Topic: Does A "3D" Controller Mean Stereoscopic "3D" display?

[Nile Boogie]

 So yeah I know that we have all talked about this before but I don't think that it's been brought up since we've seen the freehand controller. Does it make sense to use a 3D controller on a 2d platform? Can the rumored "PPU" be used to take some of the strain away from the Cpu and Gpu so that the image can be rendered 2wice? Is this the "other feature" of the Revolution that we have speculated on? Is the also the reason for No HDTV support?

I am asking these questions in hindsight of the Freehand controller being shown, which gives us more of an idea of how the games will be played.  I do apologize if this topic has since been discussed, i saw no thread. My thoughts before were " it seems plausible but unlikely" however the freehand controller seems to give Stereoscopic 3D more credence.

[MarioAllStar]

Well I believe some members here have complained about their inability to see stereoscopic imagery properly. If that is a frequent problem then I doubt Nintendo would use that type of technology.

I think that it makes just as much sense to use a 3D controller on a 2D screen as it does to play the 3D games we play now. It is essentially a 2D plane, yes, but we can interpret the depth in a 3D fashion. When we see a person far away in a game, we can tell that they are far away.

Would 3D displays be an evolutionary step in gaming and all media displayed on a television currently? Yes. Are stereoscopic glasses the way to achieve that? I don't think so.

[zakkiel]

I actually think 3d displays would add absolutely nothing to games. Sure you get the illusion of depth, but everything looks like it's inside a box. I think it would be much harder to get immersed, not easier.

[TMW]

Honestly...I don't see this happening.  Nintendo tried and failed with the Virtual Boy.  It would be a Sega level eff-up if they tried it again.  They should know better.

[nemo_83]

I'll give it a 50/50 chance.  I doubt they would do it since the reaction from the Revmote (I stole that from Bill I believe) was so positive.  The remote alone solves many problems that 3D games have created; the only thing that does remain is depth perception and I have even read some weird quotes from developers wanting the stereoscopic visor now rather than five or ten years from now.  What do they know that we don't?  Does anyone remember the Miyamoto quote on wanting to make it so gamers would not need a tv; he wants VR headgear.  It is possible to go the whole way in this one generation with 3D controllers and 3D headgear since they put that port on the bottom of the controller.  

Do you guys remember the Marionette video I posted a while back?  

Also a visor would solve any issues about how we are to control camera in Zelda while using the remote to swing the sword.

And there is a visor attachement now for the PSP for the next MGS.  This kind of thing very well could still be planned for this generation.  If and when VR ever happens it will be an option as some people just can't see it.

In five years I was thinking Nintendo would be refining the 3D remote; not already packaging in VR headgear.  After the remote was shown; I thought the helmet would follow the ten year cycle Nintendo has established.  Maybe they don't want to take any chances this generation, perhaps the reaction to "NintendoON" inspired them, or this could simply be their way of fighting HD.

[Pale]

3D will do for games what it did for movies in the 80s...

But seriously, I have recently seen several different options for 3D displays in action...  The best ones require you to stand in one spot without ever moving.  The ones that allow moving around have a frustrating re-focus time assuming I was able to focus on it in the first place.

I don't think helmets will ever make their way into the mainstream either.  They detach the user from their actual surroundings too much.  This can be VERY disorienting and lead to extreme motion sickness to much of the population.

In a sense, Nintendo addressed this problem with the virtual boy, as it was a stationary object.  I think much of the reason it failed was the red factor, not the visor factor.  Well that and the fact that the ONLY reason for staring into this device was to get 3D, and 3D doesn't really add that much to gameplay.

Now to let me go a little crazy here.. and I'm actually being honest...

I don't think 3D will ever change video games until something like the holodeck from star trek is created.  Just sticking someone in a virtual world won't work as much as actually creating that world.  If you know what I mean.  This requires an arena of sorts...  In 50 years, look for arcades to make a comeback using a similar technology.  =P

(And I understand that we will never be able to create a leaf that is actually tactile...  Think of it this way... say the arena is an actual basketball court with a real basketball...  Then screaming fans and opponents are layered over top...  I dunno.. thats my "In the yeaaarrr two thousannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd" for the day.)

[nemo_83]

"This can be VERY disorienting and lead to extreme motion sickness to much of the population."

The motion control is supposed to alleviate the motion sickness 3D games already create by staring at a stationary screen with the camera jingling around everywhere.

Speaking of motion sickness; I watched Advent Children, and I have not felt so sick since the last time I went deep sea fishing.

[pudu]

First of all, I strongly doubt this to be what they are still keeping from us.  Second of all, if they did do it I hope they would:

NOT use red/blue glasses - I simply can't see the 3d image correctly with these.  I may need to get glasses to even out my eye vision but I'm sure many will have similar problems, plus the image just isn't of a high quality.

NOT attempt a VR headset - next to no chance of this happening anyway but would explain their not caring about HD output.  The price alone throws this out I think but if they did make one cheap enough to sell for the console I don't see how it could be anything other then crap.

MAYBE use "shutter galsses" - not sure if that's the real name for them but these are the glasses that only allow one eye at a time to see the screen but blocking the other one out (so the screen alters every other frame between left eye and right eye outputs).  This, from what I know about 3D displays, is probably the best option.  It could be synced up wirelessly or through the controller attatchment so that probably wouldn't be an issue.  I doubt this would be too expensive.  The problems are: a virtual halfing of either framerate or graphical quality to render frames for each eye (something that wouldn't help a console rumored to be inferior power-wise already), possibly problematic eye problems from too slow of a "shutter" effect, and not everyone getting the highest effect from it possible (differences in vision and how peoples eyes react).

The problems also can arise with the fact that most TVs are I believe 50 and 60Hz (60 fps max) so the most you would percieve would be 30fps.  I see this technology being more of something maybe the generation after the next may use.  I believe around 2007 or 2008 the HDTVs coming out will be running at 120 fps and closer to the year 2010 I've heard TVs framerate will be up to 240.  My point here is that once most TVs run at atleast 120 fps an acceptable every-other-eye rendering tech could run at a smooth 60fps.  But who knows, maybe by this time VR glasses will be good enough and cheap enough to make it to a console.

[Pale]

Again... what this all comes down to is, how is it worth all this effort to just make games look 3D?  We have 3D movies... they kind of suck...  They don't really add anything to the overall experience.  Perspective cameras already simulate 3D perfectly, so there its not like this would create any new gaming opportunities...

So again, really, what's the point?

[nemo_83]

I've already seen ads for Disney's new 3D movies.  George Lucas and Steven Speilberg are also investing in making their movies 3D for rerelease.  Yeah, you thought you loved the eighties already; get ready for rereleases galore.  3D is back and it aparently works now.  If you thought 3D sound was impressive wait until you can actually see the distance to jump in a 3D game.  That is how 3D would affect gameplay.  The question is if Nintendo could or would invest in something so risky so soon.  It would have more impact on gameplay than higher resolutions.  It would kill MS's and Sony's HD revolutions.

[Dasmos]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
So again, really, what's the point?

What you have described nemo is not necessary. It wouldn't add any depth (har har) to the game at all.

[zakkiel]

Nemo, 3d is workable for theaters because the screen is a large proportion of the audience's view. It might work for computer games for the same reason. Even there, it's not exactly like people are excited about it. For the average TV, it will look like a bunch of miniature people inside a box, making it impossible to really immerse in the world. It certainly won't help you judge jumping distance more accurately; for those kinds of activities comparison with surrounding objects is much more useful. It might help you, say, thread a needle if Nintendo comes out with a sewing game (which I wouldn't put past them).

[KDR_11k]

I guess my oppinion on this is worthless as I have no depth perception but I'd say 3d is stupid. It's nothing but an illusion, it adds nothing to the game and it requires more hardware power. I could only perceive the distance to the next platform if the camera moved with my head, i.e. I could move my head around to look at the issue from diferent angles. But using a first person view would be more effective there (while first person sucks for platforming it's not as bad as third person, overall I'd prefer 3d jump&runs to die and make room for 2d j&rs where you can see how far the platform is away).

Shutter glasses require a 120Hz output at minimum to look decent, a light source flickering at 30Hz would cause a headache at best and a seizure at worst. TVs cannot output 120Hz (PAL TVs can do 100 but they don't take a 100Hz signal). Sure, Sony claimed the PS3 will be able to do 120Hz output but since no TV can display that anyway it's pointless.

[Don'tHate742]

I very interesting comment from Miyamoto has come up seeming to lead towards 3D, however, the type of 3D that we all know and hate doesn't seem to be what he's alluding. Also, he's not talking about this coming gen but most likely a couple gens afterwards.......or is he?

Anyway, see for yourself.

Quote
In the future, what do you think video games will be like?

It's convenient to make games that are played on TVs. But I always wanted to have a custom-sized screen that wasn't the typical four-cornered cathode-ray-tube TV. I've always thought that games would eventually break free of the confines of a TV screen to fill an entire room. But I would rather not say anything more about that.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958127.htm?campaign_id=rss_magzn  

[KDR_11k]

I don't think he means 3d with that, sounds more like he wishes for a way to make the image cover everything around you so you don't have that tunnel vision.

[ShyGuy]

"Being color blind, I find most colors are stupid"

3d without red and blue or glasses would be ok in my book.

[nemo_83]

"The only time I play is maybe the 20 minutes I spend testing rivals' new machines."  

That is how I would do it too.  



Back on topic; I don't understand how I could thread a needle in a game but my aim when shooting or jumping would not improve.  That is like saying the remote is no good for shooters; its only good for micro games where you play operation.  The purpose of the 3D is not to only wow you with $#!+ coming out of the screen at you, but to help you percieve distances better.  Not only would it help your jumping in Mario where the camera is in third person, but a game like Metroid (about the only fp game that uses jumping well) would be able to use the motion control to allow gamers to look down in real time in 3D.  The motion control in the head gear would allow you to aim forward while looking over your shoulder.  At the cheapest level they could simply make it some ear pieces, a microphone, and some shutter glasses that have the same motion control tech as the remote.  They would not have to sell a screen though they have shown with the GBMicro that they can make small screens for cheap with high clarity.  The idea is that your tv and the console will do most all of the work while all you have to do is put on the head gear.


Simply my opinion:

$100 stereoscopics along with 3D motion control >>>>>>>>>>>>useless $2,000-$13,000 higher resolutions which drain the energy of the console making developing games difficult.


If Nintendo ever did do this they better make it work with the new 3D movies encouraging people to play their movies with Nintendo's remote and system.  Nintendo should go out to movie execs and tell them they want their 3D movies on their console (perhaps they really should have done this and gathered lots of money from these Hollywood suits to ensure the Revolution was invincible); they would be exclusive simply because of the fact that there is no other major hardware provider like Sony who would be offering hardware that could play or display the 3D movies.  Right now the reason Hollywood is looking into 3D is because HD technology did not increase ticket sales; it drove up prices due to opperating costs resulting in five minute long SUV commercials at the beginning of movies and nine dollar movie tickets.  Now noone goes to the movies and Hollywood is looking for a real way to get people to watch their movies again.  The drop in profits in the movie industry is what will happen when games go to HD.  The resolution to the crisis is 3D.  3D is something anyone can sit down with regardless of age or sex and immediately notice the change.  Unless you are unable to see 3D; I don't know what that would be like, but Disney World wouldn't be as much fun I'm sure.  

[Kairon]

If you think about it, your eyes and the way you process visual information are more like a cathode ray tube (TV) than a stereoscopic 3D display...

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Pale]

I don't agree with the fact that having actual 3D will allow you to judge in game distances better than the plain old perspective camera.

Have you guys ever tried any VR type games?

Have you ever been to Disney Quest in Orlando?  They have a few visor driven games...  granted some of what holds these games back is the sheer bulk of the visor, the 3D still doesn't help the gameplay that much...  In many games, specifically the Aladdin game, I found myself closing one eye in order to make more sense of what is going on.  In other words, the 3D did absolutely nothing for me... the only thing that was cool was the motion sensing as you looked around, and even that made me sick.

I understand how it seems cool on the outside, but the financial investment combined with the risk of turning 3D imparied people (like myself) off shows just how dumb of a business decision it would be.  As someone said above, one risk at a time.  The world is already doubtful that technology is good enough to make the rev controller work... I'm doubtful that 3D technology will EVER be good enough to make it work...  maybe Nintendo can prove me wrong in 10-15 years, but now is definately not the time.

[nemo_83]

"We invented the current way a console is played - in front of a television and holding a controller - but maybe that image will change." - Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President
May 13, 2004

"The concept of a home system today is defined as hardware that you tether to a box, and you are tethered to it via a controller; we think that's an old paradigm."
- Reginald Fils-Aime
January 01, 2005


I can't find the quote by Miyamoto on the same subject from a while ago, but he directly said if he could do anything he would make it so gamers didn't need a tv.  It sounded like he was promoting the idea of virtual reality in the future.  

[King of Twitch]

Nintendo Holodeck

coming Spring 2011...

[zakkiel]

Quote
Back on topic; I don't understand how I could thread a needle in a game but my aim when shooting or jumping would not improve.

Because jumping is a task where you judge a distance of several feet or more along the ground, or where the ground would be; thus, you naturally use nearby objects and textures to determine distance. Threading a needle is a task where you can't get useful information from the background, unless you have the needle lying on a table or something. Otherwise, the needle is isolated from its surroundings. It still probably wouldn't be very useful if the needle was just of one size, because you would automatically compare its size with the frame of the tv and get an accurate idea of how far away it is. Either way, the depth perception provided by having two eyes is only useful for things quite close to your face.

[pudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
"We invented the current way a console is played - in front of a television and holding a controller - but maybe that image will change." - Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President
May 13, 2004

"The concept of a home system today is defined as hardware that you tether to a box, and you are tethered to it via a controller; we think that's an old paradigm."
- Reginald Fils-Aime
January 01, 2005


I can't find the quote by Miyamoto on the same subject from a while ago, but he directly said if he could do anything he would make it so gamers didn't need a tv.  It sounded like he was promoting the idea of virtual reality in the future.

This might not be the Miyamoto quote you're refering to but it fits in with the others

Quote
Asked what he thought videogames would be like in the future, Miyamoto suggested removing what has always been a key ingredient for the medium: televisions. "It's convenient to make games that are played on TVs," he said. "But I always wanted to have a custom-sized screen that wasn't the typical four-cornered cathode-ray-tube TV. I've always thought that games would eventually break free of the confines of a TV screen to fill an entire room. But I would rather not say anything more about that."

LINK

Nice to know that they are already thinking of this next step, regardless of when it can be implimented.

[couchmonkey]

I think some people are missing the point here...when Nintendo releases a 3D system, it's not going to be like the mediocre 3D experiences you had in the past.  Nintendo will not release such a system until the technology is good enough for it to be worthwhile.  Having said that, I doubt that the technology is ready for this generation.

Edit: Put my foot in my mouth there, as Nintendo already HAS released a mediocre 3D system in the form of Virtual Boy.  My point is Nintendo probably won't make that mistake again.

[Don'tHate742]

Augmented Reality? Total Immersion?

Sounds to good to be true, but then again...it could be true. It seems to fit hand in hand with Nintendo's remote. You could literally fill your room with millions of marios and set them loose to play on whatever objects are in the camera's sight.

The only problem is, I don't think it will make gaming any better. You still have to look at the tv or through a visor to see the images being render. Right now, visors are out of the question. Looking through your tv still requires you to look at your TV, so what's the difference between games made how they are now other than the background is your living room and not computer generated?

In a decade, I hope to see this technology booming. I can only imagine how fun paintballing would be, except not with paintballs but with virtual weapons. Or better yet, seeing Link fight Ganon on your desk. Or watching Ryu and Ken fight in the middle of your yard. Hopefully it'll be possible for the computer animated objects to change the surrounding objects virtually. So if Ryu throws a fire ball into a wall it'll leave a hole.

Meh...something to think about