2.5D Games

ClarustheDogCow
Unregistered
 
Post: #1
Would it be better to use a 3D graphics system like Open-GL or go 2D with something like QuickDraw? Which should be easier to code and create content for?
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 2002.04
Post: #2
What is your definition of 2.5D? I always thought that referred to a game like Wolfenstein3D, i.e. 3D world with billboard sprites for characters. In that case I would say OpenGL.

I also believe a lot of people will tell you to go OpenGL for any sort of game nowadays, even straight 2D. I've never attempted a 2D game with OpenGL so I can't comment on how complicated the coding would be but I think for content creation it wouldn't matter if your engine uses OpenGL or another technology.
Quote this message in a reply
ClarustheDogCow
Unregistered
 
Post: #3
2.5 as in games like starcraft and civilization where it isn't true 3D but rather 2D with 3D like sprites.
I'm not sure if this emulated 3d is needed for speed constraints anymore, and this is why I'm asking if 3D with OpenGL in a 2.5 perspective would be reasonable. Warcraft 3 does it, although I dont know how much work would be required to have reasonable performance (20+fps). I have done some research with different 3D optimizations, like LOD and BSP-trees, the latter of which would be more useful in a 2.5 project due to view constraints.
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 916
Joined: 2002.10
Post: #4
there is nothing special about the warcraft3 view, it is a normal camera that happens to be set at a specific angle. that angle and such can be changed. Anyways, opengl anyday. Opengl is a VERY good thing to learn. It is fast, portable, and looks good on your resume.
Quote this message in a reply
jamie
Unregistered
 
Post: #5
I always thought that a game that was called 2.5D was a game like Marathon, or Doom etc. where the 3D was 'faked'....
Quote this message in a reply
macboy
Unregistered
 
Post: #6
Quote:Originally posted by jamie
I always thought that a game that was called 2.5D was a game like Marathon, or Doom etc. where the 3D was 'faked'....
I believe it can go either way. "Faked" or angled.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 2002.08
Post: #7
"2.5D" has always been specifically for Marathon-style FPSes. Semi-top-down games like Starcraft are "isometric". And, yes, Warcraft 3 uses that perspective, but it's built in a fully 3D engine.
Quote this message in a reply
kainsin
Unregistered
 
Post: #8
Use OpenGL instead of QuickDraw. It's faster than QuickDraw since many of the commands are built into the video card's hardware, even for 2D performance. If you are doing a 2D-based game then you can achieve pixel-esque control by simply setting the camera to orthographic and set the size to the same width and height as your window.

There are also many more benefits that OpenGL provides for free. Easy to make 2D layers ( just use different z coordinates ), scaling, rotating, etc.
Quote this message in a reply
AJ Infinity
Unregistered
 
Post: #9
Note: War3 and starcraft (along with civ3) are all called isometric games. "Not 2.5D". It's not hard to make a game like this. I suggest using a sprite tiling system with z sorting or using an openGL terrain system with objects that can be added to the world (think war3). H2O has an isometric view.

Oops. Mark just said that.
Quote this message in a reply
w_reade
Unregistered
 
Post: #10
um, isn't War3 actually a full 3d game with proper perspective? So, while the camera may be "overhead-from-an-angle", it isn't technically isometric (or is it? I've never actually seen it in the flesh, so I don't know for sure, but the screenshots didn't look isometric to me...)

IIRC, "isometric" refers to a very specific projection, where the x, y and z space axes are always 60 degrees apart on paper/screen... but then, if I'm being a pedant, "2.5D" wouldn't mean anything except with regard to fractals, so maybe "isometric" means something new as well.

I think I'll just shut up now.
Quote this message in a reply
Luminary
Posts: 5,143
Joined: 2002.04
Post: #11
"Isometric" refers to any projection where the projected length of any line segment is directly proportional to its unprojected length.

Warcraft III uses a normal perspective projection, and therefore describing it as isometric would be incorrect.

2.5D is usually used to describe 3D engines such as those used in Doom, Marathon and Duke3D, where the third dimension doesn't have all the flexibility that the first two have.

Quake was revolutionary because it employed a truly 3D engine (for the first time in a game?).
Quote this message in a reply
w_reade
Unregistered
 
Post: #12
Ah, yes. "iso", "metric". Of course. D'oh.

I had been taught that "isometric" was [as I wrote above], and that there were other *metric projections (none of which I can remember) that had different specified angles.

Never trust anything they tell you at school MadWink.
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 130
Joined: 2002.04
Post: #13
Quote:Originally posted by OneSadCookie
Quake was revolutionary because it employed a truly 3D engine (for the first time in a game?).

Nope, but probably the first one to use alot of textures also.

"Gameplay Uber Alles. And if you can make it psychedelic too, great!" - Jeff Minter
Quote this message in a reply
w_reade
Unregistered
 
Post: #14
Anyone ever play Mercenary on the Commodore 64? It was all wireframe, and a bit jerky, and you could fly straight through the buildings, but it was a proper 3d world... in 64k of RAM, with only one load (none of this "load the game, see a nice intro screen, load the first level, die, rewind to start of level, load level again..." nonsense).
Quote this message in a reply
AJ Infinity
Unregistered
 
Post: #15
Quote:Originally posted by w_reade
um, isn't War3 actually a full 3d game with proper perspective? So, while the camera may be "overhead-from-an-angle", it isn't technically isometric (or is it? I've never actually seen it in the flesh, so I don't know for sure, but the screenshots didn't look isometric to me...)

IIRC, "isometric" refers to a very specific projection, where the x, y and z space axes are always 60 degrees apart on paper/screen... but then, if I'm being a pedant, "2.5D" wouldn't mean anything except with regard to fractals, so maybe "isometric" means something new as well.

I think I'll just shut up now.


Same here. I was confused by the screenshots. I would get War3, but my Mac is slow. (I need a G4)
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply