JWeinCom said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
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.
|
You're original point is fine. I don't necessarily agree (I'd have to think on it more), but it's a defensible position. Audio is a part I really hadn't considered, so that's a solid point at least.
The thing is, if you say something sensible and then something that's really out there like pong balls being zero dimensional, people are going to focus on the wacky part, particularly if you keep defending it.
The reason people are less rigid about 3D gaming is because it's a much trickier concept. In Minecraft for instance, I can make an object and can describe its depth. Me and my friend can each make a block cube in Minecraft, and we can compare which one has more volume. I can instruct someone how to construct something in Minecraft by describing its dimensions in terms of length, width, and depth, at least by using informal units of measurements. I can say a cube is 3 blocks long, 3 blocks wide, and 3 blocks deep.
So, the question is whether my Minecraft cube is actually a 3D image that's being displayed on a 2D screen, or is it a 2D image that is being made to appear 3D with visual trickery. If it is 2D, and if I have two versions of the same image and put them side by side, is it now 3D even though it's really the same thing?
Those are complex questions that don't really have an easy answer.
By comparison, whether or not the paddles in pong is 1D is a very easy question. It has length, width, and area. No.
|
"The thing is, if you say something sensible and then something that's really out there like pong balls being zero dimensional, people are going to focus on the wacky part, particularly if you keep defending it."
I didn't know it was wacky when I said it, and I still don't think it is. I think it is more that people don't really understand geometry. Or perhaps they don't realize that when something is called "2D" or "3D", then only parts of it behave that way? At any rate it is probably a breakdown in communication.
"The reason people are less rigid about 3D gaming is because it's a much trickier concept."
It only seems trickier, because you think it is trickier. It's not that 2D is straightforward. The truth is that all of this stuff 1D/2D/3D/4D is tricky. Games aren't reality. They are all simulating reality in some way (some more than others). There are plenty of games called "2D" that have 3D aspects. And there are even more games called "3D" that have 2D aspects. A lot of early games have 1D aspects. However, if I point this out, it's treated like an illegal move or something.
"So, the question is whether my Minecraft cube is actually a 3D image that's being displayed on a 2D screen, or is it a 2D image that is being made to appear 3D with visual trickery. If it is 2D, and if I have two versions of the same image and put them side by side, is it now 3D even though it's really the same thing?"
It is more a matter of perspective. Without a 3DS or VR, then the cube is actually 2D and the 3D is an illusion to our eyes. However, according to the game's internal logic, the cube is 3D. Probably a lot of that has to do with collision detection and such, but also the game is trying to draw the cube as if it were 3D. This is why a certain level of processing power is need to for so called 3D games. Because the computer treats these objects like are 3D regardless of what they look like to our eyes. All of this processing power, at first, seems to be for the computers benefit.
However, that also seems to be what players care about most. Does the computer treat the objects like they are 3D? The 3DS screen isn't what matters. And for core gamers they prefer an analogue stick to the true 3D controls of the Wii remote. It's the internal logic of the game that seems to matter the most. If the computer treats everything like you are in a 3D world, then you feel like you are in a 3D world.
So, there are also games out there where the internal logic is 2D and others where it is 1D. There are even games, like Zaxxon, where the logic is 3D, but it probably appears like a 2D game in other aspects. Pong is a game where at least some of the logic is 1D though. The paddles only move in one dimension. And there isn't any complexity to the shapes, a dot and a couple of sticks. If that is 2D, then it is even less complex than Star Fox is as a 3D game.
Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 07 October 2020
Currently Online 
