Was Wolfenstein 3D actually 3D?

[magicsofa]

I would approach the question by trying elimination... ask yourself, is the game 2D?

I think the fact that it looks 3D is good enough to say it's not "just 2D." Sure, it could easily be playable with a top-down view instead. But you would lose the effect of things getting "close" or "far away." Everything would display at the same size regardless of distance from the player.

As for the illusion argument... of course it is an illusion. It's a 2D image made to look like it has depth, just like any other renderer will produce. It doesn't really matter if the data has 3 coordinates or 2. The image produced is 2D (unless you have a holographic monitor). Hell, you could even have just 1 value stored for all objects to be rendered, and use that value for all coordinates. What does it matter, as long as it looks like it has perspective when it is displayed to you?

[Koko Ricky]

Wolf uses 2D tiles to build columns. Are those columns 3D? They can't be freely rotated, but they do have perspective. 

[maxmanium]

No

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

I'm glad this topic got resurrected! 

I predict that by page 12 we'll have discovered the meaning of life.

 

No, seriously, I fucking hate threads like this, not because of the question itself (which is fine) but because of the inevitable pseudo-intellectual and philosophical discussions that will follow. The "Is DOOM 3D" thread is absolute dogshit. One of the dumbest threads on Doomworld. And much worse than anything you could dig up from Post Hell, because it's not even entertaining. Nothing but a big clusterfuck of made up "science" that people learned from a ten minute Youtube video.

 

"It's 3D! Look at this video by VisionaryRobert100, it's undeniable proof, he explains everything!"

 

"Nah man, look at this video by UltraSteve, it's actually 2D!"

 

"I'll have you know that I passed 10th grade science with a C+, it's 2.5D!"

 

Some things should remain a mystery for the sake of sanity and human decency.

Edited October 1, 2022 by TheMagicMushroomMan

[Graf Zahl]

 

There is no mystery here. Wolfenstein is a clear cut case. It's a 3D rendition of a two-dimensional game.

For Doom there's a bit more interpretation left. Again it's a 3D rendition, but the game logic is some hybrid between 3D and 2D (which is what coined the 2.5D term)

 

I think the above clearly descibes the problem many people have - they want ONE term to describe something that CANNOT be expressed that way.

Which makes not only the initial question but also the entire discussion trying to arrive at a consensus pointless. Since the question has no answer the discussion will go on endlessly between the two ways in which dimensionality ca be expressed.

You still need both to get the correct answer and no amount of discussion will ever change it.

 

Just as much as you cannot express a point in two dimensional space with a single number. You can try cooking up different means but they are all just a matter of interpretation that try to evade reality.

 

 

 

[Murdoch]

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

There is no mystery here. Wolfenstein is a clear cut case. It's a 3D rendition of a two-dimensional game.

For Doom there's a bit more interpretation left. Again it's a 3D rendition, but the game logic is some hybrid between 3D and 2D (which is what coined the 2.5D term)

 

Spot on. The Wolfenstein 3D engine has no concept of a Z axis when it comes to game logic at all.

[Biz!]

No, far from. The game has no 3D hitbox calculations, no ability for 3D models, only 90 degree angle walls. Its rendering engine is like a top-down game who uses fancy resizing techniques to make it seem 3D.

[Koko Ricky]

3 hours ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

No, seriously, I fucking hate threads like this, not because of the question itself (which is fine) but because of the inevitable pseudo-intellectual and philosophical discussions that will follow. The "Is DOOM 3D" thread is absolute dogshit. One of the dumbest threads on Doomworld. And much worse than anything you could dig up from Post Hell, because it's not even entertaining. Nothing but a big clusterfuck of made up "science" that people learned from a ten minute Youtube video.

 

Are you sure you're not just overreacting and it's really just an interesting conversation about the engine's idiosyncrasies? 

[Koko Ricky]

3 minutes ago, openxt said:

No, far from. The game has no 3D hitbox calculations, no ability for 3D models, only 90 degree angle walls. Its rendering engine is like a top-down game who uses fancy resizing techniques to make it seem 3D.

There's 3D hitboxes in some cases, like when a rocket or fireball passes over you. 

[Biz!]

1 minute ago, Koko Ricky said:

There's 3D hitboxes in some cases, like when a rocket or fireball passes over you. 

You're thinking of DOOM, in Wolfenstein 3D there is no up, so there would be no point in programming the 3D hotboxes when it could be 2D hitboxes and less resource-intensive.

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

1 hour ago, Koko Ricky said:

Are you sure you're not just overreacting and it's really just an interesting conversation about the engine's idiosyncrasies? 

There's nothing interesting about people debating what the word "dimension" means.  Graf summed it up perfectly. It is a pointless discussion with no answer, just a bunch of people who claim to know the answer, a videogame equivalent of asking "what is the meaning of life, does God exist?". By the time you get to page 5 everyone has started talking like Jayden Smith. No more interesting than your average shower thoughts thread in my eyes.

[Koko Ricky]

31 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

There's nothing interesting about people debating what the word "dimension" means.  Graf summed it up perfectly. It is a pointless discussion with no answer, just a bunch of people who claim to know the answer, a videogame equivalent of asking "what is the meaning of life, does God exist?". By the time you get to page 5 everyone has started talking like Jayden Smith. No more interesting than your average shower thoughts thread in my eyes.

 

The definition of "dimension" isn't interesting? Maybe it's my obsession with physics, but I find that to be profoundly interesting. It speaks to the limits of our understanding of spatiality. This is especially true when you get into the extra dimensions required by string theories, because it then becomes evident that a dimension can actually have magnitude, whereas we classically think of them as rays extending forever with no change in curvature. Mathematically, a dimension doesn't even have to be spatial; it can represent a matrix or a set of data, existing abstractly from physical notions. Are you telling me this is not interesting at all?

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

28 minutes ago, Koko Ricky said:

Are you telling me this is not interesting at all?

Sorry, I didn't hit the blunt hard enough this morning.

Quote

Maybe it's my obsession with physics, but I find that to be profoundly interesting.

Quote

It speaks to the limits of our understanding of spatiality.

Quote

it can represent a matrix or a set of data, existing abstractly from physical notions.

No offense but this is exactly what I'm talking about. Because the question being asked has no solid answer, the thread becomes "let's think deeply about the profound nature of dimensions, man!".

 

I really mean no offense, you're a cool guy. But I think that if people are wanting to discuss things like physics, they should do it in a thread dedicated to that subject and free from the confines of Wolfenstein 3D. Deep thinking is good, but when it's tied to a topic like this, it just comes across as silly. It's like going to the park with your friend, but your friend is on a heavy acid trip and can't stop talking about microscopic bacteria on the grass.

[Koko Ricky]

I appreciate the honesty, but let's get one thing straight--blunts are straight trash. Too hard on the lungs ;-)

[indigotyrian]

Now that there is a good crop of VR games, are so-called "pancake" games (games designed to be viewed on a conventional monitor) 2D now?

[7Mahonin]

I think the better question is if Wolfenstein 3D used its 3D visuals better than its competition as well as its predecessors and not if it’s actually 3D or not. I would say it must have won people over seeing as it was a big success and ultimately put Id in the direction they’ve remained in ever since. I think more people certainly remember Wolfenstein 3D for its action packed gameplay than they remember something like Ultima Underworld for being “more 3D” than Wolfenstein 3D.

Edited October 1, 2022 by 7Mahonin

[fai1025]

to me, if it look 3D, it's 3D

don't talk numbers to me, my soy sauce brain cannot comprehend.

[Thelokk]

5 hours ago, segfault said:

Now that there is a good crop of VR games, are so-called "pancake" games (games designed to be viewed on a conventional monitor) 2D now?

 

Hmmm, pancakes....

 

... wait, what were we talking about again?

[Herr Dethnout]

Yes, it's called Wolfenstein 3-D after all


 

Spoiler

heh

 

[ChopBlock223]

11 hours ago, Koko Ricky said:

I appreciate the honesty, but let's get one thing straight--blunts are straight trash. Too hard on the lungs ;-)

Edibles seem a healthier vector.

[BedrockCastle]

No. It was 2D.

[LexiMax]

The 2D/3D distinction seems designed to cause arguments, so I just call any game with something that approximates a first-person or third-person camera 3D.

 

Wolfenstein 3D is 3D.

3D perspective vector games like Tempest are 3D.

Games that take 20 minutes to render a single 3D scene are...3D.

Isometric games like XCOM are not 3D in my book.  It's just a fancy way of doing traditional 2D tile-based rendering with an omnipotent camera locked to one or four rotations.

Tile-based dungeon crawlers like Might and Magic IV are 3D in my book.  It uses "fancy" tiles and you can only look in four compass directions, but at the very least it tries to approximate a first-person perspective.

EDIT: Zaxxon is also not 3D due to the use of fixed isometric projection.  It's also not 2D because there are clear 3D gameplay elements in the game.  What it is is unplayable....because holy shit how are you supposed to judge where you are in space?

Edited October 30, 2022 by AlexMax

[RDETalus]

1 hour ago, AlexMax said:

Wolfenstein 3D is 3D

 

1 hour ago, AlexMax said:

games like XCOM are not 3D in my book

Really? I have to disagree with that one. Wolfenstein could be repackaged as a top-down shooter and no gameplay would change. Whereas, XCOM definitely has, and needs, elevation levels.

[MrFlibble]

6 hours ago, RDETalus said:

Really? I have to disagree with that one. Wolfenstein could be repackaged as a top-down shooter and no gameplay would change. Whereas, XCOM definitely has, and needs, elevation levels.

You're tempting me to point out that variable terrain elevations do not necessarily have to be achieved by true 3D technology. Neither X-COM nor Tiberian Sun or Age of Empires use 3D for variable terrain, but Rage of Mages does have true 3D terrain (coupled with sprite units and buildings) and respective effects of elevation on sight and unit movement speed.

[BGreener]

At face value: Three dimensions when in first person, two dimensions when looking at the automap.

[LexiMax]

8 hours ago, RDETalus said:

Really? I have to disagree with that one. Wolfenstein could be repackaged as a top-down shooter and no gameplay would change. Whereas, XCOM definitely has, and needs, elevation levels. 

 

Yeah when Zaxxon occurred to me I was a little bit on the fence, so I did a piss-take to avoid answering the question. :P

 

On one hand, it definitely has elevation, as do games like Sim City 2000 and Solstice.

On the other hand, at some point you have to stop because otherwise games like Heroes of Might and Magic 3 become 3D.

I suppose for me, the fact that it's a fixed isometric projection is what tips me in the "not 3D camp."  Instead of trying to truly create an immersive 3D field, it's just a progression of a traditional top-down or side-view 2D game.  The original SimCity is 2D, we can all agree.

But is SimCity 2000?  It does have elevation, but to get here all we really did was turn the tiles 45 degrees and make the objects on those tiles stick up.  So I see this as 2D.

On the other hand, Space Harrier is 3D.  There's a lot of 2D tech in use here that falls down at close inspection, but unlike XCOM or Zaxxon it is at the very least trying to fake real 3D, with complex perspective and an actual horizon and everything.  It's not "I'm just going to blit out a bunch of diamond tiles and call it 3D."

And finally, Warcraft III is 3D despite having an omnipotent camera like SimCity because perspective actually works  - things at the top of the screen are actually smaller than things at the bottom of the screen, and the camera angle can actually be changed.

Edited October 30, 2022 by AlexMax

[Graf Zahl]

That's actually some really weird definition on 3D which seems to hinge solely on doing a perspective projection when rendering the scene.

I'd say that even with isometric projection, that if width, depth and height are all part of the gameplay, we have a 3D game but an imperfect (but still not really 2D) rendition of it. I'd agree on games where the height is just visual but not part of the gameplay, now we're in Wolfenstein territory again.

 

Or what about a game that fully takes place in the width x height plane that still renders a fully projected scene behind, e.g some platformer with enhanced visuals? It's another case of something that is visually 3D but not gameplay-wise.

 

Ultimately we're back at what I posted a month ago: Trying to express two distinct concepts with a single number is ultimately futile because there's too many mixed cases where both apply in some ways and not in others. Why does it have to be one all encompassing description of dimensionality that ultimately fails to do the work?

 

 

 

 

 

[Kinsie]

10 hours ago, AlexMax said:

Isometric games like XCOM are not 3D in my book.  It's just a fancy way of doing traditional 2D tile-based rendering with an omnipotent camera locked to one or four rotations.

The first two XCOMs are an interesting case, in that there's some cool 3D stuff used for gameplay purposes that isn't visually displayed in game.

 

I don't remember the exact details, but basically every single tile has a loose voxel version that is used for projectile collision detection and line of sight calculation.

 

(It's still 2D, though.)

[OpenRift]

No. It was essentially a 2D layout that used raycasting techniques to render the space in a manner that gave the illusion of 3D. I hesitate to call it 2.5D because that's a better descriptor for engines like Doom's and the BUILD engine where they have a more convincing illusion of 3D at the cost of lacking true room-over-room spaces, instead relying on some sort of trickery (like sector bridges in Doom or portals in Build) instead.