yes and no
yes because the standard 4D gaming term is perception
Einstein put forward time as a 4d idea for real world senarios and his idea doesn't translate well into games
no because they define 4D different and if you are willing to allow how they interpret it then the gamespace is 4D
in any event the tradoff for this (appears random) layout is extra load on your cpu + ram for a slice and imo will only work on Windows because the GPU has to rendor that slice (the small part you see in game) ... the game itself would have to be very limited and their demo is pretty much as much as most Windows systems could manage
Hmmm, yah. It's a very creative idea to break one of the cardinal rules of 3d modeling by creating all those internal faces and then doing whatever they do to clip it or slice it so there are always some outward facing normals no matter where you slice it but it seems like more of a novelty or maybe a sloppy shortcut to avoid making many different models? I also was not away that it was as computationally intense as you say. So I'll chalk it up as a gimmick.
I actually had no idea that something like this existed but I actually really the concept of the game irrespective of the gimmickness hehe.
It would be insane in a VR headset probably
I was actually able to recreate the game that you posted in Unity (I did that a year ago), however, I quickly lost interest in that project because it was quite gimmicky. It's not that cool.[sic]
If I find the project file I'll post a video (my PC is a mess, I should really start organizing my stuff).
you're right. The game would probably be really amazing if it had VR compatibility. I'm still not on the VR hype-train.
I'm too afraid that it might be a fad so I stick to regular game development.
As soon as they mentioned Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions by Edwin Abbott Abbott, 1884, I knew I was hooked!