2.5D Game Discussion

The best of the Pfhorums.

Post Nov 12th '08, 02:21

sweatervest wrote: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.

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.

Doesn't the mere existence of a wikipedia article (especially one that long) suggest that it is a legitimate term.
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.

And I still await something from a respectable source other than you that claims 2.5D is a self-contradictory term.

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

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 02:38

RyokoTK wrote: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.


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?

RyokoTK wrote: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.


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?
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 02:55

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

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.


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.

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").


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.

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?


That's not what I'm doing.
Last edited by RyokoTK on Nov 12th '08, 02:57, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 03:18

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.

RyokoTK wrote:I'm not telling you that you're wrong


RyokoTK wrote:"it's better to stop talking and learn about the truth than to keep saying wrong things.


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!

RyokoTK wrote:That's not what I'm doing.


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.
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 03:21

sweatervest wrote:But calling the term flamebait is pretty damn rigid.

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.
underworld : simple fun netmaps // prahblum peack : simple rejected netmaps
azure dreams : simple horrible netmaps // v6.0!!!: thomas mann's greatest hits : simple simple netmaps
User avatar

irons
(.Y.)

Post Nov 12th '08, 03:27

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.
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.

it's better to stop talking and learn about the truth than to keep saying wrong things.


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!


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

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


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.
Last edited by RyokoTK on Nov 12th '08, 03:27, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 03:28

Citation Needed *NM*
RyokoTK wrote:Personally I think the entire term is stupid and we should stop using it.
underworld : simple fun netmaps // prahblum peack : simple rejected netmaps
azure dreams : simple horrible netmaps // v6.0!!!: thomas mann's greatest hits : simple simple netmaps
User avatar

irons
(.Y.)

Post Nov 12th '08, 03:39

RyokoTK wrote: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.


Are you qualified to make such a judgement?

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


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!

RyokoTK wrote: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.


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


Post Nov 12th '08, 03:44

RyokoTK wrote:Stop trolling.


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

Post Nov 12th '08, 03:50

sweatervest wrote: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.

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

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 03:51

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:

Yes you are, you are saying a 2.5D game means nothing.
from this:

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.


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

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 03:53

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


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).
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 03:54

sweatervest wrote: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.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:02

RyokoTK wrote: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.


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.
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:03

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


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

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

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:09

sweatervest wrote:I meant that the term [2.5D] came out of the math of integer dimensionality

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

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:16

Treellama wrote: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?"
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:19

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."
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:24

RyokoTK wrote: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.
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:25

sweatervest wrote: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.


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.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:26

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


Naturally there are no examples in this topic alone.

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

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:36

Treellama wrote: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.


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.
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:41

Does this mean that the "half bathroom" is half the size or contains half the functionality?


...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.
Last edited by RyokoTK on Nov 12th '08, 04:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:45

RyokoTK wrote:Naturally there are no examples in this topic alone.

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


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.
sweatervest

PreviousNext

Return to Legends



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron