«

[Kosta]

Yes, it will be somewhat oriented in that direction...

[Tom Henrik]

Why is everyone jumping me? :bleh:

I never said that we should not implement a 3D tag - ever. I simply said that if we are to do so, we need to determine what qualifies as a 3D game by Abandonia's definitions. Otherwise we will recieve tons of posts all over the forum with questions like "Why is game X marked as 3D? All the sprites are flat!" and "Why isn't game Z marked as 3D? You can move about freely!" and so on.

Kosta states that he thinks that Wolfenstein and DOOM should be considered 3D, but I don't think so. Those games just gives the impression that they are 3D. And those games are not the only games that give such an impression. Diablo, Theme Hospital and other isometric top-down games, for instance, gives the same impression. That there is real depth in the game. Same with Silpheed. In fact, when you play Silpheed you start to immediately think about it as taking place in a 3D world.

This is why a 3D tag could be confusing, and difficult to implement, before everyone agrees to what type of games it should represent.

A tag like EGA graphics, on the other hand, is pretty darn accurate and there will never ever be any debating nessecary regarding what it represents.

In my experience the best way to implement a huge and experimental change to a site, is to take it one small step at a time, and only move forward with stuff that is completely fool-proof. Before taking the next step.

[Kosta]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom Henrik @ Oct 29 2006, 05:58 PM) [snapback]264181[/snapback]</div>

Why is everyone jumping me? :bleh:

I never said that we should not implement a 3D tag - ever. I simply said that if we are to do so, we need to determine what qualifies as a 3D game by Abandonia's definitions. Otherwise we will recieve tons of posts all over the forum with questions like "Why is game X marked as 3D? All the sprites are flat!" and "Why isn't game Z marked as 3D? You can move about freely!" and so on.

Kosta states that he thinks that Wolfenstein and DOOM should be considered 3D, but I don't think so. Those games just gives the impression that they are 3D. And those games are not the only games that give such an impression. Diablo, Theme Hospital and other isometric top-down games, for instance, gives the same impression. That there is real depth in the game. Same with Silpheed. In fact, when you play Silpheed you start to immediately think about it as taking place in a 3D world.

This is why a 3D tag could be confusing, and difficult to implement, before everyone agrees to what type of games it should represent.

A tag like EGA graphics, on the other hand, is pretty darn accurate and there will never ever be any debating nessecary regarding what it represents.

In my experience the best way to implement a huge and experimental change to a site, is to take it one small step at a time, and only move forward with stuff that is completely fool-proof. Before taking the next step.
[/b]

Sure, it makes sense. And if there are people anal enough to complain if Doom is marked as 3D, well, they need to solve it alone in their own time However, I think I might have an elegant solution for that. Those games can be marked as pseudo-3d, therefore showing up in searches for "3d" as well, only marked a little different. Best idea would probably be just to slap them with an FPS tag and that would solve all shady areas.

And just to continue this interesting debate about what is real 3d and what is not... You're saying wolfenstein and doom just give an impression of 3d. If something is giving an impression of something that it isn't, that means its not real. So how can you say that other 3d engines are real when everything that is computer generated is virtual, a simulation of reality. What separates "real" 3d engines from fake ones? Bump-mapping? Ability to climb stairs? Better physics? Object interaction? These are all simulated behaviours that use complex algorithms designed to convince us, give us an impression, of being within a real 3d environment. Obviously, older computers didn't have the hardware capacity to run these algorithms in real time, so game developers had to use techniques that are not as convincing. Is it fair to dismiss it as 3d then, just because it does not behave convincingly enough for todays standards?

[marko river]

Now hear me

Before i start with this debate, i would like to remind you that i had an idea of sub-categories of the games and i wanted to see it implemented in categories on the main site. If you click on the Action category you would get all action games like you get now, but if you leve your pointer on Action for a second you get a small menu with subcaegoies.
If people can get to list games in those subcategories using tags than i think it's great.

Also, 3D section is bad idea in my oppinion because we sort games in categories depending on the "sort" of game. So if you have logical 3D game and FPS, they would fell into the same 3D category. I don't like that, so subcategories is much better solution.

As for determining what is 3D game, i don't agree neither with Tom nor Kosta. It's like this:

First of all, time is not dimension in real life nor in game industry, it's just theory in phisics, so we shouldn't count that in determining 3D games.
IMHO 3D games should be determined by the ability of moving like Kosta said. I don't agree that Doom is not 3D game because it is not COMPLETELY 3d. As Kosta said, even nowdays games are just creating image that you are in 3d, while you still see 2D picture on your monitor. Untill games support laser projection so you can REALLY see 3D picture, you can't call it 3D. If we see it that way, we should have "3D engine" tag. I noone will agree with this tag.
On the other hand, ability to move makes lot of games 3D. Street Fighter 2 is not 3D since you can move only left-right and jump, but Final Fight is 3d. For those who are no familiar with those games, check Last Ninja, it's on Abnadonia. You have isometric view allowing you to move in many directions on the ground + ability to jump. Besides Final Fight and Last Ninja, you can check Golden Axe, now you got the picture. Even older players probably don't remeber that in mid 80's every games that allowed this kind of movement was called 3D. Let me change that: it was said that GAMEPLAY IS IN 3D!!!

As you can see by now, this answer CAN'T be answered. Although you can just pick one option without carring because it is really not that important. Important is to have games on the site. BUT (big but) if you really want to look professional, you won't choose any of these options.

So you better stick with sort of the games. FPS would be much better for Doom, Quake and so, while MDK is third-person action game with platform and logical elements. OK, this was a joke. MDK is third-person action game while other elements can be mentioned in review.
Well, this is also not a good way since that way every 2D game is third-person but phrases like first-person and third-person became usual for sorting newer 3D games (yes, i called them 3D), so i think it is more adecvate. It was much easier for 2D games: side-scrolling space shooters, brawl, epic fantasy etc and combining those sub-categires with major ones get the proper picture.

So, i guess there is no peerfect solution. Why did i bothered with typing so long post then? I don't know. I guess i just like talking about old games

[Luchsen]

I would say that a game is three dimensional when you can change your view in three dimensions.

[Romano]

I am philosopher so I don't understand this problem in depth, but for me Tetris is 2D and Blockout is 3D.

[Tom Henrik]

I have to agree with Luchsen on that one. When you can toggle the view to anywhere you like, the game can be considered 3D in my book.

Examples of that effect is Descent, and FPS'ers where you can move your crosshairs freely anywhere you like on the level. Like Aliens vs Predator and plenty of other shooters. Also, several simulations and strategy games would fall into that description.

[nace]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Romano @ Oct 30 2006, 09:00 PM) [snapback]264416[/snapback]</div>

I am philosopher so I don't understand this problem in depth, but for me Tetris is 2D and Blockout is 3D.
[/b]

Beatifull

[mika]

All of these posts confirm just one thing: 3d is too ambiguous for a tag. Everyone sees it as something slightly different. my opinion is still that tags like 3rd_person and 1st_person or fps, isometric would be better. They also explain more the type of game. Some people prefer 1st person to 3d person for example.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Luchsen @ Oct 30 2006, 10:46 PM) [snapback]264413[/snapback]</div>

I would say that a game is three dimensional when you can change your view in three dimensions.
[/b]

What about games like Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project? (This isn't abandonware but will probably be in the distant future

You can't change the view, but the game is built using a pure 3d engine.

[Tom Henrik]

Touche, Mika.

Yup. That one would definately be a pure 3D game. And I agree, a 3D tag is way too vague, before everyone agrees to what it stands for - which in this case could take a couple of years by the look at it.

Tags like Isometric view, First Person view, Horror and VGA graphics would be much easier to agree on.