Treellama wrote:Loren implemented an OpenGL renderer for Aleph One that is fully capable of rendering 3D models, but continues to use the two point perspective which results in one of the apparent dimensions being greatly restricted.
Pardon me for arguing semantics but in your so-called rephrase you've gone from saying "I'd say you pretty much hit it" to, "doesn't assert anything concrete enough to be considered a good definition." If that is mere semantics to you, then I'm not sure what the point is of having a discussion with you.
I wouldn't have mentioned the math degree if you hadn't mentioned it first. I will grant you, it wasn't helpful for me to respond on your level like that, but I will also say you are the last person who can criticize me for doing it.
Well if A1 can now fully render models then that part of the engine has 3D capabilities (because it can read and manipulate the three dimensional vertex data) and, honestly I don't know how 2.5D would fit into the description of that engine because it sounds like a 3D engine has been added to a 2D engine, and as I apparently have not done a good job showing, I don't think that I am some infallible expert on the subject (before you rehash the mentioning of my educational career keep in mind that was a direct response to someone claiming I "have no idea about the topic"... I am really not trying to be pompous or say that because I take math classes I am right about everything, but when someone tells me I know nothing about it, I feel I need to mention that I am not some 13 year old wanker that just assumes he knows so much, really it was an attempt for me to justify my confidence in defending the terms in question...) so, I don't know. I think the term has been further obscured by people going into old 2.5D games and adding features like you said, so maybe what this all comes down to is that 2.5D used to be a good term to describe games but now that it's all come together it's really not useful anymore. I mean Doomsday still uses 2D maps from the original Doom but it can render models, dynamic lights, and all sorts of stuff and of course that is done with 3D calculations. I'd also like to mention that it is much easier to back down from previous claims if you aren't expecting responses along the lines of "AHA he is stupid and he is wrong told ya!"
When I said you guys like to argue semantics, for one it applies to others more than you and second I never said that your response about Crator's definition was semantic arguing. However, in order to help describe a definition to someone people will often omit the rigorous definition and instead provide a less concrete but easier to understand explanation, so yes, I do kind of feel like you jumping on that to point out that they are not exactly equivalent (and then to take another swipe at my intellect), especially after I mentioned exactly what you are talking about (read the sentence following the one you quoted me on... I said in all *practicallity* the definitions are the same) was you just trying to find fault in what I said instead of stopping for a second and thinking, "What is he trying to say here?" Also, since you have managed to conclude from my posting that I a) don't understand the subjectivity of my own arguments, b) don't know what an integer is, and c) don't understand the logical concept of "if and only if", I can only conclude myself that anything I say here will, in your mind, will be completely turned around and stretched into something different and I have no control over how you do that so... all I can do is humbly ask you to grant me the same assumptions I have granted you. When you post something I read it, read it again, and really think to myself, "What is he trying to say? Am I interpreting this correctly?" and if I ever feel like you posted something just to be a douchebag I stop and think, "That's probably not why he posted that so I'm probably just reading it wrong." Ask yourself if you do that everytime... or anytime you read a post here. I don't know you so I assume you are a smart and sensible person, and you would have to do something really drastic to shake that (compiling a list of my malposting comes close... but that wasn't you). So try, just try for a moment, to think of me as someone that probably does know what integers are and probably realizes that his arguments only apply to himself (hence the whole act of arguing to convince others), and I promise a back-and-forth like this won't happen again (don't get me wrong... I would love if we were going back and forth about what 2.5D could or could not mean without having to drag everything about me personally into it).
With that being said, I find it rather offensive that you say that being condescending is stooping to my level. Do you really think I am being condescending by responding to "You know nothing about math" with "Actually I am close to a degree in that subject"? Is that as condescending as saying "I'd hate to break it to you" before telling me what an integer is? That's what I mean when I say you always word things to be as damning and insulting towards people as you can possibly imagine. You couldn't have just said "2.5 isn't an integer" or even better yet, "Are you trying to say 2.5 is an integer?" no it had to be that little bit of self-indulgent tripe. I guess I should have expected this though. If someone loves the smell of his own farts what is he gonna say when people call him out for it? Probably to turn the accusation around and fart in the proverbial wine sifter with a claim that, once again, he is right in being arrogant. I mean in all fairness Treellama I shouldn't expect you to admit that most of your posting is unbearably pretentious, because such a post would not be unbearably pretentious. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Like I said above I really think you are a smart and sensible person, and I want you to know I'm not trying to condemn you as a person... just a lot of the things you type here.
Now one person has already called me a prick, and I know other people are thinking it loudly, so allow me to apologize for coming off that way. I'm not sure how I did it but it was not and never will be my intentions and I hope that in the future I don't give off the same vibe. I really don't like thinking that I piss people off, it's not what I'm here for. Please if anyone thinks I said something douche-baggish just point it out and say "Hey that was a d-bag thing to say". As long as you don't follow it with something like "so you're a monkey cock and a retarded pine cone could do math better than you" I'll probably say, "You're right, I'm sorry I said that". I might even apologize for repeatedly posting page-long responses (I know it's infuriating isn't it)!