next »

[gimymblert]

There is plenty to do with 3D that can't be done with 2D

Such as?

I have a post somewhere on tig I can't find back where I made a list of overlook solution generally along the line of visual hierarchy and how it enhance gameplay. A bit like how rummble introduce a new layer of information without disrupting what already exist and whithout being cosmetic.

edit:
found

3D can provide information, but building a true new language is the key to got beyond the gimmick part. What is the language of 3D? what make it special? DEPTH obviously.

How can we build a language with depth? By showing stuff you can't do in 2D. 2D can imply depth to an extent, but there is a lot of illusion build on the Depth assumption we make, remember echochrome? that would not be possible with "depth vision".

What if we play with depth disregarding the imply depth that would shown on, what kind of meaning we could convey?

What if we use subtle displacement of things to show something invisible?
What if we flatten some plans to contrast others?

What if we inflate/deflate things irrespective of their volume to imply emotion?

What if depth is exaggerate to single out otherwise identical objects?

Can you think of any other application or idea? can't wait to see what nintendo came with 3DS wario ware.

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=12785.msg384287#msg384287



Basically right now 3D have no purpose but the wow effect, it need to translate into something useful.

[s0]

But rumble didn't change games in a major way either and none of the things you list seem like major innovations to me. More like specific mechanics for specific types of games.

It's also not true that 3D isn't disruptive. You have to wear polarized glasses or look at the image from a certain angle for the effect to be visible (especially a problem with handhelds like the 3DS) and it causes eyestrain and headaches in some people (like me).

[gimymblert]

Rumble: It's arguable, you can play most game without sound does not mean sound is not a gimmick. But that's true that most dev are a bit lazy and use it as a simple cosmetics. And each game has its specific mechanics, which require specific use of specific input too. I might concede that screen + button have sweet spot of genericity, but isn't that because we use to build with them in mind? Board game are has diverse as video games but build there game on their own set of genericity too. Basically it's tradition that hold back those interface, tradition is what makes one interface superior, if rumble was a former tradition it would be stronger now.

Basically You have 3 way to innovate in game, input, output and gameplay. Of course there is interdependent relation between them.

On disruption, bad 3D is as disruptive as bad screen and bad confusing art. It's not 3D per see the problem.


Let's take a virtual exemple, Pop up holography is quickly becoming the relevant future. Transpose to game you will see that with tradition it will be a gimmick because we use to design our game with horizon (3D) and lack of occlusion (2D), base on that people like you would see it has a gimmick because it does not hold up to tradition. If holography was the tradition and flat screen the new thing, horizon would not be part of the language, therefore people would see flat screen as the inferior art since it can't do thing holography can do (volume), I think fighting game would be cool on holography but you would say it only work for certain genre (which all interface do, rts and pad anyone). What I'm trying to say is that potential are not evident based on newness, it takes time to create a relevant language (click and point + icon didn't happen overnight, which allowed to fps + rts to blossom on pc, even fps on console have to go through a huge maturation phase).

Look at the stack of convention we have in our game (tapping, sequence, holding, releasing, cancel, buffer, etc...) and then look at new interface, you can see there is a hierarchy that his missing (click don't work without icon that much). You can't judge something based on tradition.

[s0]

We should probably discuss this in the design subforum or sth but whatever.

And each game has its specific mechanics, which require specific use of specific input too. I might concede that screen + button have sweet spot of genericity, but isn't that because we use to build with them in mind?

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think buttons, d-pads, analog sticks etc were invented because they work best for most games, not the other way around. Keep in mind that "alternative" control methods are not a new phenomenon, in fact quite a few of them actually have a long tradition in gaming, mouse + keyboard probably being the most prominent. But all those alternative control methods have one thing in common: They're only really useful for a handful of genres, namely the ones that the "mainstream" control method doesn't cover, such as RTS's, flight sims, realistic racing games, lightgun shooters, various types of rhythm games etc.

The same goes for "alternative" methods of visual game data representation, of course.

I don't get your point about boardgames btw. Could you elaborate?

[s0]

k split this off into its own thread and moved it to design forum.

i think i should rename it to "earth shattering battle between gimmy tilbert and c.a. sinclair" 

[gimymblert]

Dpad, button and stick don't work well with every game, they mostly work with action game with emphasis on navigation which make 90% of game. And mice could be the superior abstraction but development have halt because of tradition (see ninja gaiden DS as the next step of action based mice control). Navigating menu is still shit on pad, game that rely on menu are next to nonexistent on console. SO control create a bias with the perception of video games by making some genre more popular and more diverse with subgenre that grew on the same basic tradition. Alternative gameplay are only constrain because they does not fit the standard instead of being the standard. Also another aspect is that popular genre grew in complexity and over shadow genre that haven't much space to grew. For exemple there was a revival of lightgun shooter on wii, but their anemic design didn't evolve much since the last time they where cool (when arcade sustained their relevance), and many of their innovation has been ape by other genre (cover, reload, set piece, corridor, etc... YES COD is the direct descendant of virtua cops and golden eye too was heavily inspired by them). Lightgun might have branch of in many different subgenre or different genre with the same tradition if it was the king.

Some genre never really take off because of button (social gameplay) might find a new solace with kinect (people start to take notice).

[BattleBeard]

HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER


 Listen, I rather play a game with buttons and sticks, rather than moving all around, or waving a magical dildo around. Games are meant for sitting down, concetrating, and playing. When you flail your hair back and forth legs and arms around, you can't really play a game that well. That is motion controls imo, horrible idea usually.

 I think the 3ds is good,  but 3D is the most minor part of it, for now. Nobody is using it correctly. How about the enhanced graphics and stuff? I see that the 3ds is going to be clogged with 2d/2.5 games with forced in 3D. Not saying I won't get a 3ds for my birthday in a month. haha

[gimymblert]

But Is the discussion about what you like or about how thing are?
Obviously there is a lot of people who like flailing that does not make them wrong.

Basically we are arguing on potential and how it may lead to something worth. As a designer I care about how to handle new interface and new experience. As a gamer I'm content with whatever is good and sustain my attention long enough.

[baconman]

Does it have kickass potential? Sure it does. It is worth exploring design-wise. But it's not going to eclipse the videogaming world, either. I may be excited as hell to play a Sonic/Mario/Crash (likely most like the latter of the three) game in first-person perspective with a virtually interactive world where I can physically jump on goonies' heads (or springboards) and "catapult" myself through a wickedly-awesome designed level. But I also rue the day when I'd have to input a fighting games special move commands through decidedly-contorted bodily motions. How the hell am I supposed to "charge back," anyhow? XD

Also, for anybody not up to snuff on DDR (or real life exercise), this method of gaming will likely be very exhausting to most people. This topic also makes me wonder why level designers aren't building playgrounds instead of JUST video games. Taking a walk down the street or around the park would be so much more interesting with obstacles along the way to overcome. Just... hold off on the death spikes, okay?

[Bree]

Actually, Keita Takahashi (Katamari Damacy) is working on a playground design, but that's neither here nor there.