I guess I just never like the static image pseudo-virtual-reality thing. To me it will always feel like a weak, stopgap for true full-motion, explorable 3d spaces.
None the less you are looking at a 2D-projection of your perfect virtual 3D-world! And it is a camera-imitating projection.
I don't see what that has to do with my statement. I wasn't talking about cameras or cinema or imitating cinema.
Sorry, my thought took a leap there. Let me try to express it in other words, and also elaborate it a bit more.
It seemed to me, from what you said, that you are against the use of static 2D images. Then the following reflection suggested itself to me.
You (and anyone using standard software for the purpose) put a lot of effort into constructing a digital representation of a 3D world in order to be able to produce a series of 2D images to be displayed in rapid sequence, giving the player the illusion of a 3D space with moving objects.
So in the end the experience of a virtual three-dimensional world is based on static framed two-dimensional images, after all. That is what I call ”the cinematic paradigm”.
Now, to think one step further, it seems that two virtual 3D worlds are involved here:
- the one given by a digitally encoded description in the computer
- the one constructed by your perceptual system, from the impression of a flow of 2D images.
They are of course not independent but the connection is far from strictly one-to-one.
The perceptual one, present in your mind, is the one you directly experience.
The encoded one, present in the computer memory, the one you hope to find pleasure in exploring.
From an aesthetic point of view I would say the perceptually created one is the most important. It is dynamic, holistically integrated, adaptive, sensible for influences from mood, attitude, preconceptions, memories etc.
Pehr