Will Xbox Series X and Playstation 5 big the biggest leap gaming has yet to see?

[The_Liquid_Laser]

JWeinCom said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Heh, you really want to tear this whole 1D/2D thing apart with a fine toothed comb.  I am just applying the same standards to the 1D/2D distinction as the 2D/3D distinction.

If I am going to understand where you are coming from, then I need to know how you define 3D gaming.  Most people mean Generation 5 games like Mario 64.  But 3D doesn't really mean 3D in every way.  The screen is 2D.  It is not like the 3DS or a VR system.  Also, an analogue stick is not even a fully 3D controller.  It's just a more precise 2D controller compared to a d-pad.  The analogue stick doesn't move in 3 dimensions.  The Wii remote is actually a 3D controller, because we can move our arm in 3 dimensions.  On top of this, the vast majority of PS1 games did not even require an analogue stick.

Do you consider Generation 5 to be the 3D generation?  If so why?  I consider graphics and the analogue stick to be the changes.  Is there something I missed?  It should be clear that 3D does not mean 3D in every single way.  It is more about the types of shapes that are drawn, how the shapes interact with one another and to a lesser extent the change in controls.

It should also be clear that we are talking in mathematical terms and not pure reality terms.  2D does not exist in pure reality.  Everything in reality is 3D no matter how narrow/thin it may be.  That is why this argument, "we could not see a 1D object" argument is a nonsense argument.  1D and 0D exist in mathematical terms, just like 2D only exists in mathematical terms.  If we are talking pure reality, then there is no 2D either.  2D only makes sense in mathematical terms.

"Heh, you really want to tear this whole 1D/2D thing apart with a fine toothed comb."

No, I really don't.

There's a picture of pong. The image of the paddles and the ball all have size and therefore are not zero dimensional. They all have length and width and are not one dimensional.

We can be sure they have at least two dimensions. That's as far as we need to go to disprove your claim. If you want to argue that they are actually three dimensional, you'd have to demonstrate that they have depth, and I'm not sure how we'd do that.

Whether 3D images can be displayed on a flat plane is a more complex question, but if we can't get definitions on points, line segments, and rectangles down, I'm not gonna go there.

Heh, you may not have read my original point, so let me go back to that.  I'm saying the transition from Generation 2 to 3 is the biggest.  The reasons are

1) Graphics - Transition from dots and sticks to actual 2D shapes like Mario and Link.  Of course if I call these dots and sticks 1D, then everyone has a hissy fit, but my point is that a character like Mario on NES has a hell of a lot more graphical depth than Pitfall on Atari 2600.
2) NES games had music.  Most Atari 2600 games did not.
3) Most Atari games had gameplay that was score-based, like arcade games, while NES games came to be about getting to the end of the game.
4) This change in gameplay lead to the downfall of the arcade.

This was my original point as it pertains to the topic of this thread.  For some reason people seem to really want to focus on the first point and I don't know why.

But to try to clarify with respect to 1D/2D or 2D/3D, my point is that people don't have any problem calling Generation 5 the 3D Generation even though there are lots of aspects that aren't really 3D.  I was using an analogy to show how early gaming went from 1D to eventually 2D on the NES, but at that point several people (including yourself) got very rigid about what 1D had to be even though people aren't terribly rigid with how they define 3D on the PS1 or N64.  A line segment is a one dimensional shape and early gaming was full of line segments.  Once we got to the NES, we stopped seeing line segments.

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 07 October 2020