Was it more or less 3D than Doom?
Both are 3D.
Both are 2D.
Both are 2.5D.
>>12594302less3d movement is more 3d than polygons
>>12594310But you can go up and down
Star Fox renders actual polygons that are moved around in real-time, which Doom lacks. I would still call Doom more of a "3D game" because you can freely move around in a 3D environment with height being considered for many calculations.
>>12594302doom is only 2.4D, starfox is 2.7D
>>12594331And fly alone
3deeznuts
>>12594302More. Doom is 2D game with no 3D math. StarFox is 3D game locked down with on-rails mechanic.But you can stop making these threads now. Nobody is excited about the new StarFox.
>>12594302It's 3D but not FreeD.
>>12594302Doom is 4D (3 spatial dimensions plus time) and StarFox is 3D (the third spatial dimension and the temporal dimension are combined)
>>12594452what happens in the temporal dimension?
>>125945023d objects changing depending upon certain factors about there location like temperature, kinetic energy, the surrounding other 3d objects and their interactions…
>>12594302Doom is 2.5D (X + Y + sprites)Star Fox is 4D (X + Y + Z + FX)
I prefer Star Fox 2
>>12594376>Doom is 2D game with no 3D math
>>12594557Based
>>12594529Doom has Z.
>>12594341Kek
>>12594613Paste 3D vector math or matrix transformations from the original Doom source code.Oh wait, there is none
>>12594335yeah pretty much this
>Doom is 2D
>>12595168>>12595098
>>12595168If you gonna say Doom is 3D then so is thisIt isn't though
>>12594302Is this supposed to be a retarded zoomer gotcha question?If only you had the ability to talk about the actual games instead, golem.
>>12594376doom has a bunch of 3D elements to it, with the rather confusing exception being the graphics renderer. objects, the player, enemies, projectiles, etc all move around in 3D space. many things are still only considered in 2D for performance reasons however, like you can't have two things on top of one-another, buttons and items can be interacted with at any height, etc. not because they couldn't, it's just more unnecessary cpu work and they didn't have much of that to go around. it's only 3D when it needs to be
>>12595302ThisYou can literally run under enemy projectiles to avoid them
>>12595228that's the problem, isn't it? 3d in any game is just tricks. and sure, if one calls doom 3d then they'd have to concede a game like your picture is 3d as wellwhether a game is 3d or not is more about whether the gameplay feels 3d rather than what specific rendering technique is used. it's hard to deny that doom feels like a 3d game, and it gets even more complex in things like duke3d which supports portal lines to fake room-over-room despite also having technically-2d maps
>>12595257Zoomer Derangement Syndrome
>>12595330>whether a game is 3d or not is more about whether the gameplay feels 3d rather than what specific rendering technique is usedWould that make Zork and other text adventures 3D since you can move up and down?
>>12595098Vectors and matrixes are the defining features of three dimensions? I thought that was having an X, Y, and Z axis, Doom having all three of those.>>12595228Not really, those are all static 2D tiles.>>12595330>if one calls doom 3d then they'd have to concede a game like your picture is 3d as wellNo they don't.
>>12595302In some ways doom's graphics renderer is more 3d than the PS1, doom renders perspective correct 3d.
>>12595519>doom renders perspective correct 3d.it doesn't, it can only do two-point perspective, not three-point. it's why there's no true looking up/down, no rotation, all vertical lines are always vertical
This board should be deleted.
>>12595523note that it's the same in similar engine games that do let you "look up/down" such as duke3d, all it does is shifts everything up/down, like it renders the "horizon" above or below the middle of the screen but there's no perspective change at allhttps://youtu.be/0odA4-TVUkEnote that modern source ports may have true 3D with three-point perspective, but the original engines do not
>>12595523Doom is perspective correct for the only camera angle it allows. PS1 is perspective correct never.
>>12595535no, it's not correct even when looking "straight". it's only completely correct when something is dead-on with the camera... but then that's just 2D. it only looks ok because the screen is not very tall, and it looks more wrong the further from the horizon you look
>>12595523>two-point>three-pointcurvilinear infinite-point perspective or gtfo
>>12595584technically modern games with their three point perspective and rectilinear rendering is also not how things actually look in real life either. at the end of the day shit's all fake and pixels on your screen were never 3D
>>12595098>no vector mathRay casting uses vector math, what the hell are you even talking about?
>>12595519>doom renders perspective correct 3dDoom's 3D is NOT perspective correct, which is why it doesn't have up and down looking, because Carmack thought that distortion looked fuckugly (you can see what he means in various sourceports allowing it with software rendering, as well as in Build games).Doom's 3D doesn't have any kind of affine texture warping though, which is the kind of thing you'd commonly see in PSX games, and what you're probably thinking of.>>12595530>>12595523Correct.>>12595535Bitch, Doom was ported to PSX (without any warping), you're defeating your own argument which aren't even understanding.>>12595537>but then that's just 2DThis is however wrong. The 3D not being perspective correct doesn't make it not 3D.
>>12595658Doom isn't strictly a ray caster, tbf.
>>12595608Rectilinear is fine if you think of the screen as a window you're looking through, you just have to sit in the exact right spot and look straight ahead for the perspective to look correct.
>>12595503Look, you can jump and get on top of objects and sit on enemies and walk below moving and static platforms. It's more 3D than Doom! You can even push objects off the ledge and they will fall down.I don't know why Doom is so confusing to people. Everyone understood this in the 80s: sprites with 2D math - 2D games; 3D math with polygons - 3D games.Look up Doom level editor - it's all 2D, there's no 3D in there.
>>12595674>Doom's 3D is NOT perspective correct, which is why it doesn't have up and down looking, because Carmack thought that distortion looked fuckuglyIf Doom had had up and down looking it wouldn't have been perspective correct, but since it doesn't it is perspective correct for the one perspective it allows with eyes always pointed straight ahead perpendicular to the ground plane.
>>12595758>perpendicularsorry meant parallell to the plane, perpendicular to the plane's normal
>>12595674> Doom was ported to PSXDoom on PSX is not using native PSX 3D. Its pretty much just doing the exact same thing as it does in the PC version.
>>12595765doom 64 maps are also 2d (it's based on the psx port, too)>>12595535one slight problem with that: view bobbing. while doom doesn't let you "look up/down", it does still vary the position of the horizon as you move around, so it's still wrong most of the time
>>12595732I don't think your arguments are particularly strong, nor even made in earnest.>>12595758>If Doom had had up and down looking it wouldn't have been perspective correctThat same kind of distortion is still there, it's just subtle and difficult to actually see with the original HUD and original resolution (and especially on cheaper CRTs of the early 1990s). Adding in that quick and cheap up and down looking just lets you see the distortion more clearly and easily (which is why Carmack didn't want it).
>>12595785>it does still vary the position of the horizon as you move aroundThat just means Doom guy keeps his eyes fixed straight ahead, parallel to the ground, while his head bobs up and down. He doesn't pitch his head or eyes up and down, which tbf is a bit unnatural, but the perspective is correct.
>>12595794>That same kind of distortion is still thereIt really isn't.
>>12595457Can a text adventure be classified as a 2D game in the first place, let alone 3D?
>>12595457yes
>>12595794DoomEd - the original map editor. It's not a CAD with multiple projections. It's 2D because the game is 100% 2D, same as Wolfenstein, same as Catacombs. It just got definable sectors instead of squares.
No waitokay...how aboutStarFox with raytracing?
>>12594302You can fly over or under arches in Star Fox. Doom's level architecture doesn't have any equivalent for this in the vanilla engine.
>>12595674>Doom was ported to PSX (without any warping)NTA but didn't they basically have to render it in software to do this? IIRC, at one point someone proposed taking advantage of the PlayStation's 3D hardware for faster rendering, but Id wouldn't allow it due to the texture warping it introduced.
>>12597168it's pretty amazing what you can make with just 2D polygons (sectors) that each have a single settable floor height and single settable ceiling height. that's it. map geometry can't overlap, you can't have have a room over a room, or a bridge over a gap, etc.
>>12597168>the game is 100% 2D,The z-axis is used to determine the location of projectiles and height differences of different sectors. So I would put it at roughly 97-99% 2D.
>>12597263it's a mix of both the original technique and psx hardware.the original pc doom draws using strips of pixels, for the walls for example it draws them in vertical strips, one pixel wide columns at a time... on the psx, they went for drawing a 1px wide triangles instead. hardware accelerated columns. no room for affine warping if they're only 1px wide.fun fact: this would still draw the textures with wrong perspective, but it's more subtle. actually i think it's the same as how textures look on the sega saturn in terms of perspective
>>125972863D math is only used sparingly. like for example you can't jump over an enemy. (or "monsters are infinitely tall" as they say.. i.e. their bounding box is 2D). BUT, projectiles can fly over them, because the game is programmed to handle projectiles with 3D math.doom is a 3d-capable engine... it just chooses carefully when to be one because it was very expensive back then
>>12595526how dare you
>>12597305I recall reading about that. Thanks for reminding me.
>>12597339actually thinking about it a bit more, i think the psx walls would be more correct than the quadratic rendering the saturn does to its' transformed sprites, as doom determines which column of texture to draw using projected lines (which is the correct way to do perspective), so it should look better than saturn quads.i haven't looked into what saturn doom does but i'd be surprised if it naïvely draws entire walls with one quad, that probably wouldn't look greatpic for reference top left: untransformed texture, top right: affine transformation, using two triangles which is how psx renders "quads", bottom left: quadratic rendering as the saturn does it, bottom right: perspective-correct projection mapping (n64 does this)
>>12597365One of my old internet friends, polycement, made a L4D2 and TF2 map based off this fucking mandrill and his insidious maze. I'm pretty sure he's fully trans now like all of my steam friends...
>>12597369it's part of a set of the oldest and most used sample images for digital processing, they're like 50 years old, so don't be surprised if you've seen it many times
>>12597369>like all of my steam friends...Statistically and observationally, that is a bad sign for you.
>>12594302both are tech demos
>>12595337>zoomer still not able to talk about gameswhat's it like being soulless and dead inside?
>>12597168Literally irrelevant.
>>12597369I'm sorry for your loss.
>>12594529Big brain answer
