Will there be any 3d-vision support?

[rjshae]

If the goal was to add support for 3D vision or equivalent, I'd think Obsidian would have mentioned this by now, i.e. during the Kickstarter campaign. The logical assumption here is that there will be no such support.

There are many aspects of the game that they have not yet mentioned. Hence, I think your logic needs a little work.

 

I'm not really expecting 3D in the initial release, but at some point in the future we may end up seeing something equivalent to the BGEE for PE. At that time, it is not unreasonable to expect 3D to be included. But this would depend on Obsidian retaining the data used to generate the areas and creatures. Thus, I hope they save off that information.

[jarpie]

I can't understand what 3D gimmick would bring into PE, it's isometric game with 2D backgrounds ffs. And yes, 3D isn't anything more than gimmick, and it belongs into FPSs even if to those.

[rjshae]

I can't understand what 3D gimmick would bring into PE, it's isometric game with 2D backgrounds ffs. And yes, 3D isn't anything more than gimmick, and it belongs into FPSs even if to those.

Well, we'll have to see how well it does in the marketplace. I agree that 3D TV is something of a gimmick, but 3D games are expected to be more immersive. (Just as stereo sound is more immersive than mono.) With a computer monitor you're closer to the display, so the 3D effect should be more engaging and cover more of your field of vision.

[jarpie]

I can't understand what 3D gimmick would bring into PE, it's isometric game with 2D backgrounds ffs. And yes, 3D isn't anything more than gimmick, and it belongs into FPSs even if to those.

Well, we'll have to see how well it does in the marketplace. I agree that 3D TV is something of a gimmick, but 3D games are expected to be more immersive. (Just as stereo sound is more immersive than mono.) With a computer monitor you're closer to the display, so the 3D effect should be more engaging and cover more of your field of vision.

 

What part of "isometric" and "2D backgrounds" you didn't get? You do know that 3D to be effective, like at all, it needs actual 3D?

[evdk]

Well, we'll have to see how well it does in the marketplace. I agree that 3D TV is something of a gimmick, but 3D games are expected to be more immersive. (Just as stereo sound is more immersive than mono.) With a computer monitor you're closer to the display, so the 3D effect should be more engaging and cover more of your field of vision.

Yes, I mean look at how enormously successful 3DS has been.

 

Dohoho.

[rjshae]

Looks like a troll farm. Keeping fingers away from cages.

[jarpie]

Oh yeah, because we actually make sense we're trolls. Making PE to support 3D vision etc would be like trying to make drawing in paper to be three dimensional.

[jivex5k]

I can't imagine 3d enhancing an isometric game very much, but I've never seen it in use so I couldn't really say.

What I can say, I personally wouldn't use it, and it wouldn't add very much to gameplay (for me at least), therefore I don't want them to waste time on it.

[rjshae]

I can't imagine 3d enhancing an isometric game very much, but I've never seen it in use so I couldn't really say.

What I can say, I personally wouldn't use it, and it wouldn't add very much to gameplay (for me at least), therefore I don't want them to waste time on it.

...and I don't expect that they will in this release, since the computer 3D display market is not yet well established (but may be by 2014). Yet it is interesting to contemplate how it could be implemented. It should be relatively straightforward to project the area map and the graphical overlays onto planes (and volumes) in a 3D space. Likewise, the creatures will already have 3D models. The spell effects would probably be the more complex part. I'm curious to find out how they are going to implement those in 2D space. Shadows might be another concern, but I haven't heard how those will be displayed.

Edited November 1, 2012 by rjshae

[teknoman2]

I really, really hope the developers don't waste time and resources on something like this.

and let's not forget that there would be nothing in the game to use 3D vision on, since 70% or more of what is in the screen will be 2D

where do people come up with these weird ideas that even an idiot can see that they make no sense?

Edited November 1, 2012 by teknoman2

[rjshae]

I really, really hope the developers don't waste time and resources on something like this.

and let's not forget that there would be nothing in the game to use 3D vision on, since 70% or more of what is in the screen will be 2D

where do people come up with these weird ideas that even an idiot can see that they make no sense?

Yeah, converting 2D images to 3D; what idiot would try something like that?

 

We're amused.

[AwesomeOcelot]

I really, really hope the developers don't waste time and resources on something like this.

and let's not forget that there would be nothing in the game to use 3D vision on, since 70% or more of what is in the screen will be 2D

where do people come up with these weird ideas that even an idiot can see that they make no sense?

Yeah, converting 2D images to 3D; what idiot would try something like that?

 

We're amused.

 

 

As has already been written in this thread, not the same thing, the game is going to rendered from the cavalier oblique perspective. You don't have any depth to convert 2D to 3D, where as 2D films of 3D graphics or reality have depth.

[teknoman2]

I really, really hope the developers don't waste time and resources on something like this.

and let's not forget that there would be nothing in the game to use 3D vision on, since 70% or more of what is in the screen will be 2D

where do people come up with these weird ideas that even an idiot can see that they make no sense?

Yeah, converting 2D images to 3D; what idiot would try something like that?

 

We're amused.

we are not talking about video's here, but about 2D static images seen from an almost top down perspective. so yes, adding 3D support in scenes with no depth makes perfect sense

[rjshae]

 

Glasses-free 3D technology has already been developed and is becoming available commercially.

If it's not a working, Star Trek-like Holodeck....it's still useless to me.

 

The Oculus Rift Kickstarter passed and the technology was demonstrated at SXSW a week ago. Imagine being able to move your head about and look around the map in 3D. Yeah it's from a bird's eye view perspective, but still. Just saying...

Edited March 13, 2013 by rjshae

[CHRiTTeR]

Since its only 2.5D im fairly sure it wont suport that. It would look like crap imho.

[Lephys]

Since its only 2.5D im fairly sure it wont suport that. It would look like crap imho.

I wouldn't say that. All "3D" images displayed on a monitor are, in fact, only 2D images. So, unless the image you're displaying isn't even trying to HINT at the idea of 3-dimensional space, whatsoever, it could easily be effectively portrayed in trick-your-eyes 3D.

 

The 2.5D just means that the background/environment images aren't being rendered according to 3-dimensional logical space. Not that 3-dimensional space isn't being virtually represented at all.