lawblob said:
How complex / expensive is it to add 3D functionality to a game? What accounts for the difference in a game with good 3D vs bad 3D? Is it largely just a budget issue, allocating the resources to do it, or is there a certain 'art' to it, to put it that way.
1. you need to include some settings for the stereoscopic setup, not really much work
2. it can help if you do graphics with less contrast
3. special effects like heat distortion are problematic, so denpending on the code you have to either reduce/remove effects or replace with stuff that comforms to the 3D API...dont know the exact details
4. you might need to optimize so the game is still running at an acceptable rate in stereoscopic 3D
5. stuff like 2D backplanes will show in 3D, but it is not necessarily a problem, it is apparent in Enslaved, still I prefer to play in 3D
6. If you want to go the full way, you can do out of the screen effects
Good vs. bad 3D is a hard question to answer:
- Many racing games look fantastic, just because the tracks go into the screen forever
- "Isometric" games like Titan Quest or Age of Empires look marvellous, they dont look very deep, but it feels like a small world inside your TV/monitor. I am pretty sure dead nation would be perfect
- Fog and transparency effects work very well as they give you a sense of how deep which objects are
- Fften 3rd person works better than 1st person as there is another point of reference
- Wide open landscapes often dont work as good, as the greater the distance the less pronounced the effect - thats why in Avatar the indoor scenes are more impressive than outdoors. the reason is, with our natural huge field of vision we have much more reference points, if the screen shows only far points we cant see much depth at all.
general rule, the higher the contrast and more pronunced the depth the more ghosting.
For a reference, compare movies Tron and Tangled, it is like day and night.