>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> 3D Games by Morphun for T610
Bookmark topic
IMO The matter if the games are 3d or not is not really important, but what kind of playability the game has.
How fun it is, if the user wants to play again (and again) and so on.
3d games are really neat, but there has to be some kind of need for it in the game.
What i would like is more types of games where you can play in bluetooth mode or and GPRS mode so you can interact with others.
However some times you have to wait for the bus or the dentist and a small game can really be your friend.
Conclusion, is 3d good or not?
Maybe, but there must be some enhancment in the playabillity wich a 2d game cannot achieve.
--
Posted: 2003-05-24 15:39:42
Edit :
Quote
@ratGT: Do you think your arguments get any more substance to them if you shout and are abusive?
Quote:
And even if they did, the so called '3D graphics' aren't going to be much more than pseudo-3D-graphics - That means that it won't be anything more than 2D graphics, put up in such way that they give the impression of 3D...
----------- 8
Well, if Doom is 3D, then games like Quake and Unreal, what are they? 4D?
Games like doom or wolfenstein uses a rendering tecnique called raycasting to draw the levels and give the illusion of 3d. All objects are drawn as sprites. If you want to call this pseudo-3d, fine, but this is *not* how things are done in the Mophun 3d API!
In games like Quake or Unreal you project polygons from 3D to 2D and draw these using texturemapping. This is exactly how it's done in Mophun 3d! The fact that the trees in the rally game uses billboarding (which is a tecnique to draw texturemaps always facing the camera) does not make it any less 3D. All hightech particle effects in the latest game engines use billboarding to render effects like fire, dynamic smoke etc. Such effects are way beyond e.g. the original Quake.
The Mophun 3d API has nothing in common with doom, and everything in common with quake... Trust me. I've written a few 3D-engines myself.
-m
--
Posted: 2003-05-24 15:57:14
Edit :
Quote
@magwe
ehm... first of all, I think that I always feature a subject at my answers and I'm always being descriptive enough for them to have a substance. So chill out yourself!
Then, once again, you missing the whole point of this discussion - I have to admit that Charly got right to the point, while you're still stuck talking about the 3D engines! If you are happy with the latest Mophun '3D engine', and you think it's revolutionary enough, I don't have nothing more to say than enjoy it and have all the gaming fun in the world!
--
Posted: 2003-05-24 16:18:21
Edit :
Quote
The point of raycasting in Doom and Wolfenstein is to determine WHAT to draw - not how to do it. Walls and ceilings are projected and textures are drawn according to some proper method.
In the world of Doom there is only "one floor" per x,y but each x,y can have different heights so in some sense there is a z-axis. It would probably not be too difficult to modify Doom to use a World that allowed many z per x,y. It would probably look similiar whatever that mophun 3D engine produces.
No one really has exclusive rights to the term "3D" or "3D engine". Everyone would agree Doom I is a lesser 3D engine than Quake, which is a lesser engine than Quake III. And so, on ...
But the point is that even the upcoming Doom III will be a lesser "3D engine" than, for example,
mental ray. Even that is not *real* - it's just illusions.
It all comes down to hardware limitations ... but, if projection occurs, it is enough to be called 3D atleast.
--
Posted: 2003-05-24 17:03:55
Edit :
Quote
@jb: Ultimatly all rendering comes down to setting a some memory address to some given color value, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Engines like the doom engine are still called raycasting engines even if raycasting isn't used to draw the actual graphics. That is done by drawing scaled vertical strips from the textures.
I can agree that debating how "3D" something is, is kind of a moot point since it's all actually 2D, but still one could argue that e.g. doom is less 3d since it is impossible to rotate around an arbitrary axis, maps are defined in 2d etc. Therefore it is impossible to modify the doom engine to produce the same results as a "true" 3D engine. It's not about quality, but about fundamental limitations.
Still I agree with those who say that 3D graphics is just another tool to bring us better games. It has little value by its own. Not to long ago everything had to be remade i 3D, regardless of if it improved gamplay or not. Let's just hope we won't see the same thing on mobiles...
--
Posted: 2003-05-24 17:54:21
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
n arbitrary axis, maps are defined in 2d etc. Therefore it is impossible to modify the doom engine to produce the same results as a "true" 3D engine. It's not about quality, but about fundamental limitations.
I refute any such thing as "true" 3D. I haven't looked at the doom sources. With that said, I would argue that it is possible to modify it to use a world that actually is turnable around any of the three axis.
Obvious problems that would occur would be that monsters would look the same regardless of the angle you looked at the from. Etc ...
-------
"Heretic" is essentially what I'm talking about.
[ This Message was edited by: jb on 2003-05-24 21:37 ]
--
Posted: 2003-05-24 22:26:32
Edit :
Quote
i hope that it will work on se z1010 because i want to buy it when it hits the stores!
xairetismata ston ratgt apo ellada!
--
Posted: 2003-05-25 00:43:46
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
