Search In
• More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

# Game Theorists "Doom Wasn't 3D" video and my refutation

## Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, QuotePilgrim said:

Consider the following:

Reveal hidden contents

Here we have two images showing an imp (red) and Doomguy (green). Each grid square is 64x64 units. Suppose the imp shoots a fireball at Doomguy, and to make the math simpler, assume that it starts from the bottom left of the imp's bounding box and hits Doomguy when it reaches the bottom left of his bounding box. For the sake of argument, let's say the fireball travels 64 units per second, meaning it'll take two seconds to hit Doomguy in the first example.

How long do you think it will take in the scenario represented in the second scenario? Well, the fireball has to travel about 286 units, which means it should take approximately 4.47 seconds to hit Doomguy, right? Well, yes, but actually no. If you test this scenario in the vanilla Doom engine, what you'll find is that the fireball takes the same amount of time to hit Doomguy, even though that require it to travel in 3D space a much larger distance in the second example.

The only reasonable explanation for why this happens is that the fireball's movement vector doesn't have a z component, it only has x and y components, which means as far as the engine is concerned, the distance between the imp and the player in both scenarios is the same. Does this seem like true 3D to you?

You're forgetting a key fact here: Doom is not "in 3D space." It isn't bound by any of the rules you are borrowing from your environment. It's just a simulation. Things don't actually "travel" in the game the way things seem to travel in real life. They just hop from position to position, each game tic, and they do so based on the instructions given by the programmer. In real newtonian life, it takes longer to travel more distance at the same speed. In a simulation however, that relationship doesn't exist unless you implement it. A doom projectile is allowed to maintain x/y velocity regardless of change in z position, because that's how the code was written. Doesn't make it any more or less 3d, it just means the rules are different than normal physics.

I feel that the phrase "true 3D" sort of misleads you to think that the presence of a third dimension is either amplified or diminished by other capabilities of an engine. If a game involves movement along more than two axes, it's 3D. Even in Wolfenstein, where you only move on two axes, the appearance of height makes it 3D. Sure, it's restricted to the rules of the engine, but so is Quake. In that engine the particles are two dimentional, does that mean Quake isn't "true" 3D? What is true or full 3D, other than a hologram?

##### Link to post
2 hours ago, AinuTheTaken said:

At the end of the day dimension is just a term we drooling simians invented to be able to talk about space, coordinates, distances, and stuff like that with measurability. You will never be able to observe a 2D in nature or even a 3D in nature because it's not a thing. This is why it's wholly inappropriate to say somebody is stupid if they doubt Doom is 3D. "I doubt Doom is 3D" is not a claim about what Doom is, it's a claim about what 3D is. This should, in fact, be more than obvious.

Just because terms were invented by humans doesn’t mean they don’t have an objective definition. Three dimensional requires the existence of length, width and height all of which Doom has. It’s pretty simple.

QuotePilgrim seems to be questioning if the actually game logic/actor functions use any 3D logic, and was incorrectly assuming only 2D logic was used. Edward has showed him right from wrong with various examples of all 3 axes being taken into account in game logic. When a player bumps his head on the roof, it’s because the Z position of the player’s head finally hit the Z height of the ceiling. If the game logic truly was only taking two dimensions into account, the entire concept of being able to bump your head on a ceiling would be impossible. Same goes with fireballs, items, whatever else - the examples of Doom not working at all without 3D game logic are so numerous.

If someone doubts it, it’s pretty much my duty at this point to lead them to the truth. There’s a lot of BS floating around out there..

##### Link to post

Worth noting that yes, it is technically true that a projectile moves perceptively faster if it needs to travel across the Z further, because the projectiles launch speed is only significant to the x and y axes to act as the direction, the Z momentum is instead calculated on the distance instead to match the theoretical time when it would collide with the target. However the catch is this is only relevant to the launch calculation of the projectile, you can change this logic to apply the speed to all 3 momentum axes and Doom would happily accept this. However it would be slower to calculate this on the lowly 486 CPUs we had at the time.

None of this affects the actual per-frame calculation of the x/y/z movement, it would continue to work just the same regardless of which method you used to calculate the initial speed across each dimension. You could apply this logic to Quake and end up with the exact same thing.

##### Link to post

I like to think that imps just "throw harder" when their target is above them and "gravity" pulls projectiles down faster when their target is below.

##### Link to post
5 hours ago, AinuTheTaken said:

At the end of the day dimension is just a term we drooling simians invented to be able to talk about space, coordinates, distances, and stuff like that with measurability. You will never be able to observe a 2D in nature or even a 3D in nature because it's not a thing. This is why it's wholly inappropriate to say somebody is stupid if they doubt Doom is 3D. "I doubt Doom is 3D" is not a claim about what Doom is, it's a claim about what 3D is. This should, in fact, be more than obvious.

I know this is a poorly disguised troll post, but I'll bite regardless:

So, we invented the word dimensions to be able to talk about space, coordinates, and distances - all of which also being words we "drooling simians" invented as well - but that doesn't mean a Neanderthal - who had no means of sophisticated communication - didn't understand that a rock in his hand wasn't "flat". We invented units of measurement in order to be able to measure something. "Dimension" doesn't measure anything at all, because it's not a unit in the sense of what you are referring to. So perhaps get your facts straight first.

Granted, perhaps I won't be able to observe a 2D space in nature, unless you count a flat surface like a desk or a sheet of paper, but 3D? Do you not look into your room and understand it has height, width, and depth? Did you loose an eye and your depth perception consequently? You can clearly observe the three dimensional space you're in. If people couldn't see the three dimensional space, and realize its implications, we wouldn't even have the need to come up with a word for it.

Yeah, it is wholly stupid to say doom is not 3D, and I don't care how far you're pushing the goalposts around to support your pseudo scientific narrative. Why do you think is it, that there are no debates about Doom'16 not being 3D? Where are the debates about Elite:Dangerous, and how it's not 3D? You know why these debates don't exist? Because those games don't have "infinitely tall actors" - which by the way is a misnomer - like classic doom does, and to top the list off, "game theory" didn't make a video about it either.

Of course, "I doubt doom is 3D" is a claim about doom. It's implicit by way of grammar and context. This should, in fact, be more than obvious.

Edited by Nine Inch Heels

##### Link to post

I know this thread is a few years old but since it’s already been bumped... I think that we can blame Id software for this whole “true 3D” thing. They are the ones who marketed Quake as being “true 3D” before anyone else. They started this argument, but it was never intended to be an argument. It was a way of getting people to talk about the new game and get hyped for purchase.

The technical jargon of what is and isn’t true 3D can be argued forever, but I think when people see “Doom is not true 3D” they somehow infer that means the game must be strictly 2D.

I’ll have to get a scan of my Hexen strategy guide sometime, the foreword talks about this very subject and I remember the author explaining it well, but they definitely didn’t claim Doom to be 2D, but the whole “true 3D” thing is seen in this book as well, and it was published before Quake’s release.

##### Link to post

The "true 3D" argument about quake was largely due to polygon models instead of 2D sprites, and "room above room" rather than anything else. I think that is something to consider when looking at what started this argument way back.

##### Link to post

Yes, that’s why I wanted to share the Hexen strategy guide’s foreword. It specifically mentioned room over rooms, 2.5D, etc., but I have to get back home first before I can scan that section. I thought it was interesting that this argument is still somehow ongoing even after all this time. I didn’t know there were people who thought the game was strictly 2D until I saw this thread today.

##### Link to post

Descent got released before Quake 1. And the former game was the first FPS to feature a true 3D environment.

##### Link to post

anyway, some scientists recently found that if they assume that our world is 2,71828182845904523536-dimensional, it makes more sense with some calculations. so in the end of the day, our own world could be not "true 3D". we could be living in 2.7D game after all.

##### Link to post

If Doom isn't three dimensional then how do you explain this?

##### Link to post

This whole debate reminds me of the "Are Walking Simulators Games?" debate from years ago.

Let's say Doom is either 2D, 2.5D or 3D.  So what?  Does it win a prize?  Does it get its tag forcibly changed on Steam so it doesn't show up next to other "more 3D" games?  Why is it important to classify Doom in such a reductive way, especially when the end result on-screen is unarguably a reasonable facsimile of 3D space?

If we need a term to classify games that looks 3D but whose three dimensions are not treated holistically by the engine, that might be a good road to go down.  But "2.5D" and "3D" aren't the terms we should be using.  Especially not "2.5D" - that term was taken by isometric 3D already.

##### Link to post

@Doomkid When I described the example with the imp fireball in the comment section of your video, you said you were absolutely certain the fireball would take longer to reach the player because of the larger distance. That's not the case at all, the fireball takes the same amount of time to hit the player, and I've yet to see you admit you were wrong about that.

Yes, I made assumptions about how the engine handles things, but I have not claimed that the engine completely ignores the z axis, or that it only uses 2D logic. I may have said something of the sort on YouTube, but never once in this thread. And I definitely didn't say Doom isn't 3D, nor even implied it, not here, not on YouTube -- that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that Doom handles the z axis differently from the xy plane, in a way that prioritizes movement on the xy plane and movement on the z axis is just extrapolated from that.

In other words, I'm saying it is 3D, but a weird 3D where horizontal movement takes priority over vertical movement.

I know things now about the engine that I didn't when I wrote my first post so, naturally, I said things that were incorrect. However, I'm confident that the scenario I described in my first post in this thread still proves my point. Also I read some of the engine's code, and from what I understand it does support it. For instance, the fact that the engine has two functions to handle movement, P_XYMovement and P_ZMovement is consistent with the idea that it handles xy movement separately from z movement -- which is, and I apologize for repeating myself, the only claim I actually made. Whether this means it prioritizes x and y over z or z over x and y is unclear to me from just reading the code because to be quite honest I don't really understand a lot of it (I'm more familiar with C++ than C). However, from observing the way things behave in-game, I'm pretty sure it indicates the former rather than the latter.

@AinuTheTaken Being invented doesn't mean not being real, if that's what you were implying. The three dimensions of space are very, very real. There is a very real possibility there may be more, but I don't think anyone has proven that yet. And no, time is not a dimension of space. Also mathematics is at a very fundamental level entirely based on making assumptions; that is what axioms are. Much like the concept of dimensions, all of mathematics is invented.

To everyone, I apologize for bumping this thread. I will point out that Doomkid has directly told me to do so a couple days ago, but it's still my fault and an error in judgement on my part. I'll try not to bother y'all again with any of this.

##### Link to post

I consider Doom not being fully 3D personally.

Mainly because of stuff like "Infinite Height" that seems to apply to explosions and monsters and "floor over floor" being impossible. The game looks 3D but it plays out like a 2D game in a lot of ways. Calling Doom a 2.5D, to me, is the most sensible thing to do.

##### Link to post

Just my tuppence worth...

These points are discussed aplenty above, but it seems the summary is something like this:

- Objective real-world three dimensionality is not the same as mathematical 3D theoretical space

- Mathematics (and therefore programming) can simulate real-world Newtonian physics to a degree based on the complexity of the mathematics used

- Older hardware is less able to rapidly calculate the rapid change in positions of objects in a simulated 3D space

- therefore, compromises needed to be made to deliver a satisfactory playable experience.

So, is Doom 3D?

Yes.

it is a mathematical simulation of real-world 3D behaviour, designed to be a 3D experience, coded to be usable on hardware of its time. The behaviours quoted above to refute the 3D-ness are simply the manifestations of the necessary compromises to get the game running well.

Granted, modern games running on vastly more powerful hardware have mathematical simulations of real-world 3D space that are more accurate in terms of how the virtual 3D objects behave, but that doesn't make them any more or less '3D' - they are again designed as mathematical simulations of real world 3D behaviour.

##### Link to post
1 hour ago, QuotePilgrim said:

Yes, I made assumptions about how the engine handles things, but I have not claimed that the engine completely ignores the z axis, or that it only uses 2D logic. I may have said something of the sort on YouTube, but never once in this thread.

Uhhh lol you sure about that?

On 12/2/2020 at 1:36 PM, QuotePilgrim said:

The only reasonable explanation for why this happens is that the fireball's movement vector doesn't have a z component, it only has x and y components, which means as far as the engine is concerned, the distance between the imp and the player in both scenarios is the same. Does this seem like true 3D to you?

On 12/2/2020 at 1:36 PM, QuotePilgrim said:

Bear in mind, I am not necessarily implying Doom is a 2D game. It is 3D in the way that matters, in that it renders its world in three dimensions. However, the way things move in the 3D environment created by the engine is not how things really move in 3D space, and is much closer -- basically identical, in fact -- to how things move on a 2D plane.

22 hours ago, QuotePilgrim said:

But, the way objects movement behaves is identical to how objects constrained to a 2D plane move. The way the engine calculates movement completely disregar﻿ds the Z axis, which is proven by how, when seen from a top down view, the movement of the imp projectile is identical in both examples, which it shouldn't be, if the movement was calculated correctly in 3D, the projectile would appear to move slower when seen from above. As far as the engine is concerned, the projectile is traveling the same distance in both, and is moving at the same speed in the second example, not faster.

21 hours ago, QuotePilgrim said:

To me that seems to indicate the object doesn't really have a z velocity attached to it,

21 hours ago, QuotePilgrim said:

The way the projectile moves is just ﻿much simpler and makes more sense if you think of its movement as being entirely described by a 2D vector. If the movement was truly calculated as a 3D vector, the projectile would have to take longer to hit the player in the second picture, which is not what happens. The engine just doesn't behave as if it's calculating distances in the z coordinate, at all.

It may be a good idea to do research and ask questions before starting a debate, but definitely don't overtly lie mid-debate lol.

1 hour ago, QuotePilgrim said:

To everyone, I apologize for bumping this thread. I will point out that Doomkid has directly told me to do so a couple days ago, but it's still my fault and an error in judgement on my part. I'll try not to b﻿other y'all again with any of this.

Way to accept accountability for something nobody seriously cares about lol. People like the discussion, bumping this thread was not a bad thing, but maybe next time doing the smallest bit of research would go a long way heh, as would talking to people rather than at them, like when it was pointed out that Doom actually does calculate a z-axis and instead you stuck by your uninformed guns for a few more posts. Also,

1 hour ago, QuotePilgrim said:

@Doomkid When I described the example with the imp fireball in the comment section of your video, you said you were absolutely certain the fireball would take longer to reach the player because of the larger distance. That's not the case at all, the fireball takes the same amount of time to hit the player, and I've yet to see you admit you were wrong about that.

You do realize Doomkid isn't like the definitive, authoritative source of all knowledge on Doom rite? Why don't you take your own advice instead of acting super entitled and self-victimizing. Never once have you admitted you were wrong, why should anybody else owe you that courtesy? All you've done here is move your goalposts when proven to be wrong, but oh no you weren't actually wrong you just made assumptions (which turned out to be wrong) and you still stick by your guns on a point who's foundational pieces of logic and evidence are crumbling beneath you.

Next time if you're gonna talk to a bunch of nerds who are probably fairly knowledgeable on the subject matter, approach things with an attitude of learning rather than debate, because you still have so much to learn.

Edited by Fonze

##### Link to post
1 hour ago, Thermal Lance said:

Mainly because of stuff like "Infinite Height" that seems to apply to explosions and monsters and "floor over floor" being impossible. The game looks 3D but it plays out like a 2D game in a lot of ways. Calling Doom a 2.5D, to me, is the most sensible thing to do.

So... what would Wolf3D be to you, then?

##### Link to post
Just now, seed said:

So... what would Wolf3D be to you, then?

A game that looks 3D but plays like a top down 2D shooter? To me... it's kind of the same thing. To me, a true 3D game needs to both LOOK 3D and play the part as well. Otherwise, we would need to acknowledge that maze war is one of the first fully 3D game.

##### Link to post

How does Wolf 3D play like a top down shooter? Has NOBODY played the game here at Doomworld? This is something I see brought up all the time on here, and that it’s just mazes after mazes for 60 levels. I get that people can just not like the game, sure, but the way I hear it described sounds nothing like how the game PLAYS for me.

##### Link to post

Yeah, that makes no sense to me either. The player always walks on a single plane in that game, there's no height variation whatsoever, just endless corridors after corridors and mazes, few "open" rooms, etc. It's a lot more limited than Doom in all respects.

Do you know how top-down shooters look like, Thermal? Wolf3D was a FPS.

##### Link to post
1 minute ago, Gerolf said:

How does Wolf 3D play like a top down shooter? Has NOBODY played the game here at Doomworld? This is something I see brought up all the time on here, and that it’s just mazes after mazes for 60 levels. I get that people can just not like the game, sure, but the way I hear it described sounds nothing like how the game PLAYS for me.

I love Wolf3D. But, you could literally make no change to the gameplay and move the camera on top and it would still work. Does it look 3D? Yes. But, Wolfenstein's gameplay does not benefit from the third dimension beyond the visuals.

To me. Wolfenstein is a 2.5D. But, I'm just a bloke on the internet. My opinion means little in the grand scheme of things.

##### Link to post
1 minute ago, seed said:

Yeah, that makes no sense to me either. The player always walks on a single plane in that game, there's no height variation whatsoever, just endless corridors after corridors and mazes, few "open" rooms, etc. It's a lot more limited than Doom in all respects.

Do you know how top-down shooters look like, Thermal? Wolf3D was a FPS.

Yeah, but you could re-create it as a top down shooter with absolutely no gameplay changes and it would still work. Because the game takes no "advantages" from a third dimension. Beyond the visual that is.

Sorry for the kinda repeat-posting.

##### Link to post

Games like Tunnel Runner on Atari 2600 are what I think of when I hear “2.5D maze game”, not Wolf 3D. Look at how that game moves and controls and compare that to Wolfenstein 3D. There is a big difference.

##### Link to post
37 minutes ago, Thermal Lance said:

I love Wolf3D. But, you could literally make no change to the gameplay and move the camera on top and it would still work. Does it look 3D? Yes. But, Wolfenstein's gameplay does not benefit from the third dimension beyond the visuals.

But that's the point. The game is designed to look and feel 3D.

I think there is a distinction needed here between accuracy of mathematical 3D modelling and 3D representation on - lets face it - a flat surface (a picture essentially).

It is perfectly possible to have a highly complex mathematical simulation that aims to model the real 3D world and physics (weather computers for example) that don't actually display these 3D models on a screen.

We need to distinguish whether we are talking about an abstract mathematical/computational 3D space (that may or may not project a graphical representation of that mathematical abstraction onto a screen) and a primarily visual computational 3D space like - well, taking an example at random - Doom.

The former is an academic focus that does not necessarily need to be real time or even observed by a person, and the latter is designed as - well - a game.

The answer to the OP question is somewhat subjective therefore, and depends on which meaning of '3D' you want to base your answer on.

For me, Doom, and other 3D shooters, are designed to be a playable representation of a plausible 3D space, with pragmatic limitations built in to allow it to actually run on available hardware. Quake, for example, is a more mathematically accurate model of plausible 3D spaces and therefore requires better hardware to run...

Does Doom strive to model the 'real' 3D world? No - but that does not make it any less a 3D game.

Edited by smeghammer

##### Link to post
5 minutes ago, smeghammer said:

But that's the point. The game is designed to look and feel 3D.

I think there is a distinction needed here between accuracy of mathematical 3D modelling and 3D representation on - lets face it - a flat surface (a picture essentially).

It is perfectly possible to have a highly complex mathematical simulation that aims to model the real 3D world and physics (weather computers for example) that don't actually display these 3D models on a screen.

We need to distinguish whether we are talking about an abstract mathematical/computational 3D space (that may or may not project a graphical representation of that mathematical abstraction onto a screen) and a primarily visual computational 3D space like - well, taking an example at random - Doom.

The former is an academic focus that does not necessarily need to be real time or even observed by a person, and the latter is designed as - well - a game.

The answer to the OP question is somewhat subjective therefore, and depends on which meaning of '3D' you want to base your answer on.

For me, Doom, and other 3D shooters, are designed to be a playable representation of a real 3D space, with pragmatic limitations built in to allow it to actually run on available hardware. Quake, for example, is a more mathematically accurate model of real 3D spaces and therefore requires better hardware to run...

Does Doom strive to model the 'real' 3D world? No - but that does not make it any less a 3D game.

Yeah, depends on what we base our answer on.

To me, a fully 3D game needs to take full advantage of it to be considered that... a fully 3D game. Descent for example is a fully 3D game for me since it takes full advantage of it with no compromise. Quake as well. But, if we speak strictly visuals. Doom is 3D. But, on the gameplay end of thing, a lot of compromises have been made. Which is the reason why I see it as a 2.5D.

Case and point. I do not "disagree" with you or anything. I simply have a different definition for what should be considered a fully 3D game.

##### Link to post
1 minute ago, Thermal Lance said:

I simply have a different definition for what should be considered a fully 3D game.

Absolutely - that's my point.

TBH I was of a similar opinion when I was younger and considered Doom less than 'true' 3D for similar reasons to those you argue. I've got older and crustier and changed my mind :-)

##### Link to post
16 minutes ago, smeghammer said:

Absolutely - that's my point.

TBH I was of a similar opinion when I was younger and considered Doom less than 'true' 3D for similar reasons to those you argue. I've got older and crustier and changed my mind :-)

I don't think I'll change my mind anytime soon. XD I'll probably die on that hill.

But, at the end of the day, I don't really care if it's true 3D or not. Still is my favorite game.

##### Link to post

This is amazing. QuotePilgrim gets into a lengthy back and forth with my on YT where they repeatedly argue from ignorance, I tell them to come ask about it here if they really doubt my claims (even though I’ve already easily proven Doom is 3D in the video in question) and then I am somehow framed as having done something wrong by directing them here.

@QuotePilgrim, in future, rather than arguing from a position of blatant ignorance, I urge you to learn about topics before taking an authoritative and argumentative tone on said topics as you did in the YT thread where I ended up directing you here. You know what? As fireballs move along the X, Y and Z axes, which fundamentally requires 3 dimensions to even make sense, the Z trajectory is not taken into account when setting speed. So yes, on that one minor, entirely unimportant point - ya got me.

This is just so weird. I will forever stand by my position that people who make stuff up whole-cloth just to “prove” Doom is not 3D are sort of like the flat Earthers of the gaming realm. When proof is shown multiple times from multiple angles, the goal posts are either moved or the facts are just denied outright. I’ve seen so, SO many fantastical “refutations” of my “Doom is 3D” videos to the point where it’s no longer interesting from a game mechanics perspective, but still baffles me from a human psychology perspective!

##### Link to post
15 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

This is amazing. QuotePilgrim gets into a lengthy back and forth with my on YT where they repeatedly argue from ignorance, I tell them to come ask about it here if they really doubt my claims (even though I’ve already easily proven Doom is 3D in the video in question) and then I am somehow framed as having done something wrong by directing them here.

@QuotePilgrim, in future, rather than arguing from a position of blatant ignorance, I urge you to learn about topics before taking an authoritative and argumentative tone on said topics as you did in the YT thread where I ended up directing you here. You know what? As fireballs move along the X, Y and Z axes, which fundamentally requires 3 dimensions to even make sense, the Z trajectory is not taken into account when setting speed. So yes, on that one minor, entirely unimportant point - ya got me.

This is just so weird. I will forever stand by my position that people who make stuff up whole-cloth just to “prove” Doom is not 3D are sort of like the flat Earthers of the gaming realm. When proof is shown multiple times from multiple angles, the goal posts are either moved or the facts are just denied outright. I’ve seen so, SO many fantastical “refutations” of my “Doom is 3D” videos to the point where it’s no longer interesting from a game mechanics perspective, but still baffles me from a human psychology perspective!

I think people are confused.

There's quite a large difference between the game being 3D and the game being a "full 3D experience". I think people keep mixing up those 2 things when, really, it should be two different debate.

##### Link to post
8 hours ago, Fonze said:

Uhhh lol you sure about that?

The things you quoted is not me saying the engine only uses 3D logic, it's me analyzing an oddity in the way projectiles behave, in which, if we make the assumption the projectile is moving at the same speed in both pictures, the only logical conclusion is that the velocity at which the projectile is traveling vertically is equal to 0; the assumption may well be incorrect, but is a reasonable assumption to make, and that is indeed the only conclusion that can be derived from that assumption.

At least I thought that's I was doing, I wasn't lying, I just didn't remember exactly what I wrote. Upon rereading, yes, I implied the engine uses only 2D logic in that scenario, which was incorrect. My bad.

8 hours ago, Fonze said:

Never once have you admitted you were wrong

Now that is a blatant lie. To quote myself:

10 hours ago, QuotePilgrim said:

I said things that were incorrect.﻿﻿

Maybe that's not good enough for you. It's good enough for me. I was wrong, and I said as much, what more do you want?

8 hours ago, Fonze said:

Next time if you're gonna talk to a bunch of nerds who are probably fairly knowledgeable on the subject matter, approach things with an attitude of learning rather than debate.

That is good advice, I'll remember that. Believe it or not, I'm not here to fight with anyone. I apologize if my attitude was too confrontational.

6 hours ago, Doomkid said:

So yes, on that one minor, entirely unimportant point - ya got me. ﻿

It may be unimportant to you, which is fair, but it matters a lot to me. This one oddity in how the engine treats movement proves that the way 3D space is handled by the engine does not quite match the way it should be handled if handled correctly. In my opinion at least, this is an important thing to know about the game. YMMV, I guess.

6 hours ago, Doomkid said:

I will forever stand by my position that people who make stuff up whole-cloth just to “prove” Doom is not 3D are sort of like the flat Earthers of the gaming realm.

I have never claimed Doom is not 3D, though. You are misrepresenting what I said. I may have said a lot of incorrect, even outright dumb stuff, but "Doom is not 3D" is one hundred percent not one of them.

6 hours ago, Doomkid said:

then I am somehow framed as having done something wrong by directing them here.

I only brought up the fact that you directed me here because 1) people complained that I bumped the thread and 2) I got warned by a moderator for doing so. Of course you didn't do anything wrong by directing me here. What I meant is that I probably should have just dropped the subject there on YouTube and not posted here at all. The damage is done now, there's nothing I can do.

I apologize for any grief I may have caused you. I have watched several of your videos in the past and you seem like a really good guy, I hold no animosity towards you, however hard it may be to believe. Again, I'm sorry.

.

One more time, I apologize for bothering y'all with all of this crap, next time I'll think twice before saying anything. It'll probably be best for everyone including myself. I'll refrain from posting any further on this thread, unless I guess someone asks me a direct question or something of the sort, which I doubt will happen anyway.

Have a good day, everyone.

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account