|
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 25th, 2014, 10:40
They're simply referring to the fact that MM6-8 moved away from the style of MM4-5. The reason MM4-5 had tile based movement, and not full 3D like MM6-8, was not a choice based on preference in the 90s - it was a matter of technological limitations. They moved to full 3D movement as soon as they had the technology to do so.

I find it odd that the recipe of MM7 wasn't followed, given it's status among the fans. It generally seems to come out on top in MM polls, and I certainly consider it my favorite by a long shot.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#1

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,289
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

January 25th, 2014, 12:36
Originally Posted by Maylander View Post
They're simply referring to the fact that MM6-8 moved away from the style of MM4-5. The reason MM4-5 had tile based movement, and not full 3D like MM6-8, was not a choice based on preference in the 90s - it was a matter of technological limitations. They moved to full 3D movement as soon as they had the technology to do so. I find it odd that the recipe of MM7 wasn't followed, given it's status among the fans. It generally seems to come out on top in MM polls, and I certainly consider it my favorite by a long shot.
I don't recall anything I'd refer to as "full 3D movement" in any MM game, but it's been a while and I'll take your word for it

My favorite was MM3, by far. It was the last in the franchise that was cutting edge by the standards of the day. The World of Xeen ones were seeming a little dated, to me, because it was pretty much the same game engine, but a lot happened with PCs between the early 1990s and mid 1990s. And by the time VI came out, the franchise seemed absolutely dated. I loved it anyway, but it was competing with Baldur's Gate and Fallout by then.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#2

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 492

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 05:54
Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
I don't recall anything I'd refer to as "full 3D movement" in any MM game, but it's been a while and I'll take your word for it
MM6-9 all had full 3D movement.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#3

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 388

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 07:43
Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
MM6-9 all had full 3D movement.
As I said, I musta missed it. I just checked youtube and I'm still missing it. I'm not going to argue about definitions, though. I already ceded the point. You want to call that full 3D movement, it's fine by me
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#4

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 492

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 08:22
OK, I will argue a bit about it, since the argument itself also dates back to those days:

Might & Magic III, step movement engine, 1991:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCtDpEApofs

Might & Magic VI, "fully 3D movement", 1998:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03lQBKnXbCs

Wolfenstein 3D, famous for only being 2D, 1992:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C00n4rDUMNo

Doom, famous for being "2.5 D", made to seem 3D via some engine trickery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-lQZzevwA

System Shock, a game that famously had "fully 3D movement", 1994:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXrlsiPTQS4

Ultima Underworld, the game that famously first did "fully 3D movement", 1992:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima…_Stygian_Abyss

Ultima Underworld has been cited as the first role-playing game to feature first-person action in a 3D environment, and it introduced technological innovations such as allowing the player to look up and down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5ddJpxHZME

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧-

Might & Magic VI is most similar to Doom. Which was not a game that had "fully 3D movement".
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#5

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 492

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 09:03
Wait, what? All that was meant in this thread by "full 3D movement" was that there's no grid, you go whatever direction you please and however much distance you please.

The stuff you're bringing up has no relation to how movement works. You're talking about graphics. Yes, Doom isn't 3D (it's "2.5D" or whatever you want to call it) because it didn't use 3D graphics, it used sprites and such to give the appearance of 3D. Yes, M&M 6-8 are the same way. M&M 9, on the other hand, had true 3D graphics so you're completely wrong in that particular case either way. Regardless, none of this has anything to do with what was being discussed.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#6

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 388

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 09:23
Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
Wait, what? All that was meant in this thread by "full 3D movement" was that there's no grid, you go whatever direction you please and however much distance you please.
That has nothing to do with three dimensions. That's all related to movement in two dimensions. I mentioned the change to 360 degrees of possible motion myself in an earlier comment. And I mentioned it before two different people told me that I was wrong and the game had fully 3D movement.

Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
The stuff you're bringing up has no relation to how movement works. You're talking about graphics.
No, I am not. I'm talking about game engines and the type of movement they support.

I already provided this quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima…_Stygian_Abyss

Ultima Underworld has been cited as the first role-playing game to feature first-person action in a 3D environment, and it introduced technological innovations such as allowing the player to look up and down.

Here is one from the Doom wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_%28video_game%29


The advance from id Software's previous game Wolfenstein 3D was enabled by several new features in the Doom engine, including height differences… non-perpendicular walls … full texture mapping of all surfaces… contrast to the static levels of Wolfenstein 3D, those in Doom are highly dynamic: platforms can lower and rise, floors can rise sequentially to form staircases, and bridges can rise and fall….


John Carmack had to make use of several tricks for these features to run smoothly on home computers of 1993. Most significantly, the Doom engine and levels are not truly three-dimensional; they are internally represented on a single plane, with height differences stored separately as displacements. (A similar trick is still used by many games to create huge outdoor environments.) This allows a two point perspective projection, with several design limitations: for example, it is not possible for the Doom engine to render one room over another.

Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
Yes, Doom isn't 3D (it's "2.5D" or whatever you want to call it) because it didn't use 3D graphics, it used sprites and such to give the appearance of 3D. Yes, M&M 6-8 are the same way. M&M 9, on the other hand, had true 3D graphics so you're completely wrong in that particular case either way. Regardless, none of this has anything to do with what was being discussed.
This is all completely irrelevant. Nobody here is talking about 3D graphics. And as I pointed out, these arguments were all had, 20 years ago. These are not my personal opinions you are taking on. I suggest, since you care so much that you brought it up again even after I bowed out of the discussion, that you do your homework before you start accusing people of being "totally wrong".
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#7

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 492

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 09:37
Actually, Craig, you started out by claiming that the newer MM games didn't do away with grid-based movement - and yet that's exactly what they did.

Here:

And speaking of grid squares, I don't think the newer MM games did away with them, I think they just let you travel (one square at a time) at angles other than 90, 180, 270 or 360.

MM6-MM9 were NOT one square at a time and they all included vertical movement.

Beyond that, MM9 was "full 3D" for all intents and purposes as well.

In that context, it's only natural that people would say you're wrong.

As for MMX, I don't mind the grid based movement. I'm doing my own grid-based game (though I seem to do it slower than any living creature on Earth) - and I love the style.

I do mind that it's slower than MM6+ - as I really liked the faster pace. That's because I consider it a light RPG that lends itself well to quick and accessible controls.

But I've only played it very briefly. I'll get back to it eventually and give it a proper chance.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#8

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,814

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 09:38
@CraigCWB - Wow, you're really going to these lengths to argue over wording, when everyone here knew (or should have known) what was meant?

Yes, I agree, "full 3D movement" is not the best term to use for what is being discussed, but if you go back to Maylander's post on page 1, you can clearly see what he meant when he said it:

Originally Posted by Maylander
They're simply referring to the fact that MM6-8 moved away from the style of MM4-5. The reason MM4-5 had tile based movement, and not full 3D like MM6-8, was not a choice based on preference in the 90s - it was a matter of technological limitations. They moved to full 3D movement as soon as they had the technology to do so.


Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
And I mentioned it before two different people told me that I was wrong and the game had fully 3D movement.
Yes, that is because those people understood what Maylander meant, and were just carrying over the same term.

Also, thanks DArtagnan for making other points that I didn't feel like typing out.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#9

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 388

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 09:42
Full 3D movement is a fine term - as it has nothing to do with the visuals.

MM6 has full 360 movement AND full vertical movement with levitation. It's FULL 3D in terms of movement, no matter what they call the engine in terms of representing the visuals.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#10

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,814

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:14
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Full 3D movement is a fine term - as it has nothing to do with the visuals.
Well, in MM6-8, you can't look up or down, but that is an issue of camera movement, not player movement, and we were clearly talking about player movement. So on second thought, you're probably right.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#11

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 388

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:17
Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
Well, in MM6-8, you can't look up or down, but that is an issue of camera movement, not player movement, and we were clearly talking about player movement. So on second thought, you're probably right.
You can look up and down, yes, but you're right - that's hardly movement.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#12

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,814

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:18
Maylander: Actually, Craig, you started out by claiming that the newer MM games didn't do away with grid-based movement - and yet that's exactly what they did.

I said "I think", twice, in that sentence you quoted. That's not an assertion of fact. I was just going from memory, and it was pretty clear I wasn't sure. Wasn't it? However, that was countered by the "fully 3D movement" claim. Which I ceded even though I was sure, and am sure, that's false. It's not a 3D game engine. It's a 2D game engine that uses offsets to create the illusion of a 3D environment, just like Doom did. Compare to that video of System Shock I linked earlier, and I suspect you'll see the difference right away.

Stingray: @CraigCWB - Wow, you're really going to these lengths to argue over wording, when everyone here knew (or should have known) what was meant?

The wording is important. Fortunes and reputations were made and lost on such wording, when these games were new. My wording was correct. And you're the one who pushed it, so why accuse me of being the one who is going to great lengths?


Stingray: Yes, I agree, "full 3D movement" is not the best term to use for what is being discussed, but if you go back to Maylander's post on page 1, you can clearly see what he meant when he said it: The reason MM4-5 had tile based movement, and not full 3D like MM6-8, was not a choice based on preference in the 90s - it was a matter of technological limitations. They moved to full 3D movement as soon as they had the technology to do so.

You know what? I didn't even get argumentative about that, but Wolfenstein 3D had the 360 degrees of motion with variable travel distance in 1992, and Doom had a game engine that did everything MM6 did in 1993, so there's no part of that argument which is really valid. But now I'm arguing about something that doesn't even bother me, and I'm arguing with a third party that I didn't even want to argue with. Why does it have to be this way?

Stingray: Yes, that is because those people understood what Maylander meant, and were just carrying over the same term.

You can't have it both ways. You say people understood what he really meant, even though the term was wrong, and then you say the term was not wrong?

There was a time when these arguments about game engine technology were non-trivial. Both Looking Glass Studios and id Software became industry legends because of their game engine technology, and they did it with these very releases we are arguing about, and these very engines we are arguing about. There's no point in us here, now, rehashing discussions from two decades ago when we aren't going to add anything to what was said a long time ago. There's also no point in us agreeing to be wrong about what's accepted in the industry as fact.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#13

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 492

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:24
I said "I think", twice, in that sentence you quoted. That's not really an assertion of fact. I was just going from memory, and it was pretty clear I wasn't sure. Wasn't it? However, that was countered by the "fully 3D movement" claim. Which I ceded even though I was sure, and am sure, that's false. It's not a 3D game engine. It's a 2D game engine that uses offsets to create the illusion of a 3D environment, just like Doom did. Compare to that video of System Shock I linked earlier, and I suspect you'll see the difference right away.
I've been on this very board making the same argument about System Shock and Doom - and what you're saying is not new to me. Yes, System Shock was a revolution - even though it used sprites for both items and monsters. The first "accepted" full 3D engine is probably the Quake engine, but that's another matter.

Your argument for supporting MMX grid-based was that you "thought" it was in MM6+ as well, and you're wrong - so your argument is void. If that wasn't an argument, then I don't know why you mentioned it in that paragraph.

Why you think it's relevant to drag a major technical debate into this, that has no relevance whatsoever - I really don't know.

We're talking about movement - not 3D engine capabilities. The party has FULL 3D movement - unless you want to claim that 360 degree movement, including jumping, climbing, levitating and so on is not full 3D. I'd like to hear your explanation for that.

Even if you CAN come up with some elusive explanation, I stand quite firm on full 3D movement being a 100% appropriate term for MM6-MM9.

MMX can't point at those games as the reason for going grid-based.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#14

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,814

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:32
Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
I said "I think", twice, in that sentence you quoted. That's not an assertion of fact. I was just going from memory, and it was pretty clear I wasn't sure. Wasn't it? However, that was countered by the "fully 3D movement" claim. Which I ceded even though I was sure, and am sure, that's false. It's not a 3D game engine. It's a 2D game engine that uses offsets to create the illusion of a 3D environment, just like Doom did. Compare to that video of System Shock I linked earlier, and I suspect you'll see the difference right away.
Sure, except the way the graphics are drawn has absolutely nothing to do with character movement, and we're discussing character movement. I thought I already covered this earlier, then you came back and said you weren't talking about graphics. But now you are again? Yes, M&M 6-8 is not a 3D game engine but it still does allow "full 3D movement", in the sense that Maylander meant when he used the phrase, which is: you can move at any angle and any distance you please.

Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
The wording is important. Fortunes and reputations were made and lost on such wording, when these games were new. My wording was correct. And you're the one who pushed it, so why accuse me of being the one who is going to great lengths?
I "pushed it"? Here's me "pushing it":

CraigCWB: "And speaking of grid squares, I don't think the newer MM games did away with them, I think they just let you travel (one square at a time) at angles other than 90, 180, 270 or 360."
^ you're 100% wrong

Me: "MM6-9 all had full 3D movement. "
^ simply trying to let you know you're wrong (yes, sue me for using Maylander's term that you don't like)

Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
You know what? I didn't even get argumentative about that, but Wolfenstein 3D had the 360 degrees of motion with variable travel distance in 1992, and Doom had a game engine that did everything MM6 did in 1993, so there's no part of that argument which is really valid. But now I'm arguing about something that doesn't even bother me, and I'm arguing with a third party that I didn't even want to argue with. Why does it have to be this way?
What, or with whom, are you even arguing? I'm completely lost at this point. Why does it even matter what shooter had what, in what year? We were talking about what M&M games had.

Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
You can't have it both ways. You say people understood what he really meant, even though the term was wrong, and then you say the term was not wrong?
Well, as you can see in my previous post, I changed my mind on the term being misleading. I now think it's fine. Either way, from what I can tell, you're the only person who didn't understand exactly what he meant.

There was a time when these arguments about game engine technology were non-trivial. Both Looking Glass Studios and id Software became industry legends because of their game engine technology, and they did it with these very releases we are arguing about, and these very engines we are arguing about. There's no point in us here, now, rehashing discussions from two decades ago when we aren't going to add anything to what was said a long time ago. There's also no point in us agreeing to be wrong about what's accepted in the industry as fact.
Don't get what this has to do with anything.

Also @DArtagnan, yeah, guess I forgot there was a look up/down key in M&M 6-8. Still don't remember how much freedom you had when doing it. Either way, as you said it's irrelevant.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#15

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 388

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:36
PS, DArtagnan: the grid square thing that I was wrong about has no bearing on whether a game is 2D or 3D. Right? Distance traveled along one or more axes is irrelevant to a 2D/3D argument. Agreed?

If so, and I'll assume you do agree, how is it "only natural" for people to assume I was wrong?
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#16

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 492

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:39
OK, I'm done with this. You guys want to call yourself retro gamers and all old school and crap and then wallow in ignorance about key evolutions of industry tech, back in the day, it's entirely up to you. Hope that works out well for ya
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#17

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 492

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:48
Right on. We must be ignorant about key evolutions of industry tech because one person on this forum refers to non-grid-based-movement as "full 3D movement", and we don't immediately jump down his throat because he had the nerve to use the word "3D" to refer to one unrelated element of a game that happens to use a 2.5D graphics drawing engine.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#18

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 388

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:52
Right. That's exactly what happened here, isn't it?
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#19

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 492

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 10:53
Yep. If anything else happened, let me know, because I must have missed it.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#20

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 388
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 17:43.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch