Will it compete visually with Unreal Engine 5?

[Milamber]

i have seen several games in the same genre that so look life like in Unreal Engine 5 - no doubt this game is impressive, but I wonder how it will compete with out dated graphics.

[Imperium]

Milamber a écrit :

i have seen several games in the same genre that so look life like in Unreal Engine 5 - no doubt this game is impressive, but I wonder how it will compete with out dated graphics.

This game is in a very niche genre, its not competing against any other product. The few in the same genre like Pathfinder has even worse graphics so I thin they will be okay. Its not the type of game that will be topping charts or selling 100 million copies. Since EA, id wager 50% of people who would buy it, already bought it, so graphics is no issue here.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

(っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Rusty ♥ a écrit :

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

It totally isn't. There's zero 3D movement in that game as far as I can tell.

You travel in your sub across the Southwest Pacific searching for targets, with certain ships being at certain locations at certain times. The use of the depth of your sub is an absolutely deciding factor for your strategy in both hunting and evading. Going to deep will crush your sub. Wether you face the enemy from the front or the side makes a difference, enemies and your own speed make a difference. Silent Service and especially Silent Service 2 absolutely are 3d games in gameplay, much more so then many, many more modern games, where you can jump etc. but it's more of a cosmetic feature and has no real difference on your strategies.

Yeah, except as far as I can tell it's not actually rendering your depth as part of a 3D map, it's just checking the value of the depth variable to answer certain questions about the game state, lime whether you can he detected or hit by certain weapons.

There's a world of difference between a 3D coordinate in a fully 3D map, and a little number in the corner that tells you what "depth" you are. As far as I can tell, Silent Service is the latter.

You keep falling for "illusuons of 3D"...which is a credit to those games designers, but for the sake of conversation, so thus doesn't devolve into tedium, I need you to understand a very basic concept.

A game is only 3D if it renders it's playable space in 3 axes. Using art to produce a 3D perspective, or stitching together multiple 2D levels with loading screens and arbitrarily labeling them in a stack as if that stack produces the 3rd dimension DOES NOT make it a 3D game because at no point us it rendering any of the actual gameplay spaces in 3D.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

desrtfox071 a écrit :

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

As far as I can tell from a Google search, Descent was the first game to use all three axes and not just "2.5D" graphics to make the game look 3D.

No. Elite did this a decade earlier.

I looked into that - I have no idea if Elite was rendering space in 3D or not. Every reference I found mentioned 3D graphics but I couldn't find any ironclad confirmation that it actually rendered a true 3D world or not.

For illustrative purposes, consider that I can draw a cube on paper, but it's not really 3D (setting aside pedantic arguments about how ink/graphite has a tiny, but non-zero 'thickness'). A 2D rendering of a cube on a flat surface only gives an impression of 3-dimensionality.

I couldn't find hard evidence that Elite rendered an actual 3D space or not. If you can, please link.

[Quillithe]

Hyperspeed has you fly around in (empty) 3d space

https://store.steampowered.com/app/347260/Hyperspeed/

Also such a cool idea for a game

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

(っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Rusty ♥ a écrit :

You travel in your sub across the Southwest Pacific searching for targets, with certain ships being at certain locations at certain times. The use of the depth of your sub is an absolutely deciding factor for your strategy in both hunting and evading. Going to deep will crush your sub. Wether you face the enemy from the front or the side makes a difference, enemies and your own speed make a difference. Silent Service and especially Silent Service 2 absolutely are 3d games in gameplay, much more so then many, many more modern games, where you can jump etc. but it's more of a cosmetic feature and has no real difference on your strategies.

Yeah, except as far as I can tell it's not actually rendering your depth as part of a 3D map, it's just checking the value of the depth variable to answer certain questions about the game state, lime whether you can he detected or hit by certain weapons.

There's a world of difference between a 3D coordinate in a fully 3D map, and a little number in the corner that tells you what "depth" you are. As far as I can tell, Silent Service is the latter.

You keep falling for "illusuons of 3D"...which is a credit to those games designers, but for the sake of conversation, so thus doesn't devolve into tedium, I need you to understand a very basic concept.

A game is only 3D if it renders it's playable space in 3 axes. Using art to produce a 3D perspective, or stitching together multiple 2D levels with loading screens and arbitrarily labeling them in a stack as if that stack produces the 3rd dimension DOES NOT make it a 3D game because at no point us it rendering any of the actual gameplay spaces in 3D.

That's why I said in gameplay in regards to Silent Service. When playing the game you have to consider all 3 dimensions. Your depth is very important, as are your x and y position. I never said it was rendered in 3d. In gameplay silent service is fully 3d. All coordinates in games are nothing more than 3 variables, or a special variable type that contains 3 or 6 values. (position and rotation). There is virtually no difference if you seperate "depth" from X and Y coordinate. A z coordinate is also just a number that tells you how high or low you are. Silent Service is not a 3d graphics game, but it still is a 3d game in gameplay, unlike for example super mario where you only have left, right, up and down to consider.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Ok, you don't understand what a '3D game' is. Got it.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

Ok, you don't understand what a '3D game' is. Got it.

No, you only accept 3d graphics as 3d games. Everything that doesn't have 3d graphics isn't a 3d game by your definition.
I on the other hand find the movement in the world way more important.
You can have a game that renders in 3d with 3d graphics and all but it still is a pure 2d experience. Like for example Civ games. all you do is move north, south, west and east. You can express this with 2 coordinates x and y.
For silent service on the other hand you need to express the players position in 3 coordinates x, y and depth (or z)
Silent service is a 2d game in presentation, but a 3d game in gameplay.
Civilization is a 3d game in presentation but a 2d game in gameplay.
My definition is just more nuanced then just "has 3d graphics".

[patrick68794]

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

(っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Rusty ♥ a écrit :

You travel in your sub across the Southwest Pacific searching for targets, with certain ships being at certain locations at certain times. The use of the depth of your sub is an absolutely deciding factor for your strategy in both hunting and evading. Going to deep will crush your sub. Wether you face the enemy from the front or the side makes a difference, enemies and your own speed make a difference. Silent Service and especially Silent Service 2 absolutely are 3d games in gameplay, much more so then many, many more modern games, where you can jump etc. but it's more of a cosmetic feature and has no real difference on your strategies.

Yeah, except as far as I can tell it's not actually rendering your depth as part of a 3D map, it's just checking the value of the depth variable to answer certain questions about the game state, lime whether you can he detected or hit by certain weapons.

There's a world of difference between a 3D coordinate in a fully 3D map, and a little number in the corner that tells you what "depth" you are. As far as I can tell, Silent Service is the latter.

You keep falling for "illusuons of 3D"...which is a credit to those games designers, but for the sake of conversation, so thus doesn't devolve into tedium, I need you to understand a very basic concept.

A game is only 3D if it renders it's playable space in 3 axes. Using art to produce a 3D perspective, or stitching together multiple 2D levels with loading screens and arbitrarily labeling them in a stack as if that stack produces the 3rd dimension DOES NOT make it a 3D game because at no point us it rendering any of the actual gameplay spaces in 3D.

You don't have to be able to actually move in three axes for a game to be rendered in 3D though... A game rendering a true 3D world but not allowing you to move in 3 axes doesn't make that game not a 3D game.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

patrick68794 a écrit :

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

Yeah, except as far as I can tell it's not actually rendering your depth as part of a 3D map, it's just checking the value of the depth variable to answer certain questions about the game state, lime whether you can he detected or hit by certain weapons.

There's a world of difference between a 3D coordinate in a fully 3D map, and a little number in the corner that tells you what "depth" you are. As far as I can tell, Silent Service is the latter.

You keep falling for "illusuons of 3D"...which is a credit to those games designers, but for the sake of conversation, so thus doesn't devolve into tedium, I need you to understand a very basic concept.

A game is only 3D if it renders it's playable space in 3 axes. Using art to produce a 3D perspective, or stitching together multiple 2D levels with loading screens and arbitrarily labeling them in a stack as if that stack produces the 3rd dimension DOES NOT make it a 3D game because at no point us it rendering any of the actual gameplay spaces in 3D.

You don't have to be able to actually move in three axes for a game to be rendered in 3D though... A game rendering a true 3D world but not allowing you to move in 3 axes doesn't make that game not a 3D game.

If nothing moves in the 3rd axis, then why bother rendering a 3D space in the first place when it will just use up precious compute?

This is why 2D and "2.5D" games just use artwork to give the impression of 3D. If it's just an aesthetic thing, then it's "good enough".

[Quillithe]

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

patrick68794 a écrit :

You don't have to be able to actually move in three axes for a game to be rendered in 3D though... A game rendering a true 3D world but not allowing you to move in 3 axes doesn't make that game not a 3D game.

If nothing moves in the 3rd axis, then why bother rendering a 3D space in the first place when it will just use up precious compute?

This is why 2D and "2.5D" games just use artwork to give the impression of 3D. If it's just an aesthetic thing, then it's "good enough".

Well take Doom for example, plenty of things DO move in the third dimension, you just don't really have freedom to do so at will (no jumping).

Are a few elevators and stairs though.

[desrtfox071]

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

desrtfox071 a écrit :

No. Elite did this a decade earlier.

I looked into that - I have no idea if Elite was rendering space in 3D or not. Every reference I found mentioned 3D graphics but I couldn't find any ironclad confirmation that it actually rendered a true 3D world or not.

For illustrative purposes, consider that I can draw a cube on paper, but it's not really 3D (setting aside pedantic arguments about how ink/graphite has a tiny, but non-zero 'thickness'). A 2D rendering of a cube on a flat surface only gives an impression of 3-dimensionality.

I couldn't find hard evidence that Elite rendered an actual 3D space or not. If you can, please link.

So, I thought you might go this route.

First and foremost, you are seeing things rendered on to a 2D monitor, i.e. flat. Every "3D" game does the same thing - calculates the math to render a 3D world onto a 2D screen. If you want to dig down more into that, we certainly can, but it will be increasingly esoteric considering that PCs don't have any "sense" of 2D or 3D or 4D or whatever. They're just doing math.

Fundamentally what Elite does is exactly the same thing, though much more primitively than any other 3D game out there. Elite does keep track of object in 3D space and, although it doesn't allow for 6Dof movement, like Descent, still keeps track of rigid 3D bodies in exactly the same way. A good counter example, and maybe what you mean in your speculation, would be something like Tempest. This game "looks" 3D to the player, but at no point is the game trying to keep track of entities within a 3D space.


You can prove this to yourself by simply playing Elite (Oolite is a free option if you don't have access to the original) and flying around a space station. You can move around in any direction, and at any distance. This is the same 3D as any engine does today.

I think the problem here, like many debates on this forum, is going to come down to semantics. Others have already mentioned some examples of "3D" games that you contend isn't "true" 3D. Whatever that is. Even in VR you are seeing 2D renderings. I would ask, for the purposes of this discussion, please provide a clear definition of what a 3D game is to you.

Elite, for example, keeps track of 3D objects using 6 parameters - 3 for spacial position, and 3 for spacial orientation. It does this for all objects in the playfield. It then renders those objects based on a viewport (in this case centered on the players ship). To me, this is a 3D game. I would agree that 2.5D games, such as doom, aren't "true" 3D (again whatever that actually means) because they do not actually keep track of an object (the player* or opponents) using 6 variables. Doom uses 2 spacial variables only. I also think Silent Service is a good example of a 3D game that is not a 3D *rendered* game. So, ultimately, for the conversation to have any meaning, we need a *clear* definition of your meaning when using the phrase "3D game".

*The player does have one additional variable, view direction, but that is still only 3 compared to what I think of as a minimal "true" 3D game requiring 6 or more. Incidentally, there have been plenty of true 3D games prior to Descent. One off the top of my head would be PowerDrome on the Amiga anther would be MechWarrior, but you can go back to games like Battlezone and it's many derivatives as well. Even though, in the case of Battlezone, you are limited to a 2D map, so one could quibble on it's "true" 3Dness, although it is considered the first 3D arcade game and the first first-person shooter. Battlezone being the sort of inverse of Silent Service - a 2D game rendered in 3D. Hell, stereoscopic games[en.wikipedia.org] existed in droves prior to Descent, and you can't really do stereoscopic without computing 3D environments.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Quillithe a écrit :

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

If nothing moves in the 3rd axis, then why bother rendering a 3D space in the first place when it will just use up precious compute?

This is why 2D and "2.5D" games just use artwork to give the impression of 3D. If it's just an aesthetic thing, then it's "good enough".

Well take Doom for example, plenty of things DO move in the third dimension, you just don't really have freedom to do so at will (no jumping).

Are a few elevators and stairs though.

Those are just perspective tricks though, Doom is thoroughly a 2D game.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

desrtfox071 a écrit :

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

I looked into that - I have no idea if Elite was rendering space in 3D or not. Every reference I found mentioned 3D graphics but I couldn't find any ironclad confirmation that it actually rendered a true 3D world or not.

For illustrative purposes, consider that I can draw a cube on paper, but it's not really 3D (setting aside pedantic arguments about how ink/graphite has a tiny, but non-zero 'thickness'). A 2D rendering of a cube on a flat surface only gives an impression of 3-dimensionality.

I couldn't find hard evidence that Elite rendered an actual 3D space or not. If you can, please link.

So, I thought you might go this route.

First and foremost, you are seeing things rendered on to a 2D monitor, i.e. flat. Every "3D" game does the same thing - calculates the math to render a 3D world onto a 2D screen. If you want to dig down more into that, we certainly can, but it will be increasingly esoteric considering that PCs don't have any "sense" of 2D or 3D or 4D or whatever. They're just doing math.

Fundamentally what Elite does is exactly the same thing, though much more primitively than any other 3D game out there. Elite does keep track of object in 3D space and, although it doesn't allow for 6Dof movement, like Descent, still keeps track of rigid 3D bodies in exactly the same way. A good counter example, and maybe what you mean in your speculation, would be something like Tempest. This game "looks" 3D to the player, but at no point is the game trying to keep track of entities within a 3D space.


You can prove this to yourself by simply playing Elite (Oolite is a free option if you don't have access to the original) and flying around a space station. You can move around in any direction, and at any distance. This is the same 3D as any engine does today.

I think the problem here, like many debates on this forum, is going to come down to semantics. Others have already mentioned some examples of "3D" games that you contend isn't "true" 3D. Whatever that is. Even in VR you are seeing 2D renderings. I would ask, for the purposes of this discussion, please provide a clear definition of what a 3D game is to you.

Elite, for example, keeps track of 3D objects using 6 parameters - 3 for spacial position, and 3 for spacial orientation. It does this for all objects in the playfield. It then renders those objects based on a viewport (in this case centered on the players ship). To me, this is a 3D game. I would agree that 2.5D games, such as doom, aren't "true" 3D (again whatever that actually means) because they do not actually keep track of an object (the player* or opponents) using 6 variables. Doom uses 2 spacial variables only. I also think Silent Service is a good example of a 3D game that is not a 3D *rendered* game. So, ultimately, for the conversation to have any meaning, we need a *clear* definition of your meaning when using the phrase "3D game".

*The player does have one additional variable, view direction, but that is still only 3 compared to what I think of as a minimal "true" 3D game requiring 6 or more. Incidentally, there have been plenty of true 3D games prior to Descent. One off the top of my head would be PowerDrome on the Amiga anther would be MechWarrior, but you can go back to games like Battlezone and it's many derivatives as well. Even though, in the case of Battlezone, you are limited to a 2D map, so one could quibble on it's "true" 3Dness, although it is considered the first 3D arcade game and the first first-person shooter. Battlezone being the sort of inverse of Silent Service - a 2D game rendered in 3D. Hell, stereoscopic games[en.wikipedia.org] existed in droves prior to Descent, and you can't really do stereoscopic without computing 3D environments.

I didn't say Elite wasn't a 3D game, merely that I couldn't confirm it. This is only relevant in determing whether Descent or Elite was the first game to use 3D coordinates.

The 'definition' of a 3D game is pretty straightforward, and I've already pointed it out several times:

A game which computes it's playable area in 3 spatial coordinates. Thus, 3 dimensions.

Merely drawing things to make them look 3 dimensional doesn't count as being 3D.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Pan Darius Kairos a écrit :

A game which computes it's playable area in 3 spatial coordinates. Thus, 3 dimensions.

Well, in that case we'll probably have to credit Battlezone from 1980 as the first commercial 3d game. Although it used vector graphics, similarly to elite for pseudo-3d graphics, and you can only move in 2 dimensions, its developer claims it uses 3d math for it's calculations.