W wrote:Pong.
Treellama wrote:While I admit that searching the Pfhorums for "2.5D" brings up a wealth of legendary threads, if you somehow think that putting that flamebait term in your topic is going to guarantee this thread legendary status, you are sorely mistaken.
jessenator wrote:maybe i'm old, but 2.5D seemed to me to be more of a term of endearment for the engine-style once Quake came out. So '2.5D' is offensive?
sweatervest wrote:2.5D means something very specific in terms of how a game works verses how it plays.
It does, however, have a quite consistent and useful definition.
Treellama wrote:No it doesn't.
No, it doesn't.
http://www.pfhorums.com/index.php?s=&s...ost&p=57182
Perhaps it has a specific, consistent, or useful definition only to you. But words that have a specific meaning only to one person are not very useful tools for communicating, wouldn't you agree?
sweatervest wrote:verses
endtrails
Treellama wrote:Wikipedia itself gives a half dozen different ways it is used (many are those which I listed)--and it doesn't offer any pointers as to the official correct usage of the term. If you're one of those "Wikipedia is meaningless" people why don't you point out in MW or the OED what the correct usage is? You know, those books of words with definitions people agree on?
sweatervest wrote:My responses have been much more than "Yes it is".
Treellama wrote:Your responses have been to say what it means to you, and then to assert that anyone who uses it the way you do is using it correctly. A mere positive assertion countered by my mere negative assertion. I still await something from a respectable source other than yourself, showing the "correct" usage of the word, and refuting the other definitions I've already given as not being in common enough use to be considered "correct". Until then, "no it's not" is just as valid as "it means this to me, and that is the correct usage."
sweatervest wrote:no one should ever say anything because we'll never understand each other.
RyokoTK wrote:I think he's waiting for a respectable source that actually defines the term 2.5D. It's not that hard.
In the meantime, stop trolling.
sweatervest wrote:Could you explain how anything I posted was an attempt to evoke an emotional or off-topic response? I hope you don't think that "trolling" a forum means disagreeing with you.
Treellama wrote:Your responses have been to say what it means to you, and then to assert that anyone who uses it the way you do is using it correctly. A mere positive assertion countered by my mere negative assertion. I still await something from a respectable source other than yourself, showing the "correct" usage of the word, and refuting the other definitions I've already given as not being in common enough use to be considered "correct". Until then, "no it's not" is just as valid as "it means this to me, and that is the correct usage."
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users