Open letter to people asking about 3D in construct

Chat about anything not covered in these forums, but keep it civil!

Post » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:58 pm

However, pseudo-3D effects would greatly enhance 2D game experience.
B
62
S
21
G
12
Posts: 1,910
Reputation: 13,155

Post » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:31 pm

Wow, some very cool replies. It's good to see that when it comes down to it, many don't want it to become another 3D engine after all, and are just looking for little extra's. :)

[quote="David":1aiv1p9k]But for a lot of purposes, people only want 3d to do something like a 3d lamp post in the background, or a 3d spinning coin...the game itself is still 2d but the background is 3d...I've written an obj loader before so I might make a version of 3dbox one day that can load and render an obj...then its capable of rotating and everything..but it wouldn't be as brilliant as the engine in a program like Unity because that was build from the ground up to support 3d.[/quote:1aiv1p9k]

I think something like that would be just fine. To me, it's still WAY more than we had back in those days for making games (we were amazed and considered ourselves lucky when we finally got Deluxe Paint and could use 32 colors) lol. I don't want to see it becoming all about 3D though, like others say, can use a proper app for those things. Construct is and should always be 2D at heart. With 3D benefits as an extension and helper rather than a focus.

For example. A point and click game. Granted, you don't need 3D to make one of those, using lots of events you could work out where parts of the image are, and if the player is in front or behind them. But 3D would make it easier thanks to the depth, without turning it into 3D (how many loved the first Monkey Island, compared to how many enjoyed the last one that was all 3D, yeah hehe).

Or there's the way I'm intending to use current meshes, my game would be 2D, and I've no intention of changing from that, the meshes will simply be used to "pop out" the graphics in the locations and give a little depth to them. But it'll just be a visual effect only, it'll still be entirely 2D.

A simple object loader would be nice to have, but as others have said. Open this pandora's box and people are going to start expecting more and more. I suppose it's a fine line to walk.


Though even I have to admit, 2.5D like Duke Nukem or Blood, would be great fun to have :D
B
3
S
2
G
3
Posts: 628
Reputation: 2,531

Post » Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:35 am

[quote="Lost my Keys":37n1wu8f]For example. A point and click game. (...) But 3D would make it easier thanks to the depth, without turning it into 3D[/quote:37n1wu8f]

Nice example. Monkey Island 4 was 3D but didn't have mouse control, just like Grim Fandango. Why? it was too damn hard to figure out what you were clicking.
So no, it's does not make it easier.
B
3
S
2
G
4
Posts: 1,445
Reputation: 4,665

Post » Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:09 am

[quote="Madster":21ypgbf1][quote="Lost my Keys":21ypgbf1]For example. A point and click game. (...) But 3D would make it easier thanks to the depth, without turning it into 3D[/quote:21ypgbf1]

Nice example. Monkey Island 4 was 3D but didn't have mouse control, just like Grim Fandango. Why? it was too damn hard to figure out what you were clicking.
So no, it's does not make it easier.[/quote:21ypgbf1]

Well just cause I suggested 3D in that example, doesn't mean go the whole hog and use different control methods too. (I didn't like Grim, and pretty much swore off Lucasarts later efforts) Once their point and click games started getting all 3Dy n stuff, they seemed to become.. crap and couldn't hold a candle to the older ones that are still immensely playable, as are all the other point and click games that did the rounds back then.

What I said was use it as a way to build the scenes. Rather than an event or bunch of events saying where a bush is in relation to the character. Just use the z-depth and all that is handled by itself. Think of it as layering. Then as you point and click your character through the scene, it knows if it should be in front of or behind part of the scenery. The scenery of which is simply made up of flat sprites. Like a diorama you might have made early on in school, of flat pieces of cardboard. Only this way it wouldn't get destroyed when Jerry the token fat kid with a gland problem, doesn't see it when he sits down to eat his twelve packed lunches.

Also there's a use for the 3D Box.. make it invisible and use it as a collision box around and behind the various parts of the scenery. Nice big square blocks should play nicely with something like the RTS behavior (which seems to be the closest in construct to how the path-finding could work in such a game).
B
3
S
2
G
3
Posts: 628
Reputation: 2,531

Post » Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:35 pm

i never really messed with 3dbox, but i dont think it has any 3d collision detection ability, also, the mouse/keyboard's click detection, doesnt account for z depth, so if something isnt at 0 z-elevation it doesnt work correctly


you can try it out with drag and drop behavior, and change the z-depth a little
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:20 pm

[quote="Lost my Keys":1wqurm0i]Well just cause I suggested 3D in that example, doesn't mean go the whole hog and use different control methods too.[/quote:1wqurm0i]
[quote:1wqurm0i]Then as you point and click your character through the scene, [/quote:1wqurm0i]

This is precisely my point. A big company avoided doing point and click in 3D BECAUSE ITS TOO HARD.

Don't say it would be easier. It woudln't.
B
3
S
2
G
4
Posts: 1,445
Reputation: 4,665

Post » Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:43 pm

there are plenty of point and click games in 3d, or games with 3d clicking, and its not hard, there are built in direct3d functions for it
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Previous

Return to Open Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests