Are 3D games really 3D games??

[offsidewing]

I mean are they?  Really?  I play them on my TV and Monitor.  TV's and Monitors don't display in 3D.

Well, I play my 7800 on an HDS, but other than that...

[Turbo D]

3D is a mindset. Games are only 3D if you think they are.

[Kitsunexus]

Dude, it's like looking out a window. While what's outside is very 3D, through the window you only see a 2D representation of it. The difference is, you can't open the TV and see the 3D world around you.

How do we actually know that the world is 3D? It could just be a very fast Z-buffer that hides the angles we can't see normally.

[Joe Redifer]

Some of my Sega Master System games are truly 3D.  They require crazy glasses from the future, though.

[Kitsunexus]

But isn't stereoscopic 3D just a projected 2D representation? If this is true, there IS no true 3D.

[Tatsujin]

Dude, it's like looking out a window. While what's outside is very 3D, through the window you only see a 2D representation of it.

but that's just not true. if you watch through a window, you still have the stereotyped view. if you close one eye, then you have almost the result of  flat 3D.

[Turbo D]

Those master system glasses are crazy tho! Its like you can reach out and grab the 8-bit gameplay 

[offsidewing]

But isn't stereoscopic 3D just a projected 2D representation? If this is true, there IS no true 3D.

Then why the fuck did I need that Ti-92 in college!  All lies.

[Tatsujin]

But isn't stereoscopic 3D just a projected 2D representation? If this is true, there IS no true 3D.

in fact the definiton of 3 Dimensions (Lenght*With*Depth) is not tied to mono or stereoscopic view.

[Keranu]

Vectrex was the first system to offer 3D goggles, just another reason why it's the best system ever made.

[Dark Fact]

It also makes me question games like Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, and Duke Nukem 3D as whether they are true 3D?  From what I've seen, I'd say those games are just 2D sprite games with a 3D movement interface.  The game environment itself isn't real 3D.  The "3D" gimmick was probably just used as a selling point for game companies back then to attract gamers.

[Keranu]

I don't think a game necessarily has to use polygons or anything to be 3D, so games like Wolf 3D or Space Harrier count as 3D to me.

[NecroPhile]

I'll have some of what you guys are smoking. 

1)  Current 3D games are composed of 3D environments with freedom of movement in the x,y,z planes, but we view them on a 2D screen.  Has anyone else caught themselves leaning to the left to try to see around a corner on screen?
2)  Old 3D games (Wolfenstein) were composed of flat maps with scaling and perspective.  The environments weren't quite 3D either, as movement was limited in the z plane - the x,y plane could be shifted up or down, but no two objects could share the same x,y coordinates regardless of z location.
3)  Televisions screens are not 3D, nor are stereoscopic images.  No matter how much you move, the image looks the same.
4)  The view out a window is 3D.  When you move, the view changes as your relationship to outside objects changes.

In short, there are 3D environments (either real or digital) and we view them on screen as a series of 2D images.

[Kitsunexus]

It also makes me question games like Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, and Duke Nukem 3D as whether they are true 3D?  From what I've seen, I'd say those games are just 2D sprite games with a 3D movement interface.  The game environment itself isn't real 3D.  The "3D" gimmick was probably just used as a selling point for game companies back then to attract gamers.

They are classified as 2.5D. If you don't believe me google "2.5d shooters" and see what comes up.

[Keranu]

I'll have some of what you guys are smoking. 

1)  Current 3D games are composed of 3D environments with freedom of movement in the x,y,z planes, but we view them on a 2D screen.  Has anyone else caught themselves leaning to the left to try to see around a corner on screen?
2)  Old 3D games (Wolfenstein) were composed of flat maps with scaling and perspective.  The environments weren't quite 3D either, as movement was limited in the z plane - the x,y plane could be shifted up or down, but no two objects could share the same x,y coordinates regardless of z location.
3)  Televisions screens are not 3D, nor are stereoscopic images.  No matter how much you move, the image looks the same.
4)  The view out a window is 3D.  When you move, the view changes as your relationship to outside objects changes.

In short, there are 3D environments (either real or digital) and we view them on screen as a series of 2D images.

IS THE VIRTUAL BOY IN 3D!?

What about that one expensive VR arcade system?

[Kitsunexus]

What about that one expensive VR arcade system?

The Virtuality? No, the Virtuality wasn't 3D, it was Amiga. ^_________^

[NecroPhile]

IS THE VIRTUAL BOY IN 3D!?

What about that one expensive VR arcade system?

No more so than any sterescopic image.  The VB has a LED array for each eye that shows slightly different angles of the same 2D image, which the brain perceives as a 3D image.  Again, all current video games are viewed in 2D, but the world being viewed can be either 2D or 3D (or something in between).  We won't have 3D games being viewed in 3D until we have holodecks like on Star Dork.

PS - Yes, I'm ashamed of making a trekkie reference.

[Seldane]

I officially declare this A Boring Topic™

[Kitsunexus]

Most HMDs (head-mounted-displays, VR headsets, goggles, w/e you call them) released had 2 screens, with slight offset between them for realism. But herein lies the problem; we don't see 2 flat surfaces when we look at our world, it's impossible to consciously notice but we see sort of a dome shape. That's how we can look out of the corners of our eyes to see things coming.

So the solution is to make an HMD that uses 2 very light-weight OLED dome displays that cover the eye. This not only solves the problem of realistic vision, but eliminates the problems standard dual-LCD HMDs have, namely the bulkiness (which was required to block out light and hold primitive technology) but is doesn't do anything fo the biggest problem which is depth perception.

That's actually something we need to touch on in this thread. Depth perception is a BIG player in the "is it 3D or not" game. If you had NO depth perception, life would be like looking a big animated flat surface. Depth perception lets us see that some things sit in front of others, some behind, etc...

The problem with this involving HMDs is that the software never really simulated the depth perception, they left this to the HMD. But when you have an LCD less than 3 inches from your eyeballs, all of that is lost. Mostly everybody has an LCD monitor, close your eyes, get as CLOSE as you can, and open them. Doesn't exactly look 3D huh? In order to get proper depth perception from an LCD, you'd need an HMD that's about 2 feet long! 

I think the OLED dome scenario can fix this, however, I'm still working out exactly how that would work. I'm trying to avoid math as much as I can, but it will most likely have to come in at some point.

[offsidewing]

I officially declare this A Boring Topic™

Don't be that guy.  Don't be THAT guy.  " I hate this thread."  "This thread is so lame."  "Anyone who likes this thread."

Then don't read it...

[Seldane]

I was kidding.


.....or was I?

[offsidewing]

I was kidding.


.....or was I?

You helped me get my one "PCU" movie quote for today out of the way!

[Kitsunexus]

Don't spam this thread. I'm not fucking around.

[offsidewing]

I think the OLED dome scenario can fix this, however, I'm still working out exactly how that would work. I'm trying to avoid math as much as I can, but it will most likely have to come in at some point.

Weren't Organic Light Emitting diodes/displays supposed to come out about the same time as Laser Discs?  I've been hearing about OLED's longer than I've been hearing about the Ultra 64...

[Kitsunexus]

Weren't Organic Light Emitting diodes/displays supposed to come out about the same time as Laser Discs?  I've been hearing about OLED's longer than I've been hearing about the Ultra 64...

LOL dude, they're out. Hell my Zen Sleek Photo which is like fucking ANCIENT has one.

[nat]

I officially declare this A Boring Topic™

We won't have 3D games being viewed in 3D until we have holodecks like on Star Dork.

PS - Yes, I'm ashamed of making a trekkie reference.

Why? Holodecks rule.

[Turbo D]

I say my paralaxing duo games are 3-D 

[offsidewing]

I officially declare this A Boring Topic™

We won't have 3D games being viewed in 3D until we have holodecks like on Star Dork.

PS - Yes, I'm ashamed of making a trekkie reference.

Kitsu, show 'em your Vulcan V-8!

Why? Holodecks rule.

[Tatsujin]

I say my paralaxing duo games are 3-D 

yes.. use a nuoptix google and they will be for sure pulfrich ma fren!!

[Kitsunexus]

Kitsu, show 'em your Vulcan V-8!

/535121213_8dab874b43.jpg

[Kitsunexus]

PS - Yes, I'm ashamed of making a trekkie reference.

p.s. I didn't make that...

[Kitsunexus]

I officially declare this A Boring Topic™

[OldRover]

When it comes to games...if it looks 3D, it is 3D. Plain and simple. Since true 3D cannot be represented on a 2D surface, what you have is the closest approximation. Super-old FPS games like Wolfenstein 3D and the like were made with raycasters, BSP trees, and other such software tricks because hardware at the time wasn't fast enough to perform the massive number-crunching that "proper" 3D mathematics requires. I have a raycaster-based FPS myself called Two Lords (has nothing to do with the movie...look up "two lords fps" on google).

All that talk about "2.5D shooters" is a load of crap started up by a bunch of nerdy 3D purists who can't wipe their ass in realtime because the toilet paper lags.

[nat]

PS - Yes, I'm ashamed of making a trekkie reference.

p.s. I didn't make that...

Too bad, that's one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

[NecroPhile]

Why? Holodecks rule.

True, but Star Trek is still nerdy.  I got a little nerd in me, but I like to put my little nerd in others.

Kitsu, show 'em your Vulcan V-8!

Or how 'bout a Vulcan V-6?

[nat]

Why? Holodecks rule.

True, but Star Trek is still nerdy.  I got a little nerd in me, but I like to put my little nerd in others.

Star Trek rules.  Except Voyager. What the fuck was up with that abomination?

[Tatsujin]

now that's what i really call a /wurstkoffercs2.jpg scenario.

[offsidewing]

Why? Holodecks rule.

True, but Star Trek is still nerdy.  I got a little nerd in me, but I like to put my little nerd in others.

Kitsu, show 'em your Vulcan V-8!

Or how 'bout a Vulcan V-6?

Ahhh, those were the days.  Now all we have is the Duratec series.

[Kitsunexus]

When it comes to games...if it looks 3D, it is 3D. Plain and simple. Since true 3D cannot be represented on a 2D surface, what you have is the closest approximation. Super-old FPS games like Wolfenstein 3D and the like were made with raycasters, BSP trees, and other such software tricks because hardware at the time wasn't fast enough to perform the massive number-crunching that "proper" 3D mathematics requires. I have a raycaster-based FPS myself called Two Lords (has nothing to do with the movie...look up "two lords fps" on google).

All that talk about "2.5D shooters" is a load of crap started up by a bunch of nerdy 3D purists who can't wipe their ass in realtime because the toilet paper lags.

Yeah raycasters like the Doom and Duke series weren't "proper 3D then". Here's a question, how would you  classify voxels?

[Seldane]

*Thread locked*