|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Games » General RPG » 3D Movement In M&M Games

Default 3D Movement In M&M Games

January 28th, 2014, 13:39
I'm not sure I'd agree that those first 2 qualify as "well known". As for roguelikes, personally I hate tiles and have always played them with ASCII, so I tend to not think of them as graphical games to begin with. But you're right.
Stingray is online now

Stingray

Sentinel

#101

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 390

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 13:40
Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
I'm not sure I'd agree that those first 2 qualify as "well known". As for roguelikes, personally I hate tiles and have always played them with ASCII, so I tend to not think of them as graphical games to begin with. But you're right.
They're as well known as many of the other indies we talk about around here.

I'd say Starbound and Dwarf Fortress are very popular - but they're definitely not mainstream.

2D mainstream/AAA RPGs are very rare - because the mainstream audience tends to crave spectacular visuals - which is hard to achieve in a 2D environment these days.

But I think I've made my point
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#102

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,816

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 13:47
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
One last time - any game that SIMULATES the third dimension, is a 3D game.
If I haven't overlooked anything, this is indeed the first more or less well-definition of 3D in this thread.

(And btw. I'm sure that CraigCWB has a differing definition in mind and that's why your previous discussion was imho pointless.)

That means the SLIGHTEST and LEAST functional "third dimension" implementation is arguably (and technically) a 3D game…
Hm… what about Infinity Engine games then? I think we all more or less know how it works and looks in the game.
You for example have visual effects like birds, that (with the trickery of shadows) seem to fly above the ground. Or you have hills, towers and balconies above the ground which you can stand on.
According to your definition Infinity games are 3D games too?

…though it might not make sense to talk about it as such - like my platform game example.
Well, isn't agreeing upon terminology/semantics all about being able to talk about stuff later on? Defining something but not using the derived terms later on seems pointless.
Morrandir is offline

Morrandir

Keeper of the Watch
RPGWatch Donor

#103

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 782

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 13:54
Originally Posted by Morrandir View Post
If I haven't overlooked anything, this is indeed the first more or less well-definition of 3D in this thread.

(And btw. I'm sure that CraigCWB has a differing definition in mind and that's why your previous discussion was imho pointless.)
Try looking at post #82.

As for what Craig means - I'm not a psychic. I can only read the words he's writing - and I think its' very clear what he means based on that. If he doesn't mean what he says, that's unfortunate - but I'm not going to just assume something like that.

That's just me, though.

For me, a discussion is not pointless because people don't automatically agree. It's useful to learn about the human mind and how we work above all. The topic at hand is almost trivial in comparison, though I'm glad if some people can learn something about it.

Hm… what about Infinity Engine games then? I think we all more or less know how it works and looks in the game.
You for example have visual effects like birds, that (with the trickery of shadows) seem to fly above the ground. According to your definition, Infinity games are 3D games too?
They're clearly 3D - as they're Isometric. You can move left, right, up, down, back and forth. It simulates a third dimension. All the buildings and dungeons are generated using pre-rendered 3D images as well.

I'm not trying to insult you, but at this point you really seem quite dense. I mean, I'm not that smart - and I really think we're talking ultra basic stuff.

ANYTHING that happens on a computer screen is 2D - because the screen itself is 2D. It's physically impossible to have a third dimension. You do understand that, I hope.

So the ONLY thing relevant in terms of talking about 3D on a screen is the ILLUSION or SIMULATION of 3D. ANYTHING else is impossible by default.

So, if a game SIMULATES 3D on any level - it's technically 3D. That's all there is to it. Some games are clearly borderline when it comes to practical application of the term - but that's so subjective we'd never agree anyway.

Well, isn't agreeing upon terminology/semantics all about talking about stuff later on? Defining something but later on don't use the derived terms seems pointless.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.

For whatever reason, you just assume we're not using words correctly. I'm not having a semantic issue - and I'm using the words I think are quite appropriate.

That's something I'm going to have to assume is true for people when I communicate, as it's not practical to reinvent and teach language for every exchange.

I've made the same point what feels like 20 times about now - and there's no way I can force people to actually read. But I can't assume they DON'T read when they respond.

Otherwise, you would never be able to have a debate with people - as even the most common words can be misunderstood. Are you seriously suggesting we evaluate all words just because people might not agree upon them?

In a world with infinite time and patience - that would be a great approach, but that's not the real world.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#104

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,816

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 14:07
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
As for what Craig means - I'm not a psychic. I can only read the words he's writing - and I think its' very clear what he means based on that. If he doesn't mean what he says, that's unfortunate - but I'm not going to just assume something like that.
A large part of the hilariousness of this whole convo is that he refuses to simply give a definition of what he thinks 3D means. Instead, he'll throw out Wikipedia links, discuss how you're arguing not with him but the industry or textbooks, or speculate about how you must work at Walmart or a gas station (likely the night shift).

Regardless of that…through his posts, one can mostly put together the pieces of the puzzle and figure it out. He seems to think that the critical piece to a game being 3D is that it features levels/maps that make heavy use of all 3 axes. For example, in his world, Doom isn't called "2.5D" because it uses 2D sprites to represent objects (which is why most people would call Doom "2.5D"). Nope, it's called "2.5D" because its levels/maps are all single-level and you can't fire your guns at an up or down angle. The thing that still mystifies me, though, is that with his definition in mind, he'd think Ultima Underworld was the first 3D game. Games as far back as Zaxxon (1982) or Star Wars (1983) should be equally 3D under that definition.
Stingray is online now

Stingray

Sentinel

#105

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 390

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 14:15
Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
A large part of the hilariousness of this whole convo is that he refuses to simply give a definition of what he thinks 3D means. Instead, he'll throw out Wikipedia links, discuss how you're arguing not with him but the industry or textbooks, or speculate about how you must work at Walmart or a gas station (likely the night shift).

Regardless of that…through his posts, one can mostly put together the pieces of the puzzle and figure it out. He seems to think that the critical piece to a game being 3D is that it features levels/maps that make heavy use of all 3 axes. For example, in his world, Doom isn't called "2.5D" because it uses 2D sprites to represent objects (which is why most people would call Doom "2.5D"). Nope, it's called "2.5D" because its levels/maps are all single-level and you can't fire your guns at an up or down angle. The thing that still mystifies me, though, is that with his definition in mind, he'd think Ultima Underworld was the first 3D game. Games as far back as Zaxxon (1982) or Star Wars (1983) should be equally 3D under that definition.
I'm not so sure - as he doesn't understand the technical limitations of said engines.

You actually CAN fire a gun at an up or down angle in Doom - it just does it automatically for you depending on where the enemy is located. You also have vertical movement - it's just done using "blocks" instead of "smooth inclines".

You can't manually look up or down, however - IIRC.

It's 3D but not "fully" 3D or "true" 3D - if we're talking about vector math. That's why 2.5D is a stupid term, because it's not about the lack of a third dimension, it's the incomplete implementation of vector math for all the objects and texture-mapped faces.

Ultima Underworld also uses sprites for both weapons and objects and it shares similar limitations - except it does have smooth inclines. But when you look up or down - you can clearly detect the trickery, because textures don't align naturally. They twist and bend because of this limitation.

I forget the details, but back in the day I read about the limitations - and how System Shock was a step forward, because the only "non-3D" part of that game is the sprites. You can look up and down correctly without trickery.

My guess is that correctly calculating the vertical changes according to the camera view in terms of polygons and texture maps using vector math was too expensive for the CPU back then.

Duke Nukem 3D shared the exact same limitation by the way - which is evident because they DID implement looking up and down - and it looks fake as hell.

I used to care a lot about these things - but that was almost 20 years ago
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#106

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,816

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 14:23
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You actually CAN fire a gun at an up or down angle in Doom - it just does it automatically for you depending on where the enemy is located.
Yeah, I know, that's exactly what I'm referring to - he used it as an argument as to why Doom isn't "3D":
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showp…9&postcount=46

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
That's why 2.5D is a stupid term, because it's not the lack of a third dimension, it's the incomplete implementation of vector math (polygons and texture maps) for all the objects.
That's how most of us use the term anyway. As we discovered in this thread, at least one person disagrees.
Stingray is online now

Stingray

Sentinel

#107

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 390

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 14:31
Hehe, well, it's just one guy being wrong. Not exactly groundbreaking

I can't say this has been one of those debates where I've had much doubt about my own position - but you have to try and stay open-minded.

But it quickly devolved into a pissing match - at which point I stopped what little investment I had going, emotionally

I find it's helpful to stay out of the personal crap, and just focus on things that make sense. That's what I've tried to do throughout.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#108

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,816

Default 

January 29th, 2014, 09:59
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Try looking at post #82.
Indeed I missed this one.

For me, a discussion is not pointless because people don't automatically agree. It's useful to learn about the human mind and how we work above all. The topic at hand is almost trivial in comparison, though I'm glad if some people can learn something about it.
Exactly. I'd go so far to say that a discussion makes sense only if there are different opinions.
But when you argue about if some entity has a certain attribute, all parties should have the same idea of this attribute. If not, the argument itself is pointless.

They're clearly 3D - as they're Isometric. You can move left, right, up, down, back and forth. It simulates a third dimension. All the buildings and dungeons are generated using pre-rendered 3D images as well.
Wow… ok… I would have never called Infinity games 3D. But if that's the common perception, I defineteley learned something here.

I'm not trying to insult you, but at this point you really seem quite dense. I mean, I'm not that smart - and I really think we're talking ultra basic stuff.
Hehe, no offence taken. I know how dense or not I am quite well.

ANYTHING that happens on a computer screen is 2D - because the screen itself is 2D. It's physically impossible to have a third dimension. You do understand that, I hope.
For whatever reason, you just assume we're not using words correctly. I'm not having a semantic issue - and I'm using the words I think are quite appropriate.
Well, one thing I've learnt (not only in science lectures) is that if there's some "problem" (like an exercise, a discussion etc.) you have to make sure that everyone involved exactly understands the occuring concept, no matter if its in mathematical, linguistical, economical or social or whatever context.
That's why I'm asking questions that seem dull or might have very simple answers.

Otherwise, you would never be able to have a debate with people - as even the most common words can be misunderstood. Are you seriously suggesting we evaluate all words just because people might not agree upon them?
Well, theoretically you would need to do this, yes. But as you said, thats practically impossible. I think you realy need to to this for the concepts/words, that are most "important" to a discussion. Yeah, of course, how to you decide for theses words. Not trivial, but I think in this actual discussion, the concept of "3D" is a term that needed to be defined.
Morrandir is offline

Morrandir

Keeper of the Watch
RPGWatch Donor

#109

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 782

Default 

January 29th, 2014, 10:58
Originally Posted by Morrandir View Post
Indeed I missed this one.

Exactly. I'd go so far to say that a discussion makes sense only if there are different opinions.
But when you argue about if some entity has a certain attribute, all parties should have the same idea of this attribute. If not, the argument itself is pointless.
One theory of mine is that everyone would agree if they had the same idea about all attributes.

But if you really think that's something you can achieve on a public from like this, then we simply disagree.

For people to establish whether they agree on an "attribute" - they have to enter any exchange with a very open mind - and they HAVE to believe they can be entirely wrong about everything and the other side can be entirely right. Beyond that, they need the patience and ability to read information without error - and the other side needs to deliver information without error as well.

Unfortunately, it's my experience that the VAST majority of people who enter into a debate with an aggressive stance is neither capable or interested in such an exchange - and language is extremely flawed when it comes to precision. All words refer to other words - and if you want certainty - it's an endless cycle of going from association to association.

Not for me, sorry.

Wow… ok… I would have never called Infinity games 3D. But if that's the common perception, I defineteley learned something here.
Why would my definition be the common perception? I think Avatar is a piece of shit movie - but obviously the majority disagrees.

Well, one thing I've learnt (not only in science lectures) is that if there's some "problem" (like an exercise, a discussion etc.) you have to make sure that everyone involved exactly understands the occuring concept, no matter if its in mathematical, linguistical, economical or social or whatever context.
That's why I'm asking questions that seem dull or might have very simple answers.
You can never be sure that anyone exactly understands anything - really. You can hope and pray, but that's about it.

If you agree - you could still be wrong about the basis for agreement. Agreement is not terribly interesting to me - nor do I think it's particularly valuable.

The way to establish understanding is through rational argument - as that will clearly reveal what the other side means when they talk about a concept.

If it turns out they're talking about something else entirely - then you've learned that.

I can't make Craig agree with my understanding of 3D - and an amiable compromise regarding his way and my way was lost immediately with his attitude.

Well, theoretically you would need to do this, yes. But as you said, thats practically impossible. I think you realy need to to this for the concepts/words, that are most "important" to a discussion. Yeah, of course, how to you decide for theses words. Not trivial, but I think in this actual discussion, the concept of "3D" is a term that needed to be defined.
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing how you establish this common understanding in future debates. Maybe there's an easier and more practical way that I'm missing.

To me, "3D" is an EXTREMELY simple concept - and I never expected anyone would confuse 3D with vector math. But I learned that through our debate.

It was a useful debate and it was mildly entertaining. If we'd started out amiably (impossible in this case) - we might have agreed upon the concept of 3D and there wouldn't have been a debate. Would that have been better or more useful for people participating? You seem to have gained more from the debate than two people agreeing immediately.

I'll be watching
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#110

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,816
RPGWatch Forums » Games » General RPG » 3D Movement In M&M Games
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:50.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch