## Gaming in the 4th Dimension 303

Posted
by
CmdrTaco

from the still-haven't-solved-3d dept.

from the still-haven't-solved-3d dept.

Wolf pointed me to a video clip demonstrating this game:

*Nothing to download yet.**"Miegakure*is a platform game where you explore the fourth dimension to solve puzzles. There is no trick; the game is entirely designed and programmed in 4D."

## So Many Questions (Score:5, Interesting)

In Miegakure, it appears that the player is controlling a fourth dimension except it's not too clear what fourth dimension actually represents to me. If Miegakure's fourth dimension was time, we would see some indication of natural decay of the environment to give us visual cues that it's aging. For example, if one ring were made of steel and the other of wood, the wood one would decay as we go to the future and then we would make some action that is "special" (meaning that it is not subjected to our time control) and then move the steel ring into the wood ring and blast back to when the wood ring existed. Our special action could not be undone otherwise you wouldn't get anywhere with being able to control time.

Miegakure seemed to invent non-natural transposed states of the environment that I, for the life of me, could not understand. How did I know which blocks would appear and disappear leaving only shadows? How do I know how far to go in a fourth dimensional direction? Must the player explore the available transposed states before planning their movements along all four dimensions? So that they can construct an interleaved solution?

And what happens with a now block exists in a shadow space and you try to transposition yourself to the point when the shadow space is occupied by another block? Does the game block you from making that transposition? What if you want to transpose to a point beyond that when it is a shadow space again? Is this a blocking mechanism that will add to the difficulty of the puzzle?

As someone ravaged by the Adventures of Lolo series on the NES, I could see a potentially high level of addiction here.

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Interesting)

Today's XKCD [xkcd.com] might help a bit. It's a world that has four spatial dimensions, like a hypercube. [wikipedia.org]

We haven't been able to find any evidence of "real" higher spatial dimensions (though theories abound), but thinking in an extra dimension is an interesting mental exercise nonetheless.

## Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

We haven't been able to find any evidence of "real" higher spatial dimensions

Though superstring theory requires 10 or 11 dimensions of space (from what little I understand), so serious physicists really believe those dimensions might exist.

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Informative)

Imagining the Tenth Dimension, Part 1 [youtube.com]

Imagining the Tenth Dimension, Part 2 [youtube.com]

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:3, Informative)

No, that's the zeroth. A point has no dimension.

## string theory (Score:3, Insightful)

providing no unique, testable predictions for over 20 years...

## Re:string theory (Score:5, Insightful)

Fixed that for you. Try to focus on what's really important, will you?

## Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

serious physicists really believe those dimensions might exist.

Serious physicists work on testable, proveable concepts. String theory is little more than an exercise in imagination and really hairy mathematics. It requires far too many variables to close and new ones are added as they realize that they can't get anything that resembles reality despite the wonderfulness of the math. I've (as an informed layman) have lost interest in this black hole for research funding. Serious physicists have too. The ones still "working" on string theory are doing so because dropping it would invalidate their entire careers.

## Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

I've been thinking about trying to make something like this for so long but I've never been able to work out a sensible way of switching dimensions.

Looks like these guys managed to make a decent game out of it.

I've gotta try this this evening.

Original thought was to try for 6 dimensions which you could rotate through but of course the number of points you need to keep track of going exponential- 4 points for a 2D square/rectangle, 8 points for a 3D cube, 16 for 4D, 32 for 5D, 64 for 6D....

this is an area wh

## Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

Watching the video, it appears (1) that the objects are all cubes, and (2) that all movement (in all dimensions) is in cube-sized jumps (although these are animated smoothly). This makes me think that the underlying representation is as 4d voxels.

If I'm counting cubes right, then the world shown is about 9x4x6 cube-units in the x,y,z-dimensions, and maybe 4 cube-units in the w-dimension. So you need a 9x4x6x4 voxel grid; that's 864 voxels, and can be represented as a bitfield with just 27 32-bit integers.

## Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

That's why there are only five elements, Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Quintessence, instead of the hundreds those wrong-headed "scientists" seem to think must exist. They claim there exist so many that they have to lay them out in a table to even make any sense of them! What's worse, they don't even know how many more there can be.

And Newtonian physics is

farsimpler than quantum theory, as well as simpler even than relativity. Aether is simpler than space-time. Creation is simpler than evolution. Homeopathy## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Interesting)

This doesn't seem so much like a "fourth dimension" as a form of "subspace" or an alternate 3D reality (then again I haven't played the game and maybe am picking things up wrong from the video).

I don't see how adding another dimension can magically allow two objects to become linked when they were unable to be linked in a lower dimension. Two circles on a piece of paper cannot physically merge with each other if you assume their boundaries are solid and cannot pass through each other. Neither can 2 rings lain on a table, or two cylinders or two spheres be overlapped without breaking them somewhere. So how would adding another dimension allow you to join two 3D objects with a hole in the middle, even if you only moved one of them into this higher dimension?

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Interesting)

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:4, Interesting)

Hmm... well that would similarly work for a sphere containing another sphere.. but a torus or any other object with a hole is surely a different class of object.. I'm not sure what the 2D representation of a torus would be..?

## Re: (Score:2)

a 2d representation of a torus would be a circle.

## Re: (Score:3, Informative)

Topologically, the torus can be identified with something called S1xS1 (the cartesian product of two "one-spheres", aka circles).

Likewise, the n-dimensional torus is the cartesian product of n copies of the circle.

This means that the one-dimenstional torus is just the plain old circle. In one dimension, the torus and sphere are the same thing.

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

Yeah I was wondering about moving something into an extra dimension and combining with something from the other dimension.. I suppose the fact is that here they were combining toruses which can actually be linked in 3D.. but I'm still dubious as to whether adding a dimension makes that any easier.. seems moving them into 2D and then back to 3D would be the simple way to do it, and that moving the objects into 4D would just make it even more difficult to manipulate the two objects in such a way that they wil

## Re: (Score:3, Informative)

## Re: (Score:2)

Still having trouble visualising moving a torus into 2D, let alone 4D.. you might think that getting an orthographic perspective of a 3D object can give you a 2D representation - it works for a circle.. but it doesn't really work for any asymmetric objects, including toruses.. I suppose if you don't actually add an extra dimension to a 3D object when transferring it into 4D space then from a 4D perspective it might be possible to make it

looklike the two objects have become joined without breaking any boun## Re: (Score:2)

The moment the torus is lifted in the 4th dimension, you'd see its disappear because it's 4th coordinate is different from yours. It's just like a Flatlander would see a ring disappear from their world if a 3D person lifts it along the 3rd dimension.

Then, fixed to the modified coordinate in the 4th dimension, you move the ring along 3D space such that its projection intersects the other torus. Then, you put

## Re: (Score:2)

Neither can 2 rings lain on a table

Yes you can - you simply aren't thinking in 2D. The operation required is to make 2 2D circles intersect in 2D space, but you have access to 3D space. So what you do, is to take one 2D circle up, move it in 3D space such that it intersects the other 2D circle. And then you put that 2D circle down. Now the two circles perfectly intersect each other in 2D space.

## Re: (Score:2)

Have been thinking about it, and I guess this analogy just isn't working because the 2D representation of a 3D object with a hole in it probably isn't even possible.. so I can't quite imagine with the 4D representation would be, apart from to think that it still would not be possible to intersect them any more than you can cause two circles to merge by changing one of them into a sphere (which would be the real 3D form of a circle, rather than a ring or a cylinder which again are both toruses..). In 2D I'd

## Re: (Score:3, Informative)

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Informative)

Think about it this way:

You put a box inside a safe. That safe has no doors. How do you get the box outside the safe? You slide it through the fourth dimension - so that the walls of the safe are no longer in the way. You change its XYZ co-ordinates, slide it back through the fourth dimension so its about where it began. The box is now outside the safe.

If thats still a little tricky to understand, we'll explain it flatland style.

You draw a circle inside of a square on a piece of paper. How do you get the circle outside of the square (assuming you can't move the lines through each other). Well, if you had the ability to take the circle off the paper, move it a few inches, and place it back on the paper, you would have moved it outside of the square with no intersection taking place.

The same thing is happening here, you are taking two rings, sliding them among a dimension that they do not occupy (thus removing any chance for collision) and then putting them back. Its tough to wrap your mind around, I know.

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Informative)

I don't see how adding another dimension can magically allow two objects to become linked when they were unable to be linked in a lower dimension. Two circles on a piece of paper cannot physically merge with each other if you assume their boundaries are solid and cannot pass through each other.

Say we've got two circles drawn on a 2D plane - a sheet of paper. Assume their edges are physical boundaries - if you push them together they'll bump into each-other, not merge or join.

Now, pick one of those 2D circles up off of the page. It no longer occupies the same 2D space that the other circle does. You can move it back and forth without it bumping into anything, because the other circle is stuck down on the piece of paper.

If you move the two circles so that they're overlapping a bit, like a Venn diagram... And then drop that circle back onto the 2D plane of the paper, they're now overlapping or linked. Even though that would have been impossible to do in just two dimensions.

## Re: (Score:2)

Someone give this person some mod points.

## Re: (Score:2)

I don't see how adding another dimension can magically allow two objects to become linked when they were unable to be linked in a lower dimension. Two circles on a piece of paper cannot physically merge with each other if you assume their boundaries are solid and cannot pass through each other.Two circles on a piece of paper might be the 2d projection of a 3d object like a torus. Imagine a cross section through a donut. Two circles in 2d, but one continuous solid in 3d.

## OK, lets try this in 1D: (Score:3, Interesting)

______________________

a "ring" called "A":

__A_____A_____________

and another "ring" called "B":

__A_____A___B_____B__

lift "B" into the second dimension:

_____________B_____B__

__A_____A_____________

slide "B" across:

_____B_____B___________

__A_____A_____________

drop "B" back onto the line:

__A__B__A__B_________

"A" and "B" are now "linked" in the 1D universe.

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:4, Funny)

.

(This is to get around the lameness filter)

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Informative)

Time is not "the fourth dimension." It is very much like a spacial dimension, speaking as a physicist; however, it is also very different. This is clear both from experience (ever try to move back and forth in time?) and mathematically (via the signature of the metric of spacetime).

In this game, the fourth dimension is simply an extra spacial dimension. Consider the analog of "linking two rings" in a 2-D world: put one circle inside another. Well, if you're stuck in a plane, it cannot be done -- simply move outside of that plane into 3-D, and it's simple. In Miegakure there is a 4th spacial dimension. You can move in this fourth dimension without moving in any of the other three.

Yeah, it's weird. I'm not entriely clear as to what the shadows represent (except, maybe, for a helpful reminder as to what is "next" to you.)

## Re: (Score:2, Funny)

I move forth in time every day, you insensitive clod!

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Interesting)

Yeah, it's weird. I'm not entriely clear as to what the shadows represent (except, maybe, for a helpful reminder as to what is "next" to you.)

I think that's the idea. It's hard to tell from the short video, but the blocky nature of the world implies to me that the game limits you to arbitrary "jumps" in each dimension. Just like the world could be divided into fixed-width planes in the X, Y, and Z dimensions, it looks like the W dimension is composed of distinct layers. Which would explain the shadows; they represent what would appear if you jumped to the next adjacent "slice" of 4d-space.

## Re: (Score:2)

I have often joked that if Time is the fourth dimension identical to space, than the fifth dimension must be the Dow Jones Industrial Average since that is very frequently plotted as perpendicular to time ;-)

## Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

It is very much like a spacial dimension, speaking as a physicist; however, it is also very different.

How is it different? why not just consider it indeed being the same as any other spacial dimension? one in which we have a constant velocity that we currently don't, and maybe never will, know how to change. even if 2 objects in our universe have the same coordinates in 3d space they will still miss each other if their 4th dimension of time is different...ie many cars make it through an intersection because they go through at a different times...when their time is the same is when you have a crash...

that

## Re: (Score:3, Informative)

How is it different? why not just consider it indeed being the same as any other spacial dimension?

You can consider it however you like, if it's helpful. You have to be very careful in conversations like these to restrict your hypotheses to ones which have real observable consequences. Otherwise you wander away from science into philosophy, which is a fine conversation to have, but not one that scientists would enjoy having with you =P

General Relativity, being the most accurate model to-date of time and space themselves, treats time as a dimension, but one with slightly different mathematical proper

## Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

So einstein is the last person that will ever make a scientific discovery?

to be a constructive debate you could at least have the courtesy of saying what part of what i said doesn't really make sense, and provide examples why. or provide examples of why none of this is testable and thus doesn't meet the criteria of a proper scientific theory.

much of what i said is already indeed supported in by relativity, i am merely taking a step further.

yes there is an idiot in this thread, however it isn't me.

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Informative)

Miegakure suggests that there is a fourth

spatialdimention, just like the three you are used to seeing.Take a read through Flatland, its a short story based on a square who lives on a 2 dimentional plane. Basically how he can only see things in 1 Dimension (a line) because him and his world are on a single plane. Now, imagine his world lives within our 3d Realm. His life doesn't change much, until we choose to interfere. Imagine if you slid a ball through his 2d plane. He would at first see nothing, then a dot, then that dot grow into a line, then it shrink, into a dot, and disappear.

Basically someone took this idea, and imagined what it would be like if there were a 4th spatial dimension we were unaware of (physics has however shown us that there isn't one). If someone pushed a 4d Cube (or hypercube) through our 3d plane, what would we see? Nothing at first, then a cube show up, then it grows into its full size, then shrink back down, and disappear.

Now someone has taken that idea and put it in a game. The programming is actually simpler than it seems. Instead of testing XYZ co-ordinates you are testing WXYZ co-ordinates.

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:5, Informative)

Take a read through Flatland, its a short story based on a square who lives on a 2 dimentional plane. Basically how he can only see things in 1 Dimension (a line) because him and his world are on a single plane.

The XKCD alt-text contains a nice in-joke about flatland (IIRC) - all women are straight lines, and the more important a member of society, the more sides he has - a priest would be almost a circle, as he has so many sides he looks circular. The alt-text goes: "Also, I apologize for the time I climbed down into your world and everyone freaked out about the lesbian orgy overseen by a priest." Which is what the flatlanders would see when a stick-man enters their world :)

## Re: (Score:2)

Take a read through Flatland, its a short story based on a square who lives on a 2 dimentional plane. Basically how he can only see things in 1 Dimension (a line) because him and his world are on a single plane.

The XKCD alt-text contains a nice in-joke about flatland (IIRC) - all women are straight lines, and the more important a member of society, the more sides he has - a priest would be almost a circle, as he has so many sides he looks circular. The alt-text goes:

"Also, I apologize for the time I climbed down into your world and everyone freaked out about the lesbian orgy overseen by a priest."

Which is what the flatlanders would see when a stick-man enters their world :)

Wonderful explanation for those of us who haven't read Flatland. Thanks!

## Re: (Score:3, Informative)

Project Gutenberg also has it: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/201 [gutenberg.org]

## Re: (Score:2)

If you slid a ball through his 2d plane, they'd see nothing, then a dot, then a widening circle, then a decreasing circle, then a dot, then nothing. If you were pushing a circle through, they'd see a nothing, a dot, a line (depending on the width of the circle) perhaps curved (depending on the angle of the circle), two lines moving away from each other, two dots, then two lines moving towards each other, a line, a dot and then nothing. If the circle was completely parallel, then they would see a circle.

## Re: (Score:2)

I was unaware that physics had shown that there wasn't a 4th dimension. I'm not sure how physics or physicists could prove this.

There's a lot of DoF thermodynamics calculations that prove, that at least at some scales of distance and energy, any extra dimensions must either not exist or interact a remarkably small amount with the other three. For instance, a rough definition of temperature is wiggling/flying in three dimensions, you can predict exactly how fast gas atoms should move at a certain temp, and interestingly enough when you resolve their movement into 3-d vectors the graph pretty much matches up. So either they don't ex

## Re: (Score:2)

>>I was unaware that physics had shown that there wasn't a 4th dimension. I'm not sure how physics or physicists could prove this. Perhaps what you meant to say was that the math currently used by most physicists does not need a 4th dimension.

Actually, there's a good amount of work done trying to figure out if physics would work with more than 3+1 dimensions (i.e. 3 spatial, 1 time), and a lot of people are convinced only 3+1 would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Privileged_character_of_3. [wikipedia.org]

## Re: (Score:2)

What is to say that time isn't spatial?

## Re: (Score:2)

The fact that I'm not slowly moving sideways?

## Re: (Score:2)

What is to say that time isn't spatial?

You either don't understand time or you don't understand spatial.

Suppose you are a 2 by 2 by 2 cube. One corner reaches 0,0,0 coordinates and the other corner reaches 2,2,2. I am also a cube of the same size. I could not occupy 1,1,1 simply because you are in the way.

Now, lets suppose time is another dimension. Same scenario, except you are essentially INFINITE in your last dimension (time) because you never disappear, your matter is always physically present* (One of Newtons laws I think, energy and matter

## Re: (Score:2)

See also Spaceland [amazon.com] by Rudy Rucker.

## Re:So Many Questions (Score:4, Interesting)

Well it depends on its rotation as well. For example a cube entering flatland would either pop up, stay the same, disappear, or dot-grow-shrink, depending on whether you are introducing the cube with one of the sides in parallel with the plane, or whether you to so with a vertice entering first.

## Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

A cube entering FlatLand at (45,45,45) degrees of rotation would appear at first as a dot, then grow into a triangle. Then the corners of the triangle would split into line segments which would grow while the original segments shrink until it becomes a triangle again, and eventually a dot and nothing.

Interestingly at no point would it possess four sides, so to a flatlander, it would be very hard to conceptualize that this is a construct made up of squares (a concept they would understand).

## Re: (Score:3, Informative)

You're only considering the trivial case. What if the 4d cube intersects our plane point-first?

## Re: (Score:2)

I think a tetrahedron, growing into a 8-sided d8 kind of thing, then back - a cube has six faces, but a hypercube has eight cubes for, er, faces (one on each end, and then a cube connecting the faces of each of those).

Not at all sure, though.

## Re: (Score:2)

How do I know how far to go in a fourth dimensional direction?Actually my question is if you can actually choose how far to go in the fourth dimensional direction, or if it's just a two-state affair.

## Re: (Score:2)

As others have said, he's dealing in 4 spatial dimensions, not Time.

If it helps, to have a real world analogy, imagine a maze. Even with bushes, it's basically a 2D problem. Now, leave the bushes there, but imagine you could float/hover and move over them. You're moving in a separate spatial dimension than the maze.

Now, if there's floating bushes too, you're kind of stuck.

What this game does, is allow you to choose which 3 spatial dimensions you see on your screen, and move around in. But at any time, you c

## Re: (Score:2)

Dimensions are user defined so the 4th dimension could technically be any dimension you wanted to quantify. Think of it as an attribute of the space you want to define.

If we're using time as the 4th dimension, which seems fairly standard, then games like Braid or Forza 3 (and probably mnany others) have already conquered this dimension, allowing one to "back up" in time or "move forward".

## object occlusion in space dimension (Score:2)

I don't consider time to be the fourth

spacedimension. In a space dimension, you can move back and forth, and the spatial relationship is not restricted to a relationship of cause and effect. We don't know if it's possible to move back and forth in time yet, but we do know that the time dimension has a cause and effect relationship, therefore it cannot be a space dimension.## Reminds me of Legacy of Kain (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

It looks like this game has 4 dimensions of space.

If time is the 4th dimension, then older games like Pac Man are 3D, conventional modern games are 4D, and this game is 5D.

## Re: (Score:2)

Rather, 2D/3D/4D refers to the dimensions that one can control and manipulate.

For example, we exist in a 3D world because, while there is time, we can only move forward through it in this dimension and cannot move freely through it.

In the same way, someone stuck in a 2D world (like pac-man) could be spinning through a 3D world and never have control over that motion.

In a 4D (3 spatial+spacetime), we would expect to

## Re: (Score:2)

Yeah, same here. "Light world/dark world" with some stuff that can be manipulated in either.

## Re: (Score:2)

I always thought Time was the 4th dimension...

I always thought the 4th dimension was ROCK!

But I guess time is ok too.

Or PASTA!

Ok, ok. Time's fine.

## Re: (Score:2)

I always thought the 4th dimension was ROCK!

Nope, Reggae [4thdimension.org].

## Re: (Score:2)

Yes, Lagacy of Kain's shifts between the real and 'spectral' worlds does seem to be pretty much identical, although the developers never gave it such a high concept PR treatment.

## Re: (Score:2)

It seems quite a bit more complex (at least potentially; might be limited in practise by level design)

In Legacy of Kain you had only two states and nice looking, fluid, but unstoppable, shift between them. Here you can have another (fourth) set of coordinates except XYZ; a spectrum on which you can be anywhere you want.

I guess it looks similar to Legacy of Kain because there's really no other way to project it onto 3D space...and then project it onto 2D monitor.

## Flatland (Score:5, Funny)

## I see what he did there... (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

Doesn't look that confusing from the video.

It seems the "4th dimension" is like a shadow world type place that you can move objects (and yourself) into, manipulate them free from interaction with objects still in "normal" space, then move them back.

If there's more to it, this video doesn't illustrate it very well.

=Smidge=

## Re: (Score:2, Informative)

when you are manipulating the objects, it's not like the shadow world in zelda where a door might simply not be there. that shadow world is like a parallel world in the same dimensions. This game is all about one

## Re: (Score:2)

it's 4 dimensional objects projected into a 3 dimensional space projected onto a 2 dimensional plane.

It's very difficult to grasp the concept. As you stated, it's a 4 dimension concept presented in 3 dimensions which are just a visual manipulation of coordinates on a 2 dimensional plane. It's like trying to draw an n-dimensional array.

Fascinating...

## The Fourth Dimension? (Score:3)

Didn't they get to number six with "Baby I Want your Love Thing"?

## Really exchanging dimensions? (Score:2)

The description sounds as if you choose which of the four dimensions to project onto your three, but in the video it looks like you keep the standard 3 and represent the fourth by phasing objects a fixed distance into the 4th, represented by translucency. Haven't had a chance to get hands on this yet, though.

## Interesting... (Score:2)

I was going to make a comment about how if the 4th dimension is time then every board game ever conceived is a 4D game. I was reminded of how 3D ultrasounds are called 4D.

However, this actually looks quite creative, although I'm having a bit of trouble determining the goal of the game. The immediate problem I see is being able to make things out with so many objects obstructing the view. In some ways this reminds me of Echochrome which I think plays with the notion of multiple dimensions in an even more dra

## Super Paper Mario (Score:2)

## 4...3...2... (Score:2)

So we're inferring a 4th spatial dimension in a game which uses our perception of a 3 dimensional construct on a 2 dimensional screen.

I'm still waiting for the "wow" moment, and I suspect it's not going to happen here.

## Re:4...3...2...1...0... (Score:2)

which uses our perception of a 3 dimensional construct,

displayed on a 2 dimensional screen,

stored on a 1 dimensional memory space,

played by people with 0 life.

## Spatial dimensions and geometric projections (Score:2, Insightful)

I haven't wtfv (watched the video), but 4-D can be represented in 3- and 2-D using projections, just like we regularly watch 3-D images projected into 2 dimensions (TV, video games).

Think of a cone, a 3 dimension shape. In the 3-to-2 dimension projection, that cone can look like a triangle, a circle, an ellipse, or an ellipse with a point, all depending on how you rotate it.

Now imagine that there's a 4-D shape whose projection changes appearance as the shape is rotated about its fourth-dimensional axis

## Kind of simple 4th dimension. (Score:2)

## Not a new thing ... (Score:2)

There have been a lot of games written over the last 15-20 years, certainly, that attempted to make a usable game doing 4D-2D projections.

Some were fun, most I played with just gave me headaches. I remember one (can't recall its name) that ran on one of SGI's high end imaging systems using active shutter LCDs so it was 4D->2.5D. That one *really* gave me headaches.

On an unrelated note, Quake ran really nicely on that box :)

## No place to live (Score:2)

## Another 4d game (Score:3, Interesting)

## Re:xkcd (Score:5, Insightful)

Actually i think the poster stole it from him.

## Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

## Re:xkcd (Score:5, Funny)

You want to know how a character in a fictional cartoon universe played a game that doesn't exist yet?

## W-axis (Score:5, Funny)

Actually, there is a demo to download. You just have to move your mouse along the w-axis to reach the link.

## Re:W-axis (Score:5, Funny)

I think there's an option in xorg.conf to make the mouse wheel do that.

## Re: (Score:3, Informative)

There were playable demos at both GDC and PAX. I presume he was at one of those, possibly both.

## abstrusegoose.com (Score:3, Interesting)

He copied it from abstrusegoose.com

http://abstrusegoose.com/88 [abstrusegoose.com] ->

http://abstrusegoose.com/secret-archives/across-the-third-dimension [abstrusegoose.com]

## Re: (Score:2)

So, can someone explain the hover comment in that one?

## Re:xkcd (Score:4, Insightful)

Has anyone of you noticed the pun behind A. Square's words?

Guy: "Hey, A. Square, how's flatland?"

A. Square: "Still flat. What's up?"

Take a look at the picture, and notice that there is no "up" in flatland. So, was A. Square's question metaphorical, literal or philosophical?

## Re:xkcd (Score:5, Funny)

Now I know what us 6 digit users must look like to the 5 digit users..

## Re: (Score:3, Funny)

...You insensitive clod!

## Re: (Score:2)

Could be worse, you could invoke spongebob references. Not sure if an order of magnitude is equivalent to additional dimensions.

## Re: (Score:2)

I actually don't think I was consciously considering the context when I wrote my post, but I did enjoy the vague analogy when I noticed it.

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

The first 3D Zelda game did that same 4D deal, where you had to do a task in the Garoudo desert, travel backwards in time, and then finish the task. (Sorry I can't be more specific but it's been a while since I last played.)

Yes, But it's nothing like chronotrigger!

## Re: (Score:2)

The 4th dimension in this game isn't time, it's a 4th spacial dimension. Like going from a circle to a sphere. In the video we see the the player moving one loop inside another loop, so that they're intertwined, something that is impossible to do in 3-D space. The equivalent in 2-D space would be to move a small circle inside a large circle without the two ever touching. This can be accomplished only by taking the small circle off the page (into the 3-rd dimension) and dropping it back onto the page ins

## Re: (Score:2)

The 4th dimension in this game isn't time, it's a 4th spacial dimension.

Okay, explain the functional difference between the travelling through time in OoT, and the travelling through the extra spacial dimension in this. Apart from being more difficult in OoT, it seems the same. You need to manipulate an object in one frame of reference, or move to the other to find an open path, etc. Getting prissy, saying "It's not time, it's a 4th spacial dimension" is irrelevant. It's the same mechanic with a different name. It is, however, different than Braid's time manipulation, yes.

## Re: (Score:2)

There's a bunch of games that have used time control already, so what's the big deal now? (I know that Eversion probably isn't a great example, but OP's is). Time's always been a fun addition to a game, especially when you manipulate it. Would Sonic Adventure 2: Battle

## Re: (Score:2)

The 4th dimension, in this case, enables 3D model clipping?

lol..I thought the exact same thing. So by this logic, Doom II is a "4D" game by typing in 'idclip'...I guess id was way ahead of its time.