|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
posted December 27, 2014 08:48 PM |
|
Edited by Pawek_13 at 20:51, 27 Dec 2014.
|
^
Bigger maps: Max map size is decided not upon the 2D- or 3D-ness of the game, rather because of optimization and need for specific size. Besides, map size is more of personal matter rather than design superiority.
Random maps: Once more, this is case of programming, not graphics.
"Grasp of view": matter of map design, not dimensions.
I still have plenty of energy.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 08:56 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 20:59, 27 Dec 2014.
|
Zombi_Wizzard said:
I think i know what Stevie is trying to say. It goes like this - if you look at an object in real life from top down angle, you still see dept to it.... you see it and recognize it as a 3D object.
However Stevie, this only works in real life. And it is coz your eyes are apart and see immage from 2 diferent angles. It does not translate to PC immage tho. That is because objects are drawn so it only makes illusion that it is 3D. your PC screen does not have real dept to it. Objects that are drawn in a perfect top - down view, therefore have exactly 2 dimensions. They can only appear to be 3 dimensional, if they are at an angle.
Edit: Last thing i would like to add - when i was a kid and first played H1 ... I would literaly kill to have graphics like H6 does. 
No (and I knew about how real life view works, hence my test for dummies), what I'm trying to say is that in 3D the generated virtual world is ALWAYS 3D, irrespective of angle or anything else. It's BASIC stuff. Here, first site that popped up after a quick search:
computer.howstuffworks.com said:
What Are 3-D Graphics?
For many of us, games on a computer or advanced game system are the most common ways we see 3-D graphics. These games, or movies made with computer-generated images, have to go through three major steps to create and present a realistic 3-D scene:
1.Creating a virtual 3-D world.
2.Determining what part of the world will be shown on the screen.
3.Determining how every pixel on the screen will look so that the whole image appears as realistic as possible.
Creating a Virtual 3-D World
A virtual 3-D world isn't the same thing as one picture of that world. (...) [it's like it was specifically written to prove artu wrong, but it was not, they wouldn't bother, not worth it]
What Part of the Virtual World Shows on the Screen?
At any given moment, the screen shows only a tiny part of the virtual 3-D world created for a computer game. What is shown on the screen is determined by a combination of the way the world is defined, where you choose to go and which way you choose to look. (...) [see that they even differentiate between them them, 3D world and viewing angle]
Your machine generates a 3D world with 3D objects and all. It doesn't matter if you have a static view from whichever direction, it's still 3D. Simple basic stuff that fly over so many people's heads.
And in that example with the chess board, if it were top down and had a moving animation like tilting on a side or a piece being taken, you'd see it's 3D. But even if you didn't see it, it would still be 3D. Because that's how your machine creates the world. Your angle only looks at what's already created in 3D, it does not produce what you view.
It's like trying to talk to turks...
(that's a saying in my language)
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 09:02 PM |
|
|
Is more about the quantity of data to process, the main difference between 2D and 3D. The maths are significantly more complex for rendering, physics and collisions. Because of this, good performance is much more difficult to attain. With today's hardware, you can make a nice-looking 2D game without having to think about performance at all beyond not being actively stupid. With 3D, you will have to do some optimization. if you know how.
Animations are much more complicated. Animation in 2D is just a filmstrip of frames with possibly different positions for each frame. With 3D, you'll need to deal with separate animation assets, bones, and skinning. The technical limitations are more complex to deal with. With 2D it's basically "here's your palette and your max sprite size". With 3D, your artists will have to balance texture size (for multiple textures: specular, color, normal, etc.), polygon count, keyframe count, bone count, etc.
Then you have to deal with camera tracking, converting user input into the character's space intuitively, projecting 2D selections into world space, which is my main biggest problem. It is physically unbearable, take Civilization 5 camera. The game processes so much data that they have to add inertia to scrolling, otherwise textures will just vanish. Every time I need to look let and right, I have to count on progressive movement, there is physical resistance. In 2D the camera moves vertically, so sizes of objects do not change. In 3D it moves perpendicularly, so all objects sizes have to be recalculated, then rendered in the new size.
Imagine a chess game where when you move your queen a lot of squares, the dimensions of adjacent pawns constantly change because it is not your hand only which moves, but your entire environment.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 09:16 PM |
|
|
@Pawek
That's what I meant by "some because of the circumstances," I haven't yet came upon a 3D random map generator that is bugless enough to be defined as sufficient. I consider it future technology.
Bigger lands on the other hand is not like that, the same sized maps contain much more land in 2D. So same size maps (as in 320x320) become more vast in 2D, just open any X-Large map in H3, there's nothing close to them in terms of vastness in latter games.
The easier grasp of overall view is also something I consider categorical IN COMPARISON, that is, some 3D designs can be much better than others but they are never as plain as 2D ones, hence the chessboard example, it's not about distracting graphics, the 2D designs are more lucid by default. (Unless, of course, it is an extremely and exceptionally horrible 2D design.)
And please don't come up with some hypothetical super optimized 3D design that generates flawless 3000x3000 random maps. They don't exist, at least yet.
Stevie said:
And in that example with the chess board, if it were top down and had a moving animation like tilting on a side or a piece being taken, you'd see it's 3D. But even if you didn't see it, it would still be 3D. Because that's how your machine creates the world. Your angle only looks at what's already created in 3D, it does not produce what you view.
What part of "in practicality" don't you understand, Stevie. Do you also suck at speaking the language you major in? We were, in the example of the chessboards, presenting a similarity about game play experience and in terms of what you SEE, a perfectly top down angle in isometric view is practically a 2D view. Of course, the file size, rendering data etc are not the same but that is so beside the point and so irrelevant to the point of the analogy, it's actually pitiful to watch you bring it up and think you prove a point.
And if that phrase actually exists, then the joke's on you guys, since we ruled over you for centuries but I really don't want to stoop down to your level and act racist, so, just have your masturbation with it.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 09:40 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 21:41, 27 Dec 2014.
|
Whatever man. The problem in that chess pic is just the angle, not 3D. I enjoy 3D chess with all those beautiful sets even if graphics don't bring anything strategical to it, but they don't take anything away either.
In my opinion, when there is a beautiful view that doesn't conflict with strategy, then there's harmony. And I think that can be achieved by 2D and 3D equally. But from a personal point of view I prefer 2D because I find drawn art more aesthetically appealing.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 09:54 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:00, 27 Dec 2014.
|
Well, in my experience (and I've lived the days when 3D chess with quality graphics was a new thing that made people "wow"), after the hype about it is over, most people who play chess constantly on a monitor, start to prefer 2D settings, it's really much more practical.
Back to Heroes, roads are a good example of a similar thing, in a 3D map, you can never instantly see and compare the length of many roads seperating into different directions, especially if there are too many turns. There are many little things like that, that makes a 2D map more practical.
This goes to everybody, think about people who use navigation programs in their cars, why do they usually choose the 2D settings of street maps when they get lost? 3D models are also available and they work just as fast.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 10:05 PM |
|
Edited by Pawek_13 at 22:14, 27 Dec 2014.
|
artu said:
@Pawek
That's what I meant by "some because of the circumstances," I haven't yet came upon a 3D random map generator that is bugless enough to be defined as sufficient. I consider it future technology.
In my mother's textbook for mathematics there was a simple programme which chose a random number from 1 to 6. The problem was that those numbers created a huge period, therefore they may not be called truly random. I don't know whether it applies for modern programmes (I guess it does, it was written in Pascal, I think) but for now we may assume that in computer science there is no such thing as randomness.
In Heroes V, for example, when "random" map generator was chosen it had an option of "map scheme". I guess that similar tool was applied for Heroes III in order to not allow to create buggy maps (like ones with castles in the middle of water), although it may have been hidden.
artu said:
Bigger lands on the other hand is not like that, the same sized maps contain much more land in 2D. So same size maps (as in 320x320) become more vast in 2D, just open any X-Large map in H3, there's nothing close to them in terms of vastness in latter games.
In "Batman: Arkham Origins" the map was two times bigger than in "Arkham City". Did it make the game any better? No, it didn't. Bigger maps are not better just by the sake of their size. The biggest maps are, in my opinion, the most boring ones, unless they are really action-packed.
artu said:
The easier grasp of overall view is also something I consider categorical IN COMPARISON, that is, some 3D designs can be much better than others but they are never as plain as 2D ones, hence the chessboard example, it's not about distracting graphics, the 2D designs are more lucid by default. (Unless, of course, it is an extremely and exceptionally horrible 2D design.)
In this context I would consider 3D graphics to be better than 2D. In all Heroes games, basic action still takes place in two dimensions but imagine such situation. There is a town on a top of a mountain. In Heoes III, in such situayion you would not be able to determine this fact and would plan your movement in a wrong way. In Heroes V such problem does not happen. You are able to notice depth and plan your movement in more sufficient way.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 10:14 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:19, 27 Dec 2014.
|
Quote:
There is a town on a top of a mountain. In Heoes III, in such situayion you would not be able to determine this fact and would plan your movement in a wrong way.
In Heroes 3, such a situation does not exist, everything is on one floor (except the underground floor of course, but you don't climb, you use portals). Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I remember (and it's been quite a while) H5 had no various floors of play either, the map displays in isometric view but you don't climb mountains and stuff? You operate on a single platform (again except the underground).
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 10:18 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I remember (and it's been quite a while) H5 had no various floors of play either, the map displays in isometric view but you don't climb mountains and stuff?
There are a few situations like that in ToE campaign when hero has to climb up a hill or mountain. Of course, differences in altitude aren't huge, yet they exist, are visible and add additional depth (you understand?  ) to map.
|
|
Zombi_Wizzard
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 10:22 PM |
|
|
@artu: Thing is ... Heroes 3 aren't even the best example of, by your definition, supposed 2D superiority. You can argue it on strategical map maybe, but in battles creatures are 2D while battlefield is "3D". objects are in front or behind. And coz you can't move camera, you don't see the numbers, nor do you see any hexes behind your creatures.
Hence, I actualy prefer H5 battles. It's not coz it's new, but it's coz i see advantages. If they make it 2D, I would like to have it top down. Like chess. Or like on that picture, of that prototype war game, I provided on page 6 of this thread.
Regarding scale: This is something that i plainly disagree on. 3D games can work on large scale maps just fine, provided graphical engine is not too demanding for modern machines. I mean - Civ 5 is a good example of this. And so is EU 4. Yea switch to terain mode ... it's all in 3D ... whole world. And you can zoom in and out just fine.
Sure on my old PC, while playing Civ 5 I would experince slowdowns and texture poping, as they're being rendered, when zooming out. But my old PC has 8 years old gfx card, while being itself one year older ... My current PC can render civ 5 graphics almost instantaneously.
And btw ... all Civ 5 maps are random ... so i don't think that's exactly future technology. Can it be improved upon? sure, there's lots of room, but it's not bad as all.
Now - what i would propose is this: Have game be 3D, BUT have "strategic view" button. This can be hotkey. When you press is you go into strategic top-down view of battle or strategy map. On strategy map it would work similar than Civ ... on battlefield it would resemble picture, I likned on page 6.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 10:23 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:40, 27 Dec 2014.
|
@Pawek
Now, that you mention it, yes, they were more like an optic illusion of height, short as a few stairs... Still, they added a little depth, that's true. Not worth losing the overall view though.
Quote:
In "Batman: Arkham Origins" the map was two times bigger than in "Arkham City". Did it make the game any better? No, it didn't. Bigger maps are not better just by the sake of their size. The biggest maps are, in my opinion, the most boring ones, unless they are really action-packed.
I like big random maps for the feeling of wilderness and surprise, I'm not alone in this. It creates enormous replayability.
@Zombie
Dude, please read carefully, I have no objection to a King Bounty style 3D battlefield, I think it's the 3D adventure map that is problematic or to say the least, less preferable.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 11:02 PM |
|
Edited by Pawek_13 at 23:03, 27 Dec 2014.
|
artu said:
Not worth losing the overall view though.
Which is that you consider 2D maps clearer while I think that the 3D ones present their content in a better and more readable way. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 11:07 PM |
|
|
So, would you answer this question, you are using a navigation app in your phone or car, you are lost, do you use 3D settings or do you use 2D settings?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 11:27 PM |
|
Edited by Pawek_13 at 23:34, 27 Dec 2014.
|
artu said:
So, would you answer this question, you are using a navigation app in your phone or car, you are lost, do you use 3D settings or do you use 2D settings?
I would probably use both. 2D one for general view and 3D view on crossroads to get to know exactly where I should turn.
PS. Therefore I think that I would use a 3D setting constantly on.
|
|
Zombi_Wizzard
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 11:33 PM |
|
|
artu said:
So, would you answer this question, you are using a navigation app in your phone or car, you are lost, do you use 3D settings or do you use 2D settings?
That's not great comparison imo. You already have navigation in game man ... it's called a mini-map.
Point of 3D view is to make it more immersive - like you're realy there. And not feel as tho you're looking at a map, even tho that0s what you are essentialy doing
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 11:34 PM |
|
|
So, you agree that a 2D map works better for a general (which I refered to as "overall") view, why do you think it's less sufficient at a crossroads?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 11:41 PM |
|
Edited by Pawek_13 at 23:53, 27 Dec 2014.
|
artu said:
So, you agree that a 2D map works better for a general (which I refered to as "overall") view, why do you think it's less sufficient at a crossroads?
Because at crossroads it is not important in which street you go when you turn (it is usually the same one) but the direction in which you face matters and in such situation map which presents you detailed look of the surrounding is better.
Yes, I agree with you that 2D gives better overall view, that's why creating a minimap in 3D would be plain stupidity. In order to get the details better, however, you need this additional dimension.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 11:52 PM |
|
|
For direction, you have a compass, anyway. Compare the amount of sight you dominate even in a smaller scale, in these examples. They are randomly chosen from Google image search, I didn't cherry-pick anything that would specifically back me up:
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted December 27, 2014 11:55 PM |
|
Edited by Pawek_13 at 00:00, 28 Dec 2014.
|
^ I think that the second paragraph of my answer is a response to that post.
PS. Who utilizes a compass while driving a car or walking through a city?
PPS. Besides, in 3D the arrow and the surrounding represent the situation of car/passerby to a great extent. This also prevents you from turning into wrong road because the right one is presented from your, not bird's point of view.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 28, 2014 12:05 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:08, 28 Dec 2014.
|
Oh, sorry, the second part wasn't there before. In a Heroes game, I don't think there are any extra details you see in a 3D map that affects game play whatsoever. Actually, it's usually easier to miss an artifact or pile of wood, because it is behind a tree or some rock, (in 2D H3, that was rarely the case, only when they were behind exceptionally high mountains). So the only difference regarding the details you talk about is eye candy. 2D maps have their own style of eye candy and art (which I prefer but that's very subjective), so...
I vote 2D again 
Quote:
PPS. Besides, in 3D the arrow and the surrounding represent the situation of car/passerby to a great extent. This also prevents you from turning into wrong road because the right one is presented from your, not bird's point of view.
Yes, but the analogy doesn't cover that since in a game, there is no such arrow. We are comparing the perspectives.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
