a 1D videogame. I'm looking for how people might describe one, alternatively if you simply think such a thing can't exist tell me that, or give an example of what you might consider a 1D game.
Printable View
a 1D videogame. I'm looking for how people might describe one, alternatively if you simply think such a thing can't exist tell me that, or give an example of what you might consider a 1D game.
I don't think it could be possible. I'd think you need to move in at least two dimensions to play a game.
Yep it is possible, some of the old Tiger LCD games where 1D games. You can also play 1D tetris here. :D
Nah, it's only going in one direction, but the 1D section is composed of 2-dimensional squares?
Since the second dimension isn't variable the game is based entirely in one dimension. The width of the squares only exists to allow us to view them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eviltaco64
This is certainly one dimensional, but not a game.
Do you mean 1d gameplay, graphics or both? Graphically 1d would be a single pixel line going of either left to right or up to down. I suppose you could have breaks in the line but thats about it. Im not sure what sort of game would be in that.
1d gameplay is something we've all seen. Space invaders would be 1d gameplay in my book.
EDIT: On second thought wouldnt 1d graphics be impossible? A line going right to left would have one dimension going right to left but wouldnt any width be considered an up to down, vertical dimension? Arent at least 2 dimensions necessary to be visible?
Here is another game with 1D game play.
http://unfaegne.eorl.googlepages.com/1d.htm
Early one on one fighters would be considered 1D before they added sidestepping.
In space invaders your control is one deimensional, but the game is not, the invaders go left and right then down. You have to take all of their movement into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE
Yeah, space invaders was a bad example. You know what I was getting at though.Quote:
Originally Posted by quzar
1D game could be plausible but least entertaining.
On a side note I was watching the science channel and a physicist was explaining that we humans have a fourth dimension but don't have free access to it. He easily explained our dimensions using videogames which was pretty cool and the future of gaming is looking incredible, they have created real life pacman with use of fancy helmets and a gps system. Just looks like tag though lol
The 4th dimension we live in is time.
sound?
a rhythm game with no visuals… at all.
all interaction must begin and end as a point, therefore only single button presses and no analog controls.
Frequency with the TV turned off?
I was talking strictly visual/spatial dimensions. I figured the way to augment it would be color, size, audio, and vibration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Accordion
Hell, all rhythm games ARE essentially 1D. The desired action moves across a line, when it reaches the end, you have to push a button. What makes them still fun is the method of interaction and the music.
How can any visuals be 1D.
Even a flat colour produces a 2D shape on the screen itself, and requires 2d information to draw to the screen.
So unless you can use strictly 1D media [?] then any visuals must be 2D due to the method of viewing.
Yes, obviously, but that's like saying we have no console game is 3D because it can only be displayed on a 3D screen. The format requires you to render any visual into 2D, but that doesn't mean it isn't 1D. In this way I would say that any graphic in which only one spatial dimension may have variable characteristics is 1D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Accordion
........... 1D
-------- 1D
---_---- 2D
::::::::: 1D
::::;:::: 2D
The xbox portables that came in the cereal boxes
1d graphics just arent logically possible. If you want to cheat and go with as close to 1d as possible then you're back to the whole game based on a singe line thing.
Again, by that same reasoning, 3D console games pretty much don't exist. Just because the medium forces 2D doesn't mean the content has to be 2D.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE
But having any form of movement along a line provides a dimension. 3D games are 3D because they enable 3D interaction, xyz. Any movement of any shape, point, line surely becomes 2D due to the definition of its movement
The only realistic possibility of 1D is of single points with single instances. Single pixels, independent, yet cohesive perhaps.
———
Its certainly a very interesting concept, why do you ask?
My immediate thought was those games for the deaf...
Single line? makes me think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vib_Ribbon
You're right, to a point. A line though, as long as it's characteristics are uniform, could be a 1D object. Once any slice that represents the line is given a unique characteristic, then the slice of the line exists in more than the requisite way needed to represent the object on a 2 dimensional display. My previous example still holds, but one can also not have different colors on a single object.
I had pondered little bits on the subject a while ago, deciding that to make any 1D game interesting, the lack of visual/spatial dimensions would simply have to be made up for in the interactivity of audio and tensile interaction with the user.
Then while reading a bunch of essays on different theory unrelated to this I thought "How to beat a 1D game" would be an awesome title for an essay/article.
Edit: man, I thought we had a plugin/patch that alerted users that new posts had been made since they checked the thread to prevent responding to the wrong post.
Google Z-rox. Therein lies the answer.
It's only 1D in the way all 3D games on televisions are 2D, it has you conceive of higher dimension in a lower one. In this case, it represents 2D objects to you using one spatial dimension, and time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virii
Very interesting though, thank you for the link.