Doom wasn't 3D!

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

User avatar
MattyC64c
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:21 am

Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by MattyC64c » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:30 am

This might be a bit late and some of you probably know this already, but Doom wasn't 3D. No, it was actually a 2D game, the 3D was just an illusion. Wolfenstien 3D wasn't 3D either nor was Duke Nukem 3D. The inability to look up and down wasn't a limitation of the engine's of these games, it was of course because they were all really just 2D games.

Which would mean that the first real 3D first person game engine would have been Quake, released in 1996!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb6Eo1D6VW8

User avatar
ianpmarks
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:49 am

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by ianpmarks » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:44 am

Dark Forces surely.

User avatar
DPrinny
Posts: 24911
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: Super Mancyland

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by DPrinny » Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:54 am

You could look up and down in Duke

User avatar
outdated_gamer
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:14 pm

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by outdated_gamer » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:11 pm

Well all 3D graphics are 2D in reality since you view them on a flat, 2D screen. :wink:

Doom used the so-called "ray casting" graphics technique that took a 2D map and presented it as if it was 3D. But this only went for the maps themselves as all the objects in the game were still flat 2D sprites that always faced the player's view.

Which 3D shooter engine was the first to do "true" texture mapped polygon 3D graphics is up for debate, but many would point to Interplay's Descent for being the first such as it allowed full 360 degree freedom of movement/viewing but it was surely Quake that took things to the next stage in those early times of non-accelerated 3D graphics (unill the rise of dedicated "3D accelerators" it was all about CPU software rendering on the PC).

User avatar
Sokurah
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by Sokurah » Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:03 pm

So?
Yes, it looked 3D but wasn't really. Gameplay was good though, so who cares about the technicalities. Aren't we here because we love the old games despite their limitations?
Website: Tardis Remakes / Mostly remakes of Arcade and ZX Spectrum games. All freeware for PC & Mac.
Twitter: Sokurah

User avatar
Matt_B
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:30 am
Location: 5 minutes from the beach, 30 seconds from the pub

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by Matt_B » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:21 pm

I'd think of Doom as a restricted 3D engine rather than an entirely 2D one. Sure, for a lot of purposes the engine only considers things in two dimensions as that helps immensely when keeping the calculations simple, but objects still have a vertical position as evidenced by things like fireballs flying over your head, and the need to use stairs and lifts; and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the third dimension.

User avatar
joefish
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by joefish » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:13 am

It's rather a juvenile argument; basing your argument on a very narrow interpretation of '2D' or '3D'. Or a complete lack of understanding of how the game engine and the rendering engine are not the same thing.

All the gameplay of Wolfenstein 3D takes place on one flat 2D plane, but the player's view is rendered using 3D algorithms to give it a sense of depth and perspective (even if shortcuts are taken with the rendering). But really, what's the point in trying to describe it solely as one or the other? If you render Pac Man with real-time 3D rendered objects or even an immersive VR first-person viewpoint, it doesn't change the game engine, but it certainly gives the player a different experience.

In Doom you could move up or down but the level design couldn't handle two levels in the same place, e.g. pass over and under the same bridge. Not looking up and down is a limitation of the rendering algorithm; it doesn't reflect where objects can actually exist in the game engine. But lots of games and simulators use a landscape map that only describes surface height at any one point; they can manage hills and mountains but not caves. Are these not 3D now? Anyway, if Doom let you move around on a 2D plane and go up and down to get over obstacles, how is that not three dimensions? Is the bit of the universe between my house and where I work not three dimensional, since it doesn't pass over and under the same bridge?

But in Duke Nukem 3D, because it was corridor-based, you could have two passageways that passed over each other, but you wouldn't be able to see one from the other; you could even create a MOD for it that had two passageways that doubled-back and occupy exactly the same space. How many dimensions does that make it? The argument doesn't really make sense.
Last edited by joefish on Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:27 am, edited 4 times in total.

shinymcshine
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:13 am

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by shinymcshine » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:21 am

What about those games in the late 1980s that used the Freescape 3D engine - such as Driller, Total Eclipse and Castle Master on the C64 etc?

User avatar
joefish
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by joefish » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:30 am

shinymcshine wrote:What about those games in the late 1980s that used the Freescape 3D engine - such as Driller, Total Eclipse and Castle Master on the C64 etc?
They computed the environment as 3D space. In Driller you could actually switch to a hover-ship and go anywhere. The latter games put you on foot, but you could still go up, over and under objects in the game. It was all flat-shaded though. But then why not go back to Elite; that was entirely 3D and let you go anywhere, any way up you liked. There just wasn't a huge amount to see.

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26860
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by Antiriad2097 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:37 am

Jon Ritman went a little OTT with his code for Dimension Destructors in 1983, doing full floating point 3D calculations. With hindsight he realised he could have saved himself a lot of pain by using various shortcuts to achieve the same effect (look up tables etc), but it does make it technically interesting if we're hunting down a 'first' for 3D.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
Treguard
Posts: 2392
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by Treguard » Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:29 am

MattyC64c wrote:This might be a bit late and some of you probably know this already, but Doom wasn't 3D. No, it was actually a 2D game, the 3D was just an illusion. Wolfenstien 3D wasn't 3D either nor was Duke Nukem 3D. The inability to look up and down wasn't a limitation of the engine's of these games, it was of course because they were all really just 2D games.

Which would mean that the first real 3D first person game engine would have been Quake, released in 1996!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb6Eo1D6VW8
No, YOU'RE not 3D!

User avatar
joefish
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by joefish » Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:38 pm

His argument certainly lacks depth... :lol:

User avatar
joefish
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by joefish » Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:55 pm

Where Wolfenstein and Doom cheat to save time in the rendering is that the perspective depth is only calculated using distance from the player in the horizontal plane; not vertically or diagonally upward. This is because if you do angle your view upward, you need to allow for how things high-up also appear further away when calculating perspective. And what were vertical lines up the walls around you now tend to slope away from you. Now if the textures on the walls have to be drawn tilted then you can't optimise your rendering engine around vertical lines any more.

User avatar
necronom
Posts: 5648
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:23 pm
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by necronom » Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:08 pm

The Amiga version of Doom I used to play let you look up or down. I'm sure later mods of the PC version probably did, too.
Image
The Retro Gaming League _ -= My YouTube Videos =-
The eighties aren't over. I'll say when the eighties are over. The eighties are never over! You don't just turn off the eighties! - Jack Howitzer, GTA V

User avatar
the_hawk
Posts: 5852
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Doom wasn't 3D!

Post by the_hawk » Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:41 pm

Next you'll be saying Terror-Daktil actually in 4D!
You can follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/DaveySloan
Sponsor Me http://www.justgiving.com/daveysloan2014

OR type 99 to continue

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests