Wolfenstein 1D(wonder-tonic.com)
wonder-tonic.com
Wolfenstein 1D
http://wonder-tonic.com/wolf1d/
24 comments
Making the figures and line bigger than 1 pixel would have still preserved 1D affect. Also the line does not need to be straight either - it could have been curved. The only requirement is the degree of freedom to move (back and forth).
You are correct, but when you look at it this way, Wolf 3D was actually 2D: you couldn't move up or down.
If, instead of defining the number of dimensions according to the degrees of freedom in movement, we instead define them according to the visual appearance of the space in which the game is played, then Wolf 3D was 3D, this game is 1D, and a game with more than 1 pixel would be 2D.
If, instead of defining the number of dimensions according to the degrees of freedom in movement, we instead define them according to the visual appearance of the space in which the game is played, then Wolf 3D was 3D, this game is 1D, and a game with more than 1 pixel would be 2D.
> Wolf 3D was actually 2D
And Doom was 2.5D - you could be at different heights, but could never be at the same x-y at two different z.
And Doom was 2.5D - you could be at different heights, but could never be at the same x-y at two different z.
Curved line means 2D.
Incorrect; a curved line is a 1-dimensional space embedded in a higher dimensional space. There's still only one dimension of freedom on that line.
Please, describe me a curved line with one coordinate only.
You're missing the point. Within the set of points along the curved line, I can define any point by a single coordinate: how far along the line that point is. That makes the space defined by that set of points one-dimensional. The fact that the line itself is defined by multiple coordinates within the larger space it is embedded in, is irrelevant.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that being able to define any point by a single coordinate is what makes it "one-dimensional."
The reason is that R^n has the same cardinality as R. You could create a bijection between the set of 2-dimensional real coordinates to the set of 1-dimensional reals by using every even positioned digit to represent the X value and odd positioned digits for the Y.
The issue with this is that the intuitive metric you were using in the space breaks down and you need a totally unintuitive one to treat this 1-dimensional version as a metric space. It wouldn't be fun to play a game in.
The reason is that R^n has the same cardinality as R. You could create a bijection between the set of 2-dimensional real coordinates to the set of 1-dimensional reals by using every even positioned digit to represent the X value and odd positioned digits for the Y.
The issue with this is that the intuitive metric you were using in the space breaks down and you need a totally unintuitive one to treat this 1-dimensional version as a metric space. It wouldn't be fun to play a game in.
> I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that being able to define any point by a single coordinate is what makes it "one-dimensional."
You're missing the fact that several different definitions of dimension exist. If we're talking about topological dimension, then yes, the fact that you need exactly one parameter to define a point is what makes it one-dimensional.
You're missing the fact that several different definitions of dimension exist. If we're talking about topological dimension, then yes, the fact that you need exactly one parameter to define a point is what makes it one-dimensional.
Anyone ever tried playing chess in one dimension? I bet that would melt your brain. Ok, that actually sounds like it might be fun to mock-up.
I played around with this idea. First transforming the visual representation of the chess board and then seeing how I would describe the moves of the pieces and whether it was more / less intuitive.
It is easy to view the board as 64 consecutive spaces (left-to-right through the ranks, then snaking through the ranks, and then a circular representation. The circle was cool because the moves became rotations (a rook can stay in its octant or move an exact multiple of 45 degrees...). I did some 2D transformations with a one space skew on each rank (this made the bishop act simultaneously like a rook and knight which was interesting).
So it is easy to preserve the rules of chess and create a different visual representation of the board. Of course, every one I tried just made the game more difficult to understand. I wonder if there is a transform that could aid in understanding chess.
It is easy to view the board as 64 consecutive spaces (left-to-right through the ranks, then snaking through the ranks, and then a circular representation. The circle was cool because the moves became rotations (a rook can stay in its octant or move an exact multiple of 45 degrees...). I did some 2D transformations with a one space skew on each rank (this made the bishop act simultaneously like a rook and knight which was interesting).
So it is easy to preserve the rules of chess and create a different visual representation of the board. Of course, every one I tried just made the game more difficult to understand. I wonder if there is a transform that could aid in understanding chess.
Using that bijection, you are still describing two sets of coordinates, you have just encoded them into a single number by interleaving them. Also, you won't be able to define points in certain quadrants of the cartesian coordinate space using that system because you have no way to make just the x coordinates or just the y coordinates negative. Depending on how you define the meaning of a negative interleaved coordinate, you could have access to any pair of two quadrants (+x/+y and -x/+y or +x/+y and +x/-y, etc.).
Unless you just use the first two digits as sign bits - if num would encode to (x,y) then instead you have 00num = (x,y), 01num = (x,-y), 10num = (-x,y), 11num = (-x, -y)
Any line, really, but let's go with a spiral. The natural coordinate is its arc - there is no rule saying only cartesian coordinates are allowed. Indeed, geographers use latitude and longitude instead, saving a full coordinate.
Lattitude and longitude still make two coordintes…
I was not asking about position on a curve, I was asking about the curve itself.
...which is one less than the three it would take to represent points on a sphere in cartesian coordinates.
If you want me to describe the curve itself, you are essentially asking for an embedding - there are infinitely many of those, and they will depend on the dimension and coordinate system of the superspace.
Of course it's impossible to explicitly describe an embedding without reference to the superspace, but that only goes for one level - you can ignore said superspace when describing the interior of the subspace.
If you want me to describe the curve itself, you are essentially asking for an embedding - there are infinitely many of those, and they will depend on the dimension and coordinate system of the superspace.
Of course it's impossible to explicitly describe an embedding without reference to the superspace, but that only goes for one level - you can ignore said superspace when describing the interior of the subspace.
What makes it one-dimensional is the fact that you need only one coordinate to describe where you are on the curved line.
The sad thing is that most FPS are now 1D as well : one big long corridor...
I know exactly what you mean. I have stopped classifying many of the new ones as games. Instead I refer to most of them as Interactive experiences which is more suited to them for what they do.
I know it was made in 2008, but I'm really enjoying Far Cry 2 at the moment, which is about as far removed from an on-rails shooter as you can get.
Far Cry 2 is by a fair distance the best most recent game I've played in some time - it's the only one I keep coming back to. A lot of people found it repetitive (shooting up guardposts etc.), but I don't approach it like that. I like to get around the map stirring up as little heat as possible, and get more fun out of the tension of sneaking past. Before I start any mission, I pull out my map and plan my route - which bits by bus, which by river, which gaps between guardposts, etc. And for the missions themselves, I like to tactically dominate them - take out snipers from distance, find high ground (often ex-sniper posts), burn the place out if suitable, then mop up. If I get hit even once, or seen when I didn't mean to be, I consider it almost a failure. Crysis was remarkably poor by comparison - the suit completely ruins gameplay for people who like to sneak, because it removes the stress.
Far Cry 2 really was a glorious experiment in immersion—for some it seemed to fail spectacularly, and for others (like you and I) it seemed to hit some nerve in just the right way.
I play the game very similarly to you. Have you tried the self—imposed permadeath route? I did one play that way—didn't end up beating it, of course—and it was a hell of an experience.
I play the game very similarly to you. Have you tried the self—imposed permadeath route? I did one play that way—didn't end up beating it, of course—and it was a hell of an experience.
I try to play most FPS games as if death is permanent, though I don't make such a rule. Rather, I simply don't enjoy the kamikaze rush that pays off maybe 80-95% of the time but looks like something out of a Hollywood action movie (this seems more the style where Crysis was targeted), but rather the reasoned, considered approach that works out 99.5% or higher (and might be a realistic approach if one were actually living in the game universe). Immersion just doesn't work for me if I can't do that.
So I don't like CoD and other linear shooters which present you with a series of scripted shooting galleries and a quota of targets to hit before allowing progress (it's utterly mindless); nor do I like (any more) the Quake / Doom style of horror "surprises", where long straight corridors and shadowy alcoves are near certain to contain unpleasant ambushes (it almost punishes foresight); and nor do I like Half-Life 2 and its episodes, which do not reward exploration or observation - every possible "bad outcome" is blatantly and repeatedly telegraphed, and almost every interesting alcove turns out to actually be the way forward because the obvious way forward turns out to be blocked: HL2+ are over-designed.
With more and more games focused towards consoles, lacking first person (I would have enjoyed GTA4 more if it were first person outside vehicles), and with "crouch in cover mode" features activated by dedicated controls (I thought ducking in and out of cover was part of the challenge?), I sometimes fear the depth I seek is getting harder to find. But I'm not sure. Games like the Thief series, Deus Ex, Far Cry 1 & 2, and modern RPGs like Oblivion and Fallout, are probably actually coming out with roughly the same regularity as always, just that memory compresses them.
So I don't like CoD and other linear shooters which present you with a series of scripted shooting galleries and a quota of targets to hit before allowing progress (it's utterly mindless); nor do I like (any more) the Quake / Doom style of horror "surprises", where long straight corridors and shadowy alcoves are near certain to contain unpleasant ambushes (it almost punishes foresight); and nor do I like Half-Life 2 and its episodes, which do not reward exploration or observation - every possible "bad outcome" is blatantly and repeatedly telegraphed, and almost every interesting alcove turns out to actually be the way forward because the obvious way forward turns out to be blocked: HL2+ are over-designed.
With more and more games focused towards consoles, lacking first person (I would have enjoyed GTA4 more if it were first person outside vehicles), and with "crouch in cover mode" features activated by dedicated controls (I thought ducking in and out of cover was part of the challenge?), I sometimes fear the depth I seek is getting harder to find. But I'm not sure. Games like the Thief series, Deus Ex, Far Cry 1 & 2, and modern RPGs like Oblivion and Fallout, are probably actually coming out with roughly the same regularity as always, just that memory compresses them.
1.5D would have added that half-realistic quality which is sadly lacking in this unrealistic shadow game.
First thought: people living in parallel 5D universes must find 3D games boring to hell :)
First thought: people living in parallel 5D universes must find 3D games boring to hell
Just for the sake of argument, don't 3D games also include the 4th dimension? Surely a marketing guy from a games must have tried "NEW 4D ACTION YEAH!"-sloganed advertising by now?
Just for the sake of argument, don't 3D games also include the 4th dimension? Surely a marketing guy from a games must have tried "NEW 4D ACTION YEAH!"-sloganed advertising by now?
You mean time? Not really. Few games allow any movement backwards in time, and practically none have free interaction with this "fourth" dimension as they have with the other three.
Lots of games allow some movement backwards in time. They're called save points :)
Agreed, that's why I wrote free interaction, meaning the same kind of freedom you have in the other dimensions. Achron is the only concept I know of that has fairly free interaction with time. However, there are a number of games that have deeper interaction with time than just save games, consider the variety of games that now offer some sort of "rewind" feature of the kind pioneered (afaik) by Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.
If you want a game that allows more complicated movement in time, there is Achron (http://www.achrongame.com/site/).
There's also a 4th spatial dimension. The 4th dimension does not automatically equal time - it is only considered that when talking about "space-time".
also, check out Braid (braidgame.com) for a fun puzzle game that requires you to consider time travel.
also, check out Braid (braidgame.com) for a fun puzzle game that requires you to consider time travel.
I just landed and I can confirm that things are very bland here (and somewhat confusing).
I love the idea, I just wish there were more of a game there! I think this might be do-able with timing puzzles, perhaps, or having to open doors on the right, then double-back, and open a door behind you, etc.
It's a great concept for a joke, but It'd be even cooler if it were playable, more than just move-right, shoot stuff ;)
It's a great concept for a joke, but It'd be even cooler if it were playable, more than just move-right, shoot stuff ;)
Very cool. I've been working on a 1d roguelike for a while, similar approach. Although a bit easier to know what's going on there because you get symbols rather than shadows.
Did the original Wolfenstein also feature the Horst Wessel Lied?
BTW, Castle Wolfenstein's scenery is based on Wewelsburg [1] which housed a SS 'school' before WW2.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wewelsburg#The_Wewelsburg_SS_Sc...
BTW, Castle Wolfenstein's scenery is based on Wewelsburg [1] which housed a SS 'school' before WW2.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wewelsburg#The_Wewelsburg_SS_Sc...
I believe all the sounds and music are direct rips from the original game.
Wolfenstein 3D != Castle Wolfenstein
The latter was a game almost 30 years ago on Apple ][ (and other 8 bit machines?).
The latter was a game almost 30 years ago on Apple ][ (and other 8 bit machines?).
Ah yes.
By "original wolfenstein" I understood "wolf3d" (as opposed to the new wolf1d).
By "original wolfenstein" I understood "wolf3d" (as opposed to the new wolf1d).
I'm much better at this advanced 1D version. :D
Even just listening to the audio was great.
Freekin' Genius! I think this can be used as a relaxation exercise. Low input, low stress gaming. Only wish the whole screen didn't go read when you died. What's even more interesting is that I started imagining the bad guys after a little while.... hmm, are you sure it's 1-D, I'd argue it was 1Di.
Very cool
A buddy in college updated the old Trek73 game with a 3d version. It was colossally confusing to play. In response I wrote Trek1D which was played very like this game. My universe had stars, which had to be gotten around by firing up the warp engines and entering the 2nd dimension!
A buddy in college updated the old Trek73 game with a 3d version. It was colossally confusing to play. In response I wrote Trek1D which was played very like this game. My universe had stars, which had to be gotten around by firing up the warp engines and entering the 2nd dimension!
I've just finished reading Flatland by Edwin Abbott, a really good read in which a Square from Flatland (a 2-D land) gets pulled up into Spaceland (3-D land) and then down into Lineland (1-D land). This is Wolfenstein in Lineland.
Why CTRL for shoot? It doesn't work in my browser for who knows what number of reasons, rendering the game unplayable. Games running on unknown hardware should stick to common keys which can be expected to work/exist.
I imagine CTRL was chosen for historical reasons; it was the fire key on the original game.
Isn't this some weird sort of Turing machine?
EDIT: also isn't it 2d, seeing as it has to include the dimension of time?
EDIT: also isn't it 2d, seeing as it has to include the dimension of time?
Well then Wolfenstein3D should be Wolfenstein4D
EDIT : I would say the number of dimensions is roughly the number of coordinates you need to store the position of a sprit in the game. (In this sens, Wolf3D is not real 3D since the third dimension (up-down) is just "emulated".)
EDIT : I would say the number of dimensions is roughly the number of coordinates you need to store the position of a sprit in the game. (In this sens, Wolf3D is not real 3D since the third dimension (up-down) is just "emulated".)
Waiting for Wolfenstein 4d.
Is it still two dimensional if one of the dimensions is only observed in a single of its smallest divisibly sized unit?
Nah, because a single number defines your position in the world.
There is no movement or freedom along the axis you're talking about.
There is no movement or freedom along the axis you're talking about.
To be fair, if it were first-person, it would be 1d. You'd just have the one pixel of what was in front of you.
No coordinate system required, that would be Wolf0D.
Sure you would, to determine how far into the level you were. I wasn't talking about changing the level, just putting it in a first person view.
"How far" implies length, something which implicitly requires another dimension, at least "another" when considered from the perspective of a "viewer" in 1D space.
How does "in front of you" exist in 1d?
It would exist. If something exists, it's in front of you. If something exists, it's displayed on the screen with the single pixel you see in the game. I assume you'd differentiate with pixel color, like this game does.
I look forward to playing this on my 800XL.
MEMORIEZ!
The game is actually two dimensional in the sense that videos are considered three dimensional. The independent variables involved are the 1-D line and time.
(Sorry just got up from studying signal processing, couldn't help but point that out).
(Sorry just got up from studying signal processing, couldn't help but point that out).
Nobody calls Quake a 4D game.
Well they should, because with just 3 co-ordinates you would be able to define the point in space and that is not enough. Dimension refers to the minimum number of independent variables that must be used to define a given point.
Anyho, a little sense of humor would not have killed you you know.
Anyho, a little sense of humor would not have killed you you know.
this is not 1d it is obviously 2d because it has a x and a y coordinate (1px * 300px), why call it 1d ?...i dont get it! maybe someone can explane that.
Some people have too much time on their hands. :-)