Pete Hines fires back

yea, the only significant changes and technological advances that have happened for computer games have happened in physics engines and graphics.

while improved physics are nice and pretty important, the level and importance of graphics in todays computer gaming has probably led my purchase of computer games to dissapear. the last 3 computer games i have purchased were NWN2, M&M FPS game ( thought it was an RPG but noooo ), and uhhhh... supreme commander... thats right. i think those games span the past 2 years of my computer game purchases. i used to spend like $300-$400 a year on computer games... now its down to like $40...
 
Uh, actually, 'isometric 3D' is a contradictio in terminis, since most games designed from a 3D perspective don't use any form of axonometric projection. This is due to the fact that the engines are built using different angles, and rotation exists, and even if there was an engine only in four cases the camera would be in a position that the angles between the X, Y and Z axes are all the same (120°). Uhm, actually eight cases if you have a fetish for down-top camera angles.
 
in this case, isometric describes the point of view. where 3d describes the style & engine used.

there's no contradiction in terms.
 
Re: ahhh

Dougly said:
goffy59 said:
We need a Deus Ex 3!(just hope they dont ruin it like they did the second). :(
Click to expand...

It's in the works:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/789/789321p1.html

Whether or not they'll screw it up, I have no idea.

As for Fallout 3, I've pretty much given up on the idea of having a game that's along the lines of what I've been looking forward to all of these years. At this point, I've just moved towards hoping that any damage to established Fallout canon will be minimal, and possible to explain away.

If one were to set aside the expectations that one has for a Fallout game, I think F3 looks like it could be "fun." Though I have my doubts as to whether it will be as enjoyable - or as memorable - as the first two, it seems like it stands a chance of being at least a decent distraction for a little while.

Whether - and when - I buy will be based on gaming magazine reviews of the final product, as well as "fan" reaction from those who buy and play the game themselves.
Click to expand...

This is great news, considering Deus Ex has to be one of the coolest FPS's/RPG hybrids ever made. The second was kind of a piece of shit, all I liked was the story(but very boring game play). Must of restarted several times due to formats and updates, then started thinking; why am I playing this? I finally tried played deus ex 2 the whole way through, and tried it again; I realized its re playability sucks ALOT. I played Deus Ex 1 about 15 times on realistic mode, and had fun every time. Ahh Anyhow good news indeed!
 
SuAside said:
in this case, isometric describes the point of view. where 3d describes the style & engine used.

there's no contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...
Isometric is not the POV. With today's 3D engines, it's absolutely impossible. I'm being nitpicking, so I don't expect everyone to fully catch this right away. Any engineers or architects among us?
 
HoKa said:
Isometric is not the POV. With today's 3D engines, it's absolutely impossible. I'm being nitpicking, so I don't expect everyone to fully catch this right away. Any engineers or architects among us?
Click to expand...
You're wrong. It's still an isometric projection, since it's being projected on your 2-dimensional screen. The fact that the internal representation is 3-dimensional is irrelevant.
 
Sander said:
HoKa said:
Isometric is not the POV. With today's 3D engines, it's absolutely impossible. I'm being nitpicking, so I don't expect everyone to fully catch this right away. Any engineers or architects among us?
Click to expand...
You're wrong. It's still an isometric projection, since it's being projected on your 2-dimensional screen. The fact that the internal representation is 3-dimensional is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

and here comes sander to trump the technical argument with a more technical argument. How facetious of you, sander.

HoKa, isn't this "there is no such thing as isometric 3D" totally irrelevant though? Unless some of you are complete idiots and cant figure out what its SUPPOSED to mean, it's like complaining about spelling on the internet.

Instead of arguing a point from the perspective of "being too literal" why don't you just try to make a friendly suggestion on what better terms to use, that way you don't sound like a complete fucktard.
 
Sander said:
You're wrong. It's still an isometric projection, since it's being projected on your 2-dimensional screen. The fact that the internal representation is 3-dimensional is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Let me explain this. Graphically.

halflifeaxokg3.jpg


As you can see, the borders 'stretch', and the axonometry is lost. That is because only two angles are equal (which is due to pixels being squared in 3D engines). I'm sure more than of you has noticed this detail in 3D games.

And the fact that it's being projected on a 2-dimensional screen is so trivial it's stupid (because, like, by definition axonometry is always projected on 2-dimensions, you know).
 
FeelTheRads said:
You kinda lost me. Why is this not isometric?
Click to expand...
I already explained. It looks isometric, but it isn't. For example, if you measure a tile's side from the upper right border against a tile from the left side, you'll get different values.

I'm saying things as plainly as possible. Any more and I'd be defenestrating everything my professors taught me.
 
Slaughter Manslaught said:
Bethesda guys probrably had a bad case of Stupidittis to not do something like that!
Click to expand...
Or lack of abilities to do that... They're highly skilled in FP(S) :crazy:

After playing Van Buren I'll never put my hands on Beth$oft shit
mwahahauc1.gif
 
Explain better. Let's assume not every one of us posesses the Secret Lore Taught By Your Professors. Boy, oh, boy, don't you sound smart!

See:

As you can see, the borders 'stretch', and the axonometry is lost.
Click to expand...

What axonometry? Your image isn't an axonometric projection, it's in perspective. In relation to what is that perspective wrong? In addition, what's the bottom ellipse supposed to point out?

That is because only two angles are equal
Click to expand...

Allright, *which* angles?

Reference.com said:
Isometric projection is a particular case of axonometric projection, in which the three axes of height, width, and depth are drawn at 120° to each other, with width and depth axes at 30° to the horizontal. The method is widely used in engineering and architectural drawings.
Click to expand...

f3sag1.jpg




(which is due to pixels being squared in 3D engines).
Click to expand...

All pixels are squared in all 3D engines?

I'm sure more than of you has noticed this detail in 3D games.
Click to expand...

Stretching borders? Bad camera angle leading to weird perspective?

And the fact that it's being projected on a 2-dimensional screen is so trivial it's stupid (because, like, by definition axonometry is always projected on 2-dimensions, you know).

In context to the whole "Is it or is it not Isometric" debate, I don't get this bit.

Precision, ya 'tard.
 
i think what hoka is getting at is that its impossible to draw 3d graphics in a 120/30 ideal, and that if you did it would cease to be a true isometric projection.

in 2d sprite based you can do true isometric projection, but once you move to a 3d engine to draw the 2d image, it instead ceases to be called isometric and is instead called oblique projection even though the angle and dimensions are the same, the method you use to draw the image ceases to be from a 2d engine.


now why the hell this distinction is even being made is akin to complaining about spelling on the internet...

in 2d you can have a true isometric graphical engine, but once you move to a 3d graphical engine it ceases to be true isometric and becomes either oblique or else 3/4 view.
 
Yeah, but when you say "isometric Fallout" people know what you mean... usually... majority.
And I thought NMA was supposed to be full of nitpicking nerds whining about every detail ;d
 
Sorrow said:
Fallout wasn't true isometric anyway.
Click to expand...


wasnt it really 3/4 view?


its just that calling it isometric people are more easily knowladgeable of what you are talking about rather than saying something else :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top