Never heard of this one, time to fire up the emulator
I would consider how the geometry (or physics) work within each room. It is kind of the same problem you are describing here as with Gorogoa. The rooms as such are then not 'physically' linked, but work more as 'warp points' from location to location. again, a kind of cheat or short cut.

I might also add that those games that messes around with the perspective (such as the brilliant and aptly named game Perspective) do not count, as the game world is still euclidean, it just messes with your perception.

For the same reason i was in doubt whether The Bridge should be there, but it does do thing which are non-euclidean as well as just optical illusions.

Oh, whoops. Guess I never posted.

But anyway, coming to mind was Illusions for the Colecovision. And many strategy games have toroidal maps.

DROD, all of them.

Illusions is a good one, yes, I put that up there and have a look later.


When it comes to toroidal maps, this is not clear cut, it depends on implementation. Without going into it too much, embedded toroidal polyhedra are euclidean as the polygons never cross each other, but abstract polyhedra are not. AFAIK most strategy games make use of the former, making them euclidean.

The 6th level of Thief Gold also has non-Euclidean geometry. Very weird level, but really great ! It starts off really normal, but quite soon it becomes one hell of a headache !

Do they? I have not played any, but seen some gameplay and it seems quite euclidean to me (each room seems so, at least). What makes them non-euclidean?

Chebyshev distance.
compare: Euclidean distance, something DROD doesn't have.

Non-euclidean doesn't mean "looks wacky"; something can look normal and be non-euclidean anyway.

indeed, and up they go. and vise-versa something can look wacky, but be euclidean.

Uh, does it mean that you should list every tiles-based videogame ever ?

i was starting to contemplate the same thing...

may put in another disclaimer.

i made an addendum...

"All tile based games, such as DROD, could be argued to be non-euclidean (see Starmakers post #23). As such I will only acknowledge that this is true, and that this list would be huge if I started to add all tile based games. I could also put forward that Starmakers point is not about non-euclidean geometry, but non-euclidean movements... However, I acknowledge this point"

aye, but it is not about the geometry as such, but how you move within it. The geometry are arguably Euclidean. take away the character and how it moves, and that's more or less what you are left with.

Off course, you can then argue that the same applies with those games that works on manipulation of visuals and optical illusions, such as The Bridge. Bu then there are still elements of the geography which is non-euclidean when the movements and the characters have been factored out.

How about the Stanley Parable?

Granted it uses a lot of portals through doorways but it links the rooms up and the actual navigation of some of the game spaces is twisted brilliantly.

For example, at one point you find a room with four doors and you can go diving into any one of the doors and through a mess of hallways, only to end up coming back to that room again from a different angle. It makes no sense in a Euclidian sense, you didn't turn around enough to end up back at that room but you end up there anyway.

Another brilliant piece is when you're folllowing the Stanley Parable Adventure Line (tm) and there is a section with a large room that is loaded with filing cabinets. In the center is a short little piece of hallway between two sets of dual posts, but when you enter through them you suddenly go through a much longer section of hallway, with more filing cabinets and windows to rooms full of filing cabients, then would actually fit in the space between the sets of posts.

I'm sure there are some more examples, but it has been said that going through a doorway and going to a different room is 'cheating'. So I'm not entirely sure if it qualifies, but it sure was a near-non-euclidian experienec at least, and I rather enjoyed it. I think it qualifies mainly due to how they took your expectation of the room layouts and made them 'impossible'.

Isn't that what this is about, though? Impossible spaces? That seems to be what generally non-euclidian means, but I may be getting it wrong.

Also, Antichamber was brilliant. One room had a 'circle' you kept going around and around in for much longer then would be physically possible. Stanley Parable had this in the form of a hallway that formed a 'square' you went around in several times in a similiar manner, as well.