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

Default 3D Movement In M&M Games

January 27th, 2014, 11:40
I think at this point everyone who knows anything about game engines, and indeed, geometry, knows you're completely full of it. I may or may not be back to continue attempting to educate you.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#61

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 11:43
Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
No, that was definitely NOT the first 3D game.

Ultima Underworld Underworld was not the first 3D game? So the whole history of the PC game industry is wrong? Doom took a hit for being only 2.5D, for no reason? System Shock didn't have a mindblowingly advanced 3D game engine years before anyone else was able to match it?
Of course the whole history isn't wrong - you're wrong.

Have you tried looking up in Ultima Underworld? Notice how the textures bend? That's because it's not "true (vector-based) 3D" as it were

In fact, it pretty much shares the same limitation that MM6 does - which also looks quite funky when looking up or down.

System Shock had a very advanced engine, yes - and it was a fantastic game.

But it wasn't fully vector-based either, as it uses sprites for enemies and objects.

Quake is arguably the first "true 3D" game if you're talking about texture mapped polygons.

Do you seriously believe the only person you're disputing with when you make these claims is me? And boy, that part where you say it's possible to represent three dimensions without a z axis…. damn, dude… you need to get a nobel prize for that, because you know more than every college professor who was ever born, combined. Even Einstein never figured that out!
No, I'm talking about people in this thread. It wouldn't surprise me to find other people who were ignorant about the subject at hand. I would actually expect to find quite a few.

As for the Z-axis, I'm afraid you simply don't understand the nature of simulating 3D without using vector based math. I've tried explaining it to you quite a few times, but I guess you think the third dimension was invented along with vector based math.

Sorry, but that's just not the case.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#62

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

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 11:44
Originally Posted by CraigCWB View Post
I think at this point everyone who knows anything about game engines, and indeed, geometry, knows you're completely full of it. I may or may not be back to continue attempting to educate you.
I'll be right here waiting for more insight. There's little doubt you're the man when it comes to these concepts!
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#63

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

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 12:50
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I'll be right here waiting for more insight. There's little doubt you're the man when it comes to these concepts!
Damn right! It's not everyone who can pass High School geometry!
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#64

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 14:17
Duh… you're really running in circles here.
I doubt any person here lacks the technical knowledge, but there's a huge lack of skill or will of how to have a constructive discussion.

I mean… you haven't even agreed what exactly you are arguing about, haven't defined terminology where it would have really been necessary.

Are you talking about the game's internal model concerning movement? About the model's actual implementation? About the rendering?

Have you agreed upon what a "dimension" actually is?
Morrandir is offline

Morrandir

Morrandir's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch
RPGWatch Donor

#65

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,234

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 15:11
The stuff we're "arguing" about is literally out of Game Design 101. And some of the claims made in this thread are so boneheaded that there's no possible way to finesse them into anything that doesn't sound stupid. For instance, there's no getting around that claim DAatagnan made about Dungeon Master being a 3D game, when its not even a fully 2D game. And he was so proud of that he brought it up several times. Foolish of me to have wasted so much time with loudmouths who speak of things they know nothing about.

AND PS: His ignorance of high school level geometry is a sure sign that discussion of game engine mechanics is a bit beyond his level of competence. Just saying.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#66

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 15:23
And taking discussions to a personal level also is a sign for not being able to discuss constructively.

And ok… just for a start, you could explain to me (as somebody who isn't that well into game design terminology), what exactly a "3D game" is, and what a "2D game" is, and if this definitions are widely accepted.
Morrandir is offline

Morrandir

Morrandir's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch
RPGWatch Donor

#67

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,234

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 15:24
For instance, there's no getting around that claim DAatagnan made about Dungeon Master being a 3D game, when its not even a fully 2D game
Yeah, I don't think I've ever experienced being outsmarted quite like this before

I mean, it was amusing when Dungeon Master wasn't a 3D game because it doesn't use vector based graphics - but now that it's LESS than 2D (as in, what, 1.5D?) - it's something I can actually laugh out loud at.

That must have been why it was considered a revolution - because I'm pretty sure it's the only 1.5D game out there.

No offense, but that IS funny - you gotta admit!

@Morrandir

Well, semantics could have been part of it - in the beginning, as they usually are. But it's been made quite clear to me that CraigWB thinks that you need vector math to simulate the third dimension.

I mean, there's no doubt that vectors and polygons are extremely efficient for that purpose - and math helps to make it all very accurate and realistic in terms of proportion, distance and what not, which is why it's been used so much with computers.

But the third dimension is a concept that relates to reality as well as both physics and math. It's not something that can only be simulated with 3 coordinates. It can be done convincingly on paper with a pencil by any decent artist - and it can be done in a computer game using all kinds of tricks and clever manipulation of your sense of vision.

Dungeon Master is an excellent example of one of the first visually elaborate 3D games, done in the first person. I've made my own engine capable of displaying 3D environments using a very similar technique - and I can promise you I don't use vectors for that. But I do use math

However, it has become common to refer to "3D games" as games using vectors and polygons. That's because that's pretty much the only way it's done these days - as we have hardware specifically created just to do such calculations - and we have a ton of established engines that work with x,y,z as their basic representation of the game world.

So, it would be pretty easy to confuse the concept of 3D graphics with vector based 3D graphics.

But I don't confuse those two - and that's what I've made clear time and time again.

CraigWB insists that 3D graphics can only mean vector based 3D graphics - and he insists that you need vector based 3D graphics to represent or simulate 3D movement as well.

He's very wrong on both counts
Last edited by DArtagnan; January 27th, 2014 at 15:49.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#68

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

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 17:15
Nominated for worst thread of 2014.
CrazyIrish is offline

CrazyIrish

Keeper of the Watch

#69

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 604

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 18:06
Originally Posted by CrazyIrish View Post
Nominated for worst thread of 2014.
Oh, you're an optimist.

@DArtagnan
Well… I still don't see a definition of a "3D game".
Morrandir is offline

Morrandir

Morrandir's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch
RPGWatch Donor

#70

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,234

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 18:31
Originally Posted by CrazyIrish View Post
Nominated for worst thread of 2014.
Wait until Cleve comes in to talk about grimoire again before making that statement.

It was the night before Hogswatch…

I became insane with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe
azraelck is offline

azraelck

azraelck's Avatar
Angel of Cookies!

#71

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 1,872
Send a message via AIM to azraelck Send a message via Skype™ to azraelck

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 20:01
Originally Posted by Morrandir View Post

Have you agreed upon what a "dimension" actually is?
The fact is that nobody knows for sure what a dimension is. It is all subjective. Anything termed "dimension" is a dimension as long as somebody subjectively agrees to see it as a "dimension"
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#72

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,263

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 22:57
The original debate wasn't even about what constitutes a 3D game. It was about 3D "movement".

Maylander and Stingray were absolutely correct. The rest is all semantics and a lot of hubris from CraigCWB.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#73

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,300

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 23:24
Originally Posted by Morrandir View Post
And taking discussions to a personal level also is a sign for not being able to discuss constructively.

And ok… just for a start, you could explain to me (as somebody who isn't that well into game design terminology), what exactly a "3D game" is, and what a "2D game" is, and if this definitions are widely accepted.
There was never an opportunity to discuss constructively. I did, however, upload a video that was pretty easy to understand that explained the difference between representing something on a two dimensional plane versus representing it in a three dimensional volume.

And yes, you bet these are widely accepted definitions I am using. Most of the game engine developments of the early and mid 1990s revolved around these concepts. id software and Looking Glass Studios both made names for themselves with their game engine tech. John Carmack wrote extensively about this stuff, at the time, and I would think anyone who is really interested could find those documents easily enough, though they may be a little difficult to comprehend for non-technical people.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#74

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 23:34
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
The original debate wasn't even about what constitutes a 3D game. It was about 3D "movement". Maylander and Stingray were absolutely correct. The rest is all semantics and a lot of hubris from CraigCWB.
Aren't you the biggest Deus Ex fan in the world? Maybe you should consult with your hero, Warren Spector, and find out if he agrees with me, or with you? After all, if it wasn't for these technologies we're "arguing" about, nobody here would have ever even heard his name.

And by the way, the claim was "fully 3D movement". The claim "fully 3D" was inserted into the discussion from the start, and repeated by its advocates on every occasion. Trying to suggest there's "fully 3D" movement in a game that doesn't have a "fully 3D" engine is more than semantics. And DAartagnon admitted last night that the z axis in 2.5D games such as MM6 is simulated. Faked and Fully may both start with the letter F and may both have 5 letters, but they are not synonyms.
Last edited by CraigCWB; January 28th, 2014 at 00:11.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#75

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 27th, 2014, 23:48
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
The fact is that nobody knows for sure what a dimension is. It is all subjective. Anything termed "dimension" is a dimension as long as somebody subjectively agrees to see it as a "dimension"
I suspect it's an abstract reasoning issue more than anything else. The geometric principles involved with representing things in three dimensions have been around since ancient times, and as far as I know are not in dispute. The ability of an individual to understand them, on the other hand, is highly variable. And some people think that if they don't understand something, that means they are free to interpret it in a way that they do understand. Bottom line is some people in this thread couldn't pass High School Geometry with claims they've made here. And there's no way around that.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#76

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 00:03
Originally Posted by Morrandir View Post
I mean… you haven't even agreed what exactly you are arguing about, haven't defined terminology where it would have really been necessary.

Are you talking about the game's internal model concerning movement? About the model's actual implementation? About the rendering?
I agree. This discussion is completely useless without clear definitions. There's got to be wiki entries for this stuff that is standard.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#77

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,443

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 00:19
I posted a wiki entry for 2.5D two days ago, and Stingray started babbling about 3D graphics. And then he started telling me how he knew more about it than I do. Constructive stuff, I tell you!

Besides, college textbooks are the place to look when it comes to software development. That, or manuals. I guess you could prolly find some books down at Barnes & Noble that discuss game engines. Wiki's not very good at providing useful information when it comes to such things. I'd highly suggest anyone who really cares look into what John Carmack wrote back in the day, though. I'm certain it's findable on the web. I read it myself on the web, long ago.
CraigCWB is offline

CraigCWB

Sentinel

#78

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 494

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 03:23
Goodgawd, I've seen more polite and more productive throwdowns over in P&R. I think a couple even managed that in spite of my participation…

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#79

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,387

Default 

January 28th, 2014, 04:27
Hey! Can we talk about bowel movement?
BeCause that is a popular topic among old timers.
And, you know that crap might be better than this crap.
benetar is offline

benetar

Watchdog

#80

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 124
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 08:57.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch