2.5D Game Discussion

The best of the Pfhorums.

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:46

sweatervest wrote:they don't quite act like a 2D space or quite like a 3D space.

By this definition 99.5% of all games must be 2.5D. That's fine, but it makes me wonder why there is a term for it at all (assuming there is one)? Seems to me like "It's a 2.5D computer game" could easily turn into "it's a computer game". I suppose if you were referring to the other .5%, you could just say it's a 2D game, which has a definition everyone can agree on.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:46

Are there examples elsewhere of me showing my stupidity?


Is this an invitation for someone to list them?
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:51

RyokoTK wrote:...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.


Hmmm... I suppose that is a poor example (I grouped the shower and tub in my head). I mean, do you know what I am trying to say? It's just in general a way of saying that a game has some properties of a 2D game and some properties of a 3D game, hence 2.5D game. It's not like "exactly 2.5000" or anything like that because, like you guys are saying, that wouldn't mean anything.
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 04:55

W wrote:By this definition 99.5% of all games must be 2.5D. That's fine, but it makes me wonder why there is a term for it at all (assuming there is one)? Seems to me like "It's a 2.5D computer game" could easily turn into "it's a computer game". I suppose if you were referring to the other .5%, you could just say it's a 2D game, which has a definition everyone can agree on.


Well that was a kind of flaky way to put it (my quote I mean) but when you specifically say 2.5D means 3D engine and 2D gameplay (or the other way around) that rules out most modern games (for FPS games essentially Quake and everything after that)

RyokoT wrote:Is this an invitation for someone to list them?


Absolutely.
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 05:06

sweatervest wrote:2D gameplay

Can you give a brief explanation of why marathon's gameplay is 2D? Last time I checked, I can move left/right, forward/back, up/down. I can also aim in the same way I can in modern games.
Or maybe marathon's engine is 2D. Can you explain this too? (I'm kind of slow). Last time I used forge, I could swear I had to places lines on an x, y grid and then assigned heights. Also with lua scripts, I specify coords with (x, y, z). I'm not seeing the 2D here.
Last edited by Wrkncacnter on Nov 12th '08, 05:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

Post Nov 12th '08, 05:14

This is from this topic alone, by the way.

2.5D means something very specific in terms of how a game works verses how it plays.
-- According to you.

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.
-- This is because, as you have demonstrated, there is no established definition of what 2.5D means. Just what people think it means. Which is what you've been told, over and over.

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.
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.
-- Grossly misinterpreting an argument, episode I.

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.
-- Grossly misinterpreting an argument, episode II.

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.
-- Good job boasting about credentials that you don't have yet and at best tangentially apply to the argument at hand.

I haven't given a reputable source on 2.5D because I don't know where to look for such a thing
Yes you are, you are saying a 2.5D game means nothing.
-- Grossly misinterpreting an argument, episode III.

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
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?"


I had a couple more quotes to post but the Pfhorums won't let me use the quote tag that many times in one post.
Last edited by RyokoTK on Nov 12th '08, 05:15, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 05:25

Can someone lock this topic already, please?

EDIT: This covers almost all of what has and/or could be said in this thread regarding 2.5D, and you can read the talk page on it if you aren't convinced that there is no set definition of "2.5D" in regards to gaming. I think we can all agree though, that our computer stays in the third dimension, and our monitors can only simulate a third dimension; computers don't magically create an extra half dimension for us.
Last edited by $lave on Nov 12th '08, 05:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

$lave

Post Nov 12th '08, 05:27

$lave wrote:Can someone lock this topic already, please?

What good is that going to do. This 2.5D thing has already made it into 3-4 topics already, and will just continue unless we pick a place to discuss it. Anyway, I would really like an answer to my question, so you're just going to have to deal with it. If you don't want to read this topic, it's easy enough to skip over.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

Post Nov 12th '08, 05:31

W wrote:What good is that going to do. This 2.5D thing has already made it into 3-4 topics already, and will just continue unless we pick a place to discuss it.


Well, when this topic is dead then, could it at least be locked and pinned?

EDIT: Although I'm assuming you want an answer from sweatervest, Marathon's gameplay (as I assume you know), is simulated 3D on a 2D monitor.
Last edited by $lave on Nov 12th '08, 05:34, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

$lave

Post Nov 12th '08, 05:35

$lave wrote:computers don't magically create an extra half dimension for us.

You have no imagination.
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, 05:39

EDIT: Although I'm assuming you want an answer from sweatervest, Marathon's gameplay (as I assume you know), is simulated 3D on a 2D monitor.


That is the problem Wrkncacnter was getting at in the first place: every freakin' game is 2.5D if you look at it that way.
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 05:43

RyokoTK wrote:That is the problem Wrkncacnter was getting at in the first place: every freakin' game is 2.5D if you look at it that way.

Exactly. No definition I've heard from sweatervest about 2.5D explains why marathon is 2.5D and modern games are not. This is why I'm asking him, since he's the only one that knows what he's trying to say.
Last edited by Wrkncacnter on Nov 12th '08, 05:46, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

Post Nov 12th '08, 05:44

$lave wrote:Well, when this topic is dead then, could it at least be locked and pinned?

EDIT: Although I'm assuming you want an answer from sweatervest, Marathon's gameplay (as I assume you know), is simulated 3D on a 2D monitor.

But the monitor is not 2D.

P.S.â??Pinned topics are seemingly the most likely to be ignored.
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, 06:44

I suggest the following:

A game engine which is more limited in some aspect of its visual and/or physical representation of a third dimension, when compared to its representation of two other spatial dimensions, is less than fully 3D. A 2.5D game engine is less than fully 3D while in some aspect still visually and/or physically representing a third spatial dimension.

This definition would categorize the Marathon engines as 2.5D but not, say, the Unreal 3 engine, nor Space Invaders.
User avatar

Crater Creator

Post Nov 12th '08, 08:08

Ryoko - I was really hoping you wouldn't actually take me up on that offer, but you did. Well, all I can say is I'm sorry. I am sorry you actually felt it necessary to prove to anyone here that I am stupid by putting together a list of my "stupidities." You should really think about that. You took that much time and effort just to convince people that I am an idiot. You are a wonderful person and you have made my experiences on this board so much more enjoyable. Thank you.

W'rk - Allow me to focus just on first person shooters. Basically anything before Quake would fall under the category of 2.5D (it doesn't have anything to do with when a game came out, this is just in general the time when computers became powerful enough to run 3D engines... also 3D cards were beginning to take the load off CPUs), like Doom, Marathon, Duke Nukem. All the Quake, Unreal and Halo games are 3D games. You asked earlier how Marathon's gameplay is 2D or how its engine is 2D. Well you are exactly right about the gameplay, you clearly have 3 degrees of freedom in which to move (even though gravity greatly restricts one of them) so the gameplay is 3D. I don't really know the details about Marathon's engine (I assume it is a 2D engine because that would be the only good reason to use sprites... keep in mind the use of sprites does not directly have anything to do with how an engine works, for example the UT engine is 3D but it can render sprites along with models and often does so for effects like explosions) so I'll instead say what I do know about a sector engine like Doom's engine. The level is literally a map (that is where the term came from) in that it is a two dimensional grid. However, anyone who has played Doom will tell you there is clearly a vertical element to the levels, so why wouldn't this count as the third dimension (or like you said, why is it not three dimensional when I move something in two axes and assign a third height value?) The difference here is that the two axes in the map are independent variables. Their value is not determined by anything, so any number of rooms or objects can exists along each of these two axes. You can have as many rooms as you want along the x and y directions just by assigning a different x or y coordinate for them. The height works differently though. Any point on the two dimensional grid has a "height" value assigned to it (I think whole sectors get that value in Doom), so the vertical coordinate is determined by your x and y coordinates. It isn't free to vary. If you assigned the height "3" to the x-y pair (1,2) then your vertical position must be 3 whenever you are at the point (1,2) on the map. It is not free to vary, i.e. changing your height value could only be accomplished by moving in the x-y plane. This is why two rooms can't be over each other, because the engine would interpret that as two rooms being in the same place. This is not true for the x and y coordinates themselves. You can move however you want in the x direction without being restricted to certain y values. It's basically like having a function of two variables f(x,y) that defines a surface in R^3 (three dimensional space). You need three dimensions to see the surface but you only need two variables to specify a point on the surface... the third is determined by the function. In a similar fashion, a Doom level only needs two variables to specify a place in the level, but three dimensions are needed to show the level the way it is meant to be. Of course doing that would make the engine 3D, so Doom basically restricts itself to rendering in only horizontal orientations (i.e. you can't look up and down) to reduce the problem of showing the level to another two dimensional problem (by treating one of the independent variables as a constant). One big effect this had on gameplay was that you could shoot above or below enemies (which was fortunate because you couldn't look up or down to aim at them) and still hit them... because "above" and "below" doesn't exist in the Doom engine per se. Any declaration of "height" is really just instructing the engine on how and where to render something. Marathon is clearly more advanced than this. It allows rooms over rooms and obviously knows if you are aiming at enemies (not to mention letting you aim), and like I said I don't really know much about Marathon's engine but if it works anything like the Build engine or the Dark Forces engine it's basically just using more special parameters like a "height" value (I think the DF engine does room over room by checking the player's "height" parameter and picking one of two sectors that exist in the same place based on their differing "height" values) to allow special instances of 3D calculations without giving it the general ability to compute in three independent variables.

This stuff really is confusing because it's all virtual. In the end all we're gonna get is a two dimensional picture on our monitor. I guess the biggest differences in 2.5D and 3D games is what they are capable of (in this case I am talking about 3D gameplay with a 2D engine, so it's really about what a 3D engine is capable of verses a 2D engine). 3D games can do everything a 2D game can do, but not the other way around. Unreal can render sprites, and Marathon can render sprites. But Unreal can render models while Marathon (in its original form) either had no or very limited model support. Unreal lets you look all the way up and down but Marathon restricts that because the distortion caused by looking (since, similar to Doom they reduced the rendering problem to a 2D problem which only works perfectly when you look straight ahead) would become unacceptable at extreme looking angles.

Perhaps the best example of a 2.5D game is the original F-Zero on SNES. Clearly the SNES had no where close to the processing power to run a 3D game (even with the SuperFX chip Star Fox could put out polygons at like 12 fps) so F-Zero is definitely not a 3D game in the sense of how it works (how it plays is a different story). I think this is a good example because it is possibly the simplest way to introduce a third degree of movement without having to do 3D calculations. The video chip was set to scale a single background (Mode 7) and the scale value was programmed to change every scanline, so it can be large near the bottom of the screen and small in the middle. By gradually reducing the scale of the background image it appears to be stretching off into the distance horizontally, and this effect was achieved without having to do any intrinsically three dimensional calculations. Then you just scroll the background to make it look like the camera is moving around horizontally, and you can change how quickly the scale is reduced per scanline to make apparent changes in height (i.e. if the scale decreases more slowly the background appears to be further below the camera). So now we can control movement in two directions by scrolling the background in two directions and then we can move in an additional third direction by changing how the background is scaled. Thus we have achieved three dimensional gameplay without having to use a three dimensional engine.

Crator - I'd say you pretty much hit it. Unreal 3 is a completely 3D game, Space Invaders is a completely 2D game, and Marathon is right smack in the middle. This definition is effectively equivalent to saying a game has a 2D engine and 3D gameplay, because the direct result of that is that one of the apparent dimensions is greatly restricted (I suppose you could make a 3D engine that just decides to only use 2D calculations and get the same result but in all practicallity to say that one dimension is restricted is to say that the engine does not have full 3D capabilities and is thus a 2D engine).
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 08:18

Jumbo post!

irons wrote:But the monitor is not 2D..

*facepalm* He means a 2D display, how about that?

Crater Creator wrote:A game engine which is more limited in some aspect of its visual and/or physical representation of a third dimension, when compared to its representation of two other spatial dimensions, is less than fully 3D. A 2.5D game engine is less than fully 3D while in some aspect still visually and/or physically representing a third spatial dimension.

Unfortunately, under your description, Space Invaders counts (it attempts a rudimentary effort at simulating a 3D world with sprites, but in an aspect it visually represents 3D). Try this:

A 2.5D game engine utilizes a 2-dimensional map to create a virtual world in which all 3 dimensions, x, y and z, are represented accurately and utilized in gameplay.

In Marathon, you can use lifts and walk up and down stairs, so it's 2.5D. Space Invaders uses a map in which only 2 dimensions are used at all, so it doesn't count. Unreal Engine uses a 3D map from the beginning, so it doesn't count either. I think it works quite well. I think the older Mario Karts are actually 2.5D by our definitions though, so idk.

sweatervest wrote:Ryoko - I was really hoping you wouldn't actually take me up on that offer, but you did. Well, all I can say is I'm sorry. I am sorry you actually felt it necessary to prove to anyone here that I am stupid by putting together a list of my "stupidities." You should really think about that. You took that much time and effort just to convince people that I am an idiot. You are a wonderful person and you have made my experiences on this board so much more enjoyable. Thank you.

You realize you were the confrontational one, right? Throughout the thread, I really only saw you stubbornly holding your ground while the CLIQUE tried to correct you (with tons of flaming, I guess, but that's the way they swing). Maybe you should step back a little and read it from the beginning, and maybe you might realize you've been being a bit of a prick through the whole thread.

sweatervest wrote:W'rk - blah tons of stuff which I won't quote

That sounds about right.

sweatervest wrote:Crator - I'd say you pretty much hit it.

I just reworked it, above.
Last edited by chinkeeyong on Nov 12th '08, 08:25, edited 1 time in total.
Embrace imagination.
User avatar

chinkeeyong
Singapore

Post Nov 12th '08, 11:00

User avatar

JohannesG

Post Nov 12th '08, 13:34

Johannes Gunnar wrote:Successful Troll Is Successful

Embrace imagination.
User avatar

chinkeeyong
Singapore

Post Nov 12th '08, 14:33

Crater Creator wrote:A game engine which is more limited in some aspect of its visual and/or physical representation of a third dimension, when compared to its representation of two other spatial dimensions, is less than fully 3D. A 2.5D game engine is less than fully 3D while in some aspect still visually and/or physically representing a third spatial dimension.

By this definition, Far Cry is a 2.5D engine.

sweatervest wrote:This definition is effectively equivalent to saying a game has a 2D engine and 3D gameplay, because the direct result of that is that one of the apparent dimensions is greatly restricted

This, of course, isn't true at all. A implies B does not mean B implies A. You are six credits away from a degree that doesn't include an introduction to logic, apparently.

Regardless, you've each just made my point stronger by posting your own, subtly different definitions of what you want 2.5D to mean. Every person in this thread can define it personally as much as he wants (in different ways!); but that doesn't speak to my original assertion that there isn't a widely accepted specific, consistent, and useful definition of the term.
Last edited by treellama on Nov 12th '08, 14:34, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 14:55

Treellama - Once again you have somehow pulled out of my posts that I don't understand the difference between one-way and two-way logical statements. God damn you must be a genius. I explained in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted that yes, it is possible that someone could make a 3D engine that behaves like a 2D one, but why would anyone do that? Like I said, in all practicallity the definitions are identical... but you guys love to argue semantics so I'll rephrase it... Crator's definition is too vague, it in many ways implies what 2.5D means but doesn't assert anything concrete enough to be considered a good definition. You have a really good way of saying things in the most condescending way possible.

chinkee - I do not realize at all how I have been controversial. I have already read back through this plenty of times and I fail to see where I have been stubborn or said anything along the lines of "I'm right because I am". The CLIQUE has been stubbornly insisting that I am wrong without explaining why (for example by showing a contradiction in my explanation of 2.5D) and then, like they always do, tried to tear me apart as a person (I don't research stuff, I'm an idiot, I'm trolling haha, etc.). The only possible thing I could have said to satisfy them was "You guys are totally right I am sorry I doubted you." Maybe I forgot but I really don't remember ever even posting that I am right. I've just been debating the arguments presented against me (should I not have?) and plently of people have insisted that I am wrong but I don't think I've even said that anyone is right or wrong. Besides, all the "controversies" I seem to get into here don't happen anywhere else on the internet or in my actual life. So if we want to talk about logic, let's talk about how much sense that makes. And I simply cannot imagine how insecure someone would have to be with him/herself to think it necessary to construct someone's "Idiocy Tab".
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 15:28

sweatervest wrote:I explained in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted that yes, it is possible that someone could make a 3D engine that behaves like a 2D one, but why would anyone do that?

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.

but you guys love to argue semantics so I'll rephrase it... Crator's definition is too vague, it in many ways implies what 2.5D means but doesn't assert anything concrete enough to be considered a good definition.
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.

You have a really good way of saying things in the most condescending way possible.

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.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 15:35

Treellama wrote:I'm not sure what the point is of having a discussion with you.

Try to read between the lines a little bit more in the future, Tl.
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, 17:40

Aww...

[attachment=2201:2BearsHug.gif]
Attachments
2BearsHug.gif
2BearsHug.gif (40.15 KiB) Viewed 3220 times
~if I had a rocket launcher, I'd make someone~
User avatar

epstein
North Carolina

Post Nov 12th '08, 17:58

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)!
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 18:09

sweatervest wrote:Now one person has already called me a prick

Don't pay attention to that guy. He thinks if he doesn't agree with CLIQUE, he will be banned.
User avatar

Wrkncacnter

PreviousNext

Return to Legends



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users