Is Dreams the first game that's truly 3D?

Status
Not open for further replies.

onQ

Veteran
I was wondering why it looked so strange to me when the bear girl thing was walking up the hill & I couldn't put my finger on it, then it hit me that it was because I never seen that in a game before. I went back & watched the video & I realize that the 3D really is different from what I've seen in all the other 3D games.

 
Is Dreams the first game that's truly 3D? No.

It renders a mathematically defined space on a 2D screen. Nothing 3D about that. Light and shadow gives an illusion of depth. It's not any more 3D than any other well lit game, although the lighting and setup does give a verisimilitude to the results.

The first 3D game would either be the first to perform 3D transformations projected onto a 2D screen (so going back to Eilte and its precursors), or the first stereoscopic game whatever that was. Or, the first game in the future to render 3D holograms or physical matter. That'd make Chess a 3D game. Okay, maybe a 3D game needs to be played in 3 dimensions? Whatever, Dreams isn't it. It's just pretty.
 
Is Dreams the first game that's truly 3D? No.

It renders a mathematically defined space on a 2D screen. Nothing 3D about that. Light and shadow gives an illusion of depth. It's not any more 3D than any other well lit game, although the lighting and setup does give a verisimilitude to the results.

The first 3D game would either be the first to perform 3D transformations projected onto a 2D screen (so going back to Eilte and its precursors), or the first stereoscopic game whatever that was. Or, the first game in the future to render 3D holograms or physical matter. That'd make Chess a 3D game. Okay, maybe a 3D game needs to be played in 3 dimensions? Whatever, Dreams isn't it. It's just pretty.

Well is there any other game that's giving you a true illusion of depth that adjust accordingly with your control input?

Look at the beginning of the video at how the Imp is moving especially when he move the cylinder.
 
Last edited:
if you play kinect games, lots of them have "3d" feels by tracking your head or body.

i think forza have kinect head tracking
 
Dreams is the first game that's so fluffy we're gonna die.
tumblr_m9pcrcGdLl1qih9gi.gif

 
Well is there any other game that's giving you a true illusion of depth that adjust accordingly with your control input?

Look at the beginning of the video at how the Imp is moving especially when he move the cylinder.
There's nothing '3D' about it. Its the same as every other game. For motion input, I point to Tumble as having the same 3D input and output. You can't render 3D on a two dimensional display in any way to make it more 3D than just rendering an image. There are certainly 3D cues that your brain can interpret, but Dreams is not and cannot be any more 3D than every other game out there. It's certainly less 3D than any VR game or stereoscopic game.
 
Well is there any other game that's giving you a true illusion of depth that adjust accordingly with your control input?
Well, there are plenty of other games that use a perspective projection to convert a 3D scene representation to a 2D space, and some manner of depth sorting such as z-buffering so that far things appear behind near things. Not sure how Dreams does this "truer" than other games.
 
Well is there any other game that's giving you a true illusion of depth that adjust accordingly with your control input?

Look at the beginning of the video at how the Imp is moving especially when he move the cylinder.

I guess you've never played a stereoscopic 3d game?
 
There's nothing '3D' about it. Its the same as every other game. For motion input, I point to Tumble as having the same 3D input and output. You can't render 3D on a two dimensional display in any way to make it more 3D than just rendering an image. There are certainly 3D cues that your brain can interpret, but Dreams is not and cannot be any more 3D than every other game out there. It's certainly less 3D than any VR game or stereoscopic game.

Tumble comes close but even in Tumble the objects still seem to only use size & angles to show the depth. Look at the cylinder when it's being pulled down & rolled.
 
Tumble comes close but even in Tumble the objects still seem to only use size & angles to show the depth. Look at the cylinder when it's being pulled down & rolled.
Looks like it's using size and angles to show the depth, with something that's at least very close to a typical rectilinear perspective projection.

Can you annotate an image with what you see and what you think other games do, or something?
 
Tumble comes close but even in Tumble the objects still seem to only use size & angles to show the depth. Look at the cylinder when it's being pulled down & rolled.

Shifty is correct. A rasterized game has an accurate 3D "world" internalized, and that is drawn, perspective correct to the 2D surface for the camera. Easiest way to explain it. Any "3D" game is a model of a three-dimensional space projected onto a 2D surface. The only difference here is the model itself, one being a polygonal-based representation, and the other being this distance-field-based approach. In terms of the model, x,y,z are always x, y, z. That's just geometry.
 
Tumble comes close but even in Tumble the objects still seem to only use size & angles to show the depth. Look at the cylinder when it's being pulled down & rolled.
What am I looking at?

Another great 3D concept is head tracking matched camera tracking, but I don't think beyond the old YT demo anyone did anything with it. Head synchronised parallax is a great cue to get three-dimensionality happening in the brain.

I guess one thing affecting you is the representation of the world as a space within the TV. Perspective and high frame rate give it a sense of looking at a miniature. Maybe that's what you're experiencing?
 
Shifty is correct. A rasterized game has an accurate 3D "world" internalized, and that is drawn, perspective correct to the 2D surface for the camera. Easiest way to explain it. Any "3D" game is a model of a three-dimensional space projected onto a 2D surface. The only difference here is the model itself, one being a polygonal-based representation, and the other being this distance-field-based approach. In terms of the model, x,y,z are always x, y, z. That's just geometry.

To me it seems that other games seem to be made on a flat plane using a grid with straight lines while this game seem to be using a spherical grid.

What am I looking at?

Another great 3D concept is head tracking matched camera tracking, but I don't think beyond the old YT demo anyone did anything with it. Head synchronised parallax is a great cue to get three-dimensionality happening in the brain.

I guess one thing affecting you is the representation of the world as a space within the TV. Perspective and high frame rate give it a sense of looking at a miniature. Maybe that's what you're experiencing?

I think they are using distortion to show the depth.
 
I think they are using distortion to show the depth.
Imagine you're the camera, the x-axis points to the right, the y-axis points up, and the z-axis points in the direction you're looking. Now imagine that on a display, the x'-axis points to the right and the y'-axis points up.

Then the transform used by nearly all 3D games ever to change a world-space (x,y,z) to a screen-space (x',y') looks like:
x'=x/z
y'=y/z
(In a simple form, anyway.)
 
To me it seems that other games seem to be made on a flat plane using a grid with straight lines while this game seem to be using a spherical grid.
That's the FOV. It's certainly wider in the beginning when throwing CSGs around.

I think they are using distortion to show the depth.
I don't think many will agree that a wide angle lens gives a sense of a depth. It's also not something unique to Dreams, although I can't name any other games. But on PC you've had the option to change FOV in a lot of games for yonks.
 
To me it seems that other games seem to be made on a flat plane using a grid with straight lines while this game seem to be using a spherical grid.

Regardless of how anything is represented internally in the engine, it has to be transformed from that to 2D space. Geometry is a mathematical representation of the real world, and that transform has to give produce the same result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top