Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #49: Prototype Demo

[FeelTheRads]

Your criticism is so primitive.

And your arguments are non-existent. Pretty good match.

 

[IDtenT]

3D is pointless when viewed from a fixed perspective.

Not really. It simplifies physics for one.

 

[Liston]

How does it feel, to be mentally stuck in 2005?

I know what you are saying, and this is not the worst case. We have superb printing technology and there are still people that use oil paint, our computers are capable of synthesizing all kinds of sounds but there are still people that insist on using instruments that have been available for centuries. Fucking plebs, they can't understand our superior way of valuing things.

Spoiler

You are a moron.

 

[Smejki]

3D is pointless when viewed from a fixed perspective.

not true.
3D means possible and proper dynamic shadows, better physics, better scalability, better modability, more easily done dynamic sceneries... and pretty sure something more I can't come up with that quickly.
It has drawbacks nonetheles, big ones. But it doesn't make 3D objectively pointless.

 

[Rake]

3D is pointless when viewed from a fixed perspective.

not true.
3D means possible and proper dynamic shadows, better physics, better scalability, better modability, more easily done dynamic sceneries... and pretty sure something more I can't come up with that quickly.
It has drawbacks nonetheles, big ones. But it doesn't make 3D objectively pointless.

I prefer a beautiful game with mediocre dynamic shadows and physics, than a mediocre looking game with good shadows but i'm strange that way.
As for easy moding, screw it. BG2 was 2D and it has one of the best modding communities out there. If the game is good the people who are competend and passionate about it they'll find a way to mod it.
That every imbred monkey out there won't be able to make his (most times retarded) additions is no big deal for me.

 

[Smejki]

And I have no problem with your preferences. I also incline much more to 2D. It is just that St. Toxic's post is laughably , dumb, arrogant and simply untrue.

 

[St. Toxic]

I agree if you mean only 3D maps and terrain. 3D objects and characters are a different story.

Well, are we viewing these from a fixed perspective too?

Not really. It simplifies physics for one.

Imagine a 2d platformer.

not true.
3D means possible and proper dynamic shadows

Meaning that dynamic shadows are "improper" and "impossible" with 2 dimensions huh? I mean, what, we can't simulate distance to light-source without that Y, now can we?

better physics

Better how?

better scalability

Better than vector graphics?

better modability

Better how? Y'know, making resources for 2d games takes a lot less effort.

more easily done dynamic sceneries...

Really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. I mean, if we're talking about, for instance, dynamic destruction -- it's still the same process of implementing a single scripted sequence or a general object rule. The difference lies in resource creation, where a retexture of the same 3d model with a ruleset already implemented cuts the workload by 2/3. Pretty sure that balances out in 2d's favor in the end though.

But it doesn't make 3D objectively pointless.

It's fucking pointless when you aren't utilizing the third dimension, i.e playing the game from a fixed perspective as if it's a 2d game.

And I have no problem with your preferences. I also incline much more to 2D. It is just that St. Toxic's post is laughably , dumb, arrogant and simply untrue.

Right. 2D games need 3D graphics, stupid. Don't be so arrogant.

 

[Infinitron]

I agree if you mean only 3D maps and terrain. 3D objects and characters are a different story.

Well, are we viewing these from a fixed perspective too?

Yes, but even in a fixed perspective, you can be closer or farther from the camera. If they climb a hill, or get knocked into the air, they need to grow larger.

 

[St. Toxic]

If they climb a hill, or get knocked into the air, they need to grow larger.

There are 2 good axises of growth. Who needs 3?

 

[Infinitron]

If they climb a hill, or get knocked into the air, they need to grow larger.

There are 2 good axises of growth. Who needs 3?

Ahaha, very clever. You realize what you're describing here is basically 3D graphics technology with z set to 0?

True 2D = static sprites where every single frame of animation needs to be drawn/rendered and pre-rendered static backgrounds.

 

[St. Toxic]

Ahaha, very clever. You realize what you're describing here is basically 3D graphics technology with z set to 0?

True 2D = static sprites where every single frame of animation needs to be drawn/rendered and pre-rendered static backgrounds.

I don't get it. Are you trying to say that the use of different layers or resizing different sprites creates some sort of extra dimension, somehow making these 2d-bitmaps 3-dimensional? It doesn't. I mean, at least no more than the same functionality makes 3d graphics technology 4-dimensional.

Also, what do you mean by static?

 

[Infinitron]

I don't get it. Are you trying to say that the use of different layers or resizing different sprites creates some sort of extra dimension, somehow making these 2d-bitmaps 3-dimensional? It doesn't. I mean, at least no more than the same functionality makes 3d graphics technology 4-dimensional.

You can't just "resize" static sprites without losing quality.

What you're suggesting is basically a "3-1D" system, with graphics that are based on models composed of polygons/triangles, but with only two dimensions instead of three.

That's not what people have in mind when they think of 2D. What they have in mind is static, "hand painted" or pre-rendered images that are scanned as is into a game. They can't be resized or scaled. They can't be manipulated.

Your 3-1D system provides none of the benefits of the traditional definition of 2D in terms of graphical quality or computational load (yay, I can do the math on one less coordinate!)

 

[IDtenT]

Why not just one dimension? We sure love our railroaded FPSes here on the Codex.

 

[Infinitron]

Another thing - if you need to resize one of these 2D characters when he climbs up a hill, that means you need to track his z coordinate anyway. You're doing some of the same stuff you would have done in a fully 3D system anyway.

 

[St. Toxic]

You can't just "resize" static sprites without losing quality.

It's true, as many a SNES game can testify to. The same goes for textures in use with 3d models. Vectors are lossless.

What you're suggesting is basically "3-1D", graphics that are based on models composed of polygons/triangles but with only two dimensions instead of three.

You mean vector graphics? I'm not suggesting it, but they are still 2D -- not "3-1D" whatever that's supposed to mean.

That's not what people have in mind when they think of 2D. What they have in mind is static, "hand painted" or pre-rendered images that are scanned as is into a game. They can't be resized or scaled. They can't be manipulated.

Wow, who knew you were such a complete moron? Why these arbitrary rules? Also, who cares what people have in mind? 2D is 2D.

Your systems provides none of the benefits of the traditional definition of 2D, in terms of graphical quality or computational load (yay, I can do math on one less coordinate!)

It's not about 'benefits', it's about being the right tool for the right job. If you're making a 2d game, you don't need 3d graphics. I wasn't suggesting the use of vector graphics, but you can still do the same kind of 2d graphics even with this format. We're all watching streaming videos rendered in a vector format, some with SUPER-HD support.

Another thing - if you need to resize one of these 2D characters when he climbs up a hill, that means you need to track his z coordinate anyway.

What if it's a side-scroller and the character changes lane and gets closer to the camera? We're not tracking a third axis, we're observing a trigger-call.

You're doing some of the same stuff you would have done in a fully 3D system anyway.

What, making a bunch of assets that never get fully used? If I was making a GTA/HLM type of game where the character could be further away from/closer to the camera, it makes sense to go for 2D rather than go full 3D just to simulate walking down stairs and shit. For iso games you never even have that size option; if you want different elevations they can be represented as different planes of the universe.

 

[Infinitron]

Why these arbitrary rules? Also, who cares what people have in mind?

I dunno, the folks who need to sell a Kickstarter pitch to those people?

But hey if you want to become a vector graphics evangelist than be my guest.

 

[FeelTheRads]

We're all watching streaming videos rendered a vector format, some with SUPER-HD support.

Where would that be?

 

[St. Toxic]

But hey if you want to become a vector graphics evangelist than be my guest.

Why would I? Look, it's old as dirt. Go play some Flash games or something.

Where would that be?

The tube.

 

[Infinitron]

But hey if you want to become a vector graphics evangelist than be my guest.

Why would I? Look, it's old as dirt. Go play some Flash games or something.

I've already played Another World, thanks.

 

[FeelTheRads]

The tube.

Nice trolling attempt, bro. I'm sure some will fall for it.

 

[St. Toxic]

Nice trolling attempt, bro. I'm sure some will fall for it.

What? Flash is all vectors, video itself is imported bitmap. But it's not like you'd call a video 3-1D HURR because you can manipulate the surface it's being rendered on.

Spoiler

Maybe you're reacting to the SUPER-HD portion?

In July 2010, YouTube began streaming certain videos at a resolution of up to 4096 x 2304

If you want to see a nice trolling attempt, check this one out:

I've already played Another World, thanks.

And, what'd you think?

 

[FeelTheRads]

What? Flash is all vectors, video itself is imported bitmap.

Exactly. How does that make the video scalable (or vector) was my question, because it seemed like that's what you wanted to imply.

 

[Orma]

Looks very nice.

 

[St. Toxic]

Exactly. How does that make the video scalable (or vector) was my question, because it seemed like that's what you wanted to imply.

The vector-canvas is scalable, though the bitmap obviously loses focus. Maybe re-read what I said?

I wasn't suggesting the use of vector graphics, but you can still do the same kind of 2d graphics even with this format. We're all watching streaming videos rendered in a vector format

So, we're rendering 2d bitmaps on vectors, would you agree? It's still down to the resolution of the bitmap whether or not the pixel density matches up with your resolution. Since we're able to render any bitmap resolution on any vector size, there's nothing in the way of using it as a medium for all kinds of 2d graphics. It's pretty much exactly what P:E has going in that scene, barring that waterfall.

 

[Smejki]

Ok, I will pretetend I am not laughing at the moment, Maestro Toxic

not true.
3D means possible and proper dynamic shadows

Meaning that dynamic shadows are "improper" and "impossible" with 2 dimensions huh? I mean, what, we can't simulate distance to light-source without that Y, now can we?

shadows in 2D can never be proper but are possible of course, yet limited by principal
2D - simple shadow mapping is possible
3Dchar + 2D background - only simple shadow cast on flat surface is possible + selfshadowing possible only on 3D stuff (characters)
prerendered 2D backround - can easily have perfect shadows but not dynamical
complete 3D - any kind of shadows is possible, perfect selfshadowing of everything, ambient occlusion, full dynamic shadows respecting geometry of the casting object as well of the "environement"

Hell, mate, your avatar is 2D head. Animate it properly with a light turning around the head. I want to see all the perfect dynamic shadows incl. selfshadowing... you have your "distance to light-source without that Y", it is easy to compute.
I'm waiting, having full faith in you

better physics

Better how?

Not by principle, of course. But by the fact that you have complete information of all faces in the scene. Thus for example ragdoll accelerated by explosion can bounce off of a wall, land in a group of crates, its kinetic energy passing to them. The crates all travel further, rotating, bouncing, eventually being realistically destroyed into debris which also continues behaving properly.
Fuck. Proper physics always means also 3D rotation of an object. Rotate a crate using nothing but 2maps and 2D math and I'll buy you an ice-cream

better scalability

Better than vector graphics?

What the fuck? When was the last time some RPG used 2D vector graphics
Yes, Mr. Toxic, master of computer graphics, physics, optics, and math, unlimited and easy scalability comes with vectors. 3D is based on ::drumroll:: vectors!

better modability

Better how? Y'know, making resources for 2d games takes a lot less effort.

I dunno. Ask the guys who need to create 3D model of a character and then create shitloads of sprites for every stance and animation in any given angle (typically 4 or 8) to mod, for example teh old Fallout.
Ask those who have to recompute all this shit when they make a minor change to the model.

more easily done dynamic sceneries...

Really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. I mean, if we're talking about, for instance, dynamic destruction -- it's still the same process of implementing a single scripted sequence or a general object rule. The difference lies in resource creation, where a retexture of the same 3d model with a ruleset already implemented cuts the workload by 2/3. Pretty sure that balances out in 2d's favor in the end though.

same as before. you have to create 3D model + animation
2D means you have to generate animated sprite which will be always stuttering
Guess why the hell is the turning wheel in second scenery from Torment made in 3D? Because Fargo wanted to show how badass and modern he is?

But it doesn't make 3D objectively pointless.

It's fucking pointless when you aren't utilizing the third dimension, i.e playing the game from a fixed perspective as if it's a 2d game.

3D looking game without having 3D information is always limited.

And I have no problem with your preferences. I also incline much more to 2D. It is just that St. Toxic's post is laughably , dumb, arrogant and simply untrue.

Right. 2D games need 3D graphics, stupid. Don't be so arrogant.

I hope you'll read all the text above much better than the text you have responded to here. Read again. Read a-fucking-gain, honey.

I also incline much more to 2D

But I have to apologize for calling you arrogant. I wanted to write ignorant, but you know, fast typing, mistaking words. Shit happens.

PS: You aren't suggesting some sidescrolling mario type game, or some similar douchebaggery, I hope. We would be singing a different song then.