My Original Vision Of Worms 3D [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : My Original Vision Of Worms 3D

Lex
2 Aug 2006, 23:23
When I first heard Worms 3D was in the works, way back in 2000, I imagined it a certain way which was so great and exciting. When I started to see Worms 3D promotional media, I was dismayed at the lack of similarity between my vision and Team17's, partially because of the tetanus-infected ("Tetanus" is the medical name for what is commonly known as "lockjaw". I say tetanus because of the horrible pulling-back-and-down of the ends of their mouths.) worm models, but mostly because of the extremely-zoomed-in camera and lack of the playability-ease which existed in the 2nd-generation Worms games.
My vision of Worms 3D was so much better, as it allowed everything that was in Worms Armageddon and Worms World Party to be in 3D. I thought it was obvious that this is what Team17 should have done. I don't see why they made it so different.
In my vision, a 3D worm would be the same distance from the camera as it is in Worms Armageddon. That is, the worm would take up roughly the same amount of screen space as a WA worm. The camera would always be looking at the worm from the side, just like in Worms Armageddon. There would be an optional frontal view or first-person view, but mainly, the gameplay looked like WA. This would be possible by showing a cross-section of the landscape, cut at the spot the worm is standing, with the land that would be invisible actually being visible, but partially (mostly) transparent. This would allow for caverns and suchlike, also. There may be a key to view the land in front opaquely, or a key to hold and drag the mouse to view land in front of the cross-section to a certain distance, depending on where you dragged the mouse. That key could even be a mouse button. That way, you could see whatever you wanted on the entire terrain, including caverns inside the land.
The controls would be exactly the same as Worms Armageddon, except there would be added keys for rotation (For ease of gameplay and/or roping, these keys could merely rotate the worm exactly 90 degrees. There may be other keys for fine-adjustment, but the 90-degree keys make sense. That or 45 degrees.), and perhaps the use of the mouse for rotation while aiming around.
Roping with the same rope physics as those in Worms Armageddon would be possible, with the added requirement of using rotational keys. This would not be difficult to learn for someone who already knows how to rope from W2, WA, or WWP. A worm on a rope (or anywhere else, for that matter) would only move in 2 dimensions, unless the player uses the rotational keys. It need-not be realistic to be fun. The rotational keys would rotate the entire rope from the attachment or bend point, as that is most logical, though not necessarily realistic.
Maps would be made of poxels, 3-dimensional pixels, instead of 3D vectors, and would be an array of many two-dimensional images, so players could make and import their own maps. The maps would take a ridiculously long time to make and would be quite tedious, but at least there would be map-making functionality, unlike the lack of that in the actual 3rd-generation Worms games. Perhaps there could be software which renders 3D vector maps to 3D poxel maps. That would dramatically improve map-making speed.
Anyway, do you see what I mean? It has the incredible fun of the old games, merely with an added dimension to expand the fun! Maybe it would take too much computer resource to run nowadays, but if it ever wouldn't, I think Team17 should go back and rewrite Worms 3D the right way. What say-you?
Edit: Here's an afterthought: The 3D view might have to be orthonormal rather than perspective, so that everything in the plane would be to scale, as we see in Worms Armageddon. Or, to keep the background seperate from the plane currently in full view, there might have to be a mixture of orthonormal and perspective view, where the currently-viewed plane would be orthonormal and the and the rest would be perspective. I'm not exactly sure how that works from a mathematical standpoint. However, I'm not sure a purely-perspective view would be too bad. Take a look here (http://download.blender.org/documentation/html/gfx/chapter_interface/3DPerspective.png) and here (http://download.blender.org/documentation/html/interface_3d.html#BSG.IFA.F.MAK.3D3) for a display and explanation of the difference between perspective and orthonormal views.
Edit: I just had an idea! Orthonormal view would be amazing for this 3D Worms if it looked exactly like WA, but with 3D stuff in the background that was drawn orthonormally, and then decreased in brightness about 50%! Or maybe, what is drawn in the background is decreased in brightness depending on how far away it is from the current plane! Sweet. That would work so well.
Edit: If that were to be how it worked, there would have to be no semi-transparent land in front of the currently-viewed plane, as it wouldn't make sense visually. The land in front of the current plane would have to be invisible; only visible by clicking and dragging the mouse to change the currently-viewed plane.
The advantages of having the orthonormal view would be that you could see everything accurately to the last detail, and it would be extremely easy to navigate around with the mouse. There would need-not be vertical rotation or zooming. Panning around the current plane would look just like in WA.
Because of the pure quantity of poxels to render, the engine would have to be run on quite fast machines with lots of RAM. Like I said earlier, maybe it couldn't be done on current hardware, but eventually, RAM in a normal PC will be ample for this sort of engine.

Lex
2 Aug 2006, 23:52
MadEwokHerd asked some relevant questions. Here they are. This conversation should hopefully answer some of the initial questions others will have, too.18:33:17 LexSfX: http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=30018
18:36:00 MadEwokHerd: so if you're shooting the bazooka, you rotate the camera and then aim like in wa?
18:36:00 LexSfX: [Auto-Response]: I'm asleep.
18:36:03 LexSfX: yeah.
18:36:10 LexSfX: i'm not asleep. *changes status.*
18:36:24 MadEwokHerd: keeping in mind that the bazooka doesn't necessarily stay in the plane you're looking at
18:36:28 MadEwokHerd: because of wind
18:36:31 LexSfX: i know. :)
18:36:51 LexSfX: but it would be less confusing than the current W3D!
18:37:01 MadEwokHerd: this is new to me
18:37:14 LexSfX: have you ever played W3D?
18:37:17 MadEwokHerd: yes
18:37:19 MadEwokHerd: I have it
18:37:22 MadEwokHerd: it runs on wine
18:37:31 LexSfX: it's very very difficult.
18:37:40 LexSfX: that is, because of its controls.
18:37:41 MadEwokHerd: I was actually pretty ok at the bazooka
18:37:55 LexSfX: yeah, because of its first-person view, right?
18:38:06 MadEwokHerd: right
18:38:08 LexSfX: there could be a first-person view in my vision of W3D too.
18:38:16 MadEwokHerd: I wouldn't use it :p
18:38:19 LexSfX: me neither. :P
18:38:36 MadEwokHerd: I'm sure I'd end up being so much better with the side view
18:38:44 LexSfX: yeah, same with everyone else!
18:38:48 LexSfX: it would be awesome.
18:38:52 MadEwokHerd: I'm not sure..
18:39:07 MadEwokHerd: you need to be able to see the land in front of the worm
18:39:14 MadEwokHerd: I know you say it should be semi-transparent
18:39:19 LexSfX: nono
18:39:32 LexSfX: did you read the part about dragging the mouse to see parts you can't see?
18:39:42 LexSfX: to make different planes opaque
18:40:06 LexSfX: :)
18:40:07 MadEwokHerd: sounds complicated..
18:40:18 LexSfX: but not as complicated as the current W3D
18:40:24 MadEwokHerd: "This would be possible by showing a cross-section of the landscape, cut at the spot the worm is standing, with the land that was "invisible" actually being very faintly visible."
18:40:36 MadEwokHerd: faintly visible != semitransparent?
18:40:40 LexSfX: yes.
18:40:46 LexSfX: i should edit that.
18:41:41 MadEwokHerd: wouldn't you end up looking "into" the land too much?
18:42:07 LexSfX: not if it was close enough to being transparent.
18:42:16 MadEwokHerd: well
18:42:21 MadEwokHerd: say I'm standing on a ball
18:42:38 MadEwokHerd: wouldn't I end up really seeing the inside of the ball instead of the outside?
18:42:42 LexSfX: is it okay if i post this chatlog on the forum when you're done with questions?
18:42:50 LexSfX: no, you wouldn't.
18:42:56 MadEwokHerd: it's fine
18:43:11 LexSfX: you'd see the solid inside of the ball where it's cross-sectioned.
18:43:23 MadEwokHerd: uh huh..
18:43:24 LexSfX: maybe with a pattern, like in WA.
18:43:31 MadEwokHerd: you don't see the inside of the worms though, right?
18:43:35 LexSfX: and the worm would be standing on top.
18:43:39 LexSfX: no.
18:43:42 MadEwokHerd: makes sense
18:43:48 LexSfX: :)
18:43:50 MadEwokHerd: that's probably possible
18:44:20 MadEwokHerd: I'm not sure how convincing you could make the cross-section when you're looking at different places?
18:45:01 LexSfX: you don't need to be seeing your worm while you're looking around, just like in WA. you'd just see the cross-section of whatever plane you're looking at.
18:45:07 MadEwokHerd: I'm thinking you shouldn't be able to rotate the rope while it's attached
18:45:14 LexSfX: not at all?
18:45:27 MadEwokHerd: maybe slowly
18:45:30 MadEwokHerd: like the up/down thing
18:45:34 LexSfX: yeah, that's what i thought.
18:45:41 LexSfX: exactly that speed.
18:45:44 MadEwokHerd: but it'd have to stop if the rope couldn't be in the plane anymore
18:45:52 LexSfX: indeed.
18:45:53 LexSfX: :)
18:45:55 LexSfX: exactly!
18:46:03 LexSfX: it would work so nicely.

Lex
2 Aug 2006, 23:54
There was more, but the post included too many smilies. Why are smilies parsed to images in the "code" vbtag? That doesn't make sense. That's definitely a forum bug. The point of the "code" tag is that nothing is parsed.18:46:20 MadEwokHerd: uh
18:46:32 MadEwokHerd: W3D has 3-dimensional wind?
18:46:39 LexSfX: yeah. it's not very smart.
18:46:50 LexSfX: the wind can be vertical.
18:46:51 LexSfX: lol.
18:46:59 MadEwokHerd: are you sure?
18:47:04 LexSfX: yep.
18:47:09 MadEwokHerd: gg
18:47:25 MadEwokHerd: I don't believe you :p
18:47:33 MadEwokHerd: you must be mistaken
18:47:40 LexSfX: :o well, it does.
18:48:14 MadEwokHerd: I'm not convinced it'd be possible to see enough to play it peoperly
18:48:16 MadEwokHerd: *properly
18:48:26 LexSfX: it does sound pretty unbelievable. it doesn't really make sense.
18:48:34 MadEwokHerd: but maybe it could work
18:49:54 LexSfX: done? :) i'll post this then?
18:49:59 MadEwokHerd: sure
18:50:30 MadEwokHerd: uh
18:51:04 MadEwokHerd: so how many extra buttons do you need..
18:51:11 MadEwokHerd: there's the first-person camera
18:51:24 MadEwokHerd: probably an overhead camera would be nice
18:51:39 LexSfX: yeah.
18:51:41 MadEwokHerd: I don't think I'd want the normal W3D camers
18:51:46 MadEwokHerd: *camera
18:51:48 LexSfX: agreed.
18:52:07 MadEwokHerd: maybe you shouldn't be able to use the first-person camera to aim
18:52:11 MadEwokHerd: I like my 2d shotgun
18:53:17 LexSfX: agreed there too. :P
18:53:25 MadEwokHerd: then there's rotation
18:53:35 LexSfX: or, if you were to use the shotgun in first-person, it would shake.
18:53:53 LexSfX: like in Deus Ex.
18:53:55 MadEwokHerd: 90 degrees left, 90 degrees right, 180 degrees, slow left, slow right
18:54:09 LexSfX: yeah.
18:55:06 MadEwokHerd: ok, say you're standing on some stairs
18:55:29 MadEwokHerd: but you're looking parallel to the stairs
18:55:37 MadEwokHerd: they go down away from you
18:55:43 MadEwokHerd: you can't see that that happens, can you?
18:55:53 MadEwokHerd: er
18:55:54 MadEwokHerd: sorry
18:56:01 MadEwokHerd: you're looking perpendicular to the stairs
18:56:09 MadEwokHerd: you just see a platform
18:56:12 LexSfX: yeah, you can't see the stairs behind.
18:56:28 LexSfX: you can look at them by dragging your mouse with a button held though.
18:56:36 LexSfX: or rotating.
18:56:40 MadEwokHerd: 180 degrees
18:57:01 LexSfX: or 90
18:57:11 LexSfX: the worm could turn around instantly though, like in WA.
18:57:24 MadEwokHerd: well, you'd just be moving the camera
18:57:27 LexSfX: without rotating the camera.
18:57:33 MadEwokHerd: you don't have to turn at all until you walk or something
18:57:35 LexSfX: just pressing left or right.
18:59:56 LexSfX: alright, so, our conversation here is all posted, and should hopefully answer some of the initial questions other people will have, too. :)

Lex
3 Aug 2006, 00:21
Oh, oops. Maybe I was wrong about Worms 3D having 3-dimensional wind. Looking at the back of my Worms 3D CD case, at the screenshots, makes me suspect otherwise. Hmm.
Edit: Yeah, I was wrong. I'm not sure what I was thinking or where I got that idea from. I've edited the first post.

SiN
3 Aug 2006, 03:59
I think by "poxels" you meant "voxels". Poxels is the technology T17 came up with for Worms3D. Voxels is the technology that games like Delta Force and Outcast used "back in the day" :)
Your concept technically unfeasable. Consoles don't have the memory to store full voxel terrains, and even most PCs wouldn't be able to render high resolution voxel landscapes at acceptable speeds. At best, you'd have the game running at 640x480, *maybe* 800x600. The games I listed above ran at 512x384 when the norm was 800x600.
Which is besides the point really, because your setup is extremely unintuitive. The fact that you wouldnt really be able to see the whole map at once is silly. Yeah, you said you can move the camera and stuff, but you're still always in this cross-section view. Your vision seems to be Worms2D with an added half-visible third dimension.
SiN

Lex
3 Aug 2006, 04:45
Yes, I did mean "voxels". Thank you for the correction and enlightenment. :)
Yes, I realize it may not be technically feasable yet. I said so twice in the original post. :p Maybe a map resolution of 256×256×128 could be feasable, since that's only (exactly) 1MB of data in 256 colours. In monochrome, one of those numbers could be multiplied by 8. Hmm. But yeah, I guess rendering that much data would be slow.
What is your more-intuitive approach to having full 2nd-generation functionality while also having 3 dimensions? :) Actually, you're not quite right there about being always in this one view. You may also be able to have a top-down view to get a quick idea of the map layout. Also, in WA, you couldn't see the entire map at once unless you had a giant resolution and that was perfectly normal. It would only take a quick scan around to get the layout and I personally think part of the fun would be discovering all the map's intricacies over the course of the game. Like, teleporting deep inside a hidden cavern would be great fun, because the opponent wouldn't know where you were until he scanned with the plane-scanning functionality of holding the mouse button and dragging up to see other planes.

Anne
3 Aug 2006, 06:18
You know how games like Yoshi's Story are in 2 and a half D? the landscape looks three dimensional but you move on the 2d plane perpendicular to the camera, while things fall off in the foreground, background...
now imagine a 3d landscape of that sort. you can view it from either side of your worm... say he's facing one direction, you can see the map from exactly perpendicular to the direction he faces... either side. a button flips. a set of buttons zooms in or out. the mouse allows a free camera movement to the rest of the map, with full rotational functionality. when moving or using most weapons during your turn, the camera snaps back into side view... but let's call this perpendicular, level view the "turn view". much how the camera follows your worm in W:A during your turn, this view would track in that manner. the camera is a certain distance from your worm and can be temporarily (by holding a button) made to move... as if the worm was the center of the action and the camera was on a sphere around it. the camera could move upwards for a top down view, downwards for the opposite, or left or right. this is similar to the camera action on a certain N64 game but I can't remember which it is at the moment... you can be pressing forward to run forward and hold a C button and you will see yourself from the side, still running forward. meh...
take your turn view. if there is terrain in the view then that terrain automatically becomes transparent. if one angle is not too good then a simple flip to the other side should rectify the problem... unless you have land on all sides of you (such as in a pit). the transparency makes that sort of navigation possible. perhaps the actual terrain surface in these translucent pieces of land could be mapped over with a wireframe, to make the flow of the land visible and intuitive. with a lot of translucent soil in the way, it's not always easy to see critical elements (like say, the edge of the terrain that falls into the water). wireframe would help that immensely. edges of land over water could be bold. why doesn't w3d already have a warning beeper if you're close to a water ledge? the temporary panning buttons would allow a worm in any location short of a long underground tunnel to be seen in full directly, should the current position seem confusing due to translucent land in the way. the camera would always remain perpendicular to your worm's direction of walking, so even if you turn, you don't have to worry about accidently walking off a ledge...
worm walking would take extra buttons to turn on the z axis. the camera follows your worm to be exactly perpendicular to it. you see the power of this perpendicular view... it is not limited because the angle can be changed to different other perspectives for a glance... but by attaching the general idea of the worm's primary physical movement to an x and y axis, you are mimicing the 2d games. this is no accident... the side view is in keeping with the formula that works. its simple and fun. for launched weapons or guns the view can become first person. or not. someone's else's call. maybe even an option in the game. all your 2d fun is preserved, but the full three dimensions will be taken advantage of. call it a merging of the two games... i find it difficult to fully explain what i visualise.
i also know exactly how to make this game feasible in terms of computational power, and simultaneously make maps easy and fun to make. are you familiar with rollercoaster tycoon, the series of PC games? land is divided into squares... not too big, not too small, a few hundred on screen at any one time. each square has a physical height from sea level, 0, and any of the four corners of the square can be angled upwards or downwards, allowing complex hills and valleys or simple large slopes. soil images are mapped onto this simple matrix in memory. it would not require much more processor power to allow the allocation of empty spaces inside terrain (caverns, tunnels), with ceilings having the same angling options as ground. consider that RCT runs well on even older PCs and it has to render much, much more than several objects and worms on a terrain. their system is common to many sim-style games. there is a reason it is common.
how's that lex?
edit: i like my map idea a LOT now. 20x20x20 pixel cubes? that requires maybe a few bytes per section. as opposed to 8,000 bytes for that same 20x20x20 pixel area in 256 color, if it was rendered by 3d pixel. RCT also has a lot of land editing tools to shape the terrain into ditches and mountains, or large areas at once can be shaped, and those could be integrated into this system for fun and simple yet possibly very intricate custom terrains. imagine playing bng on an array of various sized spheres floating above the water, some perhaps very far away from each other...

Lex
3 Aug 2006, 07:07
Your description of a side-view (that is, a cross-section) is pretty-much exactly what I had in mind.
Yes, I thought of having the terrain in levels, but that wouldn't allow under-ground things at all, unless there was data for that position on the map which said something like, in bytes, "3 spacial types being either land or air. x height of land. x height of air. x height of land." That would reduce the memory storage requirements significantly. However, that's just a compression method that any good voxel image format could have.

Plasma
3 Aug 2006, 16:07
The problems with a side view camera for W3D instead of the current one include:
1: Wind would have to be removed entirely. The wind would cause the projectiles to bend into a third plane, and you can't have a 1D wind like in W2D.
2: It would be very hard to navigate in the side view. This is because in 3D, unlike 2D, you are able to go around obstacles. In the side view, it would be very akward to see the best route to go around.

Lex
3 Aug 2006, 19:03
1: Wind would have to be removed entirely. The wind would cause the projectiles to bend into a third plane, and you can't have a 1D wind like in W2D.Did you read MadEwokHerd's first question? I realize that 2D wind would make the projectiles go into another plane. It would be fine, imo. One could compensate appropriately. At least it would be better than the current W3D for firing bazookas! In that, the only practical way to hit someone with a bazooka is by being able to see them in the first-person view.2: It would be very hard to navigate in the side view. This is because in 3D, unlike 2D, you are able to go around obstacles. In the side view, it would be very akward to see the best route to go around.I completely disagree. A quick scan with the click-drag method and/or an overhead peek would give you a good idea of the routes to walk. I hope you are seeing the same idea in your head as I am. :) From the sounds of it, you are picturing that you would only be able to see the one plane. You wouldn't only be able to see one plane at a time. The game would look 3D at first glance, for sure. I wish I could show you an example of the engine I have visualized. Hmm.

NotWorthy
3 Aug 2006, 22:33
There is a probable threat in the last subject mentioned. There might be caverns with tight spots which would seem unpassable but actually would have a slim opening but only at a proper crossection rotation - liek i dunno 132.23. The rotation varations must be smooth, precise and unlimted no question about it and that could prove a problem when ur adding hundreds of a degree just to find a way thru using up all ur turn time.

Lex
3 Aug 2006, 23:11
Hmmm. Now that you explain it like that, I agree. It's a difficult problem. However, it couldn't really be solved without trying the engine first and coming up with a solution then, I think.
Of course I do see why Team17 decided not to do it this way. It's too risky. However, if the idea could be figured out completely, it might work well.

quakerworm
4 Aug 2006, 04:46
as a side note, bazooka shot does allways stay in a plane, though, not necessarily in a vertical one. the way it is simulated in w3d, wind force has the effect of the horizontal addition to the gravity. more precise simulation of wind would require heavier computations for both the collision checks and the ai. this shortcut has been used in all worms games to date.

AndrewTaylor
4 Aug 2006, 12:13
Every so often someone suggests something like this -- usually a system whereby a 3D landscape is sliced up so that the player can shoot in 2D. But as far as I can see it's just a neither-one-thing-nor-the-other chimera of 3D and 2D Worms that doesn't really capture the fun of either. It's unintuitive and a bit weird, and could only really be played by nerds (which wouldn't affect the online scene much but would impact heavily on profits).
If you want to make 2D shots, play a 2D game -- it's far simpler, easier, and you do well by being better at shooting, strategy, and terrain navigation rather than being handy with the overengineered interface (see also, Mechwarrior). If you want to play on a 3D landscape, do so in 3D -- aiming in 3D, whatever you might think, is not difficult. If it was, then FPS games wouldn't exist, and those that did wouldn't have grenades in them. It's just a different skill to 2D shooting, and it's one you have to practice, or choose not to bother with.
Worms3D already has most of the functionality you described. For example, get a grenade out. Go to the first person view, and look directly at your target. Then switch to blimp mode, spin the camera so you're looking roughly perpendicularly at your worm, and use the up and down keys (or the up and down on the D-pad) to adjust your aim. Press fire. You have taken a shot in a good approximation of 2D, all in a simple and transparent interface.
Slicing systems are great for CT scanners and suchlike, but I can't see many people wanting to play a game in one. Zoom out the camera, by all means; that would help a lot. But don't overengineer Worms. It's, at its heart, an incredibly simple game concept, and it should stay that way. It is, and should remain, the players that make it complex.

Lex
4 Aug 2006, 14:16
Yeah, I guess most of the problem is with the zoom and scale of the worms to the landscape. I agree with most of your points, Andrew. I suppose the engine itself doesn't need to be revamped. The biggest problems I had with Worms 3D were: the camera locking (inability to zoom out or pan around without changing the view type completely, and therefore, worms taking up much too much screen space), the scaling (Worms being way too big in comparison with the size of the map), the lack of map-making ability, the lack of caverns (Worms generally live underground, don't they?) and the rope.
The current rope could easily be changed to how I suggested and MadEwokHerd and I discussed it, I think, while retaining the current simplistic perspective engine. Is there any ability to rotate on the rope in W4M? What are the differences between W4M and W3D? Does W4M allow semi-transparent walls which would have blocked your view? I am just curious, because to be honest, I've never played W4M. From its screenshots, it looks very similar to W3D.
Throwing grenades over hills to hit a target on the other side in W3D is crazily difficult. It's possible, and I did practice getting decent at it, but it's so much more difficult than it should be. Perhaps my ideas could be combined with the current engine, where there could be a cross-section view which allowed grenades to be thrown in 2D, in addition to the first-person view and the general third-person view. Hmm. Something intuitive could be made by combining these ideas, don't you think?

Plasma
4 Aug 2006, 14:27
Throwing grenades over hills to hit a target on the other side in W3D is crazily difficult. It's possible, and I did practice getting decent at it, but it's so much more difficult than it should be.
1: It's not that hard, presuming the enemy isn't on a bit of a steep hill.
2: Grenades were supposed to be the weapon used for bouncing off walls and reaching places that would be hard with a bazooka. If the only obstacle between you and him is a hill, then you should use a bazooka.

Lex
5 Aug 2006, 03:52
So you're saying I should zook over hills, compensating for wind? Isn't it a bit difficult to see where you're zooking to with the current W3D? Isn't it a bit difficult to get a perspective of distance without being able to zoom out or pan around at all? I'd really like to see a video of you zooking a worm you can't directly see, while also compensating for wind that is above 0, in W3D (or W4M, if it has any improvements in that area). Do you have a PC that can run Fraps decently while playing W3D?
Also, is anyone here good with manipulating the W3D rope, or knows someone who is? I was thinking maybe I just didn't get a good feel for it when playing W3D, and that maybe some people are quite good at it now, and can flip up to other islands or fly over to somewhere useful without much difficulty.

Anne
6 Aug 2006, 08:46
see, my visualisation was very similar to w3d and could easily be the same engine... lex, your idea is too, if you think about it. make the camera more robust, scale the worms down or the landscape up, and use the side view Andrew described, and you have a grenade shot as i explained it. instead of talking about a whole new game, its probably simpler to talk about everything in the context of small modifications to w3d that would make it a much better game. it would be a lot easier to play if just a few of the weapon firing systems were more flexible.
also it is worth noting that in lex's example of a worm over a hill, it is not always possible to use the bazooka based on the wind. and i would hate to have to line up a steep wind shot using a first person camera view...
i don't own w3d and i sort of wish i did, because then i would know a bit more about how the terrains are stored. there has to be a way to write a utility that could create these maps.
now, forgive me if it's been talked about before, or in the works already, but i'm going to go expanding again into the land of this-would-be-cool-but-it'll-never-happen... a simple, fast, practical modification to the basic w3d engine that would allow caverns... quite awesome caverns, actually:
w3d in a true cavern, a small hollowed out portion completely surrounded on all sides by dirt, is not very practical, because of the confines of the camera. you'd have to use all sorts of transparency effects to allow any sort of zoomed out view at all. but i think a simulated cavern... essentially an existing style w3d terrain with a ceiling put on top, stretching off in all directions into the darkness... now that would be very nice, and very easy to do. maybe as an option, instead of water, there could be a fixed floor of sorts... a certain layer of dirt at the bottom that no blast could put a crater in. this is essentially the indestructable border from other worms games, but made to be dark like the ground. (a yellow and red striped line doesn't translate well to 3d.) if you can't picture that, or if it sounds too complicated to you, imagine a normal map, surrounded by ocean. ..... to make this a cavern, at a reasonably good height above the bottom of the map, another seemingly infinite sheet of solid, indestructable terrain serves as the ceiling. imagine being in a dimly lit room with cathedral ceilings, but no walls all around you as far as you can see in every direction. the idea that the cavern is vast and expands in all directions... a feat similar to the endless ocean, achieved simply by fading to black. the actual working area of the map is confined to a certain radius / shape, like current w3d maps, so that worms may not move out past this (they simply stop), and any weapons fired off into the area echo and disappear into the void, not unlike splashing and sinking in water. so there you have yourself the basis of a cavern. it seems like a very simple modification to existing w3 terrain style... essentially just changing the background from an endless sea and sky to an endless sea with a cave background, or simply the color black. then, the camera has a restriction placed on it so that it keeps below the "ceiling". the infinite space around the map is maintained, so that the camera can zoom and move properly, and is never trapped in a corner, or anything complicated like that. anything that hits the ceiling bounces off or blows up just like it was terrain, and no strike weapons are available. does this sound like a pretty simple modification to the engine to you? it seems to be to me... enough to merit looking into. it's essentially a change of the background, and a top border representing the ceiling. the map maker is the person putting in the most effort to make the level look nice... i'm sure lots of nice embelishments could be added by someone creating the terrain; stalactites can be put on the ceiling, made in the style of normal, destructable terrain. there can be murky, dripping sound effects.
something about playing in a vast underground area lit by burning torches... i would really like that.

AndrewTaylor
6 Aug 2006, 11:15
I think the poxel engine would be another pretty major barrier to fully enclosed caverns. For caverns you'd want to have a more Red Faction-like system where (I assume; I've not seen the code) a polygon model is distorted. You might be able to make a hybrid, like W4 does, where the cavern walls are controlled seperately to a load of poxel objects inside them, because poxels are by far the better system if you're going to be deforming the terrain a lot.
The ceiling idea is a good one, but I would hate it if there was an invisible wall around the level. One of the things I loved about W:A was that the play area was infinite (even though the actual levels weren't). You could fire a missile past the end of the island and let the wind drag it back. You'd be better off, I think, with an infinite ceiling and an island in an underground lake (or ludicrously deep pit). That way it would play like the cavern levels in W:A -- if you're blown off the sides, you die.
Plus, you could have the ceiling vanish completely in blimp mode -- perhaps replaced by a sparse grid of yellow lines or something to mark how high it is. No fancy transparency effects would be needed, just cull backfaces.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
I think the thing about W3D really, is that it feels very much like you are one particular worm, in a team, rather than as if you are the distant commander in control of the whole team that you feel like in 2D games. When I play W:A I tend to single out an enemy worm who's sat near the sea or on a high vantage point, or low on health or something, and set about working out the best way to dispatch him. In W3D I find myself sat in one particular worm scanning the horizons for people to attack -- everyone is sat by the sea, so there's no real need to single people out anymore. The bigger and more involved landscapes in Mayhem solve that problem to a large extent, but it would still be nice to be able to see the world from a greater distance without having to look down on it.

Lex
6 Aug 2006, 12:52
Yeah, Dennis, you're right! The engine doesn't need to be changed at all. Just some modifications to the camera and scaling would be wondrous.
Dennis, your underground idea is brilliant. :) That would be great. And yeah, Andrew, I agree that you'd need a pit or water at the bottom, off the edges of the island(s).
I believe K^2 wrote a program for editing W3D or W4M maps. Check it out over at Dream17 (http://dream17.co.uk), on the forums somewhere.
Andrew, how would a non-poxel engine be better for a cavern? I am just wondering because you didn't explain that.it would still be nice to be able to see the world from a greater distance without having to look down on it.Yes! Absolutely! The abilities to zoom out, rotate, and pan around via mouse controls would definitely not go amiss. :) That would make blimp mode completely obsolete.

AndrewTaylor
6 Aug 2006, 13:15
Well, I mean that you just couldn't make things like cavern walls out of poxels, because poxels define little clumps of land rather than edges like polygons do. You'd have to have a setup like the "indoor" levels in W3D -- make a giant roof and/or walls out of poxels. It doesn't really work -- that's why those levels had indestructable terrain, no blimp mode, and couldn't be played multiplayer. Poxels define objects, not rooms.
If you went with the roof-and-no-walls method then poxels (with a heighmap at the top and bottom) would work fine.

Plasma
6 Aug 2006, 13:17
And yeah, Andrew, I agree that you'd need a pit or water at the bottom, off the edges of the island(s)
Wouldn't that ruin the entire fun of having a cavern level?
Yes! Absolutely! The abilities to zoom out, rotate, and pan around via mouse controls would definitely not go amiss. That would make blimp mode completely obsolete.
W4M already has that. However, it isn't used very often because it's very impractical.

Lex
6 Aug 2006, 14:25
No, it wouldn't ruin any fun. Check Andrew's post for the reasoning for it.
How is it impractical? Does it not work very well? How so? Is it too slow? Too fast? Perhaps if it worked well and smoothly, it wouldn't be impractical at all. I haven't ever used it, though, because I've never played W4M. Could you describe it in some more detail please? :)

Plasma
6 Aug 2006, 16:39
No, it wouldn't ruin any fun. Check Andrew's post for the reasoning for it.
What I mean is that it basically means it's the exact same as a normal level, with the only difference being that there's a roof and no blimp view.
How is it impractical? Does it not work very well? How so? Is it too slow? Too fast? Perhaps if it worked well and smoothly, it wouldn't be impractical at all. I haven't ever used it, though, because I've never played W4M. Could you describe it in some more detail please? :)
Simply put, it allows you to move the camera without having to have the worm as the focus.
It works smoothly, but the problem is that it's too slow to be able to do anything with it if you still expect time for a worm. And if it went faster, I'm not sure if it would still be smooth.

AndrewTaylor
6 Aug 2006, 19:46
What I mean is that it basically means it's the exact same as a normal level, with the only difference being that there's a roof and no blimp view.
How is that not the same as a cavern map on W:A?

Lex
7 Aug 2006, 01:12
Lol. Silly Plasma. That's the intention. Yes. What Andrew said.
Well, the camera could be smoother and faster with faster computation. :)

kikumbob
11 Aug 2006, 21:56
Edit: Here's an afterthought: The 3D view might have to be orthonormal rather than perspective, so that everything in the plane would be to scale, as we see in Worms Armageddon. Or, to keep the background seperate from the plane currently in full view, there might have to be a mixture of orthonormal and perspective view, where the currently-viewed plane would be orthonormal and the and the rest would be perspective. I'm not exactly sure how that works from a mathematical standpoint. However, I'm not sure a purely-perspective view would be too bad. Take a look here and here for a display and explanation of the difference between perspective and orthonormal views. I see everything you said but this. You can't have an orthonormal view next to a perspective view. if you managed it it would really confuse you eyes.

AndrewTaylor
11 Aug 2006, 22:14
I see everything you said but this. You can't have an orthonormal view next to a perspective view. if you managed it it would really confuse you eyes.
You can, up to a point. In a perspective view, a plane normal to the camera would be represented orthonormally. (Well, depending on your projection, it could be.)

kikumbob
12 Aug 2006, 12:59
So that would mean that any given perspective view is actually already comprised partly of an orthonormal view?

Lex
12 Aug 2006, 13:11
Well, no.
Imagine that you are aiming a camera at a wall, perpendicularly to it. One side of your view will look farther from you than the center of your viewport.
What I was suggesting and Andrew is explaining is that, in this mixture, instead of there being a difference in distance between the middle and the edge of the viewport, based on a single viewing point in the distance, every point on the plane you are viewing would look like it is the same distance from the camera, as is seen in WA.
I hope I explained that sensically. If I didn't, but someone understands the concept, could they please explain it better? I'm tired.

AndrewTaylor
12 Aug 2006, 14:08
Try this. Imagine a whole series of W:A style maps, each slightly different than the last. Draw them all, from the "back" to the "front". But draw each one 100.01% the size of the previous one. You'll find you have a perspective effect. This was actually used sometimes on the SNES, notably in EWJ2 and DKC3. You can get incredibly complex graphics this way, as long as you limit camera motion, and you have a lot of memory to store it in.
You could replace it with a 3D polygon model and keep the camera projection trivially enough (at least, trivially mathematically. To code it might be a nightmare).
Edit: If you did this in a Worms game, you'd be able to have more maps in front drawn translucently, if you had that kind of CPU to burn (which you don't), and you could ave explosions take chunks out of slices in front of and behind the main one. That would look great if it was done right.

Nightwolf2
20 Aug 2006, 08:14
Lex,show us some screens from your version!

iamgood
20 Aug 2006, 15:22
I see exactly what you mean, Lex, I have imagined this concept myself, but like Andrew says, it just feels too complex, and like kikumbob says, orthoview would maybe be too hurting for your eyes in anything other than bird view.

bloopy
21 Aug 2006, 09:22
Mostly sounds quite good Lex, except...
an array of many two-dimensional images
...probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. :p If it's a 3D game, we might as well build 3D maps. I don't think many people would have trouble with a 3D terrain editor, whether it's something like the one in Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 or it's like playing with lego.
Edit: I just had an idea! Orthonormal view would be amazing for this 3D Worms if it looked exactly like WA, but with 3D stuff in the background that was drawn orthonormally, and then decreased in brightness about 50%! Or maybe, what is drawn in the background is decreased in brightness depending on how far away it is from the current plane! Sweet. That would work so well.
An orthonormal W3D is quite an odd thing to think about, but it could fit quite well with your vision. I suppose it would be possible to be able to switch between perspective and orthonormal, that could be a tad insane!
Anyway, I quite liked the look and feel of playing Worms in 3D as it is. I thought it was cute and good fun. The thing that disappointed me was the lack of making custom maps and being able to upload schemes to go with them. Also, the rope was indeed awkward. A few people managed to master it, but it is a lot more difficult to control than the 2D one.

Lex
21 Aug 2006, 13:30
I believe some of you have forgotten to read the rest of the thread, past the first post. :p

bloopy
24 Aug 2006, 08:42
Are you implying that some of our posts are redundant Lex? I read quite a lot of the thread, but your initial post was an interesting bit worth replying to.

Lex
24 Aug 2006, 23:49
Well, from the initial post, I had already changed my mind. For example, in post 20, I agree with Dennis' post 18 where he says that the engine doesn't really need to be revamped to a new system at all if only the camera control was improved and the Worms' sizes (relative to the landscape) was decreased.
However, I suppose it's perfectly okay to reply to my initial post.

HEAVYMETAL
4 Dec 2006, 19:42
Okay, I havn't read all of these posts here but I have an idea... I havn't given it much thought as the idea just came to me now, but here it goes:
Say the next Worms 3D game was on the DS...
Let's ignore all of the little issues that would come from doing that (lack of buttons maybe and lack of graphical power?).
What if... one screen displayed the map from a top view and one showed a side view.
The side view could be switched between left and right and could also be zoomed in. The top view could also allow you to zoom. Both would also allow you to scroll around.
As for which view goes to which screen... perhaps they could be switched by the press of a button (or like Yoshi's Island DS) a button combo.
I'm just throwing it out there. :P

Lex
5 Dec 2006, 01:40
Hehe. That reminds me of the professional 3D modelling software, Maya! That could work very well, even in split-screen on a PC monitor, or even on multiple monitors! You could do sideways BnG pretty easily that way! Nice idea, HEAVYMETAL. :)

HEAVYMETAL
5 Dec 2006, 07:15
Well thank you Lex. I suppose it could work just as well split screen on computers or on TVs with consoles but that said, I think this would be a nice way to utilize the DS' two screens. The only thing I can see being an issue is the power of the DS. I don't reall completely understand the technical draw-backs of the DS but I do know that it is capible of putting out some pretty nice 3D graphics.
Any technical reason why this couldn't be done that you guys can think of? I'm curious now.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.