Comment on This may be the best way to play 2D games*
Murse@slrpnk.net 7 hours agoIt’s a bit confusing
It’s objectively wrong. Satisfactory is played in 3 spacial dimensions, making it a 3D game. Displaying it with a vr headset doesn’t add a dimension, it just changes how you experience that 3D space.
As another example, chess is a 2D game. Whether it’s played on a screen or in VR or with real pieces that take up real 3D space, the game itself is always 2D. If you made a that uses a chess board as one side of a cube, and the same on the other sides, and then use your pieces to navigate what is now a volumetric matrix and not just a grid: now it’s 3D… but also no longer chess. …kinda sounds fun though.
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 7 hours ago
The game logic remains 3D (or 2D depending from which perspective we look). It depends on what the person refers to as “3D”. Gameplay logic is not the only thing that has dimensions, its also the graphics. In example the (modern) Street Fighter games have 3D graphics, but the gameplay is 2D. There are even 3D games with 2D graphics, both are independent dimensions.
VR on the other hand has nothing to do with how the game is played or what type of graphics it has. VR is not about how many dimensions the game has, but how the dimensions are experienced. Almost like a perspective: Top down, Third person, First person, VR… However, I understand what people mean by 2D in context of talking about it as an opposite to VR. Even if its not entirely “correct”, we know what is meant with. The problem is, there is no widely accepted and known way to refer it to as “Non VR” other than “Non VR”. I feel like we need an universally accepted term for this.
But how would we call it? PR: Physical Reality?
Murse@slrpnk.net 2 hours ago
What’s wrong with “non VR”? It’s concise, and specific enough that it doesn’t overlap with other concepts in the context of gaming. 2D and 3D both already have an established meaning: both can be experienced with or without VR.
…in any case, whatever catches on for “non VR” (to include “non VR”) is kinda moot: it just shouldn’t be term that’s already established in this context, or we’ll get confusing loops like “2D games are best experienced in 2D” or conflation of VR with 3D and vice versa.
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 hour ago
Logically speaking nothing is wrong with “Non VR”. I just like to have dedicated words for it, other than a “boolean” logic. It’s just a way of how to think about things. In example you don’t say that you walk with a Non Car, if that makes sense what I mean. It also makes searching the web or forums or whatever easier and avoids “VR vs Non VR” like phrases. I personally don’t have a good idea how to name, so maybe nothing else will catch on. My initial response here was more of a joke, but the underlying “problem” is “real” to me.
Aerosol3215@piefed.ca 6 hours ago
Flat 3d.