My friend just told me that Wolfenstein 3D isn't actually 3D. Is that true?
>>342958701
Depends on the definition of "3D".
>>342958701
It, like Doom did, used a bunch of rendering tricks to appear three dimensional. Wolfenstein is particularly old in that it features no differences in height between floors or ceilings.
>>342959472
>Wolfenstein is particularly old in that it features no differences in height between floors or ceilings.
What do you mean, the ceiling textures has done in some sort that on screen it sticks to the top?
>>342958701
The maps are not capable of true 3D architecture, they're flat. Quake was the first FPS in which you could place a room over the top of another room without using tricks. (Games like Duke3D used silent teleports to fake room-over-room, for instance)
But the game is 3D-ish. You still move around in limited 3D space, it's just limited 3D.
There are no polygons in original Wolf3D.
It's all bitmap textures and sprites.
Notice how items like ammo and treasures always face you directly forward regardless of where they are in your field of vision.
>>342958701
Yes, and neither is Doom, Heretic, Hexen, Douk and bunch of others. Quake was the first true fully 3D FPS.
No, it's 3D, but just a primitive form of it. All 3D is is just vertices crisscrossing each other with a texture painted inside.
>>342961967
Ultima Underworld was 3D
>>342962553
>FPS
>>342962627
It us a first person game before the FPS genre was even a thing. System Shock still predates Quake.
>>342961967
Descent and a few others came before quake
>>342961456
Is this even English?
![raymarch-mandelbulb-power8-1920x1080-normal-col-92s[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/yGCAzMN.jpg "raymarch-mandelbulb-power8-1920x1080-normal-col-92s[1].png")
>>342961903
Polygons are required for something to be 3D? What about raymarched mathematical surfaces? Are those not 3D?
>>342962553
Nah as advanced as Underworld was it's not 3D. Looking up and down still causes the warp affect. System Shock on the other hand was true 3D well before Quake.
>>342961456
There is no Y axis. Everything is technically positioned on a flat plane. The walls, enemies and such are just visual representations of points moving on a 2D grid.
>>342961456
Actually the ceiling and floor aren't textured mapped because it would have been to slow
>>342963378
No UU is 3d the warping effect has nothing to do with that and you will also find ss1 has it if you lower the graphics detail
>>342963378
System shock is on the same engine and >>342963749
A Sega thread yesterday devolved into a huge debate on what's 3D and what isn't.
>>342829432
Whose side are you on?
>>342963929
Not the same engine but they are pretty similar
>>342963202
People like to bring up Descent, but it's a space sim with walls, not a FPS. It's just not relevant to bring it up when somebody specifically says FPS.
How does Ultima Underworld hold up today?
>>342964610
No, just because you fly a spaceship doesn't mean it isn't an action game
It's first person
You shoot things
It's a first person shooter
>>342964623
It's still good
>>342964610
By that logic System Shock 1 and Terra Nova aren't FPS either.
>>342958701
it is basically a raycasting engine.
A 2D tilemap is rendered in a 3D like perspective
>>342958701
It was 3D to me, damn it!
>>342965296
Isn't that still technically 3D though? Looks pretty 3D to me.
>>342965513
That's the point
>>342965513
its a 2d game represented as 3d. so yeah, it might as well be, but technically isnt.
>>342959154
gets it.
>>342965513
>still looks 3D even though it isn't
Then it did it's job. Computers were shit back then, and weren't capable of true 3D so John Carmack and the rest of id software came up with a way to cheat it.
Wait so if Wolfenstein doesn't count as true 3d because it uses perspective tricks, can someone explain to me how a polygon is even 3d? It's a more complex computer model but it's still not an actual 3d object is it? Polygons are still viewed as 2d objects because you're looking at it through a computer screen. That isn't actual 3d
>>342965028
Therefore Duck Hunt is a first person shooter.
See how slippery that slope is? There's more to genre definitions than the sum of the parts that you find in their names.
>>342965186
Indeed, System Shock is not. But the upcoming remake will be, as you won't have to use a mouse cursor to aim anymore. Surely you see where I draw the line there. Controls are very much a part of the FPS genre, in an FPS you aim by aligning the target with the appropriate part of the screen.
I admit to being unfamiliar with Terra Nova, so no comment.
>>342966989
See, this kind of shit is why this post exists: >>342959154
>>342966084
>its a 2d game represented as 3d. so yeah, it might as well be, but technically isnt.
Why not? Just because you can't move vertically?
>>342966168
>Then it did it's job. Computers were shit back then, and weren't capable of true 3D so John Carmack and the rest of id software came up with a way to cheat it.
Please, tell me all about how something that's 3D isn't 3D because it uses a certain rendering method.
>>342967569
No Z axis
>>342968582
It doesn't need to be factored into the computation because the Z axis is inferred.
Wolfenstein 3D may not let you move vertically, but it wouldn't work in 2D because if it were a top-down shooter, you'd be able to see the enemies behind you. But you can't because, guess what, it's 3D.
>>342968981
The cone of vision would still be there. You are stupid
>>342969123
What the hell are you talking about?
>>342958701
It doesn't use all 3 dimensions. Rather, it kinda almost sorta does the third, but not quite, so it's a 2.5d engine.
Later engines progressively got more and more advanced, but even during the build and doom era, those games weren't reall 3d engines, either.
Build lets you stack infinite rooms on top of each other, and walk into what seems like a small space, only to find it's the size of a bag of holding.
Doom can't put rooms over rooms, and doesn't actually have stairs. What you think are stairs is a strange arcane illusion.
Once quake came out, that's when we got a real 3d engine.
>>342961456
The ceiling and floor has no textures
It's like you're looking into a void of different greys
The chandelier and the "light" sprites give the illusion of roof and floor.
>>342966989
>lol how can anything be 3D if it's projected on a 2D screen haha
It's another form of computing entirely, but you wouldn't know that in your complete ineptitude in modeling.
>>342969382
>2.5d
Stop this meme. It's either 3D or 2D, there's no such thing as half a dimension.
>>342962627
First person slasher
hes right, its just some wizard magic projected mode 7 type shit
>>342969451
Not him, but what are you saying? That polygons actually exist and that they're not just a projection?
>>342969526
No, there totally is a 2.5d. Or are you saying John Carmack, the guy who pioneered both 2.5d and 3d, is wrong?
>>342969526
It's 2D that gives the illusion of 3D. Thus it gets called 2.5D.
In reality the game has no 3D objects, so it's 2D.
>>342967569
>Why not? Just because you can't move vertically?
It's not "true" 3D because it's not an actual 3D mesh made of polygons. It's like F-Zero and similar mode3 games: the floor isn't an actual 3D object, the floor picture simply gets distorted to make it look like it's fading into the distance but there's no actual 3D rendering taking place.
>>342969739
I'm saying he dumbed down the language so idiots like you can understand it. On a technical level, no, you cannot have half a dimension.
>>342969673
That when talking about computer graphics in a computer space we are talking about mathematical shapes. These do materialize in computing that takes into account an extra Z axis in addition to X and Y, thus adding a third dimension to compute.
>>342969526
> """"""""""Henry""""""""""
>>342967569
>Drawing a cube on paper is just as three dimensional as making a cube out of paper
>>342969909
>can't have half a dimension
Next you'll tell me you can't do half an A press
>>342969526
It is no meme if it is the truth
>>342969909
He didn't dumb down anything. He's the one who coined the term.
Carmack himself doesn't consider his ancient games 3d, or 2d, but 2.5d. I guess since he's an autistic judo practioner, who destresses by driving ferraris down highways really, really fast, and also sends rockets into space, making up words and terms is just what he does.
Oh, and here's a funny Carmack related video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X68Mm_kYRjc
As a blanket statement, the reason that Wolfenstein and Doom aren't 3D is because of the gameplay. The games are essentially just top-down shooters, they just look like they aren't. It's all just clever illusions.
I think this video sums it up well: https://youtu.be/zb6Eo1D6VW8
I would say "pseudo 3D" is the best way you could describe it. The map is 2D and everything apart from the walls are sprites.
>>342958701
Not by computer graphics definition, yes by the common sense that any method to represent perspective is as valid as any other.
It's as autistic as saying 1 point perspective is not real perspective.
is this now a carmack thread?
>>342969909
this
>>342970404
Pseudo-3D is a term applied specifically to 8-bit and 16-bit games that use tricks to look 3D. It predates the 2.5D term by many years.
2.5D is generally only used when you talk about what seems to be 3D games on PC, that aren't actually 3D at all.
>>342969759
How in god's name is it 2D? Look at it, it uses a rendering engine to render a viewpoint from the perspective of the camera, therefore it's 2D.
>>342969821
Why are polygons the only legitimate form of 3D to you?
>>342969979
Why does it need to compute a third dimension if it's already predefined? Why does the third dimension have to be variable rather than static in order to be 3D?
>>342970031
So what you're saying is, polygons actually totally exist in real life and aren't just mathematical projections onto a planar screen. Sure thing, buddy.
>>342970132
You can't handle the truth.
>>342970330
>unironically linking to the Game Theorists
And while they technically could be represented on a 2D plane, the gameplay would differ significantly because you could see all objects and enemies behind you.
>>342970404
That's still 3D.
>>342970412
Fucking thank you.
>>342970330
>Game theorists
gg
>>342970661
>therefore it's 2D.
Shit, I meant therefore it's 3D.
>>342970639
I'd say the terms are fairly interchangeable. There's not a lot of difference technically between Wolfenstein and, say, F-Zero
>>342961479
>silent teleports
Huh?
>>342970792
There's some difference, and that's why the terms are used to describe different things.
I don't feel like going full engineer here, but if you talk to someone who actually knows this shit, and you call wolf pseudo-3D, they'll correct you and spend a lot of time explaining why you should use the right term.
>>342970936
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_(game_engine)
Have fun.
>>342970984
>I don't know why or how you're wrong, but trust me, someone else knows
>>342970639
Isn't 2.5D used for games that use 3D grahpics but nothing interacts on the Z-plane?
For example, Street Fighter V is a 2.5D game.
>>342970661
>So what you're saying is, polygons actually totally exist in real life
No.
What I'm saying is that Wolfenstien 3D imitated 3D, where as games like Quake are true 3D.
Just because something looks 3D doesn't mean it's actually 3D.
>>342971093
In today's world, sure. People commonly call games like KOF 13, SF4, SF5, mighty number 9, and what have you 2.5D, but that's not what the term was originally used to refer to.
Language tends to change over time.
>>342971093
mechanically it's 2.5D, but the actual rendering engine is 3D
>>342970661
>Why are polygons the only legitimate form of 3D to you?
Because faux-3D has limitations that real 3D doesn't have, therefore the two aren't the same.
This argument reminds me of the time I discussed with a friend about prerendered 3D backgrounds because to him that was just as 3D as a real-time 3D map.
>>342969382
>Doom can't put rooms over rooms, and doesn't actually have stairs. What you think are stairs is a strange arcane illusion.
So what is it then? These kinda things interest me, mainly because I know nothing about anything advanced regarding computers and stuff related to them.
>>342970661
>while they technically could be represented on a 2D plane, the gameplay would differ significantly because you could see all objects and enemies behind you.
You could have a cone of visibility, and the rest of the map be dark, and it would be the same.
>>342971109
But you consider polygons to be "true" 3D as opposed to Wolf3D's raycasting engine, even though both are just different ways for a computer to simulate 3D?
>Just because something looks 3D doesn't mean it's actually 3D.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
>>342971297
Who cares what limitations it has if the game is designed to work within them? I could build a game engine that uses polygons but doesn't let you move up and down. Is that or isn't that 3D?
You might as well say the NES MegaMan sprite we're all familiar with is wrong just because it's actually two layered sprites with different color palettes, and that the only real "MegaMan" sprite is the one without his face.
>>342971573
But that game would absolutely suck and not make any logical sense unless you changed the premise of the game to be about wandering through the dark with a flashlight.
>>342970330
The only video from game theorists that hasn't induced cringe. Pretty well explained.
Then again, all who argue otherwise in this thread are retards and probably underage too, so any real arguments will be swept under the rug with the claim that nothing really is 3D. Funny how binary these retards are.
>>342971734
But nothing generated by a computer is really 3D, it's all just mathematical projections. You literally cannot argue this.
>>342971704
>But that game would absolutely suck and not make any logical sense unless you changed the premise of the game to be about wandering through the dark with a flashlight.
Top down perspective makes no real life sense anyway, since in realf life you can't see behind yourself. It would just be a way of representing the gameplay of Doom and Wolfenstein from a top down perspective.
What exactly is your argument anyway? That Doom and Wolfenstein are 3D?
>>342971704
>This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Not him and it is correct. It's just 2D bitmaps used at different distances. Now that we've reached this point, can we argue that Space Harrier is actually 3D? Because it seems with your logic all 2D games with sprite scaling is 3D.
>>342971704
>Who cares what limitations it has
The people who had to work with the engine.
Just because it doesn't matter to you so long as the final product is convincing enough doesn't mean it doesn't matter at all. A good imitation is still an imitation.
>I could build a game engine that uses polygons but doesn't let you move up and down. Is that or isn't that 3D?
We're talking purely about rendering technology, not actual gameplay. Yes a real-time 3D rendered scene is a real-time 3D rendered scene regardless of whether you can or can't move within it and how.
>>342971878
We are talking about squares and cubes in a mathematical space. How your perceive it is completely out of the question. Bottomline: Doom and W3D are squares, Quake etc are cubes.
>>342971704
>2D drawing of a 3D object is 3D
>>342971062
>all that shit about room over room
>all that vertical space in every level
>mfw the jetpack
how the fuck
>>342970330
autism is a hell of a drug.
>>342971528
Each step on the stair is its own sector. Think of it like a pocket level within the level.
Due to the way the engine works, it's actually possible to create stairs that let you 'ascend,' but not 'descend.' Inexperienced doom map makers to this day keep doing this.
>>342972526
The engine Bungie used for Marathon series is even wackier, you should look up a good read about it
>>342972526
They were on the cutting edge of tech, and competed directly with id and Bethesda. Literal wizards, every single person at all three companies.
>>342966168
meanwhile back in 1983...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFs-ONpv8RQ
I was playing Battle Zone on my PC long before wolf3d came out, 3D has been around for a while in many different forms.
>>342973049
I, Robot is 3D thoughthe first real 3D computing computer game infactsince it used actual polygons.
Battlezone on the otherhand just draws wireframes on the screen for a pseudo-3D look.
>>342972020
The difference is, in a top-down shooter you naturally expect to be able to see behind the player because you have a bird's-eye view. In a first-person game, you expect not to have that because that's how it is in reality. Very few people would consider playing a top-down shooter with a cone of visibility to be an enjoyable experience, whereas when there's a 3D perspective it is, because that's how real life works.
>What exactly is your argument anyway? That Doom and Wolfenstein are 3D?
Gee, you must be some kind of super-genius to figure this out.
>>342972119
Explain why scaled sprites aren't a legitimate way of representing a 3D environment.
>>342972148
So what you're saying is, if Wolf3D used polygons but the gameplay and map design was exactly the same, suddenly it would be 3D? OK, so why is one way of simulating the existence of 3-dimensional space more valid than another?
>>342972284
No, we're talking about bits and bytes of computer memory. Squares and cubes do not exist to a computer. Raycasters simply take values stored in memory and use that to figure out what surface should be showing in each pixel. Wolf3D takes values stored in memory and uses that to figure out what surface should be showing in each column. That's the only difference.
>>342973351
Oh, what, now wireframes aren't 3D even though they use polygons? Give me a break.
I like these kind of threads please don't die.
>>342972910
I completely forgot Bungie existed before Halo
>>342973517
>No, we're talking about bits and bytes of computer memory.
And since all games boil down to mathematical functions, and since mathematics can't be any dimension no game actually exists in any dimension? I mean, sure we can go all the way down to this level and forget rendering entirely with your logic.
>>342973517
>if Wolf3D used polygons but the gameplay and map design was exactly the same, suddenly it would be 3D?
Yes
>why is one way of simulating the existence of 3-dimensional space more valid than another?
One is very limited in what it can do, the other isn't. Why is this so hard to understand? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
>>342973591
Wireframes are not polygons. The game renders just lines, not anything between the lines, and it's pretty obvious looking at the picture.
>>342973351
>Battlezone on the otherhand just draws wireframes on the screen for a pseudo-3D look.
All 3D is wire frames until the texture mapper does their job.
Interesting thread.
Thanks anons.
>>342973764
2D games are a little different because you can do things like take images and write them directly to a framebuffer. This isn't how it works in 3D, every pixel of every frame has to have a lot of behind-the-scenes grunt work for the computer.
>>342973778
Why? the end result would be EXACTLY the same. All I've been saying up to this point is that non-polygonal methods of rendering a 3D scene are just as valid as ways that use polygons.
>One is very limited in what it can do, the other isn't.
Who cares if it's limited if the end result is EXACTLY THE SAME?
>Why is this so hard to understand? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I want to ask the same question.
>>342973869
You're an idiot. I'm not even going to bother explaining why, all I ask is you look up how polygonal graphics work at a basic level sometime.
>>342958701
no games are 3d, because they're all on a flat screen. Even VR games are not actually 3d.
What was the first truly 3D game?
>>342969526
What about half-presses?
>>342974410
>You're an idiot. I'm not even going to bother explaining why,
Does it involve my physical screen being 2D and thus nothing really being 3D?
It's a matter of computing and in the case of Battlezone and any wireframe game of the 80s, they are all processed as a 2D environment which is more akin to parallax scrolling than 3D like Quake.
>>342961479
>But the game is 3D-ish. You still move around in limited 3D space, it's just limited 3D.
you move forward back left and right and when you die you move down.
It's practically a top down shooter from first perspective.
>>342974682
Oh my god. Just look at >>342974202 and GTFO.
>>342974202
Modern texture mapping is an entirely different subject than 80s wireframes. Are you retarded?
Do you even know how either work?
>>342974602
I, robot, probably. An ancient arcade game that got a shit reception and was forgotten quickly.
>>342974865
80s wireframes are exactly the same as modern 3D graphics except the polygons aren't filled.
>>342969526
Actually 2d, 2.5d and 3d games are all actually 2d games.
They just have the illusion of depth.
VR is the only 2.5d technology. It lets you sense depth and scale but it's not real 3d.
Welcome to reality.
>>342974526
They're 3D because the computer is calculating based on cubes, rather than squares like on an NES.
>>342974410
>all I ask is you look up how polygonal graphics work
The lines of the polygon are rendered in 3D even without mapping. Textures do not make the objects 3D, the wire frames do, trust me kid ;) I wouldn't lie to ya.
>>342974410
>Who cares if it's limited if the end result is EXACTLY THE SAME?
Ok seriously now, I can't even read this with a straight face. No, the end result is not exactly the same. We're not talking about a game, but a rendering method. Just because in your hypothetic alternate universe a Wolf3D made with a real 3D engine would look identical (I'd be willing to be it wouldn't since developers would surely take advantage of the less restrictive engine) doesn't say anything about the rendering method itself.
What you're proposing is that because a theoretical recreation of X game using a polygonal 3D engine could be done while preserving the gameplay intact, then X game is a 3D game. The fact this "logic" could be applied to literally any game ever should be proof enough it's wrong.
>>342974990
Except in, say, Battlezone there is no concept of height. There is no up or down.
In modern games this isn't the case and these wireframe sectors can be stacked and moved freely in a 3D, Z axis space without the need of actually needing to stretch or distort the sectors that need to be textured. An image doesn't really do this justice, since the lower picture can be turned and viewed at different angles at will.
>>342975081
>cubes
only for the 2 games that use voxels
>>342975152
wire frames do jack shit but show the edges of the polygons, stop talking about something you don't know about like you're the final word on the subject.
>>342975081
Fuck's sake, man. The computer calculates based on polygons, not cubes.
>rather than squares like on an NES.
The NES didn't actually calculate based on squares, it was just a way for developers to make collision detection less processor-intensive.
>>342974865
they are the same, these days we can render more of them with our better hardware, but when you get down to it a guy making games in the 80s can still work on games today using the same techniques, I know because I do.
>>342975636
>guy making games in the 80s can still work on games today using the same techniques
That's like saying a guy who was making muskets in 1800's could come and build AR's today because they're both guns.
Shit has changed.
I know because I do shit meant to be used in AAA games
>>342975215
Why in the everloving fuck is the rendering engine the thing that separates a 2D game from a 3D game?
>What you're proposing is that because a theoretical recreation of X game using a polygonal 3D engine could be done while preserving the gameplay intact, then X game is a 3D game. The fact this "logic" could be applied to literally any game ever should be proof enough it's wrong.
No, I would consider game made in Unity that looks like, say, a SNES sidescroller a 2D game because, guess what, it looks 2D. That's what I've been saying this whole time, the rendering method and engine used does not and should not matter when it comes to classifying "2D" and "3D" games.
>>342975636
Look, nobody is saying that you can't make a modern game out of two dimensional but textured polygons, but unless you can move your workspace in the third dimension, it's not a real 3D game.
Say SSB is actually a 3D game, while the game looks and plays 2D. This becomes evident in the pause menu, where you can move your camera relatively freely around the entire arena. In a game designed like Battlezone, that freedom simply doesn't exist since the arena, characters, UI, everything is essentially 2D, even if made from textured polygons.
>>342975284
>wire frames do jack shit but show the edges of the polygons,
they create the boundaries that allow you to place your textures and apply shaders, the surface is the illusion, the wire-frame makes it 3D.
It's not that hard to understand, are you special or somethin?
>>342975875
>I know because I do shit meant to be used in AAA games
What projects have you worked on? It should be easy enough to look up you credits.
>>342975887
>the rendering method and engine used does not and should not matter when it comes to classifying "2D" and "3D" games.
For the average layman no, it does not matter. Hence why Wolfenstein 3D has "3D" in the title. It is not actually a real 3D engine though, whether that matters to you in particular (or not) is beside the point.
>>342975887
Are you the faggot from the last thread? It still doesn't matter what you feel or think.
To be 3D, you have to use all 3 dimensions. King of fighters 13 looks like a 2D sprite game of old, but is actually a 3D game drawn to give the illusion of old timey sprites and layers. It looks FAR more 2D than something like smash brothers or modern street fighter, but it still is a 3D game.
Wolf3D isn't 3D at all, but looks way more 3D than king of fighters 13.
>>342976406
>KoF XIII
>a 3D game
Not him, but the fuck? No matter what retarded metric you want to use for it, KoF XIII isn't a 3D game in any way, shape or form.
>>342976259
You just answered your own question
>>342976271
>>342976406
Wolfenstein is a 3D game because your viewpoint is rendered in 3D. The rendering method has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's 3D. I'm sorry you're too ignorant to understand what I've been saying repeatedly, but if you look in your heart, you know it's true.
>>342968582
umm it has height, width and depth
>>342976585
It uses 3D models, and is on a 3D engine, running on dedicated 3D game arcade hardware.
It is in fact using the exact same everything as street fighter 4.
They put an incredible amount of time and effort in to make it look like a 2D sprite game, but the underlying tech isn't a 90s custom sprite based game engine.
>>342976625
>You just answered your own question
Autism must a hell of a thing to struggle with, Anon.
>>342976156
Wireframe is a way to display polygons
Polygons are what have faces that can be textured and shaderded
Wireframe is just vector points connected by line.
Polygons are what makes a 3d object.
>>342976961
pray tell me, why would anyone who has made it into the industry reveal who they are to a bunch of autistic NEETS who get jealous and try to trample on them as soon as possible for any excuse imaginable?
You're the autistic asshole everyone struggles with.
I'm glad to see none of you pieces of shit even managed to finish uni or get a job after.
>>342976902
It's almost as though animating cels would be more efficient (and nicer looking) than pixels at any resolution.
Yeah, it's 3D.
>>342976902
>It uses 3D models
Except that's wrong, you fucking retard. Read the fucking image, the models were traced in order to make sprites which, as you should know, are 2D images.
>and is on a 3D engine
Game Maker is able to produce 3D, doesn't make Undertale a 3D game.
KoF XIII doesn't use any kind of 3D models and doesn't have 3D gameplay of any sort, so it's not a 3D game.
>>342976902
the sprites are just rotoscoped from the 3d models. which 90% of proper 2d fighting games did anyway.
a game that uses proper 3d models and achieves the 2D feel is GGXRD
>>342977120
You can make a lot of arguments and suggestions for how they could have cut down the workflow, or make a better looking game, but what they wanted was something that looked exactly like their old 2D sprite games, but had the ability to scale up to huge resolutions, and would have high-res 'sprite' characters.
They stuck to their guns, and made exactly what they wanted. The game looks incredible, and in 2016, it looks like KOF 13 is the last 'traditional' 2D sprite game we're ever getting - despite not being an actual 2D sprite game at all.
>>342976973
>Polygons are what makes a 3d object.
let me break this down for you:
Wire frames make a polygon->
Polygons together make a 3D object->
Textures and shaders make it look fancy!
Get it now, or should I draw you a picture?
>>342977532
>Get it now, or should I draw you a picture?
No thanks, it'd be pretty bad as the picture you drew of yourself is all ready stupid.
You're missing massive chunks which makes me think you read in a magazine 10 years ago how model is made and that's it.
>>342958701
You only move in two dimensions.
>>342973517
>in a top-down shooter you naturally expect to be able to see behind the player
That's irrelevent. The whole point the Game Theorists video makes is that the gameplay of Wolf and Doom are limited to essentially a 2D plane. You can even play Doom like a top down shooter if you like, by playing with the map open. It's a way of pointing out what a step up in presentation can do for a game.
Incidentally, Teleglitch is a top down shooter that has lots of blocked off visibility and it's pretty alright. Yeah you can see behind yourself, but you can't see around corners and stuff like that.
>Gee, you must be some kind of super-genius to figure this out.
It's tough because you're being deliberately obtuse. Yeah every game isn't really 3D, since it's all displayed on a flat screen, but doom and wolf and the rest don't even have 3D models, which is why people differentiate them from modern 3D games.
>>342977532
you don't have to visualize the fucking lines of a polygon in any special way for fucks sake
>>342977532
Multiple points in 2D or 3D space make a polygon, a wireframe is just a way to display it without a material.
>>342977914
Oh good lord. Just read >>342976683 Because I'm sick of having to state the obvious time after time.
>>342977987
but you do.
Giving shader a task wether to render the line like a hard edge or to make it soft can make a massive difference
>>342977112
Woh, calm down kid, did you not get your juice on time or what? Maybe you should stop worrying about what people on the internet think, maybe take a break, go watch some Minecraft videos okay-doe-kay?
>>342977132
How come we never hear people talking about Ultima Underworld? Everyone seems to love to talk about how Wolf 3d, Doom, and Quake revolutionized everything, but almost never do you see people mention Underworld.
>>342978283
MSAA amirite
fuck you already
>>342978147
I fucking conceded to you that it's all the same. This whole argument is pointless if that's what you're talking about. The only reason people talk about Wolf and Doom as 2D or 2.5D is because it's an interesting and unintuitive way to make a 3D world. It's a "fun fact" that's all.
>NUH UH the thread
Depends on how you define a 3D game. Wolf3D has 3D graphics but the entirety of the gameplay is unaffected the Y axis, like Tekken with Z.
Doom is different in that it involves elevators and run-jumping across gaps.
>>342978653
No it's not
>>342978487
>MSAA
No. Edge shading. I'm not even that guy but polygon edges are important. Wait lemme get you a quick example from my WIP's
bottoms hard top soft
>>342978897
>Edge shading
meant to say normals but oh well
>it's another everyone talks about shit they don't understand episode
alright I think we've all said what we need to say so can we just agree that it's not 3D in any way whatsoever
>>342958701
it's "3D"
