sweatervest wrote: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
Marathon has always required at least three dimensions (four, actually, thus so-called 5D space) to represent points in the world. I assume that's your definition of a 3D engine. So, a 3D engine has been added to a 3D engine
(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).
Well, I'm not sure how it is possible to point out flaws in your reasoning without that being considered personal. I assume most of the sentences in your posts are meant to support your points, which means when they don't make sense for one reason or another, they should be pointed out. "Tear[ing] apart people's sentences" adds a connotation I don't intend: I merely want to acknowledge strong points and bring light to weaker points. If I agree with the general sentiment of your posts (hypothetically), but disagree with some sections of it, should I simply say "I agree," and then have it pointed out later by someone else that I agreed to one of the sections I don't really agree to?
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.
I like to think I could be a lot more damning and insulting if I were trying. Picture Wrkncacnter, but with my post count. I try not to, but out of the dozen or so posts I've had in this thread, you focused on the two where I made jokes at your expense. Considering the emotional impact of what I type and say is, I admit, something I am not good at (particularly because it seems to vary based on the listener and circumstances)--ask Mrs. Treellama.
But I also think it might help you to be a little more thick-skinned when discussing things on the Pfhorums--I am by far not the worst person here, and I have a little defense in that any instances of what I might consider harmless ribbing (come on, we all know 2.5 isn't an integer, that's why it's funny!), that get misinterpreted, weren't done with the sole purpose of damning or insulting people on an Internet forum.
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 think we can agree that this discussion probably would have gone as the poster intended, had he used one of these terms to describe other games he had in mind:
- extruded polygon first person shooters
- first person shooters using sprites and/or limited up/down view movement
- games based on the Marathon 2 engine like ZPC or Prime Target
I include all of those only because I'm still not sure what he meant.