[HN Gopher] MAR1D: First-Person Mario
___________________________________________________________________
MAR1D: First-Person Mario
Author : rendaw
Score : 355 points
Date : 2022-10-12 15:21 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mar1d.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mar1d.com)
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| I'm just saying this hack is the work of a deranged programmer.
| marcodiego wrote:
| > Site proudly uses no javascript
|
| Great! There should be a way for google to prioritize this kind
| of site.
| takoid wrote:
| Marginalia does this surprisingly well:
| https://search.marginalia.nu/
| [deleted]
| ojr wrote:
| "this site proudly uses no javascript", nerdy sites that don't
| use modern css and or modern javascript most of the time have
| subpar user experience, I don't read past the first sentence, it
| traps yourself into a niche of developers who don't mind an ugly
| Design tradeoff
| [deleted]
| vlunkr wrote:
| In what way could you make the experience of this site better
| with js?
| dylan604 wrote:
| i think they are just taking the piss out of people that say
| similar regarding sites that put up dark UI elements that
| prevent/slow down the reading of a site so that people bounce
| quickly. only, it just wasn't a good attempt at whatever was
| being attempted (humor/parody/sarcasm???). then again, maybe
| i'm just being way too nice to a non-coherent thought?
| nfw2 wrote:
| You could actually play the game
| vlunkr wrote:
| It's not a browser game, so no you couldn't.
| nfw2 wrote:
| I meant that with JS, you could make a browser game,
| which would be a better experience.
| JadoJodo wrote:
| Something I've never understood about 2D/Flatland as a "visual"
| idea:
|
| In the case of this Mar1d, if I'm on the X-axis, and can only see
| the Y-axis, wouldn't any amount of detail in the Z-axis
| constitute a 3D image? The Y-axis stretched even a single "pixel"
| along Z would make it 3D, right?
|
| Similarly, for Flatlandia: If I'm a 2D square on the X-axis, and
| can see "around" me on the Z-axis, wouldn't my ability to see
| anything make the Y-axis be > 1?
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| The Z axis can be imagined to be infinitesimally narrow.
| There's no information in the stretching of the Z axis, so you
| can make that single color of data in the as visible as you
| like without adding any information.
|
| Our eyes see in two dimensions, so a Mar1d world with a Z axis
| one Plank length wide would still have the same colors, but
| it's impossible to see.
| tomxor wrote:
| Yes, it wouldn't be 3D, but what you are alluding to is
| projection (X onto Y, or more generally instead of X which
| would be orthogonal only, a 1D plane of any orientation - AKA
| line segment) ultimately you are still looking at a 1D image,
| but it has a 2D shape projected onto it that changes depending
| on both your orientation and position, so that you can perceive
| part of the 2D shape's surface as you move.
|
| And this would be more physically correct than either Mario or
| Mar1D.
|
| The generalisation, starting in 3D, is that you can project the
| _surface_ of a 3D object onto a 2D plane (which is how we
| see)... we get a little bit more by gauging depth through
| stereo separation but ultimately we only get to see one 3D
| projection onto a 2D plane at any point in time, i.e the entire
| 3D surface is not accessible, we can 't see behind it, or
| inside it, and the perception of 3D is constructed in our mind
| from a combination of general learned/evolved intuition of 3D
| space and shape and temporal samples for a particular scenario
| e.g looking around the object from different angles.
|
| Projection can extend to higher and lower dimensions, e.g in 4D
| space the surface of a 4D object can be projected onto a 3D
| "plane"; and as you are suggesting, for 2D space you can
| project a 2D object onto a 1D plane. The projection changing
| depending on the orientation and position of either the shape
| or eye/camera.
|
| Normal 2D game rendering doesn't really make any physical sense
| as a projection unless you consider them to be a narrow 3D
| world (consider the fact that you can see the entire surface of
| a square _and_ inside of the square, but Mario the character
| cannot possibly see this, only a small part of the surface).
|
| But this is all based on a "projection" with the assumption of
| a lot of opacity... if each particle received from the
| projection also contained accurate enough depth information and
| was a vector of all depths traversed for some limit, then full
| 3D could be perceived in a single 2D projection within a 3D
| world i.e if you could see "through" objects while still being
| able to sample each depth.
| couchand wrote:
| Your last comment reminds me of being in thick fog, where
| distances can be easily estimated by gauging how obscured the
| object is.
| d23 wrote:
| I think you're right, and while I think something simple like
| fading in and out the elements based on distance would be
| reasonable (since the game would be unplayable otherwise, as
| you'd be able to see the entire level), the choice they appear
| to have made (something non-orthographic) seems to essentially
| be fully encoding the extra dimension. Otherwise, I can't see
| how the goomba would appear to get bigger as it gets closer to
| mario.
| Bakary wrote:
| In a properly 2D universe, there would be the equivalent of
| some sort of planck length that is essentially the only length.
| The equivalent of a string of one-bit messages that shift
| around. We chose to visualize it through something that has
| width because we are unable to properly understand the
| alternative.
| ryanisnan wrote:
| If the width of a pixel along the Z-axis is arbitrary, and you
| only see one, no, it would not be 3D. It's still 2D, you just
| have the ability to more easily see. You gain no new
| information.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| I'm with GP on this one. You say "width of a pixel". That
| width is a dimension. If that dimension exists, along with X
| and Y, then it should 3D.
|
| And that's when talking about video-games or computer
| graphics. In the Flatland example, there are no pixels. The
| characters shouldn't be able to see each other or the
| structures on their 2D plane at all.
| Bakary wrote:
| They can if you see it as some sort of one-bit messaging as
| opposed to traditional vision
| bee_rider wrote:
| Characters in a flat universe would have different sensory
| organs than us, talking about "sight" seems more like a
| translation for humans. "Sight" is a highly directional,
| high-resolution, low-latency sense, the physics of it... I
| mean the characters might not even understand it, we didn't
| for the vast majority of human history.
|
| All of physics would have to be different anyway, down to
| really fundamental stuff like how quantities which spread
| from a source radially operate, since we'd be looking at
| perimeters rather than surface areas.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Don't think of the "width of a pixel" as what you'd see
| from the perspective of that 2D plane -- think of it as a
| _2D projection_ of a 1D space.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| No, it's not. A dimension requires freedom to be
| parameterized and independence from other dimensions. In
| this example "Y" is invariantly defined as 1. Similarly a
| level surface defines a dimension to a fixed value and
| provides an n-1 dimensional view of a n dimensional view.
| Mapping this to a level surface you declare Y=1 and only X
| is varying. Y has scale but no dimensionality due to its
| lack of freedom.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think we have to imagine 2D Mario, as a being which lives in
| a 2D world, has his "sight" via an organ which has evolved
| differently from a human eye. So, the the viewport with a
| single wide pixel is really just an appropriate visualization
| for us 3D beings.
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| Correct. That's why this game is 3D and not 1D.
| chc wrote:
| I think you're imagining a projection of a 2D world into three
| dimensions and correctly observing that it's three-dimensional.
|
| Imagine a 2D world with two squares and a circle. One of the
| squares pushes the circle and it rolls into the other square,
| impacting it. This is all plausible in a purely 2D setting,
| right? Assuming that these objects can't take up the same 2D
| space, it makes sense that the square would be impacted by the
| circle. This is how vision works -- photons bounce around and
| our eyes sense them. There wouldn't actually be any Z-axis to
| what you're seeing, you'd just be registering 2D photon-
| equivalents moving in two dimensions. But in order to represent
| it as something our brains can recognize as "seeing," we have
| to project the input into some non-zero dimension.
|
| A different representation could emphasize this point better.
| You could have this same basic game, but instead of first-
| person, have it be third-person but with actual vision
| simulation, so that you only see the parts of objects that
| Mario would see and everything else is simply absent.
| babypuncher wrote:
| It's basically a 2D game but they replaced the width dimension
| with depth. Wolfenstein 1-D [1] is a true 1-dimensional game.
| The game is represented by a single straight line of pixels,
| and player movement is restricted to a single axis.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_1-D
| derefr wrote:
| A thing photographers / image-effects people think about a lot:
| pixels aren't little squares; they're _sample points_.
|
| If you've ever played around with graphics-rendering -- UV
| coordinate sampling, convolution, etc -- then you know that you
| can think of a (2D) raster image as really being a grid of
| samples of what color you get when you look at the UV
| coordinate represented by the center of that grid-point on some
| underlying hypothetical continuous texture.
|
| Which is to say: if you have a pixel-art image (i.e. one
| created at pixel scale, pixel by pixel, rather than created
| with continuous-art techniques and then scaled down), and you
| want to scale it up "conservatively", without making up any
| information that doesn't already exist in the image -- then the
| right way to do that _isn 't_ to blow up the pixels themselves,
| nearest-neighbour style (as if the hypothetical underlying
| texture is a tessellation of infinitely-sharply-bounded little
| squares); but _nor_ is it to stretch the image with bilinear
| /cubic/etc. resampling (as if the hypothetical underlying
| texture is a continuous blend from the color at the center of
| each sample into its neighbours.)
|
| Really, the _conservative_ approach to enlarging a pixel-art
| image, is to throw your hands up and give up -- because you
| actually _don 't have the information_ for what occupies any UV
| coordinate of the underlying hypothetical continuous texture,
| other than the exact center-point of each grid square, where
| the pixel-art pixel sample is located. A pixel-art image,
| created from scratch _as_ pixels, only really _tells_ you what
| 's at the exact center point of each grid-square. Every _other_
| possible sample-point in each grid-square is left undefined. If
| you picture an infinitely-small dot in the center of each grid-
| square, with the rest left "empty", _that 's_ the data you
| have about the "underlying image", from seeing a pixel-art
| image. Anything beyond that is "compressed sensing" -- an
| inference, not a logical deduction.
|
| But to directly address your point: you see pixels, because
| that's how the game has to be _rendered_ -- as a 2D extrusion
| -- for it to show up on a screen for you to see. But in
| concept, the game is giving you a one-dimensional array of
| sample-points -- a sampling of an underlying hypothetical _one-
| dimensional_ continuous texture.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| No. To be a dimension there needs to be freedom. In this case
| the Y is quantized at one pixel and there's no independent
| parameter in that direction, just an invariant quantum.
| grimgrin wrote:
| my buddy once made a '1d roguelike'
|
| it is exactly what it is lol (aka 110 lines of bash)
|
| https://github.com/rupa/YOU_ARE_DEAD
| metadat wrote:
| Lol, this is hilarious.
| xtiansimon wrote:
| I was thinking a lot of weed was consumed in the making of this
| project.
| hijinks wrote:
| waiting for the first group of people to speed run this
| chadlavi wrote:
| ow ow ouch my brain
|
| this is neat
| an1sotropy wrote:
| If you like this, you'll like Planiverse (1984)
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Planiverse
|
| A bit like the classic Flatland book, this also imagines a 2D
| world, and also fosters thinking about higher dimensions. But
| there's a nice shift: if there's an "up" in Flatland, it points
| out of the world, whereas in Planiverse, the up is in-world, and
| we visit the world by looking at it from the side, rather than
| from above. So the creatures of Planiverse would be _great_ at
| playing MAR1D.
|
| Planiverse also creatively thinks through a lot of the physical
| and mechanical realities of living in a 2D world, and is wrapped
| in a poignant narrative about using computers to connect to
| alternate realities.
|
| (ah shoot I just learned that the author has turned into a 9/11
| truther, but Planiverse remains a cool book)
| lioeters wrote:
| Planiverse is one of my all-time favorite books. Some tasty
| morsels:
|
| The Planiverse: Computer Contact with a Two-Dimensional World -
| Engineering Designs in Planiverse -
| https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/project...
|
| ---
|
| > Dewdney wrote The Planiverse as..an allegory for his search
| for a reality deeper than that of scientific enquiry, and his
| subsequent conversion to Sufiism.
|
| We're the ones living in flatland, a planiverse of limited 3D
| perspective, who yearn for higher dimensions of experience, a
| glimpse of the beyond. Unfortunately it's not without risk, as
| this way madness lies - either as a trap of illusion, or at
| least as a step toward fundamental truth (if any).
| egypturnash wrote:
| _subsequent conversion to Sufiism._
|
| Huh. That makes a lot of sense from what I remember of the
| way the whole thing ended, with Yendred's time under the
| tutelage of Drabk the Sharak. Hello weird names still stuck
| in my head after thirty or so years.
|
| Not that this wasn't also a theme in Abbot's earlier
| _Flatland_ , most of _his_ other writing was theology, and
| it, too, climaxes with a mystical experience for its 2D
| protagonist. But A. Square ends up back in his flat world,
| writing from a madhouse, rather than transcending it and
| going on to... something inexplicable.
|
| I have spent time poking against this sort of thing and
| madness is definitely a possible result.
| hobo_in_library wrote:
| > I just learned that the author has turned into a 9/11 truther
|
| I don't get those folks. Personally, I identify as a 9/11
| falser.
| worewood wrote:
| Well, we see the world as a 2d projection BUT we (usually) have 2
| eyes so we have some amount of 3d-info.
|
| Maybe mario has 2 eyes too, which would give him some amount of
| 2d-info. (Just like an MRI can construct a 2d slice from 1d
| info). So the first person game should have maybe a depth info on
| those pixels.
|
| What I mean, mario does not see only a line. He sees a silhouette
| of what lies ahead of him.
| samwillis wrote:
| I think it would require one eye above the other to have depth
| perception in his 2d world.
|
| Eyes can't even be side-by-side as that axis doesn't exist.
|
| Having said that, the human brain is capable of reconstructing
| a 3d perception with only one eye through learnt understand and
| interpreting the picture change over time as you move. I image
| it's the same for Mario, but in 2d.
| bmitc wrote:
| > I think it would require one eye above the other to have
| depth perception in his 2d world.
|
| Is his world actually 2D though? Or a 3D world projected down
| to 2D? The latter is what I would expect.
| diob wrote:
| Yeah, as someone with a lazy eye 3d honestly isn't much
| different than 2d.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| But eye don't really see in 2d anyway. There are plenty of
| tricks involved in the vision cortex based on how your head
| moves and how your eye scans and accommodates for its 3d
| field of view. It's far more complex than just producing a
| 2d image for the brain to interpret.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| In original Mario he does have only one eye though, and it's
| on the side of his face?
| dfxm12 wrote:
| No, Mario has two eyes. You can see the other when you go
| the other way.
| dusted wrote:
| exactly, if mario had stereo vision, it'd have to be his eyes
| were on top of each other.. And just like how 3D games
| projected onto a 2D monitor are not much different from their
| VR counterparts, a 2D game projected into stereo 1D wouldn't
| be much more interesting either..
|
| I thought about it, how our eyes are placed on the sides,
| probably because we're very earth-bound, and horizon lies
| that way and such.. It'd be really interesting if we had an
| additional third eye on our forehead, it'd give us a bit more
| detailed depth perception, but I don't think it'd be that
| much more useful.
| astrange wrote:
| Also, human eyes aren't passive sensors like cameras. We move
| them (consciously and unconsciously) to gather more info as
| we need it.
|
| And we have a few unconscious abilities like seeing light
| polarization that can help:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4528539/
| xwdv wrote:
| 2D Mario doesn't have two eyes, he has one. If he is drawn with
| two eyes the second one would be inside his body and would not
| see anything as it's view is blocked by pixels.
| layer8 wrote:
| If you look at the initial zoom, his eye actually lies within
| his head, so it's unclear how he can see anything at all.
| xwdv wrote:
| That is strange.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| Semi-transparent head, probably. But it means he can only
| see light intensity, which is why he falls into holes and
| runs into dangerous objects on the regular.
| UmYeahNo wrote:
| If we take it further, even the eye "we" _can_ see is blocked
| by the bridge of his nose, so I doubt he actually sees
| anything.
| zeristor wrote:
| What would the people in a Picasso picture see?
|
| There's one for Dall-e Mario level as painted by Picasso
| pyrale wrote:
| You can see Mario has two eyes on his death animation,
| though.
| sebastialonso wrote:
| this is the kind of arguments I come to Hacker news to read
| about.
| tysehr37 wrote:
| It's beautiful
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| meitros wrote:
| no wonder he needs your help to complete levels
| joshxyz wrote:
| thats hilariously good, well done sir
| layer8 wrote:
| Article about the 80s version: https://hard-
| drive.net/retrospective-we-look-back-at-super-m...
| jamesjyu wrote:
| I bet you could still train a neural net to complete the levels
| only using the 1D slices as input.
| Bakary wrote:
| Would it even be that much more difficult for the net than 2D
| Mario?
| jamesjyu wrote:
| My gut says it'll be a tad more difficult since you won't
| have any data beyond what's directly in front of mario. Maybe
| the AI will end up doing a bunch of rapid peeks to determine
| next move, especially when there are large pits.
| bitwize wrote:
| I get it, but I still prefer these:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBb9wFP7uZM
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf-2Imh6a54
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Ha, that's more or less what I was hoping the link would be.
| capableweb wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but those seems to be 3d
| renderings/animations rather than interactive games, different
| class :)
| jerf wrote:
| I think the idea is that just because Mario takes place on a
| 2D plane doesn't mean we're obligated to assume that Mario is
| literally a mathematical two dimensional figure. These videos
| may still be very silly in terms of a real-world situation,
| but they're no more or less "correct" than the linked video
| for the original post.
| piggybox wrote:
| LOL, that's pretty hard
| ClassAndBurn wrote:
| This is like the first half of Flatland visualized[1]!
|
| I always found imaginating Square's point of view a fun
| challenge. Seeing a world, I otherwise recognize the same way
| gives it a whole new dimension.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
| cheschire wrote:
| This is neat. I love fun with dimensions like this. This 4D
| minecraft clone is a similarly fun thing.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8LMyWcKL_c
| tysehr37 wrote:
| Interesting, their way of demonstrating a 4th dimension is very
| unique. love how it became a game mechanic
| imbusy111 wrote:
| That is a terrifying way to live your whole life.
| nigerianbrince wrote:
| Someone out there might feel the same way about us. (2d vision)
| vadansky wrote:
| Now you know how Tralfamadorians think about us
| smoldesu wrote:
| Plumbing does _not_ get any easier when you lose a dimension 's
| worth of eyesight.
| OscarCunningham wrote:
| You can't even connect three houses to three utilities.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Reminds me of Fez
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| This approach lacks perspective (well duh). It reminds me of the
| Flatland book, when people from 3D worlds experience 2D ones.
| yissp wrote:
| See also, the glEnd() of Zelda http://tom7.org/zelda/
| capableweb wrote:
| That's 3D though, not nearly as interesting as 1D Mario :)
| mzs wrote:
| sort of, start here: https://youtu.be/xDxjbXAqTPg?t=647
| dusted wrote:
| I wonder if I still have my prototype somewhere, exactly the same
| thought.. We humans exist in 3D space, yet perceive the world in
| 2D (with some additional depth perception added).. Sooo.. our
| perception is 1 dimension less. If someone were to inhibit only 2
| dimensions, they'd perceive one dimension less, so 1D. Now, to
| translate that back into something a human could see, it'd just
| be... bands.. My engine had the bands extend the entire width,
| but same thing. I also made a 1D version, where you.. yes, move
| along a single axis, and your perception is thus 0 dimensions,
| simply a point (extended to fill the entire screen) that changed
| brightness.
|
| I also made another one were you were a a typical 2D platformer
| character, but with the ability to rotate around your own Y axis,
| so the levels were fully 3D environments, and it sliced a plane
| through the world with the origin being the player character. You
| had to turn around yourself a lot to get an idea of the
| environment.
| nfw2 wrote:
| - Site proudly uses no javascript
|
| Embedding the game into the browser using JS and WebGL seems like
| the obvious way to let people experience it easily. Most people
| aren't going to download it.
| [deleted]
| latchkey wrote:
| Darn, I was hoping to see things rotated 45' ccw and viewing from
| the back of mario running forward towards a horizon (almost
| appearing to run uphill) and then jumping onto blocks and pipes
| as if they are coming at him.
| mynameisash wrote:
| I was hoping to see something that would be even half as fun to
| play as Mari0 [0], which is a SMB + Portal mash-up.
|
| [0] https://stabyourself.net/mari0/
| twic wrote:
| Made me think of another one-dimensional crawl game, Line
| Wobbler:
|
| https://wobblylabs.com/projects/wobbler
|
| I'm not sure how well the site and videos explain it, but you
| control a green dot trying to travel along a line. You have to
| beat or evade enemies, lava, etc along the way. You control it
| with a spring door stop, but that's not what it's about.
| bscphil wrote:
| I love this.
|
| Another way to 3D-ize a 2D (sidescrolling, platform) game, if
| someone wants to take it as inspiration: rather than assume the
| (infinitely thin) 2D plane of the game to be 1 pixel thick,
| assume that everything in the 2D plane has _infinite_ depth.
|
| Because of perspective, this will look very different than 1
| pixel stretched horizontally, which is what this game does. In
| fact, with a little shadowing and applying the object textures to
| the z-y axes of the object rather than the x-y axes, I expect
| many 2D games would actually be playable like this. I think the
| results would be bizarre, but extremely fun for fans of the game.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| I don't get it, what am I missing
| forgetfulness wrote:
| We normally see Mario's world from an external vantage point
| that doesn't exist in his.
|
| Imagine a normal brick in our world, what we see are
| projections of the outside surface, but we of course can't see
| inside the brick, not without breaking it at least, but then
| you end up with a series of smaller objects that you can only
| see from the outside, again.
|
| Likewise, Mario wouldn't be able to see the shapes we see
| because we're looking at the totality of them, the outside and
| the inside, all at once, because we're 3D, but they are not.
|
| He would only be able to see the outside, which in his case are
| the lines making up the contours of the bricks, goombas, etc.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| If it's 2d only, wouldn't his perspective be an infinitely
| thin line? Or am I being too literal and missing the point
| forgetfulness wrote:
| Probably, but there still would be distinct "points" in so
| far he can perceive them. We need them stretched out a bit
| but there's not two pixels in this game's width dimension,
| it's the same point stretched out in our screens, never is
| there more information besides one pixel than another in
| our screen in the horizontal axis from what I can tell.
| justusthane wrote:
| I'm surprised by all the dismissive comments here. This is a
| really clever and thought-provoking idea, and I believe that is
| the spirit in which it is intended (rather than as an "actual"
| game).
| mrmuagi wrote:
| It's reducing a 2d game into a 1d one which kind of nauseating
| -- I thought by the title it would be like Super Mario Oyssey
| with a first person camera.
| incanus77 wrote:
| When I want a game where a plumber gets warped into a mushroom
| kingdom and fights turtles by jumping on them, I want realism,
| dammit!
| tomrod wrote:
| Game of Thrones style?
| tomcam wrote:
| It's a brilliant, creative idea and the small-mindedness here
| is disappointing.
| joshl32532 wrote:
| You can't call all criticism as small-mindedness.
|
| This might be brilliant and creative to you, but to some this
| is just not that impressive, technical or otherwise.
| tomcam wrote:
| > You can't call all criticism as small-mindedness.
|
| You appear to be hallucinating. Where did I do that?
|
| > to some this is just not that impressive
|
| Of course I agree with that point because, you know...
| opinions
| [deleted]
| Y_Y wrote:
| Well I think it's shit. It's a not-so-interesting view of the
| kind of perspective change you get from something like
| http://tom7.org/zelda/ and I resent the suggestion that the
| reason I don't like it is my own smallmindedness. I have many
| flaws but that isn't one of them.
| [deleted]
| nano9 wrote:
| > This is a really clever and thought-provoking idea, and I
| believe that is the spirit in which it is intended (rather than
| as an "actual" game).
|
| It seems more like an elaborate joke to me. I can see people
| being annoyed after being teased with the notion of a new game,
| only for it to be a gag.
| danjoredd wrote:
| inb4 Nintendo DMCAs
| ugh123 wrote:
| TBH I was hoping for something a little more "realistic". I just
| see a line of squares moving around and seems unplayable.
| olah_1 wrote:
| Yeah I was hoping for something more like the Cruis'n USA
| racing games where the world is scrolling at you and your
| character stays stationary.
| dm319 wrote:
| There are several VR 3D Super Mario Bros adaptations which are
| easily found on google. But of course they have to take
| liberties in the Z plane.
| tomerv wrote:
| Something like this?
|
| http://tom7.org/zelda/
| dan_quixote wrote:
| tom7 is awesome. He made an awesome and hilarious video years
| ago about his SIGBOVIK paper/research on AI playing NES:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCurBYI_gY
| WFHRenaissance wrote:
| I vaguely remember this being a thing in ~2014? Maybe earlier?
| ogoparootbbo wrote:
| how is this 1d when there is a second dimension albeit small?
| the_af wrote:
| If you mean the line doesn't have a single pixel width, this is
| what the website explains: How is this 1D?
| The game is more than one pixel wide! The game
| width can actually be adjusted, including to a width of one
| pixel. That's how I prefer to play, but other people had
| trouble seeing what was going on. Regardless
| of how much you stretch it though, there is only one dimension
| of information, the horizontal smear is entirely redundant.
| Your computer's pixels have some amount of depth to them, but
| that doesn't mean the games you play on them have 3 dimensional
| viewports.
| malkia wrote:
| What if you create several parallax projections and play how many
| would be enough to get something more playable - 1.5D :)
| ffhhj wrote:
| Expected a Wolfenstein 3D kind of game like:
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?time_continue=650&v=xDxjbXAqTPg
| furyofantares wrote:
| Mario has very poor eye placement for a 2d character and
| shouldn't be able to see anything but his nose.
| Shared404 wrote:
| I quite enjoyed the writing style on the landing page as well as
| the content.
|
| Very reminiscent of BDG/Unraveled.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-12 23:00 UTC)