next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

that's because 3d contains 2d. you can do anything you can do in 2d in 3d, but the reverse is not true. if mario 54 or whatever number it is had a camera angle that was always exactly side-view, it'd be in the same genre as smb, even though it's 3d. but the 3rd person camera and the lack of a linear level where you can see above and below you makes it a different genre

[gimymblert]

snes mario RPG? 2D or 3D?

[_Tommo_]

that's because 3d contains 2d. you can do anything you can do in 2d in 3d, but the reverse is not true. if mario 54 or whatever number it is had a camera angle that was always exactly side-view, it'd be in the same genre as smb, even though it's 3d. but the 3rd person camera and the lack of a linear level where you can see above and below you makes it a different genre

Guess what, its camera can rotate and a 3D game is not a 2D +1 game.
A 3D game is a completely different matter in terms of pacing, complexity of controls, heck, it changes completely the kind of immersion one has with the game.
If your 3D game is "locked to an exact side view", it is actually no more than a 2D game rendered with 3D art.

This whole "OoT is Zelda II" topic looks really dumb to me.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

snes mario RPG? 2D or 3D?

it's isometric 2d that uses 3d rendering for its graphics, similar to baldur's gate and starcraft 1

[Hangedman]

Refer primarily to the dimension it is played in and not the one that it looks like to retain clarity

Also, you jump around and up and down in SMRPG, so wouldn't that make it 3D:
It cannot be fully transferred to a top-down perspective, for example, as you would lose the verticality, so it is not truly 2D

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Refer primarily to the dimension it is played in and not the one that it looks like to retain clarity

Also, you jump around and up and down in SMRPG, so wouldn't that make it 3D:
It cannot be fully transferred to a top-down perspective, for example, as you would lose the verticality, so it is not truly 2D

that'd make about 90% of 2d games "3d", including games like zelda3 (it had different floors in dungeons and a upper layer and a lower layer on each floor, with bridges and ladders and stuff)

[Hangedman]

except that was entirely fake 3d, it was really just walls and obstructions on the same level, not multiple levels. ladders and stairs were just the same as the floor. That, and different floors aren't existing at the same time, and even if they were they're just separate flat planes.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

actually different floors existed at the same time in zelda3:



look at the bridges and the 'fences' with top and below areas; you could either be above them or below them

and are you really saying that how it's visualized (whether the floors don't exist at the same time) matters when you just said how it's visualized (polygons vs sprites) doesn't matter?

[Hangedman]

You're distracted from the point by the concept of floors. Actually, that image you posted clearly shows that they are all just a flat plane. Different floors are an illusion, connected in a relay but not actually above and below each other.

I said how it plays is important. you are only ever on one flat floor at a time. the 3d is an illusion. and the bridges are just a flat plane, and you are either 'below' them or 'above' them but ultimately it just changes where you can currently walk on a flat plane, and whether a flat image is above or below you.

It is still a 2D game

And when i said it didn't matter about the graphics I referred to the fact that you can't call a game 3d because it looks 3d, which is what you are doing now. just as NSMB isn't 3d despite looking it.

[gimymblert]

This whole "OoT is Zelda II" topic looks really dumb to me.

I'm not calling oot is zelda 2, i'm saying that oot is the spiritual successor of zelda 2 and reintroduce thing zelda 2 pioneered, as much as it is a successor to zelda 3.

[baconman]

So a Zelda II style game would be more fun if it had arguments about 2D vs. 3D and single-plane action vs. multi-plane action?

That's weird. I've read almost 2 pages of that and I'm not having fun yet.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

You're distracted from the point by the concept of floors. Actually, that image you posted clearly shows that they are all just a flat plane. Different floors are an illusion, connected in a relay but not actually above and below each other.

I said how it plays is important. you are only ever on one flat floor at a time. the 3d is an illusion. and the bridges are just a flat plane, and you are either 'below' them or 'above' them but ultimately it just changes where you can currently walk on a flat plane, and whether a flat image is above or below you.

It is still a 2D game

And when i said it didn't matter about the graphics I referred to the fact that you can't call a game 3d because it looks 3d, which is what you are doing now. just as NSMB isn't 3d despite looking it.

i guess i just don't understand how you could say that it's an illusion in zelda3, but not an illusion in super mario rpg -- what is the difference?

[Hangedman]

the difference is that in super mario rpg you move in 3 dimensions. it may be simulated, but you can nevertheless move isometrically and vertically at the same time. X, Y, and Z. And doing so is necessary to advance. i suppose you could say it's all an illusion, but imagine trying to play it from a top-down perspective with no sense of depth

whereas in zelda the Z is entirely an illusion and you can't actually move in Z, it just has momentary illusions of you moving in Z that are really just the placement of walls or obstructions and flat images. Jumping in Zelda is really just temporary ignorance of the properties of the floor plane (eg. a hole), with associated animation to heighten the illusion. all depth is actually just walls made to look like depth. the game is top-down.

So a Zelda II style game would be more fun if it had arguments about 2D vs. 3D and single-plane action vs. multi-plane action?

That's weird. I've read almost 2 pages of that and I'm not having fun yet.

zelda ii would be more fun if it was more fun.
maybe if the hit detection was better, the game explained a bit more and had a sense of direction, and it didn't have pixel-perfect timed jumps into instant-kill substances.

we've already established that the game concept is just fine, so not much more to say, we may as well talk about what we want to talk about

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

what about top-down games in which you can jump? for instance, final fantasy mystic quest. is that 3d? it'd seem strange to call it that just because you can move on the z access a little bit with a jump

[Hangedman]

it's not. as i said, it's a temporary ignorance of the properties of the floor.
the animation is a deception.

[gimymblert]

in mario RPG there is a full Y variable use for collision, the computation of height (and slope) affect the character, like in sonic 3D blast, other zelda just have X,Y and a state "passable" jumping is akin to go through a role, functionally the same. Mario RPG have the same problem than 3D game, depth obfuscation and distance appraisal (especially with floating platform), zelda have not.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

this would still make a lot of isometric games "3d" though -- for instance, q-bert:



and final fantasy tactics advance



which are not usually what people mean by '3d games' -- i've never heard someone call those games 3d before, anyway

[gimymblert]

I have
Qbert is still 2D it's more a node like representation.
But however it only prove that classifying game by camera is nonsense, I use mechanics for that.

[s0]

There's a neat term for games that are "not quite" or "fake" 3D: It's "2.5D"

I know 2.5D is being used to refer to 2D games with 3D graphics these days (which is IMO not a very useful definition), but that's the original meaning afaik.

[gimymblert]

The problem is more like is it a 3D "representation" or gameplay, i'am favoring the gameplay part a bit more heavily.