Well, we see the world as a 2d projection BUT we (usually) have 2 eyes so we have some amount of 3d-info.
Maybe mario has 2 eyes too, which would give him some amount of 2d-info. (Just like an MRI can construct a 2d slice from 1d info). So the first person game should have maybe a depth info on those pixels.
What I mean, mario does not see only a line. He sees a silhouette of what lies ahead of him.
I think it would require one eye above the other to have depth perception in his 2d world.
Eyes can’t even be side-by-side as that axis doesn’t exist.
Having said that, the human brain is capable of reconstructing a 3d perception with only one eye through learnt understand and interpreting the picture change over time as you move. I image it’s the same for Mario, but in 2d.
The specific restrictions on his movement would seem oddly coincidental if he’s in fact in a 3D world that we just happen to be seeing projected in 2D.
Due to various issues my eyes don't work together (I look out of one of the other depending on a mix of focal length and just what my brain randomly choses), but we get 3D information from more than just using two eyes in unison. The parallax information that two eyes allows us to infer can also be derived by movement, either of objects relative to each other or by our head movements. Ever watch a cat or other animal lift its head up a bit then resetting prior to a jump/pounce/other, even if the view is clear so they don't need to look over something? That is partly what they are doing, gaining extra accuracy by being able to do parallax computation based on information from four points (both eyes at different heights) instead of two.
But eye don’t really see in 2d anyway. There are plenty of tricks involved in the vision cortex based on how your head moves and how your eye scans and accommodates for its 3d field of view. It’s far more complex than just producing a 2d image for the brain to interpret.
exactly, if mario had stereo vision, it'd have to be his eyes were on top of each other.. And just like how 3D games projected onto a 2D monitor are not much different from their VR counterparts, a 2D game projected into stereo 1D wouldn't be much more interesting either..
I thought about it, how our eyes are placed on the sides, probably because we're very earth-bound, and horizon lies that way and such.. It'd be really interesting if we had an additional third eye on our forehead, it'd give us a bit more detailed depth perception, but I don't think it'd be that much more useful.
Since his eyes are on the side of his head he should only be able to see the perimeter of his eye sockets, if any light managed to reach them. Mario is blind :(
Calvinball rules say the volume of bushes, as a liquid, aren't compressible. Pixels are not moved, outline is overlaid by the body without surrounding the body.
2D Mario doesn’t have two eyes, he has one. If he is drawn with two eyes the second one would be inside his body and would not see anything as it’s view is blocked by pixels.
Semi-transparent head, probably. But it means he can only see light intensity, which is why he falls into holes and runs into dangerous objects on the regular.
I think it'd be fun to have a 3D game with the explained 2D navigation mechanics... Looks like classic Mario Bros, until you shift... Add in some 3D baddies and a 3D observer mode, where you can see everything while "watching" players in the game.
What do you mean by realistic? I guess you could throw shading/lighting in, but then you're playing a 1D version of a remastered Mario Bros rather than the original.
I just mean some element of 3d. Anything. It could just be a blue sky in front of you and the faces of goombas and blocks are coming towards you as you walk/run forward (maybe you call that 2d with forward/backward movement). You would have up/down lookaround as well (no side to side obviously). The real question is: could you build this "world" with only data from an .nes rom?
A bit like the classic Flatland book, this also imagines a 2D world, and also fosters thinking about higher dimensions. But there's a nice shift: if there's an "up" in Flatland, it points out of the world, whereas in Planiverse, the up is in-world, and we visit the world by looking at it from the side, rather than from above. So the creatures of Planiverse would be great at playing MAR1D.
Planiverse also creatively thinks through a lot of the physical and mechanical realities of living in a 2D world, and is wrapped in a poignant narrative about using computers to connect to alternate realities.
(ah shoot I just learned that the author has turned into a 9/11 truther, but Planiverse remains a cool book)
> Dewdney wrote The Planiverse as..an allegory for his search for a reality deeper than that of scientific enquiry, and his subsequent conversion to Sufiism.
We're the ones living in flatland, a planiverse of limited 3D perspective, who yearn for higher dimensions of experience, a glimpse of the beyond. Unfortunately it's not without risk, as this way madness lies - either as a trap of illusion, or at least as a step toward fundamental truth (if any).
Huh. That makes a lot of sense from what I remember of the way the whole thing ended, with Yendred's time under the tutelage of Drabk the Sharak. Hello weird names still stuck in my head after thirty or so years.
Not that this wasn't also a theme in Abbot's earlier Flatland, most of his other writing was theology, and it, too, climaxes with a mystical experience for its 2D protagonist. But A. Square ends up back in his flat world, writing from a madhouse, rather than transcending it and going on to... something inexplicable.
I have spent time poking against this sort of thing and madness is definitely a possible result.
Something I've never understood about 2D/Flatland as a "visual" idea:
In the case of this Mar1d, if I'm on the X-axis, and can only see the Y-axis, wouldn't any amount of detail in the Z-axis constitute a 3D image? The Y-axis stretched even a single "pixel" along Z would make it 3D, right?
Similarly, for Flatlandia: If I'm a 2D square on the X-axis, and can see "around" me on the Z-axis, wouldn't my ability to see anything make the Y-axis be > 1?
A thing photographers / image-effects people think about a lot: pixels aren't little squares; they're sample points.
If you've ever played around with graphics-rendering — UV coordinate sampling, convolution, etc — then you know that you can think of a (2D) raster image as really being a grid of samples of what color you get when you look at the UV coordinate represented by the center of that grid-point on some underlying hypothetical continuous texture.
Which is to say: if you have a pixel-art image (i.e. one created at pixel scale, pixel by pixel, rather than created with continuous-art techniques and then scaled down), and you want to scale it up "conservatively", without making up any information that doesn't already exist in the image — then the right way to do that isn't to blow up the pixels themselves, nearest-neighbour style (as if the hypothetical underlying texture is a tessellation of infinitely-sharply-bounded little squares); but nor is it to stretch the image with bilinear/cubic/etc. resampling (as if the hypothetical underlying texture is a continuous blend from the color at the center of each sample into its neighbours.)
Really, the conservative approach to enlarging a pixel-art image, is to throw your hands up and give up — because you actually don't have the information for what occupies any UV coordinate of the underlying hypothetical continuous texture, other than the exact center-point of each grid square, where the pixel-art pixel sample is located. A pixel-art image, created from scratch as pixels, only really tells you what's at the exact center point of each grid-square. Every other possible sample-point in each grid-square is left undefined. If you picture an infinitely-small dot in the center of each grid-square, with the rest left "empty", that's the data you have about the "underlying image", from seeing a pixel-art image. Anything beyond that is "compressed sensing" — an inference, not a logical deduction.
But to directly address your point: you see pixels, because that's how the game has to be rendered — as a 2D extrusion — for it to show up on a screen for you to see. But in concept, the game is giving you a one-dimensional array of sample-points — a sampling of an underlying hypothetical one-dimensional continuous texture.
Pixels are very much and in very many cases much more a square than a sample.
Cameras integrate lightfall over an area, and though consumer formats munge that data, they surely do not do so in a way that is best approximated by a zero-width point sample.
Pixels on most modern displays, albeit not those from the era of the famous 1995 paper, have especially at low resolution visible squareness; not as squares precisely per se, but certainly such that a single-pixel diagonal has an overt XY-aligned jaggedness.
GPUs integrate colors over square volumes, to display logical pixels, or rather at least aspire to, with sufficient multisampling or that that approximates it.
And then this especially is so for pixel art, whose modern aesthetic assumed the squareness of pixels not as an unfortunate limitation to be worked around, but as a defining and visually appealing characteristic. Pixel art for CRTs and pixel art for (or reinterpreted through the lens of) scaled display on LCDs are fundamentally different visual targets and assumptions on one need not naively apply to the other.
And even art made for CRTs often does not truly assume point samples, hence why they often look better through CRT reconstruction filters rather than more idealized mathematical ones.
> And then this especially is so for pixel art, whose modern aesthetic assumed the squareness of pixels not as an unfortunate limitation to be worked around, but as a defining and visually appealing characteristic.
You didn't really grasp what I was trying to say, I think. When I say "pixel art", I'm not referring to an art style where you draw things under the constraint that you have to draw them using chunky squares. That aesthetic may as well be created as a bunch of SVG rectangles, or even 3D-modelled as voxel cubes with an orthographic camera. (And, in modern "pixel art", it often is. The art assets of many modern "2D" games are often slightly-3D-extruded voxel-cube models, despite the camera + shaders obscuring this. And some games, such as Fez, take advantage of this.)
Rather, by "pixel art", I'm referring to representational art created as low-resolution hand-dotted pontillist raster images throughout the 70s-90s, made that way due to the technical constraints of storage and/or reproduction, with the intention to "compress" information from higher-resolution assets into a small space through stylistic summarization/abridgement.
These things are pixel art, but not in the sense that you're meant to perceive the pixels. They were intended for rendering on a display with a DPI and lack-of-crispness such that those pixels would be barely perceptible. Rather, they're pixel art in the sense that every pixel was individually considered, for the informational effect it has in communicating the idea of a more complex underlying visual object than can be compressed into a 16x16 or 32x32 grid.
In the Windows icon example, the smaller 16x16 icons, were almost always created by first designing the 32x32 image, then resizing it to 16x16, and then "cleaning it up", redrawing edges and textures to create something that looks crisp and conveys the same information that the 32x32 image does.
But if you think about it, the "informationally correct" upscaling of the 16x16 image, is the original 32x32 image that was downscaled to create it. In the same sense that the proper upscaled version of an 8pt font in a font-face, is a 16pt or 32pt or 72pt font in that same font-face. If someone asks you to replace the 16x16 images with 32x32 ones, and you have the original 32x32 images used to create the 16x16 ones laying around, then you'd use those.
But if all you have is the 16x16s — well, that information from the 32x32 originals, doesn't exist in the 16x16 images. And, as well, a bunch of information has been "created" in the 16x16 image — a sort of "hinting" has been done (by hand, but it could have just as well been done like font hinting, specifying algorithmically an arbitrary position within each 2x2-pixel UV-coordinate box that should be sampled to produce the resulting pixel for the 16x16 image, in order to get crisp borders et al.) Taking that information into account, would distort the 32x32 image. (Exactly the same way that applying small-font-size font-hints to a large-font-size grapheme would distort it.)
Some pixel-art assets, e.g. the ones in games like Donkey Kong Country, are literally downsamplings of original higher-resolution 3D renders. The "correct" upscaling for these would just be the original high-resolution image. You can't create that upscaling, though, because some of the information to create it was discarded during the downsampling. There is detail that has been lost. The pixel art is a summary, an abridgement, of an underlying image — a literal sampling of some, but not all, of the underlying data.
The only difference between Donkey Kong Country's assets, and Windows 9x, is that in Windows 9x, the "underlying image" that the icons sample, is imaginary. Nobody created a hi-res version of the icon, before creating the low-res version. But they were picturing it. And, if they were asked to, they could put that version to paper just as well. Just because the original icon only existed in someone's mind's eye, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Just because the underlying scene painted in a pontillist style was imagined out of whole cloth, doesn't mean it didn't exist, in the painter's mind's eye, in more detail than the painting captured.
This is in contrast to the modern "pixel art" aesthetic, where the pixels themselves are the intended detail. If you upscale Steve Minecraft, you just get Steve Minecraft. Same blocky look, even at infinite resolution. No additional information needed, because the information is already there — the UV map really does convey "a tessellation of infinitely-sharply-edged squares" (or a mesh of polygons composing into little voxel-cubes), rather than sample-points.
I absolutely grant that discretized images are dominantly low resolution approximations.
This does not mean, nor does it imply, that “pixels aren't little squares; they're sample points.” It was that claim I was objecting to.
The media onto which you are discretizing, and the method you use to do so, can be squares, without at all contradicting the bulk of your most recent comment. You could discretize onto emoji, using the colours, gradients, and shapes that best fit the ground truth image, and it would still be true that this is a low resolution approximation, and yet the pixel—lit: the picture element, the unit of display—is for sure more an emoji than a zero-size sample point!
(Addendum: to be clear, I was objecting to ‘sample point’/‘point sample’, cf. “other than the exact center-point of each grid square”. I don't object to the claim that these can be considered samples at all, since that is a very general term.)
I think we have to imagine 2D Mario, as a being which lives in a 2D world, has his "sight" via an organ which has evolved differently from a human eye. So, the the viewport with a single wide pixel is really just an appropriate visualization for us 3D beings.
Yes, it wouldn't be 3D, but what you are alluding to is projection (X onto Y, or more generally instead of X which would be orthogonal only, a 1D plane of any orientation - AKA line segment) ultimately you are still looking at a 1D image, but it has a 2D shape projected onto it that changes depending on both your orientation and position, so that you can perceive part of the 2D shape's surface as you move.
And this would be more physically correct than either Mario or Mar1D.
The generalisation, starting in 3D, is that you can project the surface of a 3D object onto a 2D plane (which is how we see)... we get a little bit more by gauging depth through stereo separation but ultimately we only get to see one 3D projection onto a 2D plane at any point in time, i.e the entire 3D surface is not accessible, we can't see behind it, or inside it, and the perception of 3D is constructed in our mind from a combination of general learned/evolved intuition of 3D space and shape and temporal samples for a particular scenario e.g looking around the object from different angles.
Projection can extend to higher and lower dimensions, e.g in 4D space the surface of a 4D object can be projected onto a 3D "plane"; and as you are suggesting, for 2D space you can project a 2D object onto a 1D plane. The projection changing depending on the orientation and position of either the shape or eye/camera.
Normal 2D game rendering doesn't really make any physical sense as a projection unless you consider them to be a narrow 3D world (consider the fact that you can see the entire surface of a square and inside of the square, but Mario the character cannot possibly see this, only a small part of the surface).
But this is all based on a "projection" with the assumption of a lot of opacity... if each particle received from the projection also contained accurate enough depth information and was a vector of all depths traversed for some limit, then full 3D could be perceived in a single 2D projection within a 3D world i.e if you could see "through" objects while still being able to sample each depth.
When we're rendering a 3D environment on a 2D plane, we're projecting it "down", so that we can perceive it.
When we're rendering a 2D environment on a 2D plane, are we doing nothing to to ? Maybe, but the 2D environment we've constructed to begin with is probably inspired from our native 3D thinking.
But when we're rendering a 1D environment on a 2D plane, which we need to do to perceive it, because we don't have a visual organ for perceiving 1D environments of the kinds constructed in "native 2D thinking".. So we're projecting "up", adding data to convey a representation of the environment that we can perceive, not as it "is".
I think you're imagining a projection of a 2D world into three dimensions and correctly observing that it's three-dimensional.
Imagine a 2D world with two squares and a circle. One of the squares pushes the circle and it rolls into the other square, impacting it. This is all plausible in a purely 2D setting, right? Assuming that these objects can't take up the same 2D space, it makes sense that the square would be impacted by the circle. This is how vision works — photons bounce around and our eyes sense them. There wouldn't actually be any Z-axis to what you're seeing, you'd just be registering 2D photon-equivalents moving in two dimensions. But in order to represent it as something our brains can recognize as "seeing," we have to project the input into some non-zero dimension.
A different representation could emphasize this point better. You could have this same basic game, but instead of first-person, have it be third-person but with actual vision simulation, so that you only see the parts of objects that Mario would see and everything else is simply absent.
It's basically a 2D game but they replaced the width dimension with depth. Wolfenstein 1-D [1] is a true 1-dimensional game. The game is represented by a single straight line of pixels, and player movement is restricted to a single axis.
In a properly 2D universe, there would be the equivalent of some sort of planck length that is essentially the only length. The equivalent of a string of one-bit messages that shift around. We chose to visualize it through something that has width because we are unable to properly understand the alternative.
No. To be a dimension there needs to be freedom. In this case the Y is quantized at one pixel and there’s no independent parameter in that direction, just an invariant quantum.
I think you're right, and while I think something simple like fading in and out the elements based on distance would be reasonable (since the game would be unplayable otherwise, as you'd be able to see the entire level), the choice they appear to have made (something non-orthographic) seems to essentially be fully encoding the extra dimension. Otherwise, I can't see how the goomba would appear to get bigger as it gets closer to mario.
The Z axis can be imagined to be infinitesimally narrow. There's no information in the stretching of the Z axis, so you can make that single color of data in the as visible as you like without adding any information.
Our eyes see in two dimensions, so a Mar1d world with a Z axis one Plank length wide would still have the same colors, but it's impossible to see.
If the width of a pixel along the Z-axis is arbitrary, and you only see one, no, it would not be 3D. It's still 2D, you just have the ability to more easily see. You gain no new information.
I'm with GP on this one. You say "width of a pixel". That width is a dimension. If that dimension exists, along with X and Y, then it should 3D.
And that's when talking about video-games or computer graphics. In the Flatland example, there are no pixels. The characters shouldn't be able to see each other or the structures on their 2D plane at all.
No, it’s not. A dimension requires freedom to be parameterized and independence from other dimensions. In this example “Y” is invariantly defined as 1. Similarly a level surface defines a dimension to a fixed value and provides an n-1 dimensional view of a n dimensional view. Mapping this to a level surface you declare Y=1 and only X is varying. Y has scale but no dimensionality due to its lack of freedom.
Characters in a flat universe would have different sensory organs than us, talking about "sight" seems more like a translation for humans. "Sight" is a highly directional, high-resolution, low-latency sense, the physics of it... I mean the characters might not even understand it, we didn't for the vast majority of human history.
All of physics would have to be different anyway, down to really fundamental stuff like how quantities which spread from a source radially operate, since we'd be looking at perimeters rather than surface areas.
I think the idea is that just because Mario takes place on a 2D plane doesn't mean we're obligated to assume that Mario is literally a mathematical two dimensional figure. These videos may still be very silly in terms of a real-world situation, but they're no more or less "correct" than the linked video for the original post.
I remember playing a first person Mario before, either on Newgrounds or Ebaumsworld, where the level was a narrow 3D corridor the width of a coin box. Much more playable but not as silly.
Another way to 3D-ize a 2D (sidescrolling, platform) game, if someone wants to take it as inspiration: rather than assume the (infinitely thin) 2D plane of the game to be 1 pixel thick, assume that everything in the 2D plane has infinite depth.
Because of perspective, this will look very different than 1 pixel stretched horizontally, which is what this game does. In fact, with a little shadowing and applying the object textures to the z-y axes of the object rather than the x-y axes, I expect many 2D games would actually be playable like this. I think the results would be bizarre, but extremely fun for fans of the game.
I'm not sure how well the site and videos explain it, but you control a green dot trying to travel along a line. You have to beat or evade enemies, lava, etc along the way. You control it with a spring door stop, but that's not what it's about.
You can connect them through the air and through the ground. That gives you two. The third has to be connected through the houses, which might be an option. Four is essentially the same. Where it gets really difficult is when there are more utilities than there is vertical space.
This feels kind of overly simplified. SM1 was made from a side view for historical reasons. When 3D appeared it became over the shoulder because FP makes so many sick.
I'm playing Doom Golden Souls and--aside from gunplay--its platforming feels to me like what SM1 would've been if Nintendo had tried 3D FP before polygonal models were practical.
Please explain Mario turning around like he does in the game if he really lacks the 3rd dimension. Or entering a warp pipe, with the animation we see for it.
I would say it's more plausible he's in a very narrow corridor (that just happens to be painted sky blue).
I wonder if I still have my prototype somewhere, exactly the same thought..
We humans exist in 3D space, yet perceive the world in 2D (with some additional depth perception added).. Sooo.. our perception is 1 dimension less.
If someone were to inhibit only 2 dimensions, they'd perceive one dimension less, so 1D. Now, to translate that back into something a human could see, it'd just be... bands.. My engine had the bands extend the entire width, but same thing.
I also made a 1D version, where you.. yes, move along a single axis, and your perception is thus 0 dimensions, simply a point (extended to fill the entire screen) that changed brightness.
I also made another one were you were a a typical 2D platformer character, but with the ability to rotate around your own Y axis, so the levels were fully 3D environments, and it sliced a plane through the world with the origin being the player character. You had to turn around yourself a lot to get an idea of the environment.
My gut says it'll be a tad more difficult since you won't have any data beyond what's directly in front of mario. Maybe the AI will end up doing a bunch of rapid peeks to determine next move, especially when there are large pits.
Who said his world is bidimensional? The movement in the world is constrained to a plane, but that doesn't means that it's bidimensional. There might be a third axis that's non accessible but visible.
Darn, I was hoping to see things rotated 45' ccw and viewing from the back of mario running forward towards a horizon (almost appearing to run uphill) and then jumping onto blocks and pipes as if they are coming at him.
This is fun! Reminds me of the first time I read Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbott as a kid, and spent much time thinking about what it would be like to move around in a 2d world!
If you mean the line doesn't have a single pixel width, this is what the website explains:
How is this 1D? The game is more than one pixel wide!
The game width can actually be adjusted, including to a width of one pixel. That's how I prefer to play, but other people had trouble seeing what was going on.
Regardless of how much you stretch it though, there is only one dimension of information, the horizontal smear is entirely redundant. Your computer's pixels have some amount of depth to them, but that doesn't mean the games you play on them have 3 dimensional viewports.
I had the same question and this answer didn't really do it for me.
Granted, I am bad at math/trigonometry/geometry etc., but in my understanding, 2D can only work from our perspective, because we're looking at it from a perfect angle.
Mario shouldn't see anything, because his viewing angle does not exist. Or is the rule about 2D that his perspective just has a width of at least more than nothing?
My lack of understanding can probably be explained with high-school material, but I can't imagine it myself.
Oh, you mean the physics of "seeing"? I thought the question was about why the vertical line is not 1-pixel wide.
As for "seeing": the real world is 3D. The physics of seeing work in 3D. I don't think there are true 1D or 2D objects in the universe, so we must use our imaginations when we say "Mario is seeing" in 1D or 2D.
We must, like others argued, imagine Mario possesses a way of sensing/seeing that works in 1D, something that doesn't exist in the real world.
PS: alternatively, the line is 2D in the sense that it's made of physical 3D pixels, and Mario can see those. But the line is also 1D in the sense its width offers no additional information because it's a single pixel wide; so it's physically 2D but "informationally" 1D.
His perspective is essentially the same as ours would be of four-dimensional space: The space can exist, we can move through it, but we can only ever see three dimensions of it at a time. It is the same for mario and the way that makes sense to you is as a line. Even if it is a line with no inherent width, that doesn't mean that Mario cannot see it.
Any point on the line can be described by a single coordinate, so the line is one-dimensional.
We could also describe all of them in terms of a two-dimensional plane [(0,0), (0,1), (0,2) etc.] but that would just be redundant. Just like representing the number line with a taller figure doesn't really make the abstract line any different:
So for a single-pixel wide view of SMB from first person perspective, we could consider it a degenerate case of a 2D view if we indexed them (0,1), (0,2), (0,3)... but that would be redundant as they're sensibly just 0, 1, 2...
Consider that any 2D image you see on your screen is just a single-pixel deep 3D image and a single-pixel 4D-protruding 4D image and so on.
Now I think the original question was about how Mario is capable of seeing at all something that is 1D, in the sense of "how are Mario's physical eyes able to perceive something that has only 1 dimension".
And he's right, Mario wouldn't be able to see a mathematical line (i.e. something truly 1D and infinitely thin), because there'd be nothing to reflect light for his eyes to perceive. I think the answer here is that Mario isn't an animal with animal eyes, and his fictional "vision" must work in different ways so that he can perceive purely 1D "mathematical" lines.
We normally see Mario's world from an external vantage point that doesn't exist in his.
Imagine a normal brick in our world, what we see are projections of the outside surface, but we of course can't see inside the brick, not without breaking it at least, but then you end up with a series of smaller objects that you can only see from the outside, again.
Likewise, Mario wouldn't be able to see the shapes we see because we're looking at the totality of them, the outside and the inside, all at once, because we're 3D, but they are not.
He would only be able to see the outside, which in his case are the lines making up the contours of the bricks, goombas, etc.
Probably, but there still would be distinct "points" in so far he can perceive them. We need them stretched out a bit but there's not two pixels in this game's width dimension, it's the same point stretched out in our screens, never is there more information besides one pixel than another in our screen in the horizontal axis from what I can tell.
I'm surprised by all the dismissive comments here. This is a really clever and thought-provoking idea, and I believe that is the spirit in which it is intended (rather than as an "actual" game).
Well I think it's shit. It's a not-so-interesting view of the kind of perspective change you get from something like http://tom7.org/zelda/ and I resent the suggestion that the reason I don't like it is my own smallmindedness. I have many flaws but that isn't one of them.
It's reducing a 2d game into a 1d one which kind of nauseating -- I thought by the title it would be like Super Mario Oyssey with a first person camera.
Embedding the game into the browser using JS and WebGL seems like the obvious way to let people experience it easily. Most people aren't going to download it.
“this site proudly uses no javascript”, nerdy sites that don’t use modern css and or modern javascript most of the time have subpar user experience, I don’t read past the first sentence, it traps yourself into a niche of developers who don’t mind an ugly Design tradeoff
i think they are just taking the piss out of people that say similar regarding sites that put up dark UI elements that prevent/slow down the reading of a site so that people bounce quickly. only, it just wasn't a good attempt at whatever was being attempted (humor/parody/sarcasm???). then again, maybe i'm just being way too nice to a non-coherent thought?
Maybe mario has 2 eyes too, which would give him some amount of 2d-info. (Just like an MRI can construct a 2d slice from 1d info). So the first person game should have maybe a depth info on those pixels.
What I mean, mario does not see only a line. He sees a silhouette of what lies ahead of him.