Thinking about deleting the "2.5D" concept page. Honestly, I'm a bit surprised it exists at all. Considering nearly all games are polygonal these days, it's enough to say that the game takes place on a 2D plane. A term for "this has polygonal graphics but has flat gameplay" is almost totally unnecessary. Graphical style and gameplay style are two things that, in this case, don't really need to be combined into one term.

Stupid term. It's up there with the incorrect use of "AAA."

I'd say that it's a decent concept. What about games like Klonoa, where gameplay takes place on a 2D plane, but in a way that can't be done with pure sprites alone?

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.

I love it.

Also where do you put games like MK vs DC which are like... 2D planes on a 360 degree axis? There has to be some way of differentiating between free 3D movement though, right?

I'd say that it's a decent concept. What about games like Klonoa, where gameplay takes place on a 2D plane, but in a way that can't be done with pure sprites alone?

I thought 2.5D referred to games with psuedo-three dimensional environments a la Doom and Duke Nukem 3D? On the other hand, Wikipedia (so sue me damn it) seems to cover both terms. Personally, I think it's a valid term, just maybe a little...subjective? You're staff though so It's your call.

Nothing but agreement over here. Delete away.

Worse than AAA. Let it be gone!

@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." Now that there are games that are actually in 3D, using any form of "D" to talk about graphical style is confusing and should be slowly eliminated from the database. 2.5D is stupid because it combines graphics and gameplay in a way that makes it a meaningless catch-all term. To me, the term more appropriately fits into, like, SNK fighting games that let you shift between two or more planes. It's not a completely open space, but the Z-axis is at least partially addressed.

Street Fighter IV is a 2D game. Tekken 6 is a 3D game. Mortal Kombat is a 2D game. Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe is a 3D game. Sprites vs. polys is an entirely separate distinction.

The real issue is that there isn't a great term to use when talking about a three-dimensional playspace to separate it from full-on eye-ruining 3D. But I maintain that we should probably get all of our "D's" in check.

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?

To me, "2.5D" sounds like a 2D game with those parts like in Kirby's Epic Yarn where you go behind something and the background sticks up like a blanket with something under it. If that makes sense. 

I thought 2.5D referred to games with psuedo-three dimensional environments a la Doom and Duke Nukem 3D? On the other hand, Wikipedia (so sue me damn it) seems to cover both terms. Personally, I think it's a valid term, just maybe a little...subjective? You're staff though so It's your call.

I think the concept should exist for games like Klonoa, Kirby 64, Viewtiful Joe and Tombi 2. Games that are controlled in 2D, but the perspective changes depending on what's happening or where you're going.

Games like Super Paper Mario or Crush, games that switch between 2D and 3D, shouldn't be in this category.

No reason to delete it. 

I side with delete. Concepts should be for graphics or gameplay, but not both. The term 2.5D implies that there's something more to the gameplay and something less to the graphics than what's really there in execution. At most it can be an alias to a better named concept page.

I think I agree.  I would consider a game like Shadow Complex to be 3D, but styled with the Metroid-vania characteristics.  Delete it if you must, I won't mind.

I only use 2.5D to describe brawler games that have you moving in 2D across multiple planes. So typically old-school brawlers.

keep it. I think its reasonable to keep it, considering most people understand 2.5 D as 3D games on a 2D plane, ala SF4 and Shadow complex. 

@eroticfishcake said:

I thought 2.5D referred to games with psuedo-three dimensional environments a la Doom and Duke Nukem 3D? On the other hand, Wikipedia (so sue me damn it) seems to cover both terms. Personally, I think it's a valid term, just maybe a little...subjective? You're staff though so It's your call.

The moment you acknowledge that it has multiple completely different meanings, you acknowledge that it sucks.

Well, the problem with that is that you're using the term "3D" when you really mean "polygonal graphics." Now that there are games that are actually in 3D, using any form of "D" to talk about graphical style is confusing and should be slowly eliminated from the database. 2.5D is stupid because it combines graphics and gameplay in a way that makes it a meaningless catch-all term. To me, the term more appropriately fits into, like, SNK fighting games that let you shift between two or more planes. It's not a completely open space, but the Z-axis is at least partially addressed.

Street Fighter IV is a 2D game. Tekken 6 is a 3D game. Mortal Kombat is a 2D game. Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe is a 3D game. Sprites vs. polys is an entirely separate distinction.

The real issue is that there isn't a great term to use when talking about a three-dimensional playspace to separate it from full-on eye-ruining 3D. But I maintain that we should probably get all of our "D's" in check. 

I always thought 2.5D was referring to the gameplay, not the actual graphics.

Totally agree. Always thought it was a bit of a weird term.

All this "D" talk is messing with my head. Ocarina of Time was the first Zelda game in 3D, but now it's going to be a 3D game in 3D on the 3DS. That's like 6D or something. Is there a 6D concept page?

I never thought of something being 2.5D as being an official term. I understand what people are saying, but I always considered it slang. There should be other concepts that cover this area of video games and how to categorize them.

I'll get behind this. The term made sense when 3D graphics were new and nearly every game was designed around 3D space, but there's way too much overlap these days to bother making the distinction.

I think there's a place for a concept about games that only partially use the third axis for gameplay.  Perhaps this isn't it, but I think "sliding" or "dodging" isn't really the same as a full three-dimensional movement experience.

I thought 2.5D referred to games with psuedo-three dimensional environments a la Doom and Duke Nukem 3D? On the other hand, Wikipedia (so sue me damn it) seems to cover both terms. Personally, I think it's a valid term, just maybe a little...subjective? You're staff though so It's your call.

I think use of the term 3D to mean "occurring in a 3 dimensional world and state" is too ingrained in gamers' minds to change. I do wonder how we're going to differentiate a "3D platformer" like Super Mario Galaxy with a game that's actually in 3D.

@ 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.

Like Brad said, the term may have had relevance in 1996, when Pandemonium! was first released, but not now. Go ahead and delete.

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.

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.

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.

@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?

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. 

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

@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."

@ZombiePie

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.

@ 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.

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?

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. 

@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.

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. 

Get rid of it.

@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

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.

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

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'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.