3D Movement In M&M Games
 

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.

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 :)

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

———————————————-

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

@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:

—

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 :P

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.

Right. That's exactly what happened here, isn't it?

Yep. If anything else happened, let me know, because I must have missed it.

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.

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 :)

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"), ¾ 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?

…

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, 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I must admit, that is pretty damn funny. :)

You guys are all wrong though. CraigCWB only "wins" arguments. ;)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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, 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?