3 ms·

It’s in the comments on the original post, but Battlezone, Star Wars and other arcade games had 3D vector graphics well before Elite. There’s also stuff like Za

by s1mon 3y ago

It’s in the comments on the original post, but Battlezone, Star Wars and other arcade games had 3D vector graphics well before Elite. There’s also stuff like Zaxxon, Q*bert or Marble Madness which simulated 3D with isometric 2D.

smcameron 3y ago
I don't think the article claimed Elite was first. Funny enough, I just spent the last three days implementing a remake of Battlezone on rp2040 with just fixed point math. That was a lot of fun. Still a few tweaks left to do, but it's mostly done. Edit: Battlezone's 3D is very limited, the camera, and object rotations are limited to only rotations about the y-axis (vertical axis). i.e. only yaw, no pitch, no roll. Given the hardware involved, this is understandable.
IIAOPSW 3y ago
Everything prior to VR was merely a simulation of 3D. Isometric projection is no worse or better than 1 pt perspective. Sure some of it was hard coded and didn't generalize to a full environment and physics model, but so what if they didn't build more than the set pieces that would be on screen.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  If you want to get pedantic then VR only simulates 3D as well since it is just two 2D images used to give the illusion of depth via stereoscopy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy). However in terms of gaming, 3D has different meaning from the physical world. And in terms of gaming, the vector games defined before are classed as 3D
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    It's not just two 2D images since there is a lens that emulates depth. On current headsets it's a static depth, but in the future it could be made dynamic by adjusting the optics on the fly based off the depth of what you are looking at. Outside of VR there are also light field displays which take more that just 2 images and output light such that multiple observers can see the name object, but from different angles.
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      > It's not just two 2D images since there is a lens that emulates depth. It doesn't emulate depth. The stereoscopic effect does that. It helps with focus (but this is a moot point because even if I did emulate depth it's still an emulation so my point stands). > Outside of VR there are also light field displays which take more that just 2 images and output light such that multiple observers can see the name object, but from different angles. Sure but they've been talking about this for literal decades and there isn't any consumer applications available yet. I think we're still decades off having that. My point wasn't that real 3D isn't possible though, clearly it is. It's just that the GP's point about 3D games not being "3D" is disingenuous to how "3D" is usually termed in video games.
      - IIAOPSW 3y ago
        Prove you're not playing a very immersive VR simulation right now.
        hnlmorg 3y ago
        Im not going to engage in idle speculation because you’re arguing a very different point from your original “everything before VR isn’t 3D” comment.
  - IIAOPSW 3y ago
    You're kind of making my point for me. A video game is by definition a simulation. If we start gate keeping what counts as "true 3d" the definition you have in mind will always be debatable. Personally I put the line at it being possible for things to be in front or behind other things (rendering appropriately, and relevant to the game mechanics). So this excludes games that were 2d game play with hard coded 3d assets, but does include "2.5d" games. Basically I'm putting the line at actually needing to keep track of the Z coordinate for the game to work correctly. Isometric should count (provided one object sometimes obscures another otherwise in view). I don't know what else 3d could mean.
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      > You're kind of making my point for me. No I’m not. Your point was that 3D games weren’t 3D. I was saying you’re argument isn’t honest to how the term “3D” is intended in the gaming industry and cited other examples of how you’ve misunderstood that term. > Personally I put the line at it being possible for things to be in front or behind other things (rendering appropriately, and relevant to the game mechanics). So this excludes games that were 2d game play with hard coded 3d assets, but does include "2.5d" games. The point of 2.5D is that the game has 3D-like visuals but the gameplay actually only happens in 2 axis. It’s to make the distinction you’re trying to express except does so in a much more elegant way. And 3D rendered assets in a 2D game is still 2D (eg Donkey Kong Country on the SNES)
      - IIAOPSW 3y ago
        >No I’m not. Your point was that 3D games weren’t 3D. yes you are, and now you're insisting what I wrote is what you interpreted it to be. You really want to argue that you know what I said better than I do? >The point of 2.5D is that the game has 3D-like visuals but the gameplay actually only happens in 2 axis. I stated very clearly I'm only counting it if the 3rd positional variable is actually required to implement the game. There's a very subtle distinction on if this definition counts a given 2.5d game: if something is in mid air is it possible to pass under it? Will a falling object land on something trying to pass under it (or will it screw up and clip through instead)? If the answer is no to either, then its not 3d. Its just drawn like its 3d but is still 2d (such as your DK example). If the answer is yes to both, then its 3d. There are games, that are not examples of 1st person AAA modern 3d engines, often rendered in isometric or some other projection, which none-the-less pass this basic criteria of being 3d. If gameplay in which the third dimension is literally a relevant variable is still just a "simulation of 3d" and not "real 3d", then no other method of projecting a simulated 3d world to a 2d screen should count either. That excludes pretty much everything prior to VR (and and as you pedantically argue, maybe also VR).

by s1mon 3y ago

smcameron 3y ago

I don't think the article claimed Elite was first. Funny enough, I just spent the last three days implementing a remake of Battlezone on rp2040 with just fixed point math. That was a lot of fun. Still a few tweaks left to do, but it's mostly done. Edit: Battlezone's 3D is very limited, the camera, and object rotations are limited to only rotations about the y-axis (vertical axis). i.e. only yaw, no pitch, no roll. Given the hardware involved, this is understandable.

IIAOPSW 3y ago

Everything prior to VR was merely a simulation of 3D. Isometric projection is no worse or better than 1 pt perspective. Sure some of it was hard coded and didn't generalize to a full environment and physics model, but so what if they didn't build more than the set pieces that would be on screen.

hnlmorg 3y ago
If you want to get pedantic then VR only simulates 3D as well since it is just two 2D images used to give the illusion of depth via stereoscopy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy). However in terms of gaming, 3D has different meaning from the physical world. And in terms of gaming, the vector games defined before are classed as 3D
- charcircuit 3y ago
  It's not just two 2D images since there is a lens that emulates depth. On current headsets it's a static depth, but in the future it could be made dynamic by adjusting the optics on the fly based off the depth of what you are looking at. Outside of VR there are also light field displays which take more that just 2 images and output light such that multiple observers can see the name object, but from different angles.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    > It's not just two 2D images since there is a lens that emulates depth. It doesn't emulate depth. The stereoscopic effect does that. It helps with focus (but this is a moot point because even if I did emulate depth it's still an emulation so my point stands). > Outside of VR there are also light field displays which take more that just 2 images and output light such that multiple observers can see the name object, but from different angles. Sure but they've been talking about this for literal decades and there isn't any consumer applications available yet. I think we're still decades off having that. My point wasn't that real 3D isn't possible though, clearly it is. It's just that the GP's point about 3D games not being "3D" is disingenuous to how "3D" is usually termed in video games.
    - IIAOPSW 3y ago
      Prove you're not playing a very immersive VR simulation right now.
      - hnlmorg 3y ago
        Im not going to engage in idle speculation because you’re arguing a very different point from your original “everything before VR isn’t 3D” comment.
- IIAOPSW 3y ago
  You're kind of making my point for me. A video game is by definition a simulation. If we start gate keeping what counts as "true 3d" the definition you have in mind will always be debatable. Personally I put the line at it being possible for things to be in front or behind other things (rendering appropriately, and relevant to the game mechanics). So this excludes games that were 2d game play with hard coded 3d assets, but does include "2.5d" games. Basically I'm putting the line at actually needing to keep track of the Z coordinate for the game to work correctly. Isometric should count (provided one object sometimes obscures another otherwise in view). I don't know what else 3d could mean.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    > You're kind of making my point for me. No I’m not. Your point was that 3D games weren’t 3D. I was saying you’re argument isn’t honest to how the term “3D” is intended in the gaming industry and cited other examples of how you’ve misunderstood that term. > Personally I put the line at it being possible for things to be in front or behind other things (rendering appropriately, and relevant to the game mechanics). So this excludes games that were 2d game play with hard coded 3d assets, but does include "2.5d" games. The point of 2.5D is that the game has 3D-like visuals but the gameplay actually only happens in 2 axis. It’s to make the distinction you’re trying to express except does so in a much more elegant way. And 3D rendered assets in a 2D game is still 2D (eg Donkey Kong Country on the SNES)
    - IIAOPSW 3y ago
      >No I’m not. Your point was that 3D games weren’t 3D. yes you are, and now you're insisting what I wrote is what you interpreted it to be. You really want to argue that you know what I said better than I do? >The point of 2.5D is that the game has 3D-like visuals but the gameplay actually only happens in 2 axis. I stated very clearly I'm only counting it if the 3rd positional variable is actually required to implement the game. There's a very subtle distinction on if this definition counts a given 2.5d game: if something is in mid air is it possible to pass under it? Will a falling object land on something trying to pass under it (or will it screw up and clip through instead)? If the answer is no to either, then its not 3d. Its just drawn like its 3d but is still 2d (such as your DK example). If the answer is yes to both, then its 3d. There are games, that are not examples of 1st person AAA modern 3d engines, often rendered in isometric or some other projection, which none-the-less pass this basic criteria of being 3d. If gameplay in which the third dimension is literally a relevant variable is still just a "simulation of 3d" and not "real 3d", then no other method of projecting a simulated 3d world to a 2d screen should count either. That excludes pretty much everything prior to VR (and and as you pedantically argue, maybe also VR).