Blizzard is jumping on the 3D bandwagon, as StarCraft 2 production director Chris Sigaty has revealed a patch will be issued for the game soon after its release that'll at 3D for those who can take advantage of it. "We will be releasing 3D in the first few months, for those Nvidia cards and screens that support it," Sigaty told IGN (via VG247). And despite Nvidia being name-dropped specifically (and despite the fact Nvidia had a presence at the StarCraft 2 event in Seoul, South Korea where the interview was taking place), Sigaty also assured that they're "optimizing for all systems."
But 3D effects aren't the only graphical update that StarCraft 2 will get, as Sigaty also said Blizzard intends to continue to update the game with new visual features as time goes on and "median hardware gets faster." And while Sigaty also confirmed StarCraft 2 won't support anti-aliasing (a technique used to smooth out the rough edges in 3D graphics) out of the box, that could be one of the graphical updates the game receives later on.
StarCraft 2 is set for release in just a few weeks, on July 27.
I'm sure people will be upset over this news as it's not chatrooms or cross region play but it looks like it could be a cool gimmick for people with 120hz displays.
The only really sad thing about this news is that there won't be AA support. I don't mind that people are getting it in 3D as long as it doesn't affect the chat rooms and cross region patches.
And while Sigaty also confirmed StarCraft 2 won't support anti-aliasing (a technique used to smooth out the rough edges in 3D graphics) out of the box, that could be one of the graphical updates the game receives later on.
Does this make sense to anyone? How is AA not going to be part of the release package? I'd honestly prefer them to have what most would call standard features over gimmicks such as 3D.
I actually like this... updaing a game's graphics continually is something I would've liked to see in a lot of games! It's not anything major, but I think it's cool.
Something I'm not sure about: On most GFX drivers, you can force AA. Isn't this something that the driver itself can control regardless of the setting in the game? If so, can't everyone who wants AA just force it?
Nvidia card users, google "Nhancer". I'm 99.9% positive ATITrayTools or something similar has the same functionality as Nhancer or RivaTuner.
But this is a little disappointing. So many gimmicks, so little integral functionality......
I mean it's kinda cool...but maybe I'm just not a 3D fan. I think "lol" every time those Sony 3D TV ads come on, personally...maybe it's just me?
Dear everybody below me posting about AA and Nvidia:
On July 04 2010 03:28 Jenslyn87 wrote: I actually like this... updaing a game's graphics continually is something I would've liked to see in a lot of games! It's not anything major, but I think it's cool.
Something I'm not sure about: On most GFX drivers, you can force AA. Isn't this something that the driver itself can control regardless of the setting in the game? If so, can't everyone who wants AA just force it?
Yes. Sorry, you posted while I was typing my response. But you definitely can, Nvidia even already has values in the driver for "AA Compatibility" mode specifically for StarCraft II.
I am sure this pops up in the default drivers as well if you use the "program settings" (i.e. not global settings) area, and pick SC2. But just so I have proof and am not talking sideways out of my ass:
On July 04 2010 03:28 Jenslyn87 wrote: Something I'm not sure about: On most GFX drivers, you can force AA. Isn't this something that the driver itself can control regardless of the setting in the game? If so, can't everyone who wants AA just force it?
i think you can block it program-side. at least forcing aa didn't work in the first beta phase.
I read that AA doesn't work on ATI cards (I tried it and couldn't get it to work on my 5850 and didn't bother trying further) and that when forced on NVIDIA cards it does weird stuff like rounds the minimap. Someone with an NVIDIA card will have to confirm about that.
On July 04 2010 03:25 Lighioana wrote: I'm surprised it's not already supported out of the box.
You are surprised that a bleeding edge technology that maybe 0.5% of SC2 players have access to is not supported out of the box? I am surprised that you are surprised.
On July 04 2010 03:34 konicki wrote: Wow, so this is where their time is going. Way to be on the ball.
I swear I feel like choking whiny ass negative nerds like you.
Sentiment is mirrored back to you, from me. At least the other guy expressed his sentiments towards Blizzard. Nobody gives a shit about your sentiments about the other guy.
That goes for the other useless posts that follow below as well...
At least discuss Blizzard or SC2. Don't discuss the other guy...... ?????
I think my nVidia driver on my desktop PC already has SC2 listed as 3D compatible. I'm not sure what the process is to get a game into that list, but if Blizz had anything to do with that then the 3D support probably was planned a long time ago.
Imo 3D hardware/technology is not yet suited for heavy usage, but the more games/movies start using it, the more likely it is for improvements to be made. SC2 definitely will help boost the development for the platform PC.
On July 04 2010 03:34 konicki wrote: Wow, so this is where their time is going. Way to be on the ball.
I swear I feel like choking whiny ass negative nerds like you.
I'm really glad that it took 10 posts for the whiners to come in. I expected it to be the first reply. It's not like the same people who would be working on the 3D support are the same people who are building Battle.net 2.0 :/
This would be sweet for single player if you have the set up to do it, but I dont know why anyone would want this for MP and everyone will be done with SP by the time it comes out. Just save it for the expansions in my opinion
The most interesting thing about this information is that Blizzard is committed to graphics updates to the game over time. They must really want this game to last as long as Broodwar did.
Sometimes I think, "Hey I wonder how video games will be in 25 years when I'm my parents' age." It's cool to see games progressing in these interesting directions.
On July 04 2010 03:45 Zzoram wrote: The most interesting thing about this information is that Blizzard is committed to graphics updates to the game over time. They must really want this game to last as long as Broodwar did.
With the whole episodic release thing they're definitely pushing for a long lasting game, I hope they aren't bullshitting when they talk about graphical updates.
Who really cares about the 3D gimmick? I already have to wear glasses to play games, I don't want to bother with a second set.
It is good to hear that they will be supporting graphical updates on top of all the balance/content updates too. I wish a bunch of older games had done that, Brood War included.
I just got 3D features with a video card update a couple months ago. Just need glasses to play in 3D (better give me a pair of hydra 3D glasses out of the box)
Because the people who work on graphics are clearly the same ones who work on Bnet infastructure.
But I digress, because that's just logical.
I'm not sure how I feel about the "3D" revolution". I'll have to see what it looks like (At Blizzcon, probably) before I'll know whether I like it or not.
Oh, and thanks for the info about forcing AA, that's actually useful to me.
On July 04 2010 03:41 spinesheath wrote: I think my nVidia driver on my desktop PC already has SC2 listed as 3D compatible. I'm not sure what the process is to get a game into that list, but if Blizz had anything to do with that then the 3D support probably was planned a long time ago.
Imo 3D hardware/technology is not yet suited for heavy usage, but the more games/movies start using it, the more likely it is for improvements to be made. SC2 definitely will help boost the development for the platform PC.
This 3D trend happening with all the consoles lately has to be the largest gaming gimmick release of all time. Definitely note worthy in the legacy of gaming history, but for better or worse, nobody can say yet.
no 3d here but +1 blizzard, think its great just picture all the koreans spectating a match with 3D glasses on... and i didnt think it could get any goofier lol!
3d games?? no thanks. i dont want a nydus worm to pop in my face spitting zerglings at me making me realize that it isnt real and i gota destroy the worm 10 seconds later
For the life of me I can't picture how Starcraft II would look in 3D.
3D requires a 120 hz monitor, btw? I'll be in the market for a new monitor soon and have a 470 GTX, so might as well grab a 3D-capable monitor if I can. Some guys, such as Team Fortress 2, I can't picture looking anything but great in 3D-- and some say it helps your depth perception.
On July 04 2010 04:07 ghosthunter wrote: Because the people who work on graphics are clearly the same ones who work on Bnet infastructure.
But I digress, because that's just logical.
I'm not sure how I feel about the "3D" revolution". I'll have to see what it looks like (At Blizzcon, probably) before I'll know whether I like it or not.
Oh, and thanks for the info about forcing AA, that's actually useful to me.
Because the money they spend on the extra graphic people to make this happen couldn't be spent on people working on usefull/basic functionality of bnet2.0
It would be very suprising to hear that blizzard doesn't have a budget for this game and that all these "extra" features that they're releasing isn't being payed out of said budget.
It might be somewhat cool if it was the Nintendo style 3d where you don't need glasses, but if its glasses 3d, I doubt even a single person in the world will bother using it.
Something I'm not sure about: On most GFX drivers, you can force AA. Isn't this something that the driver itself can control regardless of the setting in the game? If so, can't everyone who wants AA just force it?
No.
StarCraft 2's renderer is a deferred renderer. Because of that, it is not rendering to the primary framebuffer (ie: the screen) most of the time. It builds the image through a semi-complex series of intermediate buffers. Buffers that the renderer controls all by itself.
Multisampling is a property of the buffer being rendered to. When the driver forces antialiasing on an application, it does so by affecting the properties of the primary framebuffer. So, as in the case of SC2, if you're not using that framebuffer except for the final display, then it isn't going to help.
In order for SC2 to support antialiasing, it would have to be something that the game does internally. And it wouldn't be cheap. And it would require DirectX 10-class hardware, because only DX10 hardware can use a multisampled render target as a texture.
I don't think that 3d will be nearly as impressive in a birds-eye game like SC2 as it would be in a FPS or RPG. If anything, it might just end up being distracting.
If only they could make the single-player cinematics in 3d
On July 04 2010 03:41 spinesheath wrote: I think my nVidia driver on my desktop PC already has SC2 listed as 3D compatible. I'm not sure what the process is to get a game into that list, but if Blizz had anything to do with that then the 3D support probably was planned a long time ago.
Imo 3D hardware/technology is not yet suited for heavy usage, but the more games/movies start using it, the more likely it is for improvements to be made. SC2 definitely will help boost the development for the platform PC.
"3D" is bullshit anyways. If you've ever played on a 120Hz 3D screen for more than a few hours you know what I mean.
It's more prone to fry your synapses, give you massive headaches and make your eyes bleed than really "enhance the experience"...
On July 04 2010 04:07 ghosthunter wrote: Because the people who work on graphics are clearly the same ones who work on Bnet infastructure.
Battlenet is just a client-server application with a points system database. Anyone with anything more than a rookie level of programming could make a battlenet.
That is kinda ignorant. Creating that kind of system for so many concurrent players is not easy by any stretch of imagination, but obviously Blizzard got the expertise they need after all these years of World of Warfare.
I find it, eh, difficultto believe that starcraft 2 is getting 3D so soon after the technology of 3D tv/computer. i prefer to wait a couple of years while the people who make 3d tv's have worked out the kinks, i will state for myself that if this technology will REALLY be introduced to sc2, i will either wait a while, or not buy a 3D compatible comp entirely. even then, i think 3D would be to distracting to play efficiently, imagine 400 units on the screen, or more.
I've only seen a few 3d movies; however the common trend is that I get nausea and headaches from it. After Avatar, I felt absolutely awful, despite it being an awesome movie. During Alice in Wonderland, I had to take my glasses off for a few brief periods. I could only imagine how bad it would be for me sitting there for hours on end playing the game in 3d.
It's strange, I never get motion sickness, or have issues playing any games, but 3d just does something weird to me.
Is it possible to change the title of a thread? @OP - I don't know if you noticed, but you spelled 'patch' wrong just FYI (not trying to flame or troll etc)
3D is seriously so ghey... I watched a movie and my head was POUNDING after 30 minutes for christ sakes and my eyes were hurting also. I honestly think with all the new T.V's, movies and video games coming out in 3D people are going to get really fucked up in the brain or loose their sight. 3D ain't that great anyway to be honest. 3D needs to die. kthxbye
This doesn't really make sense. The NVidia hardware automatically transform any games to 3D as long as the game is rendered in 3D. It shouldn't require any work at all...
Saying that, while I don't care about 3D, it's not unreasonable for them to support it instead of AA. If it really does need any work, it will probably be one day max, whereas implementing AA is not that easy.
Graphic update? sweet ! But on the other said I really think that 3d graphic should in no way be a priority for reasons we all know. And anyway the 3d craze is kind of silly and as long as it doesn't cause imbalance (like the resolution probleme we have/had) I could care less.
I dont really get how 3d would be all that good with this game... Top down view, you cant really get much depth perception... Might be cool for UMS games i guess
On July 04 2010 08:31 Evolve wrote: I dont really get how 3d would be all that good with this game... Top down view, you cant really get much depth perception... Might be cool for UMS games i guess
On July 04 2010 03:45 Zzoram wrote: The most interesting thing about this information is that Blizzard is committed to graphics updates to the game over time. They must really want this game to last as long as Broodwar did.
Yeah whoopiee whatever over 3D. But that quote is qft. It's nice to look at this from another perspective and realize that it's cool to see Blizzard planning to update the game frequently in more ways than simply balance patches.
I'll laugh if they release 3D support for $5-10 and actually expect people to buy it.
Though that's not impossible, since game publishers seem to have this theory that everyone wants 3D (which is totally wrong, I think most would prefer better standard graphics over 3D).
Anyway as long as this doesn't slow down cross-region play, chat-rooms and the ability to make multiple characters on an account, I'm good
I love my 3D vison glasses. Playing Dawn of War II in 3D absolutly changed the way I felt about that game. It went from ehhh this is an ok game but I miss the original to WOW this is like playing the table top game with living pieces. I love that game now and am psyched as all to play SC2 in 3D with official support.
When you play it now some things just dont look right the mouse doesnt float at the right depth and the health bars are too far away. But I imagine that real support will add a depth sensitve mouse like world of warcraft and UI features at the correct lvls.
The thing is untill you play some well done games in 3D it sounds like a gimmick but when you play a game that works right with 3D like Batman AA or DragonAge then it feels like a revolutionary leap.
On July 04 2010 03:44 jamesr12 wrote: This would be sweet for single player if you have the set up to do it, but I dont know why anyone would want this for MP and everyone will be done with SP by the time it comes out. Just save it for the expansions in my opinion
Possibly.
We still don't know if 3D is a fad yet. I think the biggest problem currently is the fact that you have to wear glasses. As soon as televisions and computers are able to display it sans-glasses (like the 3DS can) 3D will boom. Until that point i think it is a wasted investment.
3D is the biggest gimmick in entertainment, with HDR and Bloom splitting the 2nd place. All the other ridiculous cpu and gpu hungry post-processing effects that try to hide the ugly textures in games take the 3rd place.
The game is already 3D. What the entertainment industry calls 3D is a stereoscopic illusion.
On July 04 2010 05:52 Ghad wrote: That is kinda ignorant. Creating that kind of system for so many concurrent players is not easy by any stretch of imagination, but obviously Blizzard got the expertise they need after all these years of World of Warfare.
Actually, it IS easy. Drop the dreaming fanboy argument please. Creating a system such as Bnet is ridiculously simple.
Some peer to peer programs like bittorent are actually a lot more complex than battlenet... And they're developed by private individuals...
On July 04 2010 10:10 Sadistx wrote: 3D is the biggest gimmick in entertainment, with HDR and Bloom splitting the 2nd place. All the other ridiculous cpu and gpu hungry post-processing effects that try to hide the ugly textures in games take the 3rd place.
The game is already 3D. What the entertainment industry calls 3D is a stereoscopic illusion.
I'm sorry, what? Look out your window: it's rendered beautifully in your retinas in High Dynamic Range. HDR is vital for photorealism. It is not a "gimmick" any more than shaders, lighting, textures, or polygons are.
Now yes, game developers do absolutely love to over-bloom these days. Just like game developers loved "brown" (and still do, to some extent). That doesn't mean that the color brown is at fault; don't attack the technique just because of rampant misuse of that technique.
Actually, it IS easy. Drop the dreaming fanboy argument please. Creating a system such as Bnet is ridiculously simple.
Really? Then go do it. Prove that it's so easy, that any competent programmer could do it in a few months. It should be able to deal with all of the eventualities that one would expect with netcode, from router configurations to lost packets to dynamic IPs to whatever else is needed. Oh, and it should be completely bug-free, and tested with millions of players. Start now; I want to see the code by the end of September.
Actually, it IS easy. Drop the dreaming fanboy argument please. Creating a system such as Bnet is ridiculously simple.
Really? Then go do it. Prove that it's so easy, that any competent programmer could do it in a few months. It should be able to deal with all of the eventualities that one would expect with netcode, from router configurations to lost packets to dynamic IPs to whatever else is needed. Oh, and it should be completely bug-free, and tested with millions of players. Start now; I want to see the code by the end of September.
There's more to software engineering than just knowing how to realize a feature; there's a lot of planning stages before you even go into construction, such as cases and class diagramming (although I don't know how much Blizzard offices adhere to these things), before they actually go into construction. They have to go over many things that could go wrong, what features they want to add, documentation, refactoring, deciding what classes need to be there, and all of this happens before even a line of code goes in, ideally. And from the looks of things, Bnet was done late, so there wasn't a lot of time.
And the team that does Battle.net is likely not the same team that codes the rendering engine. They are probably a different team altogether, maybe some shared coders, I don't know, look at the credits when the game releases if you're curious as to which exact programmers are where. So no, there are no wasted resources because this was probably planned a while ago, and they can have both teams working concurrently on different aspects of the game, unless one needs the other.
It's Starcraft, who the hell is gonna be "woo, the graphics are all pretty, I can almost touch that Ling now" instead of actually planning how to wreck the enemy? While I probably felt a certain awe at how pretty the graphics in this game(for Blizzard standards it's amazing, they usually set the graphic bar low or used to, to allow everybody to run it fine.) it mattered less and less after I really started playing it. 3D is just another lure to casuals who can get a system that can run it or a cool thing for people who happen to have a system that runs it and would get the game anyway. It doesn't negatively affect the game in any way though, but it seriously could be budget better invested, their budget is probably infinite though(wow money) so yeah I see it as just another gimmick. About HDR and other effects, seriously, are we looking for Photorealism when we play Starcraft? You gotta admit it is a gimmick somewhat. The whole pretty graphics thing is, not that it's entirely bad.
all the more reason to spend more money on a new desktop that's 3d ready .
AA can be forced in your settings for all you graphic OCD people.
For all you guys biting on 3D, kindly walk into your nearest sony store and take a sample at their 3d TV's. 3D of today isn't the same cereal box red/blue glasses of yesterday.
to the guys trying to nerd-cock-fight: look up stereopsis. It's as simple as rendering two camera perspectives at the same time and oscillating their displays at alternate frames (wonder why 120hz? hmm.....60hz + 60hz.....).
On July 04 2010 13:47 FuryX wrote: Very disappointed no AA support....
Nvidia btw can support AA , while ATi Cards cannot, unless something happens between Blizzard/ATi....
Nvidia GPUs have ALWAYS fared dramatically lower than ATI chips when it comes to AA and AF. Most of the Nvidia cards take a huge performance right hook whenever AA&AF are used and are generally outperformed by ATI by a good 30 to 40%.
Look up these tests and comparison of a LOT of cards; It's pretty obvious:
On July 04 2010 13:47 FuryX wrote: Very disappointed no AA support....
Nvidia btw can support AA , while ATi Cards cannot, unless something happens between Blizzard/ATi....
Nvidia GPUs have ALWAYS fared dramatically lower than ATI chips when it comes to AA and AF. Most of the Nvidia cards take a huge performance right hook whenever AA&AF are used and are generally outperformed by ATI by a good 30 to 40%.
Look up these tests and comparison of a LOT of cards; It's pretty obvious:
I want to see someone try and play the game seriously with high APM on 3D. Try not to vomit on the keyboard. Talk about an useless feature/gimmick for a RTS game. Put it in WoW instead or D3(they will).
On July 04 2010 15:59 bubblegumbo wrote: I want to see someone try and play the game seriously with high APM on 3D. Try not to vomit on the keyboard. Talk about an useless feature/gimmick for a RTS game. Put it in WoW instead or D3(they will).
You may think it's "useless" and "gimmicky", but the fact is that it is extremely easy to implement and many people want it. Oh and by the way, unless you have motion sickness problems you aren't going to be vomiting over your keyboard just because something is in 3D. The sickness you may have experienced at 3D movies is because you are only getting 24 frames per second in one eye. With a 120hz monitor you will be getting 60 frames per second in each eye.
People who judge 3D by the success of avatar should be punched in the face. 3D Vision is one of the greatest things NVIDIA ever put on the market. Dont even try to judge it until you took some time and played a few different games. The immersion feeling you get when playing can make your great game into a fucking awesome game.
Some engines fit with 3DVision absolutely perfectly. In Prototype for instance you acctualy feel like you're running down the streets and everything around you is real and in chaos. It is a niche thing but if you have, let's say, a week with 3DVision where you just try out all the games (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-3d-games.html), let your eyes accustom to high depth levels, believe me you will know that this adds so much more to your game.
With that beeing said. Blizzard is probably just adjusting their engine to have the different levels separate correctly for 3D. But RTS usually dont work well because content is too far away. All u will see is the interface looks detached and some informations feels like its written on the glass of your screen.
On July 04 2010 17:09 Jayson X wrote: People who judge 3D by the success of avatar should be punched in the face. 3D Vision is one of the greatest things NVIDIA ever put on the market. Dont even try to judge it until you took some time and played a few different games. The immersion feeling you get when playing can make your great game into a fucking awesome game.
Some engines fit with 3DVision absolutely perfectly. In Prototype for instance you acctualy feel like you're running down the streets and everything around you is real and in chaos. It is a niche thing but if you have, let's say, a week with 3DVision where you just try out all the games (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-3d-games.html), let your eyes accustom to high depth levels, believe me you will know that this adds so much more to your game.
With that beeing said. Blizzard is probably just adjusting their engine to have the different levels separate correctly for 3D. But RTS usually dont work well because content is too far away. All u will see is the interface looks detached and some informations feels like its written on the glass of your screen.
I agree, I've played a couple of games on a friends rig and it for sure ads a lot to the immersion which is great for people like me who have a lot of difficulty actually being interested in a story, whether it is a game or movie.
i'm guessing it will mostly be a gimmick. since sc is in essence a 2D game the 3D effect won't affect the gameplay. and since it's such a competitive game, it really shouldnt affect it. cant force people to upgrade their hardware to something non-mainstream in order to be able to compete.
the one thing i could imagine that would improve is air unit clumping together, or bigger air units blocking sight of ground units. the 3D vision might make it clearer where the air unit is positioned in relation to the ground unit. (but i think i'd prefer the UI assist. the line that drops from the unit to it's ground position)
On July 04 2010 13:47 FuryX wrote: So no AA support...but has 3d Support....
One feature...that should be standard on PC games...while the other...has no place in a RTS...
Very disappointed no AA support....
Nvidia btw can support AA , while ATi Cards cannot, unless something happens between Blizzard/ATi....
Is SC2 "TWIMTBP"?
I'm not sure this was posted earlier in the thread, but the reason for no AA is that SC2 is using deffered lighting. Deffered lighting doesn't work very well in concert with AA, unless you are running the engine in DX10. so once DX10 support comes, we'll see AA as well.
I hope they'll give us an ini tweak to at least get some SGSSAA. You can force it with all NVidia cards through nhancer but ATI only allows it with the 5xxx series. And no workaround under DX9 so far :-(
On July 04 2010 17:09 Jayson X wrote: With that beeing said. Blizzard is probably just adjusting their engine to have the different levels separate correctly for 3D. But RTS usually dont work well because content is too far away. All u will see is the interface looks detached and some informations feels like its written on the glass of your screen.
This was my initial reaction too. Shame there's no real way to preview the effect (i.e. through a youtube video).
On July 05 2010 03:26 December12345 wrote: wow, can you imagine playing F.E.A.R. with a 3d lens or whatever it is? that'll fuck me up so bad
Isnt it glasses you put on? :p
And i am curious how 3D for a RTS game will work. In your example it isn't that hard to imagine but for an RTS it can kinda be. It's just gimicky stuff though. Weird they don't support AA!
On July 04 2010 17:09 Jayson X wrote: With that beeing said. Blizzard is probably just adjusting their engine to have the different levels separate correctly for 3D. But RTS usually dont work well because content is too far away. All u will see is the interface looks detached and some informations feels like its written on the glass of your screen.
This was my initial reaction too. Shame there's no real way to preview the effect (i.e. through a youtube video).
You just need red/blue glasses (I'll get some to preview the effect)
I don't understand at all. The game is a top down view, how will 3D even work? Things only move on the x and y axis. I guess Colossus climbing over cliffs, reapers, and air units move in the z axis every once in a while, but I can't visualize it working that well. I like the idea of 3D games, but not from a top down view.
On July 06 2010 08:21 Mactavian wrote: I don't understand at all. The game is a top down view, how will 3D even work? Things only move on the x and y axis. I guess Colossus climbing over cliffs, reapers, and air units move in the z axis every once in a while, but I can't visualize it working that well. I like the idea of 3D games, but not from a top down view.
Do you even understand what you're saying?
It's like asking "how 3D will ever work" with movies. "Things only move on the x and y axis".
No matter what the viewing angle is, as long as the depicted isn't textures on a flat surface, why wouldn't 3D work? It's three-dimensional models moving around. Just like most movies (bar 2D animated ones) have three-dimensional objects in them. You could do a completely top-down flyby of New York, and still do it in 3D. You could do just the same with SC2 as well, even though it's not top down, as you claim.
In other news: FSAA is the most hyped, crappy, useless feature ever created. It's borderline hilarious that people use it. Why not use a non-native resolution on your LCD instead? It looks the same.
The only AA that makes any kind of sense is the kind of AA Crysis does. Specific to the places that need it, with the rest of the graphics crisp.
I bet you no hardcore gamer will be interested in playing starcraft 2 in 3D. This is another feature implemented for casual gamers. Blizzard aiming at the casual audience again.
I'm surprised nobody has really like... figured this one out. nVidia pays people to be in their "Way it's Meant to be Played" programs, etc. and 3DVision is one of those. In supporting it, nV is going to hand Bliz cash for doing so.
Well, I'm not too excited by this as I don't have the necessary tech. But it does seem like a nice bonus for people who can enjoy it. The game may be harder to play, but I guess the novelty of the 3d would make up for that.
On July 04 2010 10:07 Largeman wrote: I think the biggest problem currently is the fact that you have to wear glasses. As soon as televisions and computers are able to display it sans-glasses (like the 3DS can) 3D will boom.
There already are TVs like that. The 3DS screen isn't really new technology. The advantage of putting it in a handheld is that there is one pair of eyes and you can adjust the angle of the display easily to get the result you want.
I'm glad that they didn't wait til they finished with everything til they even released the beta, or else SC2 might have never come out :D Imagine if they had released beta when they finished Chatrooms, 3D, Cross-Realm Play, etc. instead of doing it like they are. It's good to see they are still making larger scale updates to the game.
On July 06 2010 13:16 BigDates wrote: O.o So 3D is easier to implement than chat channels, cross realm, and realistic game hosting instead of making UMS also matchmaking?!?!
Actually, it is. 3d is basically a super hyped, easy to do, technology that's been pushed by the entertainment industry to justify charging an extra $5-10 for whatever it is they're selling. There's little that needs to be done, 3d can basically be applied to any game or movie with little effort.
If you haven't noticed yet, the number of people wondering why 3d is such a big deal >>> the number of people who think it's a big deal. When/if the recession clears up, we'll hopefully see a whole lot less of this bullshit.
On July 06 2010 23:49 Offhand wrote: Actually, it is. 3d is basically a super hyped, easy to do, technology that's been pushed by the entertainment industry to justify charging an extra $5-10 for whatever it is they're selling. There's little that needs to be done, 3d can basically be applied to any game or movie with little effort.
Though the technology in itself is not rocket science (but it's not straightforward at all, especially if you want to avoid the framerate drop involved in rendering the same scene twice), the effort to properly implement 3D in a scene is not that little at all. It's actually quite big, and needs a lot of research in usability, and lots of little bits and bobs in the rendering pipeline that suddenly stop working when you go to 3D. And then supporting all different hardware with different output formats is not a walk in the park. About AA and being forced through the driver: SC2 engine is deferred so AA can't be forced through the driver, it has to be implemented by the engine.
Personally, I like the idea of playing SC2 single player in 3D but I would never do it in multi, even if I'm used to use 3D monitors every day: too tiring.
EPT![[image loading]](http://lookpic.com/d2/i2/1164/PAnxbB6r.jpeg)
![[image loading]](http://jennyleewilliams.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/3d-specs.jpg)
