What were some other 2.5D games you have played besides Marathon.

g_g

Pong.

I was think more along the line's of Marathon-style games, but I guess that works too.

While I admit that searching the Pfhorums for "2.5D" brings up a wealth of legendary threads, if you somehow think that putting that flamebait term in your topic is going to guarantee this thread legendary status, you are sorely mistaken.

P.S. Minotaur.

I have no intention of trying to create a legendary topic. I was just trying to create a topic so people could attempt to talk about game's that are similar to Marathon.

Why don't you change it to say "games that are similar to Marathon"

Although I can't think of any off-hand. Why don't you change it to say which games you think are similar to Marathon, and ask if anyone has played them?

Minotaur.

maybe i'm old, but 2.5D seemed to me to be more of a term of endearment for the engine-style once Quake came out. So '2.5D' is offensive?

anyway

LucasArts' Dark Forces : this was actually the first 2.5d fps that I owned. I had up until that time played macDOOM and a lousy demo of Wolfenstein 3D. I thought DF was amazing, because over doom it had a better head wave, the jumping ability was a huge one, more weapons, grenades (thermal detonators), the dual-function mines you could use were brilliant, the multi-level map system was great as well, horizontal moving platforms/doors, and multi-sectioned doors, distance fog, and the mac version in particular had a great deal of graphic improvements. and death by long drop, and damage from longer falls was a bit of realism I thought good. and it was a Star Wars!

2.5D means something very specific in terms of how a game works verses how it plays. I think it has become an offensive term because a lot of people use it incorrectly and then it appears to either mean something different every time you use it or to mean simply nothing at all. It does, however, have a quite consistent and useful definition. The term itself is not flamebait, though if it is associated with people who use it incorrectly I can see how that interpretation evolved.

And now to discuss some of my favorite 2.5D games:

Wolfenstein 3D - I still get a lot of enjoyment out of this game; it is the FPS at its core, solving a level puzzle while shooting the guys that try to stop you. Plus the sound effects are timeless

Blake Stone - Very similar to Wolf3D (same engine) but a little more advanced. I've only played this a couple of times because I have to emulate the actual DOS program (i.e. graphics and controls kinda suck a lot) but it seems that a modernized port of it would be very fun indeed. Unfortunately the source code is gone so that would be a formidable task.

Doom/Doom II - What kind of FPS fan would I be if I didn't play this game? Actually this has always been one of my lesser favorite old-school shooters (I tend to get stuck in it a lot), but recently I've come to appreciate it more - the double shoutgun in Doom II is so satisfying...

Heretic - I've played through most of Heretic, and it was pretty fun but personally I like Doom more (mostly for the bigger, louder weapons).

Rise of the Triad - For some reason I always love unpopular games, and this is a perfect example. The music is awesome, there are like 5 different kinds of rocket launchers (one that actually shoots five rockets!) and when you blow up someone just the right way their endtrails (and eyeballs) come raining down the screen. It does get kind of old after a while (the gameplay changes little if at all throughout the single player) but it's still a great game... I mean, John Romero's God Mode grunts, a powerup that makes you trip on shrooms, and health pickups that are cooked enemies!? I suspect the multiplayer is really fun too, but I've never tried it.

Star Wars: Dark Forces - This game is fun enough that it is worth playing the original DOS version (of course Lucas isn't releasing the source code), but that won't matter soon because someone actually took the time and effort to effectively reverse-engineer that game's engine and modernize it. Even in its pre-beta stages the new Dark Forces is pretty damn cool. I personally cannot wait for this to get finished.

Duke Nukem 3D - For some reason the mechanics of this game work really well (for me at least)... which make it one of the best FPS games I've ever played. Plus its got that dark sense of humor that Apogee so loved. As an added bonus you get to listen to your character being a badass every time you gib an enemy or "activate" one of the many strippers throughout the game.

Well, that's all the ones I can think of, and I know what I'll probably be spending my evening doing now...

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't.

http://www.pfhorums.com/index.php?s=&s...ost&p=57182

Perhaps it has a specific, consistent, or useful definition only to you. But words that have a specific meaning only to one person are not very useful tools for communicating, wouldn't you agree?

Treellama you seem to have a hard time understanding that if you aren't familiar with a word or its definition, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You posted a link of you giving examples of "how people use" the word, which is exactly what I said: people USE it incorrectly. I hope you realize simply saying "No it doesn't" is a pretty lousy argument. I did not make up 2.5D or its definition so it does not have a specific meaning to me. It has a specific meaning to people who know what it means, and clearly you are not one of those people. Giving examples of people using a word the wrong way does not at all prove or even suggest the word itself is undefined.

Wikipedia itself gives a half dozen different ways it is used (many are those which I listed)--and it doesn't offer any pointers as to the official correct usage of the term. If you're one of those "Wikipedia is meaningless" people why don't you point out in MW or the OED what the correct usage is? You know, those books of words with definitions people agree on?

I'm definitely not a "Wikipedia is meaningless" person, don't worry. However, they can be wrong about stuff and I wouldn't use the fact that their 2.5D article is a bit aimless and inconcise as proof that the term itself is ill-defined. It probably came up in many different areas of study and came to take its own definition in different areas (similar to how many things are defined a little differently in physics than they are in math).

I already did my best to explain what 2.5D means, which can be found in that "A1 didn't find something lib" topic over in A1 discussion. I am going to guess what your response to it is going to be, so let me assure you now I did not pull that stuff out of my ass. Also, if you think 2.5D is not a well-defined word, then how about defending that instead of simply posting "It's not a word". My responses have been much more than "Yes it is".

Your responses have been to say what it means to you, and then to assert that anyone who uses it the way you do is using it correctly. A mere positive assertion countered by my mere negative assertion. I still await something from a respectable source other than yourself, showing the "correct" usage of the word, and refuting the other definitions I've already given as not being in common enough use to be considered "correct". Until then, "no it's not" is just as valid as "it means this to me, and that is the correct usage."

Dude by this logic everything anyone says only applies to the person who says it so no one should ever say anything because we'll never understand each other.

You are assuming that I made up the definition of 2.5D (which I already explicity said twice that I DIDN'T) and then claiming that my definition only applies to me. Well it's not my definition! It may not apply to you because you are not familiar with it, but for you to sit in front of your computer and claim that nobody in the world would know what I am talking about is just plain silly. Doesn't the mere existence of a wikipedia article (especially one that long) suggest that it is a legitimate term. One thing wikipedia is very strict about is deleting unneccessary pages.

I just skimmed over the wikipedia page and I actually think it describes quite well what it means. It describes both kinds of 2.5D that I talked about (2D engine with 3D gameplay and 3D engine with 2D gameplay) and does a pretty good job of removing any possible contradictions. And I still await something from a respectable source other than you that claims 2.5D is a self-contradictory term.

I think he's waiting for a respectable source that actually defines the term 2.5D. It's not that hard.

In the meantime, stop trolling.

I thought this was true anyway?

Yes I read his post already.

Well at least you took my advice. Could you explain how anything I posted was an attempt to evoke an emotional or off-topic response? I hope you don't think that "trolling" a forum means disagreeing with you...

Irons: I kind of agree with you there.

Because it's clear what Treellama is asking you to do and you are continuing to resolutely say "nuh uh, nuh uh, I'm right, I'm right."

It's annoying and clearly not contributing to the topic.

You made a statement -- that the definition of 2.5D is "consistent and clear." Treellama disagrees with you, citing evidence. I am inclined to agree with Treellama. Saying "nuh uh, you're wrong" in the face of evidence is annoying. Taking his evidence and then saying "this says I'm right!" but not actually clarifying in any sense is also annoying and unproductive.

What he wants is an actual answer from a reliable source. I think everyone would do better from that. If you want to draw the line on what 2.5D is, put up some proof or shut up, because the term 2.5D as we all currently understand it is loaded, inconsistent, and contradictory.

'trolling' as the demonstration of thinking so muddled that it simply must be a put-on--it's either that or untreatable mediocrity.

example: beating out a tattoo of 'yes it is' and criticizing one's interlocutors for lowering(!) the level of discourse in the thread.

Addendum: When it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about on the general topic, it's better to stop talking and learn about the truth than to keep saying wrong things.

I haven't seen crazy shit like this since coolege class. Now I definitely want to go back! Thanks!

No I am not, I refuted your claim that it has a specific, consistent, and useful definition, and provided an example to the contrary. I never suggested you made up a definition for the word.

I made no claim as to the legitimacy of this informal term. I did suggest it isn't succinct, and may as well be meaningless, because it's possible to classify any first person shooter as 2.5D using one of the definitions listed at wikipedia.


Nor did I claim it is self-contradictory, although many of the wikipedia definitions are orthogonal.

Haha Treellama literally responded with "No it doesn't" and "No it doesn't" and then you accuse me of doing that. I'm sorry if I annoyed you but since this is a topic about 2.5D games I'd say defending the term contributes to the topic. And what "evidence" am I in the face of?



Ohhh right I forgot I have no idea what I am talking about. I mean, I am like 6 credits away from a B.S. in Mathematics and not much further away from one in Physics, it's understandable that I keep forgetting that I don't know anything. You know through all of these "You just need to stop" and "You are wrong just deal with it" posts you've been adding you have failed to give one piece of evidence or provide one source that supports what YOU are saying. So maybe you should accept that you don't know everything about everything and stop talking down to people. I haven't given a reputable source on 2.5D because I don't know where to look for such a thing, just like I don't know where to find a "reputable source" on parallax mapping, but I have given a consistent definition of 2.5D (in another topic) and no one has explained how it is self-contradictory (it also pretty much echoes the wiki article so it certainly isn't "my" definition"). I haven't seen a source or even an explanation or argument of any kind to support the other side of this argument.

Do you see the irony in jumping into this topic, telling me I am just insisting I am right and don't back it up, and then insist that I am wrong and give no evidence to back it up?

Neither of these things have anything to do with 2.5D games, but nice try with the credentials drop anyway.



I am not really that invested into what 2.5D gaming is. I certainly know what it means informally, just as you do (though what we think it means is contradictory, because no one has actually defined it). I'm doing my job as administrator to enforce level-headed discussion, and that's all. Treellama is not asserting what 2.5D gaming is, you are. I'm not telling you that you're wrong, you just need to prove that you're right.



So what you've given is your definition. It does not echo the Wikipedia article since you also claim that Super Smash Bros is a 2.5D game.



That's not what I'm doing.

I think math has a little to do with the concept of 2.5 dimensional. After all, this term comes from the mathematical concept of dimensionality. I really don't feel like telling me "you know nothing about this topic" falls under administrative actions... if you think calling people ignorant is going to promote level headed discussions then, well, good luck. Besides, I've been pretty level headed.

Treellama didn't assert what a 2.5D game is but he did assert that the term doesn't have a consistent definition... by saying "no it doesn't". Also, the wiki article specifically uses Super Smash Brothers as one of its examples of a 2.5D game.





Dude it's perfectly fine for you to say I'm wrong. It happens all the time. But don't deny that you did it!



Well, you insisted I was wrong (I already showed that), so then where is the supporting evidence you contributed?

I really don't think I'm being that rigid. I already said that the term has gone to shit because people use it incorrectly, so I understand what you guys are saying. But calling the term flamebait is pretty damn rigid. Obviously that wikipedia article doesn't exist to incite flame wars on the discussion page.

This topic would have been yet another sleepy variant of "what other games do you play" with the requisite infinite responses of "Minotaur" except that it mentioned "2.5D," and trolling, and look what happened: things turned out better than we ever could have hoped.

If you think the mathematical concept of dimensionality and 2.5 video games are anywhere nearly related then you're not qualified to talk about either.



I'm more referring to you generally than specifically this topic, since you have a bad habit of not doing the research.



Why do you think I care about what a 2.5D game is? Personally I think the entire term is stupid and we should stop using it.

I am not making an argument about what a 2.5D game is or isn't. You are. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Citation Needed *NM*

Are you qualified to make such a judgement?



Once again, way to promote level headed discussions. How the hell could you know what I do and don't do before I post? Yes yes because everything I post is wrong so I must not have done any research. Are you able to even accept that you might be misinformed about some things? How much research did you do on 2.5D? You are now saying you don't care at all, so it sounds to me like none. For the record everything I've talked about on here I've researched at least a little (I agree it would be a bad habit for me not to) and the more you post the more it becomes obvious that there are no limitations to your knowledge. I guess you don't have to research stuff before you know everything there is to know about it. Now you claim to know what I was doing with my life before I started posting here!



Yes you are, you are saying a 2.5D game means nothing. The burden of proof for that statement is on you.

Stop trolling.

Damn I wish I would have thought to respond to you with this first...

From the same wikipedia page: The concept [of 2.5D] is unrelated to modern mathematical ideas of non-integer dimension.

Well you clearly aren't reading my posts, you're just arguing to get a rise out of me. No one with any vague sense of reading comprehension could extract this:

from this:



unless you're trying to get a rise out of the other person.

That isn't what I meant, I know that non-integer dimensionality basically refers to fractals (and other crazy things). I meant that the term came out of the math of integer dimensionality, in that somewhere there is a two dimensional linear space and somewhere else there is a three dimensional linear space (for example the physical space levels occupy or the space of all possible movement).

I hate to break it to you, Mr. Math Major, but 2.5 is not an integer.

I am reading your posts. No don't try and argue with it, I know what I did. I never said I extracted that from the sentence above it. You said in another topic that the term is meaningless and any possible definition is inherently contradictory. Thus a "2.5D game" cannot refer to anything, or so you have insisted.

If I was going to try and get a rise out of you I'd certainly be going about it in a strange way. What you need to see is that people got a rise out of it before I said anything about it, and I found that pretty strange (this is the only place I've seen that happen) so I wanted to try and shed light on the issue so people wouldn't get a rise out of it. I personally think it is laughable that anyone would ever get a rise out of anything about "2.5D games" so trust me, if you're getting pissed about any of this it's news to me and frankly I don't understand it.

How incredibly pompous. Thank you though, I wasn't sure about that.

Read more closely. Where did I suggest 2.5 is an integer?

Suggests that somehow when you see 2.5D you think "integer"

Yes, because that term has a "2.5" in it because it describes something that involves a 3D space and a 2D space, so the description on a whole would be "in between" those two. I do think of integers because, like you pointed out, 2.5D clearly doesn't refer to a rational-dimensional space because then we would be dealing with infinitely self-similar curves (I think... I have studied very little on the subject and it was a while ago but I remember it being intimately related to fractal curves). So yes that concept is much more, if not entirely, rooted in the theory of integer dimensional vector spaces.

You know if you really honestly believed that I made it this far in my educational career without understanding the distinction between the set of integers and sets of other numbers like rational numbers then I would say it's time to call your intelligence into question. I mean seriously, what's wrong with "I don't understand what you mean, you're not saying 2.5 is an integer are you?"

Granted, I'm not Treellama, but I think what he means to say is "You're an idiot."

Well he's got pretty stupid reasons for believe that.

By the way, that was a glaring example of trolling.

Can you point me to a reference for the convention on describing integer dimensional vector spaces using a non-integer rational label? Particularly interesting to me would be the formula for arriving at said non-integer rational label, so we know why it's 2.5D and not 2.25D or 2.75D.

Naturally there are no examples in this topic alone.

Anyway, It was flaming, not trolling. Get it right.

It's not a formula it's a term. The prescence of "2.5" does not mean exactly five halves, it means "between 2 and 3". If you're looking at a house that has 2 full bathrooms and one smaller incomplete one the house is said to have "2 and a half bathrooms". Does this mean that the "half bathroom" is half the size or contains half the functionality? Not necessarily, it just means it's more than 2 bathrooms but not quite 3 bathrooms. It's the same sort of thing here. The number 2.5 in the term 2.5D game has no significance beyond the fact that it is between 2 and 3. There is a 2D vector space and a 3D vector space, so together they don't quite act like a 2D space or quite like a 3D space. "2.5D vector space" doesn't mean anything as far as I know.

...Yes?

A full bathroom has a bathtub, shower, sink, and toilet. A half bathroom has only two of those things, most commonly a toilet and sink.

Are there examples elsewhere of me showing my stupidity?

If I was trolling by annoying you and supposedly not contributing to the topic, then apply those same conditions here.

I hope you don't honestly think I just do stuff to piss people off... I think such a conclusion would be embarrasing on both of our parts.