quote: Original post by OrangyTang
I hadn''t realised that a geosphere would be the optimal configuration, and suits the game quite nicely (more so than a huge triangular pyramid that i was imagining).

That''s also an interesting configuration. In fact, the game could present several different spatial configurations as different "levels." Using triangular pyramids as the fundamental component one can construct a variety of symmetric shapes (including a cube) by varying the side dimensions - ie, making the triangle faces non-equilateral. Three right-angled triangles and one equilateral give you half a cube (hope you can visualize that), for example.

quote: Original post by Ketchaval
Would it help to make a game winnable if the player was given the ability to get a hint, several times throughout the game.

Actually, if you go with triangular pyramids then each cell only has four neighbors, making the game less complex than the traditional 2D version ("classic" minesweeper). I don''t think a hint would be necessary. However, in more complex scenarios like the cube-based one, hints could be a good gameplay element. Having a feel for when to use them could be the difference between winning and losing - or advancing and having to repeat the level/round in head-to-head or online multiplay.

I just got blown up by a mine playing Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, doesn''t that count as a 3d minesweeper game?

Brian J

On the whole issue of turning a 2d game into 3d..you should check out this!. It''s Rubik''s cube translated from 3d into 4d

-Luctus
Statisticly seen, most things happens to other people.
[Mail]

Ah, sorry it took so long.. here''s the link

http://www.binary-people.com/game.php?id=3

It''s called Matrix3d

falkone, that Matrix3D is pretty much it for the cube-based variant, except we want actual cubes for the cell indicators, not flat polygons (rotate to arbitrary angles and you''ll see why). Their use of billboarding created some visual problems at times. The lack of depth of the "open" cells (the ones with numbers in them) also created a perception problem for me.

Other than that, it was pretty cool. Now let''s see if they''ve got a triangular pyramid-based variant...

Yeah, the number indicators are one of the things i found annoying (atleast, the way they were handled). Perhaps some games are just better for 2D until we get the hologram projections up and running, eh?

Matrix3D is pretty good, but I would still like to see a full 3D game true to the original Minesweeper. The visualisation is really the only problem. I would say that you would use a polygonal 3D engine, each block represented by the standard grey cube. Blocks would disappear completely with nothing in them, or become colour-coded for the numbers (number sprites in the middles could be added, but a key to the colour coding would produce less clutter (optional numbers would be best)). As for actually seeing your way around, control with keyboard, with a cube selected at all times. The cube selected would appear about 75% tranparency, each of the cubes around it would appear about 50% transparency, and the rest would appear 25%. Control camera (centered around selected block) with mouse (scroll button zooms), and press space to detonate. This, along with the camera, sould give the player about as good an idea of what''s going on as I can think of.

The most important thing to think of while converting the game is how to translate the feel of the game. For me this means getting records in each of the difficulties (I''m still particularily proud of my 11 second beginner win). If the visualisation got in the way, it would seriously impede my enjoyment.

quote: Original post by Thraktor
The most important thing to think of while converting the game is how to translate the feel of the game. For me this means getting records in each of the difficulties (I''m still particularily proud of my 11 second beginner win). If the visualisation got in the way, it would seriously impede my enjoyment.

I actually think that different metrics would need to be introduced to respond to the increased difficulty of the game. For example, progressive scoring with bonuses for clearing several cubes/cells simultaneously (the both-buttons-click functionality) and exponential bonuses for massive clearances. A variety of game modes and a very in-depth tutorial would also be necessary. Imagine how ironic it would be for people to get introduced to classic minesweeper through the 3D reinterpretation!

We agree on visualization, though.

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
I actually think that different metrics would need to be introduced to respond to the increased difficulty of the game.

The difficulty, as in 2D Minesweeper, would be entirely dependant on the size of the field and the number of mines. If an optimal size and mine number can be found for each of the three difficulties (this is something that you'd only really be able to do by testing it out), then that may be all that's needed to fix the difficulty problem that arises with the extra dimension.

The scale, though, of the game would (appear to be) drastically reduced from it's 2D counterpart. Take even a 10x10x10 field, and you've got 1000 cubes to navigate. Compare that to the 480 square 2D expert mode, and you've got quite a difference. Whether an 8³ (512 cubes) field with the same amount of mines (99) would provide the same difficulty I don't know. Perhaps something on a smaller scale (4x4x5 for Beginner) would be a better starting point to evaluate difficulty.

[edited by - Thraktor on June 11, 2003 12:57:15 PM]