0
0

[–] HoocOtt ago 

So what was the game Marathon doing?

0
1

[–] Bobsentme 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I remember playing Wolfenstein 3D and Doom on my Tandy 1000 and thinking "Man, there needs to be a jump button!!!" Now I know exactly why there's not. Pretty neat.

Now that I know how doom's engine was rendering everything, I'm actually shocked that it ran so well (for back then) on my tandy!

0
1

[–] RaiFighter 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I'd heard a whole bunch about how in code, Doom was a 2D game, but it's nice to see a breakdown of how this tech works that a layman can understand.

0
0

[–] smeezekitty ago 

In my opinion, this doesn't mean that it can't be called "3D". It looks 3D and it has apparent depth - just like any other "3D" game. While it doesn't use 3D rendering techniques compared to modern games, it is still valid to call it "3D" since it is visually 3D.

I believe Quake is a true 3D renderer. It would run on Doom era hardware (486s) albeit marginally. So saying the hardware wasn't capable is a lie

0
1

[–] CarpetDime 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Totally agree. Every single 3d game is drawing a 2d grid of pixels, it's all an illusion even today.

0
1

[–] TiagoTiago 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If you liked that video, you might also like this one: https://youtu.be/HQYsFshbkYw

0
1

[–] TiagoTiago 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I'm sure the demoscene folks disagree with the statement that the hardware couldn't handle drawing things in 3D...

0
1

[–] TiagoTiago 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

2.5D

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] TiagoTiago ago 

This video gets into a little more detail (though it seems to focus more on the slightly more advanced Duke Nukem 3D style engines).