gate.
edited for excessive parentheses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 34. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 13:04 |
Mcboinkens |
|
|
PHJF wrote on Jul 5, 2010, 12:22:
Why is everyone talking about movies? This isn't about movies. This is about games.
If ANYTHING can benefit wholesale from 3D it's fucking video games.
What sort of benefits? If anything, I see major publishers focusing more on the 3D than the game. Not good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 33. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 12:42 |
The PC Warrior |
|
|
| what exactly are the benefits youre referring to? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 32. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 12:22 |
PHJF |
|
|
Why is everyone talking about movies? This isn't about movies. This is about games.
If ANYTHING can benefit wholesale from 3D it's fucking video games. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 11:46 |
Beamer |
|
|
Yeah, I don't get why people are so convinced 3D is here to stay. Where people saying that in the 1950s, too?
3D is a mess right now. We've had one movie released that clearly benefited from 3D and dozens released that have been drastically hurt by it. Even Toy Story 3, another movie made for 3D from the ground-up, was hurt by it. Did anyone notice any 3D effects or realism in it? I forgot the 3D was there by the opening credits (and not in the good way) and instead just watched the movie slightly more blurry and significantly dimmer than had it been non-3D. For an extra $2.50.
And home 3D? Great, just what I want, to wear glasses at home.
3D is little more than a distraction right now, made worse by the large percentage of the population that either can't see it well or is given headaches by it. It's being pushed to get us to buy new TVs, spend more money in theaters, and eventually rebuy many of our DVDs. It wasn't being requested, and the push is coming from suppliers, not consumers. When suppliers are more into a concept than consumers you know it won't go over well. It never will. Eventually the public starts getting fed up of being force-fed something they're not overly into.
3D has zero chance of catching on at home while it requires glasses. It has a much better chance when they figure out a good way to do it without them. It'll finally catch on when they manage to do it with one eye (in other words, actual 3D. Assuming we ever get displays capable of that.) For now? Meh.
The only 3D device I'd bet on is the 3DS. It doesn't need glasses, and not everything will be in 3D. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 10:35 |
HoSpanky |
|
|
I'm one of those people with inequal eye functionality. My right eye doesn't focus QUITE as quickly as my left (but when it does, it has sharper vision...go figure). This causes 3d movies to be pretty painful to watch (although Avatar was definitely neat). I have no complaints about the whole 3d thing (although I probably won't use it), aside from it apparently being a higher priority than native AA in SC2.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that they have AA working, they're just holding back so they can "introduce" it later as one of these "regular updates and improvements" they're promising. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 29. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 10:08 |
peteham |
|
|
BobBob wrote on Jul 5, 2010, 04:36:
This is the only "3D" even worth looking at. Watch the full demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw Head-tracking is yet another one of those things that sound good in theory but don't really work in practice. It's still your TV-set and livingroom, not the holo-deck. You have extremely limited space to move around, and your TV stays in exactly the same spot. Its utility the way I see it, is basically limited to tech-demos. The 3D effect only asserts itself through movement relative to your head, so yeah, you could use it for simple stuff like that goal-keeper game MS has been using for every Kinect demo, but you couldn't build a real FPS around it. Most of us would have a whopping 2 metres to move forward.
To underline my point, did anyone catch videos of MS demoing Forza and head-tracking? Awesome in theory, right? Turn your head 90 degrees to see the car you're overtaking? But wait, where does your TV go? That's right, nowhere. Aka. a place you can no longer see after turning your head. To combat this of course, they had tweaked the sensitivity. Which just made everything look (and I'm sure *feel*) dumb. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 05:35 |
Ant |
|
|
Bah. 3D effects don't work with my eyes like in Avatar, Disneyland (did work for Captain EO back in the 1980s/80s though) and CA Adventure's 3D shows, stereograms, etc.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 27. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 04:36 |
BobBob |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 26. |
Re: StarCraft II to Go 3D Via a Patch |
Jul 5, 2010, 04:31 |
Mcboinkens |
|
|
Graham wrote on Jul 4, 2010, 23:34:
Mcboinkens wrote on Jul 4, 2010, 17:38:
I find 3D to be a huge joke, but obviously that is just my opinion. I am slightly intrigued by the new DS that has glasses-less 3D technology, but I don't need my TV shows getting gimicky. The only thing I could see the TVs using 3d for is for when 3D movies leave theatres and play on channels like Fox and HBO. But 3D was only cool lately because it was reintroduced. It will probably fade like it did many times earlier.
You think it will probably fade. I think you're wrong. Let's check on this in a year, shall we?
Mcboinkens wrote on Jul 4, 2010, 17:38:
Also, for motion controlled gaming; Just because the big three are all onboard the motion gaming train doesn't mean it will leave the station. Games are going to get even more repetitive than they are now. How many more Move/Kinect/Wii sports packs and party games can you play without getting sick of them. However, to be fair, I am sure the other side of the market is saying the same thing. How many FPS can you play before you get bored? The difference is FPS normally have storylines and intergame unique gimmicks. Motion control is the main "gimmick", and how long it will stick around will ultimately be decided by when casual/family gamers decide they have enough of the same games.
Oh good lord, what's it going to take? Nintendo sold motion control to the world and the world bought it... faster than any other gaming technology EVER. If you can't see that motion control is here to stay you should keep your voice down; hearing someone embarrass themselves that drastically, repeated, in the face of the facts... well, it's just not cricket.
You've tried to pitch this as FPS players versus motion control. That's got to be the stupidest thing I've seen all day. It's a false dichotomy of the worst kind; it's not an either/or situation and it's painful to see you try to make the case for it.
Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Jul 4, 2010, 17:58:
Graham wrote on Jul 4, 2010, 15:07:
No, 3D won't go away and you can shut the hell up and deal with it.
I hate nerdrages over the internet. If I see a nerd rage in real life, I laugh. Over the internet.. it makes me nauseous. That's really all I have to say about your post.
Is this what it looks like when you don't have a point? Yes, yes it is.
You know what the delicious part is? You're going to forget about this, and when you do buy your new TV, and it is 3D enabled, and you do decide to try it out... just that once. You're going to enjoy it... and when you do you'll remember this. It won't matter a god damn bit, because everyone else out there will be enjoying their 3DTVs too. So call it a gimmick if you want, 3D will march on with or without you.
No, not in a year. 5 years. For both 3D and motion control. And I'm not talking about motion control interfaces, I am talking motion control pet the fake tiger and snap your wrist to swing a bat motion control.
The fact that you ingore my valid statements and nitpick at everything else is odd. You clearly didn't read what I said. Motion control is selling well NOW. But how many of those didn't have a motion control system before that? The Wii has been out 4 years, do you really think people are suddenly going to hop on board because Microsoft or Sony is doing it? Yes, a few of the fanboys that weren't going to buy a Nintendo product. But its the same thing with Xbox360/Ps3. Very few of my friends own both. Let me put it this way. If a Nintendo console was released with similar capacities as a 360 or ps3, and you were an average consumer, would you buy it? Most likely not. Maybe if you are doing well or if it is a gift, I suppose.
Just because you don't understand my FPS vs overlapping motion game comparison doesn't mean you have to bash it. You completely missed my point. It isn't FPS players vs motion control players. It is FPS games vs motion control games. Even if you have two similar FPS games, they will still have different plots, guns, perks, and other gimmicks to distance themselves. Meanwhile, a lot of the target user motion games are party games. Yes, you have your resident evil and zelda games that come along eventually which do really well, as seen by their reviews and ratings. But the hardcore base doesn't want to have to follow their main series on a motion control console.
Oh, and you are wrong about motion control being bought " faster than any other gaming technology EVER." It's actually handheld gaming. wii sales as of 2009: 67 million. DS sales as of 2009: 125 million. And yes that is unique units sold.
And yeah, I'll probably buy a 3D tv. It's still a gimmick in my mind, but the market will demand the next new craze and this seems to be it. What makes me laugh is that you seem to think we hate 3D. I just think it's stupid, but I can live with it, as long as it is *OPTIONAL*. Don't screw with my normal TV. 3D is on a death-march, either from overexposure to the public and people getting sick of it, or a new and exciting craze like virtual reality will replace it.
Also, to further drive in the nail, Wii sales dropped the most of any console during the last year, even by as much as 45% in the UK. The Xbox360 only dropped 22.2% and it has been out longer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
45 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
