Log in or sign up to comment
83 Comments
  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by YukoAsho

Oh, and while I'm at it, "AAA" is stupid too. What's that mean? A shit-ton of money got spent making stupidly high resolution textures that only 3 people will notice anyway?

Posted by YukoAsho

When talking about side-scrolling platforms or fighting games that take place only on the X and Y axes, it's stupid to call them anything else than just 2D games, regardless of their graphics. "2D with 3D elements" is appropriate for games like LittleBigPlanet and Klonoa, but "2.5D" should be reserved for games that attempt to emulate a 3D environment with 2D art, such as Doom and Wolfenstein 3D.

Posted by 1337W422102

The hell? I know 2.5D as in oldschool sprite-based games in 3D worlds, like Wolfenstein 3-D, Doom, Duke3D, etc. Never heard it used when talking about an actual 3D game in which you only move in two dimensions. Using it THAT way sounds pretty silly to me.

Posted by AggroCraig

To me, the term only fits 2d games with some illusion of depth, like shooting into the background in Shadow Complex.

Posted by Pitta

We should lock the 2D page into having a link to both a 2D Gameplay and 2D Graphics concept page.

Posted by banunn1

I am not wildly against 2.5d. I find it to be a reasonable distinction between a game like the most recent sprite based mega man games and splosion man. I think comic jumper is a good example of 2.5d.

Edited by Cubical

No dumbist term is  HD  and HD remake and Hd graphics  since everybody fucking thinks if they add HD to it, it means it fucking looks better even though the real reason it looks better is because they redid the game not up the resolution.
 
Example 1  serious sam HD
 
Oh look that game had it's 3d engine overhalled to serious engine 3  and texture redone even though it already fucking ran  at HD rresolution on the damn PC and beyond back in 2000 when it first fucking came out.,  
 
that is a  total fucking redo and recode of the games graphic engine a HD resolution has NOTHING to do with it looking better it ran in HD before.
 
Oh the list goes on Beyond good and evil HD prince of persia HD  that serious sam HD ETC ETC  they already was in fucking HD resolution that is not a HD remake .    and look we are going to upscale that  and call it a HD remake and console noobs will totaly buy into that it must be easy to sell old games these days since all they got to do is add HD onto and everybody will think it is the best thing since sliced bread.
 

 No you people want the  Old game graphics engine textures 3d models  totaly fucking redone  and running at a   1920×1080 or 1780×956   that wont do next to anything anyway and might even look worse since the lower res game art now has to fill that HD resolution.
  
You people sound like those fucking morons that are on those HD vision sunglasses TV infomercials when you talk up this crap like your HDTV is some fucking magic box  that makes all old games look better and it is untouched by unholy hands for all new games in mkaing them look good. .
  
it grinds on my ears when people going around doing this HD crap and they have no IDEA what the fuck HD even really means.
   
99.9% of that HD  terms crap  should stop being used  and i is been fucking 8 or 9 years since  non- rich people could buy HDTV and the first xbox ran up to 1080i Res in widescreen  give it up already/.;
  
 
I mean god  when mega man 9 and mega man 10 came out I herd Noobs going on how crappy it looked not in fucking "HD", well guess what you people playing on the damn xbox or ps3 it fucking runs at  720p and 1080p resolution.  (and 480i on wii like a real NES game)  
   
No you think mega man 9 looks like crap because it modeled after a 8-bit game nothing to do with HD or "HD graphics"slapping fucking No " HD graphics"  on a reason you think the game looks like crap won't help you just look like a technically ignorant dumb ass.
  

 
 

Posted by Sawboss
@kud12001
Posted by Artie

Deleting it from GB won't make it go away :/ People will still use the term.

Posted by jakob187
@Jeff: Why you derailing the subject, Jeff?  Couldn't say "2.5D" on the Bombcast when you talked about Sonic, could ya?!  LOL
 
Also, it's only funny if it embarrasses me and makes me blush.
Posted by pot

True that, never thought about it.
Posted by Scrawnto
@Sweep said:

 Stereoscopy could be applied to either, though why anyone would make Streets Of Rage using stereoscopy I have no idea...

I'm pretty sure "Stereoscopy applied to 2D graphics" is the core concept behind the Virtual Boy. So yeah, you're totally right. 
 
2.5D is a pretty gross term, since having half a dimension doesn't make any sense at all. You can't add a 2 element vector and a 3 element vector and get a 2.5 element vector. Aesthetics and mechanics are separate things. You can't say that the graphics add half of a dimension. Granted, 2.5D is a very common term, so I would be alright with it having footnotes in  "2D aesthetic with 3D gameplay" and "3D aesthetic with 2D gameplay" type pages, but I would be fine with it dying.
Posted by Sanj

Here's my contribution to this discussion:  
 
Quakertown Fried Turkey. Anyone up for a bucket of QFT?  
 
Yeah, think about it. 

Posted by Jeff

@Portis said:

Passed. Meeting adjourned!

QFT.

Posted by Portis
@Jeff said:

@jakob187: I would like to propose that we only use "QFT" to mean "Quit Fucking Talking" from here on out. Way funnier, way more aggressive.

Passed. Meeting adjourned!
Posted by Jeff

@jakob187: I would like to propose that we only use "QFT" to mean "Quit Fucking Talking" from here on out. Way funnier, way more aggressive.

Posted by jakob187
@Brackynews Shit, man. Sorry about that. Never knew QFT as anything other than quit fucking talking. My sincerest apologies.
Posted by noibn

The term is ubiquitous in the gaming vernacular now (and frankly, has been for years), so you pretty much have to keep it. I know it doesn't make sense when you break it down literally, but the term is widely accepted as defining a particular game style (3D graphics on a 2D plane). It is what it is. *shrug*

Posted by Lokno

The first time I heard this term was in Nintendo Power when they were previewing Yoshi's Story. I think it was a way for marketeers to point out that while their game was 2D, but still had those cool 3D rendered characters which were so impressive at the time. Now that 3D graphics are in web browsers, its a flag with no wind. Regardless, I think the term is important historically. It will always have a place in my heart, since I reminds me of a lot of great titles in the early days of 3D rendered video games.

Edited by Brackynews
@jakob187: Nah, QFT = Quoted For Truth. Fix'd in my post, sorry to be acronymonious dude!
I don't think I ever tell people to stop talking, closing the tab is a whole lot quicker. ;)
Posted by jakob187
@Brackynews You just told me to quit fucking talking...then literally said the same exact thing that I said in my quote that you used? I don't believe 2.5D is a subjective term. I have always believed that the use of the term in the industry was "2D linear gameplay in a 3D-realozed environment". Now though, I am simply seeing and understanding how people can be confused over the years with the term due to advances in the way perspective is used in video games. Sorry if you misunderstood what I was stating. Didn't need to reply like a douche, though.
Posted by Brodehouse
@Sweep: You are right.  Period.  2D or 3D art is not limited to 2D or 3D gameplay, as the revival of 2D fighters with polygonal graphics well states.
Posted by WilliamRLBaker


um I do believe the term 2.5d was actually coined by some of the first developers that said instead of making a 3d open concept lets just make every thing 3d then limit it to a 2d plane...
so if the industry coined it it should be kept...

 

Edited by CptBedlam
@OldGuy: Feel free to correct the page.

As much as I want the term to explain what it nowadays means in respect to videogames, it's also necessary to give an account on the term's history (former use).

The only thing that shouldn't be done is deleting the page just because you think it's dumb.

edit: I proposed a new version of the article giving a slightly better account of the term's history while leaving out the "it's incorrect to use it for it's old meaning blabla"-nonsense.
Posted by OldGuy

Reading the page I find it difficult to believe that it says the the term is used incorrectly to refer to games like Doom... SINCE THOSE GAMES USED THE TERM FIRST! (sorry, got carried away there)...

In my quick run thru the list of games I don't see any that used 3D models on a 2D background that predate Ultima Underword (which, BTW, should be on the page under this definition, and isn't)... That doesn't mean there aren't any, it just means that I don't recognize them off the top of my head as being games that arrived earlier.

Did 2.5D get retroactively applied to 3D space games with 2D sprites? No? Then the page needs to reflect the reality of the history of the term. The fact that no one is making those games NOW doesn't mean that the older use of the word is "incorrect" (kids these days, go on, forget history, see if I care).

Also, as pointed out above, if this is a term used commonly in gaming (particularly by game producers) we need to have it in the "most comprehensive game wiki" regardless of the "Yeeeeuuuccckkk" factor the term inspires.

Posted by Raven10

@Jeff I think the term was initially created for games like New Super Mario Brothers where 3D polygonal characters were pasted on 2D sprite backgrounds. It was 2.5D because there were both sprites and polygons in the same game. For a game that is made with polygons in a 2D plane, I would simply call it a side-scrolling game.

Edited by CptBedlam

The term is often referenced (and has a very specific meaning in the context of videogames) and people will want to know what it means. Therefore the entry's existence in the wiki is justified - no matter whether it's stupid or not.

Edited by TinyGallon

I never thought 2.5D really described a sidescroller with polygonal graphics.. That's still a 2D sidescroller (but with polygons)

My idea of 2.5D was always something like Klonoa  -- It has to be a sidescroller, but gives you some level of interaction with the background, thus the "half dimension" --->   You are walking sideways for the most part - but can occasionally take a step up or down.

(Some sidescrolling bits of Paper Mario also come to mind, but those games are mostly full-on 3D adventure RPG's.    Streets of Rage doesn't really qualify either - yes they're essentially "sidescrollers with depth" - but we classify those as "brawlers" or "beat-em ups" (not sure the distinction between those 2)

But this is a very interesting debate! And it definitely does seem to have multiple meanings to people at this point..

Posted by Tebbit

... and characters rendered on a 2-dimensional plane, there is zero depth to the visuals.

So what of games that take the concept of a 3D platformer and apply them to a fixed 2D path? They are a genre of games that don't fit into either of those two concepts without concessions.

So why not refine the term rather than outright delete it? MK is a 3D fighting game on a 2D plane, but it is not singularly either 3D or 2D.

It is a concept! It exists, and there's no reason to delete it just because it's a mishandle-mash of graphics and gameplay. The term Concept is broad for a reason, in my opinion.

Posted by Tebbit

Rename 2.5D to "Polygonal graphics on a 2-dimensional plane", alias: 2.5D.

Problem solved? Kinda.

Conceptually speaking, I think it still needs a definition. Take Abe HD for example. Or Duke Nukem: Manhatten Project, how would you define them?

There are 3D platformers, games that use polygonal graphics and a character that moves around in 3-dimensional space.
There are 2D platformers, which use sprites

Posted by Little_Socrates
@Brackynews said:
@jakob187 said:
Just because someone doesn't understand it and someone thinks it is "subjective", that doesn't mean it should automatically go bye-bye. It just means we as a website, a community, and a staff should look at clarifying the term itself for the rest of the industry to go by rather than say "this idea is stupid, so let's kill it off".  If we all can't come up with a clarified term that can be widely accepted, THAT is when I'd agree with deleting the concept page.
QFT. The discussion is not about the various cultural context definitions of a word like "boot" or "geek". This is a matter of industry specific vocabulary that should not be subjective, it should be defined and supported by examples used by the industry, not just forum threads.  If 20 people out of 30 think hamburgers must contain ham, that doesn't make the ingredients subjective, that means those 20 people are uneducated about towns named Hamburg.
Quoted again. I appreciate the idea of including a "potentially out of date" spoiler as part of the page, though, as it will probably raise strange questions about 3D stereoscopic graphics in the future.

Also, @Origina1Penguin said: 
 Also, arguing "nearly all game are polygonal these days" does not hold up very well on a database of all video games in history.
This is probably the most important point; even if it doesn't define modern games well at all, as a lot of people are pointing out, the tumultuous era of the 90's where developers really struggled to present their games in 3D and come up with successful z-axis gameplay is still a huge part of gaming history.
Posted by GreggD

Keep it, I agree with Jakob's points.

Edited by Origina1Penguin

I think it is a valid concept. I just don't care what it is called.


You've always hated the term though, Jeff. You've been vocal about it in the past.

EDIT: Also, arguing "nearly all game are polygonal these days" does not hold up very well on a database of all video games in history.
Posted by MattyFTM

I've never really thought about it before, but it is a pretty silly term. I think the concept is valid, though. Having polyganal graphics with the gameplay taking place in a single plane is something that has only really become popular in recent years, and it's rise to popularity should be documented.

Moderator
Edited by Brackynews
@jakob187 said:

Just because someone doesn't understand it and someone thinks it is "subjective", that doesn't mean it should automatically go bye-bye. It just means we as a website, a community, and a staff should look at clarifying the term itself for the rest of the industry to go by rather than say "this idea is stupid, so let's kill it off".  If we all can't come up with a clarified term that can be widely accepted, THAT is when I'd agree with deleting the concept page.

Quoted For Truth. The discussion is not about the various cultural context definitions of a word like "boot" or "geek". This is a matter of industry specific vocabulary that should not be subjective, it should be defined and supported by examples used by the industry, not just forum threads.  If 20 people out of 30 think hamburgers must contain ham, that doesn't make the ingredients subjective, that means those 20 people are uneducated about towns named Hamburg.
Posted by craigbo180

Personally I like the concept. I am not opposed to re-naming it, though I think 2.5D fits.

Edited by ajamafalous

When I think 2.5D I think of games like Super Smash Bros. or Street Fighter 4. Polygonal graphics on a 2D plane. I agree that the name is stupid because it combines different facets of the game, but I don't necessarily think it should be deleted because of that.


EDIT: I totally agree with everything Jakob said, and I think the page should stay.

Posted by MajesticOverlord
Who is a man to decide whether or not we should delete our heritage, who is a man to decide that we should wipe away a term that stands in our dictionary, the gamers dictionary! I say it's for the community to decide! Have a poll! Run a campaign! Design a game! Anything! Power the the GAMERS! 


Posted by ShaggE
@Hailinel said:
@ShaggE said:
Nearly all of gaming terminology needs an enema. We've had to make it up as we go for so long that the entire vernacular is nearly nonsensical. 
Are you secretly the Joker?/Potentially obscure reference
That's what I was thinking of when I said it. :P
Posted by Daveyo520

Get rid of it.

Posted by Hailinel
@ShaggE said:
Nearly all of gaming terminology needs an enema. We've had to make it up as we go for so long that the entire vernacular is nearly nonsensical. 
Are you secretly the Joker?
/Potentially obscure reference
Edited by Sweep

@Jeff: OK so we need to acknowledge the difference between aesthetic 3 dimensional design (Sprites vs polys) and 3 dimensional gameplay, which allows characters physical depth within a game. As an aside, real 3D (stuff that comes out the screen if you wear goofy glasses) should just be called stereoscopy.

  • 2D Aesthetic
  • 3D Aesthetic
  • 2D Gameplay
  • 3D Gameplay
  • Stereoscopy

There's probably a more articulate way of expressing each of those, but it allows for 2D aesthetic to cross with 3D gameplay like an old Streets Of Rage brawler (I guess) and 3D aesthetic with 2D gameplay, Mortal Kombat style. Stereoscopy could be applied to either, though why anyone would make Streets Of Rage using stereoscopy I have no idea...

You could even have wiki pages for the crossovers, like a concept page for "2D aesthetic with 3D gameplay" and "3D aesthetic with 2D gameplay" - that would essentially just be replacing the "2.5D" page, though it would allow people to differentiate at least. If you were to do that then you could probably scrap the 3D and 2D gameplay concepts altogether.

Moderator
Posted by ShaggE

Nearly all of gaming terminology needs an enema. We've had to make it up as we go for so long that the entire vernacular is nearly nonsensical. 

Posted by TheHT
@Danteveli said:

@ Jeff I think the term is way to old to just delete it. Maybe add your opinion on concept page. Since so many people think it is standard term it should stay. People can be educated its not correct. For me Crash Bandicoot games on psx will always be 2.5d even if it is not correct term.

  @Duffyside said:

Hm, but what if a person hears the term "2.5D" from somewhere else and wants to use Giant Bomb as his or her resource to find out what the hell it means? Shouldn't the wiki be more of an encyclopedia describing the industry rather than prescribing preferences?


Points not to be ignored. Even if it's added to the page that it's considered an out of date term given the advent of actual 3D, that still means the term, at a time, was relevant to games. This is a database after all.

As far as the 'subjectivity' of it is concerned, discussions like this are for concensus to be reached, not to say 'everyone has their own idea so DELETE'. The perceptions of 2.5D seem to be:

A. Polygonal assets in a 2D plane. ( Ultimate Ghosts N' Goblins)
B. 2D plane that moves, contextually, three-dimensionally. ( Pandemonium, Klonoa)
C. 2D perspective that includes movement 'up' and 'down' the z-axis. ( Streets of Rage)

I haven't seen anything else referred to as being 2.5D that doesn't have one of more of those features. [A.] is where the term's age shows. Sure it used to be acceptable to refer to polygonal assets as 3D, but now that actual 3D is a thing, this just sounds silly and muddling. Besides that, I think [B.] and [C.] hold up alright.

I think we should keep it, though it needs work.
Edited by jakob187
@Jeff said:

@Sweep said:

Is it just the term '2.5D' you don't like? Would you prefer a concept page called "3D games on a 2D plane"? That sounds pretty convoluted.

Well, the problem with that is that you're using the term "3D" when you really mean "polygonal graphics."

Before the wall of text, I'll say this:   if 2.5D is a dumb idea, then why don't we delete the page for active reload?  I mean, essentially, it's still reloading...but it has a context-sensitive element to it.  Alan Wake had the same thing, but it's not considered "active reloading".  It's just considered "mash the button to reload faster".  There is no clear definition of what makes something active reloading other than "something you contextually do in order to reload faster".  Well, I contextually put Rapid Fire on my loadout in Call of Duty in order to reload faster.  Does that count?  In Gears of War, you have to hit a moving bar on a very specific area in order to active reload, but in Alan Wake, I mash the button over and over in order to reload faster.  Neither are the same way of active reloading, yet they are both reloading.  DESPITE THAT, why can't "active reloading" simply be a header on a page called "Reloading"?  Why does it get its own page?  All in all, how many games even USE active reloading?  The Gears of War franchise annnnnnnd...I can't think of any others off the top of my head.  Whether you press a button to reload faster or not, it's still just reloading a gun.  What's the point of having that page?  If anything, it's because "active reload" is a term that is used by publishers, developers, audiences, and the press to describe what exactly that specific action is.

I always thought the "3D" portion meant "3D environments", not "polygonal graphics".  That's always been the point, as showcased by something like Klonoa and the likes.  It was about being forced onto a linear plane that was akin to something like "2D", but you had camera movements that showed you were in a "3D" environment.  I've never personally related the "3D" portion of the 2.5D descriptor as "yo, this has polygonal graphics, so it's 3D".
In turn, that definition on its own creates a problem. Games like Street Fighter IV, Shadow Complex, and many others are finding ways to showcase a game on pretty much a complete 2D plane, but they break that plane every once in a while.  In Shadow Complex, people can fly into the foreground and background, and you can also shoot into those directions.  There's even a couple of turret shooting sequences (I believe) where the perspective shifts from 2D to something akin to 3D, showcasing that the world is in fact three-dimensional and not a straight two-dimensional world of sprites.  With Street Fighter IV, the environments and character models, even the moves you use...they are all modeled with 3D polygons, sure, but they are all also something that exists in a fully 3D world.  However, the game is played on a 2D plane...until you bust out an Ultra or a Super.  However, those things rarely move people into the foreground and background itself and instead rely on camera shifts to show that there is a 3D environment with things happening (for the most part) on a 2D plane.

Even then, something like Super Paper Mario was able to take two-dimensional sprites and turn them into a three-dimensional perspective, giving it a 2.5D concept.  If anything, I think the very existence of Super Paper Mario breaks the definition that you are trying to give the term, Jeff, as it doesn't rely solely on polygonal graphics, but rather it relies on flat two-dimensional "sprites" interacting with a 3D environment.  Since there are little to no polygonal characters in the game yet you can shift between a 2D and 3D plane of perspective for gameplay, which category does it fall under?  2D or 3D?  Is it a 3D game with 2D portions or a 2D game with 3D portions?  It's neither.  It exists in an in-between on its own.

Klonoa is much the same way:  3D environments but constrained to a "2D" plane of play.  Now, we all really know that this "2D" simply means "linear path which you cannot deviate from in order to explore beyond the world of its constraints".  However, you know what's easier to say than "a 3D game with a linear path which you cannot deviate from in order to explore beyond the world of its constraints"?  The answer is "it's a 2.5D game".  If someone needs an explanation beyond that, then by all means, you can unload the above sentence and they will still be confused probably.

The point of 2.5D is that it IS a concept.  Hell, the press and media use the term in order to describe the games.  The publishers and developers use the term.  It's just that:  a term and a concept that helps label a feature of the game. 

You always talked about making sure that Giant Bomb was the most detailed wiki possible for video games and video game history.  Wikipedia doesn't even have a page for 2.5D.  That means that when someone wants to find a list of games in a 2.5D setup, guess where they are going to go?  Sure, it's probably a pretty niche type of thing, but it's still a thing.

Besides, I'm sure there is an entire wiki community that can easily find at least five pages a piece that deserve to go bye-bye before something like 2.5D.

Hopefully, this whole wall of text can help in swaying your decision to keep the page.

@ZombiePie

said:

And already we have multiple users with their own personal idea of what 2.5D is proving the point that it is subjective and a lot of users don't understand what should go onto the page if we keep it.

This further indicates that deleting the 2.5D concept page is the best solution.

There are people that don't understand what "clip +1" means.  Should we delete that as well (if a page actually exists for it)?  Just because someone doesn't understand it and someone thinks it is "subjective", that doesn't mean it should automatically go bye-bye.

It just means we as a website, a community, and a staff should look at clarifying the term itself for the rest of the industry to go by rather than say "this idea is stupid, so let's kill it off".  If we all can't come up with a clarified term that can be widely accepted, THAT is when I'd agree with deleting the concept page.  I'm obviously not the end-all-be-all on the subject, but everyone gets their two cents, right?
Posted by Hailinel

If it helps, I've cleaned up the 2D concept page a bit and added a section as a note on 2.5D.

Posted by RedRocketWestie

We really need to rework the "D" system from the ground up. Now that there's a distinction to be made for games actually presented in 3D, as well as polygonal games (which, while accurate, never seems to really flow off the tongue), as well as the distinction between 2D and 2.5D, it seems like the problem originates from an overloading of the existing terms. 


The question is, are there other terms we already know that can be used to differentiate in an intuitive way? For example, you could call a "2.5D" game like Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project a "3D sidescrolling platformer." Everyone would know what you meant and you can avoid the weird/dumb ambiguity of "2.5D." 

On the subject of polygonal 3D versus stereoscopic 3D, I'd be fine with the default being polygonal (since it's more common), but it's unfortunately the marketing of games presented in stereoscopic 3D really drives that discussion.
Posted by Danteveli

@ZombiePie If its being used wrong then maybe deleting it is best solution but then where will the games labeled by some as 2.5D land? Won't it make problems further along the road when people will label games wrong or create other strange names for them?

Posted by Mento

It is a very grating term, like "Jump the Shark" and "Welp", but like others have said there isn't really a less stupid way of saying a game takes place on a 2D plane but uses features from a 3D game that isn't a longer, unwieldy sentence.

I'd say with games like Bionic Commando Rearmed, where it's entirely a 2D game but with polygons, there's no point in highlighting the 3D aspect. But with Shadow Complex, where you often interact with the background, or something like Klonoa where the world bends around, the 3D is a legitimate stylistic feature. It just needs a better name.

Moderator
Edited by Musou

I see why it could be deleted, but I think deleting it will only make stuff more complicated. You would need a 2D graphics AND gameplay page, and the same thing for 3D, so you could tell the difference between "2.5D", 3D and 2D games.

  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2