RPGWatch Forums - View Single Post - 3D Movement In M&M Games
View Single Post


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.




Posts: n/a