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

Default 3D Movement In M&M Games

January 26th, 2014, 11:53
Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
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?
Yes, it has a bearing when it comes to the "full" part of 3D movement. As in, you don't turn 90 degrees only (try turning in real life and not call it movement, by the way) and instead have access to the FULL 360 degrees. You can also travel any distance along the Z-axis and not just in pre-determined "block distances", meaning you have FULL control there as well. You can also travel any distance along the Y-axis - because of both levitation and inclines like mountains, staircases, etc.

It's natural to assume you were wrong because you were wrong, obviously.

That you can't accept it or fear losing face is another matter entirely.

Personally, I consider "being wrong" the natural state of any human being - so you're not going to lose face here with me.

But it should be supremely obvious what people are talking about now, and if you can't see why full 3D movement is 100% appropriate and correct, then you certainly fail to explain how.

That's all good, just as long as you understand what we're talking about.

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
I don't call myself a retro gamer or old school, really - but I'm afraid your irrelevant links didn't quite turn your weak arguments into strong ones.

If they ever make a gamer-knowledge competition, I'll be happy to compete with you.

That's when such things CAN be relevant
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#21

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 12:11
If they ever make a gamer-knowledge competition, I'll be happy to compete with you.

You'll lose. I know how to use wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_…date_of_Heaven

Though Might and Magic VI was developed in a 2.5D format and uses 2-dimensional sprites, most of the artwork in the game was created as pre-rendered 3D images in 3DS Max and Character Studio.

Hotlink for 2.5D format goes here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.5D

2.5D ("two-and-a-half-dimensional"), perspective and pseudo-3D are terms, mainly in the video game industry, used to describe either 2D graphical projections and similar techniques used to cause a series of images (or scenes) to simulate the appearance of being three-dimensional (3D) when in fact they are not, or gameplay in an otherwise three-dimensional video game that is restricted to a two-dimensional plane.

Is this discussion over? And you just made some snide comments about me being wrong, even though I did admit I was wrong about something that was irrelevant, and which I hadn't asserted as fact. You have asserted falsehood as fact on issues that are directly relevant to the argument we are having. And I just proved that. Will you admit you were wrong?
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#22

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 12:21


Nobody here said Might & Magic VI isn't a 2.5D graphics engine. In fact, I said it IS at the top of page 2 and DArtagnan clearly knows it as well (you can tell from this quote of his: "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." - note the massive, in your face, implication that only MM9 is full 3D)

Here's the thing though: what you're talking about is a graphics issue, and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic at hand, which is character movement. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this?
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#23

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 522

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 12:30
Stingray, sorry, but I'm not talking to you. I decided you don't even understand the argument. No offense intended. You've clearly not had these kinds of debates before so you're not aware of the common misunderstandings. I'm waiting to see if Dartagnon is going to come at me with a claim it's possible to legitimately have movement in three dimensions in a game that doesn't even have three dimensional environments, or if he's going to fess up to not being as well informed as he thought he was.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#24

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 12:40
Oh wow, you're pretty hilarious. "No offense intended". Hah. Awesome.

What's more hilarious, though, is that I already said M&M VI is 2.5D a full page ago: http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showp…2&postcount=25
And then you post it at the top of this page as if it's some big revelation that someone doesn't already know.

You do realize you can move up and down in M&M VI, right? Because it was already mentioned in the thread. Of course it's possible to move in 3 dimensions in a game that doesn't use 3D polygon rendering, many such games do it, and if you have any kind of programming background, it should only take you 30 seconds at most to come up with several ideas on how.

You also do realize that moving up and down isn't even required to meet what Maylander meant by "full 3D movement" in this thread anyway, right?
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#25

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 522

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 12:46
Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
Is this discussion over? And you just made some snide comments about me being wrong, even though I did admit I was wrong about something that was irrelevant, and which I hadn't asserted as fact. You have asserted falsehood as fact on issues that are directly relevant to the argument we are having. And I just proved that. Will you admit you were wrong?
I thought it was over when you said you were done, I guess not.

I don't know what you think you've proved - but you remain quite wrong about full 3D movement not being appropriate - unless, of course, you can come up with some kind of convincing argument why it wouldn't be.

You seem to repeat yourself with that wiki quote and the engine. Not sure why, but maybe it's because you don't really know how to let go?

I hope you don't think that movement can't be 3D because the engine doesn't represent everything with 3D objects? You do know that everything is 2D in reality - because you're looking at a screen with no depth display, right?

Could you construct a logical argument that establishes why the full 3D movement in MM6 is NOT 3D movement? I honestly don't think you can, but I'd be curious to hear you try anyway.

For 3D movement - you basically need 3 dimensions. I assume you understand that the X and Y axis represent 2 dimensions - and that "depth" is the Z axis. Which means that if you can move back and/or forward - it's 3D. The "full" part is about having no restrictions on distance or turning angles - which is what MM6 doesn't have.
Last edited by DArtagnan; January 26th, 2014 at 13:07.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#26

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 13:27
My guess is that he simply doesn't understand the reason why games typically get called "2.5D": it's not because they don't track 3 dimensions, it's because they use 2D sprites to render objects in the game (as opposed to 3D objects composed of polygons). A game can have a 3D playing field yet still be called 2.5D, in fact if he'd read that Wikipedia link he gave, he'd probably have read the blurb about Zaxxon (among other tidbits) and would already know this.

Not that it has anything to do with the main issue anyway. I didn't want to entertain this tangent, as it reeks of him just struggling to find something to be right about, after being wrong originally about M&M.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#27

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 522

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 13:40
DArtagnan: Could you construct a logical argument that establishes why the full 3D movement in MM6 is NOT 3D movement?

The environment (level) is not three dimensional. There is no third dimension to move along. I've explained it several times now and even provided quotes that explain the kind of game engine trickery the early innovators used to create the illusion that the third dimension is there, when it really isn't. The "logical" argument you seek is that it is not within the capabilities of the game engine to have "full 3D movement". It's an impossibility. The non-logical argument is the one I made early in this discussion: it doesn't look or feel like "full 3D movement" when you're playing the game. There's only so much they can do when they're faking it.

Anyway, I gave you fair warning when you first entered the discussion. We aren't arguing opinion, here. Not mine or anyone else's. These arguments are 20 years old and I suspect you've engaged in them before. And pigheadedly refused to understand them, as you are doing now. Which is ironic, considering all the smartass comments you've made about my faulty recollection of a game I haven't played in over a decade, on a matter that wasn't even relevant. And even after I admitted to being incorrect. You're wrong on this. It's been proven to you. You're insisting it isn't so. That's on you.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#28

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 13:52
Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
The environment (level) is not three dimensional. There is no third dimension to move along. I've explained it several times now and even provided quotes that explain the kind of game engine trickery the early innovators used to create the illusion that the third dimension is there, when it really isn't.
Wrong.

The problem here is you've apparently read some stuff but don't understand the entire situation. "2.5D", in the video game sense, typically means that the objects in the world are 2D sprites (instead of 3D collections of polygons), and the "trickery" you refer to is making the 2D sprites look 3 dimensional, often by simply adjusting their size depending on the player's distance from them. In that case, the dimension that's being simulated is depth (Z axis, forwards and backwards), by scaling the size of the sprite.

None of this has anything to do with the environment (the level) or how it is represented internally.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#29

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 522

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 14:13
Keep injecting your flagrant ignorance in here, Stingray, and I'm like to get myself banned. I have no interest in discussing with you matters that you don't understand. At least DArtagnan has a grip the concepts we're talking about, which is the only reason I've bothered to continue at all. How about next time you just STFU when you're tempted to stir up some s*** with somebody who clearly doesn't think something is worth arguing about? Especially when it comes to matters you have no clue about?
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#30

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 14:15
Oh, trust me, you're the one who has no idea what you're talking about. As long as you're posting things that are simply wrong there's no reason I can't post polite corrections, unless of course some moderator decides to shut down this dumb tangent you launched. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this reaction though, you're the guy that said I was "pushing it" by having the gall to accuse you of being wrong, when you were, in fact, wrong.
Last edited by Stingray; January 26th, 2014 at 14:27.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#31

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 522

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 14:46
Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
The environment (level) is not three dimensional. There is no third dimension to move along. I've explained it several times now and even provided quotes that explain the kind of game engine trickery the early innovators used to create the illusion that the third dimension is there, when it really isn't. The "logical" argument you seek is that it is not within the capabilities of the game engine to have "full 3D movement". It's an impossibility. The non-logical argument is the one I made early in this discussion: it doesn't look or feel like "full 3D movement" when you're playing the game. There's only so much they can do when they're faking it.
You're not making an argument - you're making a claim with no rational sense behind it.

You're not explaining why moving along the Z-axis in MM6 doesn't constitute 3D movement like it does in any game with a Z-axis.

Are you seriously suggesting that a game like Dungeon Master doesn't have 3D movement either? Not "full" 3D movement - but just 3D movement?

Let make make it clear what 3D movement means = movement in THREE dimensions. Take Ghost and Goblins - that's 2D movement, because there's no depth anywhere - you can't move along the Z-axis. In a game like UU, Doom or MM6 - you have the Z-axis and you can move back and forth, up and down and you can turn freely. That's 3D movement right there.

According to you - when you move forward in Dungeon Master - you're not actually simulating real 3D movement, but instead some kind of CraigWB version of an alternate 2nd dimension? That's funny

I don't know if you're confusing vector graphics with the concept of dimensions - but it'd be a bit unfortunate for you if you are.

I don't know if you think that because things look fake or don't use real vector based calculations - even if MM6 does use that for the non-camera related stuff - there can't be a third dimension, when in fact it's all fake and just an illusion on a 2D screen.

I have to believe there's some logic behind your claims - I just can't see it.

Anyway, I gave you fair warning when you first entered the discussion. We aren't arguing opinion, here. Not mine or anyone else's. These arguments are 20 years old and I suspect you've engaged in them before. And pigheadedly refused to understand them, as you are doing now. Which is ironic, considering all the smartass comments you've made about my faulty recollection of a game I haven't played in over a decade, on a matter that wasn't even relevant. And even after I admitted to being incorrect. You're wrong on this. It's been proven to you. You're insisting it isn't so. That's on you.
Fair warning? Haha, you're honestly telling yourself that because you're wrong about this - everyone else should just ignore the obvious and pretend it's not your flawed opinion they're trying to argue against - but "truth" as defined by you?

That was a good one, thanks

No, I've never discussed 3D movement not being 3D movement before. I've never heard anyone claim that because the engine is "2.5D" it's not possible to move along the Z-axis.

You've proven nothing to the contrary - not even close. You've quoted articles of which you seem to have a very limited understanding, and which have no relevance to what we're talking about.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#32

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 15:17
Craig, you're losing more and more face with each consequent post. Sometimes it's better to simply accept that others made better arguments than you did, and just let things go. There's isn't any other way to get out of the hole you dug yourself into.

Sometimes it goes like that. Happens to everyone, really.
tuukka is offline

tuukka

Watchdog

#33

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 107

Default 

January 26th, 2014, 22:30
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
According to you - when you move forward in Dungeon Master - you're not actually simulating real 3D movement, but instead some kind of CraigWB version of an alternate 2nd dimension? That's funny
I must admit, that is pretty damn funny.

You guys are all wrong though. CraigCWB only "wins" arguments.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#34

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,307

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 01:02
This isn't an argument. You can't have movement along x, y and z axis when a map/level only has x and y axis support coded into the game engine. The only "funny" part of this discussion is how many game experts such as the people inhabiting this forum don't understand that even after it's been explained repeatedly. Maybe this teaching aid will help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELmnN4R2PA0

That's a pretty basic tutorial on spatial coordinates. Seems like you don't have to be a programmer to grasp it, but I'm not accustomed to dealing with people who have below average IQ, so I could be wrong about that.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#35

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 01:18
By the way, all you people who applied for positions at game companies and didn't get hired, and wondered why? This is why. This stuff was "Game Design 101" more than two decades ago. Maybe it's OK not to know it up front, but when somebody who does know it tries to explain it to you and you sit there and tell them they are wrong, there's no excuse for that. Not only would I not hire you if you walked into my office with that attitude, I'd go out of my way to get you fired if somebody else hired you. There's no place for the willfully obtuse in a creative field of endeavor.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#36

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 01:59
If you want "willfully" obtuse, look in a mirror. Not only that, you're being straight-up offensive - resorting to personal attacks because you can't, or refuse to, understand some pretty simple concepts yourself.

Sure, "2.5D" games may generally only have flat level maps, but they also track height of things - floor/ceiling height, height for objects that you place in the world, height for players/NPCs. How did you think the jetpack in Duke Nukem 3D, a 2.5D game, worked?
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#37

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 522

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 02:15
You didn't even know what "2.5D" meant last night when I brought it up in relation to Doom and pointed out MM6 used the same game engine technology. Today you are lecturing me, the person who tried unsuccessfully to explain it to you, about it? Do I LOL now or later?

Anyway, I guess that learning aid helped you a little bit since you're not babbling about graphics anymore. You still get "willfully obtuse" points for not acknowledging your previous brainfarts, and for lecturing your betters about things that they just got done explaining to you. Have fun holding down that job at Walmart.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#38

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 02:23
Uh, what, I didn't know what 2.5D meant? I used the term in post #6 of this thread, I know quite well what it means, and have for as long as that term's been around. I think it's a dumb and ambiguous term though, which is why I put it in quotes. You, on the other hand, seem to think the situation is black & white - which is wrong.

The Walmart thing? Wow, more personal insults, and to top it off, you couldn't be more wrong. (Well, I guess to you, working at Walmart is an insult? Shows your mentality.) Being wrong or challenged just simply infuriates you, doesn't it?

edit: and no clue what you mean by the graphics thing. Nobody in this "discussion" even wanted to talk about graphics until you inexplicably brought it into the thread. For the n'th time, player movement was being discussed, which doesn't have a particularly strong connection to how graphics are handled.
Stingray is offline

Stingray

Sentinel

#39

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 522

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 02:37
Stingray, you mean this?

Yes, Doom isn't 3D (it's "2.5D" or whatever you want to call it) because it didn't use 3D graphics…

Using a term just because I used it and then describing the term in a way that's completely inaccurate doesn't get you any points for understanding what the term means. You know that, right? Go watch the visual aid I provided again. Watch it several times. There may be hope for you yet. But the first step in problem solving is admitting there is in fact a problem. You have a problem, and it's that you don't know anything about game engine techology. Well, you've got some personality defects rearing their ugly heads in this thread too, but you're pretty much stuck with those. Personality doesn't change much in adults, which is why people who obnoxiously insist they're right when they aren't need to get thrown over the side to make room for somebody else.

DAartagnon: According to you - when you move forward in Dungeon Master - you're not actually simulating real 3D movement, but instead some kind of CraigWB version of an alternate 2nd dimension?

Did my learning aid help you, as well? Do you now understand that Dungeon Master is not even a "2.5D" game, but a straight up 2D game? That it doesn't even simulate a z axis? That it is in fact represented entirely on a 2D plane?
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#40

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494
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 19:20.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch