Comment by catapart
19 hours ago
Very neat! I and completely respect the skill. I respect the effort even more!
That said, it's not 'hands down, one of the coolest 3D websites', at least that I've seen. It's all "technical", very little "design". For example, why is it 'isometric overhead'? There's no particular benefit in the view, and it's specifically harder to control than it would be with a 'chase'/'third-person' camera. It's not like this is an RTS or a city-builder-ish thing, where having an overhead layout works to your benefit. Rather, it's just easier to program a camera that never changes angles and input controls that never have to re-interpret camera position/rotation (lookat vector) to function correctly. And there's a kind of symmetry between a flat page and the "ground" that the truck drives on, so some parts of the web forms have been ported over to that.
Again, none of that is bad and especially none of it is wrong. It's very cool that it works and works so well (technical)! It's just that the design feels more "portfolio" than it does "best ux for interacting with the environment I've created and the paradigms I've invoked (vehicle control)".
> For example, why is it 'isometric overhead'?
That's design exactly. There's no technical obstacle to making it over-the-shoulder instead, but it changes the aesthetic. The animations focus on what the jeep does to things, so a racing view that helps you avoid running into things wouldn't be appropriate. It also changes how you see the assets. And you'd lose that 'RC Pro-Am' feel.
> Rather, it's just easier to program a camera that never changes angles and input controls that never have to re-interpret camera position/rotation (lookat vector) to function correctly.
Not really, you just put the camera on a spring arm attached to the vehicle. Vehicle movement isn't harder either. You get this stuff practically for free with any game engine.
What do game engines have to do with this?
You're welcome to your counter-opinion about the design, but you haven't convinced me. I've played plenty of games with third-person views where the gameplay was quite conducive to running in to things. I can also appreciate that the design is faux-retro, but that's kind of my whole issue with it. Sticking to a design because it is nostalgic is not user-focused. It's demographically limiting, by design. It's specifically niche-targeting. That's the opposite of trying to make the best kind of thing for the most kinds of people. Which is a business interest of a portfolio site. Building a little game for people who likes those types of games? Sweet! More power to you. But if you're showcasing a demo for wide audiences, a critique of the niche-targeting is valid. Not nearly as important as the people claiming they can't even play the game, for sure! But if you bounce one person because they press up on the keyboard and the truck moves "forward", and they don't like that - it's a marked negative for the site's intent.
You can't worry about pleasing everyone, and you especially can't worry about broad, overall, two-paragraph critiques on literal months of dedicated work. But neither of those make the critiques, themselves, improper or even wrong.
> What do game engines have to do with this?
You seemed to imply that the developer chose isometric to make development easier. I'm rebutting that this is unlikely; they're equally easy with an engine (and if you're not using an engine, you're skilled enough that they're still equally easy).
> But neither of those make the critiques, themselves, improper or even wrong.
Are you referring to my critique of your critique of razzmatak's critique ("Handsdown one of the coolest 3D websites")? Surely if you're allowed to disagree with them, I am with you.
1 reply →
I can't see Bruno's site and I assume it's because of the HN hug of death, but an impressive 3D website that always comes to mind is acko.net, with its 3D rendered tubular logo. He even describes how it was done in a blog post.
https://acko.net/blog/zero-to-sixty-in-one-second/
acko.net is one I thought of immediately too. The front page for Three.js usually has some nice examples too.
Of course, with WebGL and WebGPU support becoming ever more ubiquitous I'm not sure when 'impressive 3D website' just becomes either 'impressive website' or 'impressive 3D'.
[1] https://threejs.org/
> That said, it's not 'hands down, one of the coolest 3D websites', at least that I've seen.
Would love to see those websites.
Right? I'd love for some of them to still be around. Unfortunately, portfolio sites are ones that I find are often lost to time.
Reminds me of those insanely intricate flash demo websites
I agree with you, it's not that it isn't impressive, but it functions poorly as a website. Innovation in design I'd expect from the HN title is something where the 3D enhances the user experience of the website itself, navigation interfaces feel natural, and so on.
This is a very well made little game that also showcases some of their work. I was hoping for something like, now I wish all websites were like this.