2.5D Game Discussion

[cheif23]

What were some other 2.5D games you have played besides Marathon.

[$lave]

g_g

[Wrkncacnter]

Pong.

[cheif23]

Pong.

I was think more along the line's of Marathon-style games, but I guess that works too.

[treellama]

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.

P.S. Minotaur.

[cheif23]

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.

I have no intention of trying to create a legendary topic. I was just trying to create a topic so people could attempt to talk about game's that are similar to Marathon.

[treellama]

Why don't you change it to say "games that are similar to Marathon"

Although I can't think of any off-hand. Why don't you change it to say which games you think are similar to Marathon, and ask if anyone has played them?

[epstein]

Minotaur.

[jessenator]

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?

anyway

LucasArts' Dark Forces : this was actually the first 2.5d fps that I owned. I had up until that time played macDOOM and a lousy demo of Wolfenstein 3D. I thought DF was amazing, because over doom it had a better head wave, the jumping ability was a huge one, more weapons, grenades (thermal detonators), the dual-function mines you could use were brilliant, the multi-level map system was great as well, horizontal moving platforms/doors, and multi-sectioned doors, distance fog, and the mac version in particular had a great deal of graphic improvements. and death by long drop, and damage from longer falls was a bit of realism I thought good. and it was a Star Wars!

[sweatervest]

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?

2.5D means something very specific in terms of how a game works verses how it plays. 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. It does, however, have a quite consistent and useful definition. The term itself is not flamebait, though if it is associated with people who use it incorrectly I can see how that interpretation evolved.

And now to discuss some of my favorite 2.5D games:

Wolfenstein 3D - I still get a lot of enjoyment out of this game; it is the FPS at its core, solving a level puzzle while shooting the guys that try to stop you. Plus the sound effects are timeless

Blake Stone - Very similar to Wolf3D (same engine) but a little more advanced. I've only played this a couple of times because I have to emulate the actual DOS program (i.e. graphics and controls kinda suck a lot) but it seems that a modernized port of it would be very fun indeed. Unfortunately the source code is gone so that would be a formidable task.

Doom/Doom II - What kind of FPS fan would I be if I didn't play this game? Actually this has always been one of my lesser favorite old-school shooters (I tend to get stuck in it a lot), but recently I've come to appreciate it more - the double shoutgun in Doom II is so satisfying...

Heretic - I've played through most of Heretic, and it was pretty fun but personally I like Doom more (mostly for the bigger, louder weapons).

Rise of the Triad - For some reason I always love unpopular games, and this is a perfect example. The music is awesome, there are like 5 different kinds of rocket launchers (one that actually shoots five rockets!) and when you blow up someone just the right way their endtrails (and eyeballs) come raining down the screen. It does get kind of old after a while (the gameplay changes little if at all throughout the single player) but it's still a great game... I mean, John Romero's God Mode grunts, a powerup that makes you trip on shrooms, and health pickups that are cooked enemies!? I suspect the multiplayer is really fun too, but I've never tried it.

Star Wars: Dark Forces - This game is fun enough that it is worth playing the original DOS version (of course Lucas isn't releasing the source code), but that won't matter soon because someone actually took the time and effort to effectively reverse-engineer that game's engine and modernize it. Even in its pre-beta stages the new Dark Forces is pretty damn cool. I personally cannot wait for this to get finished.

Duke Nukem 3D - For some reason the mechanics of this game work really well (for me at least)... which make it one of the best FPS games I've ever played. Plus its got that dark sense of humor that Apogee so loved. As an added bonus you get to listen to your character being a badass every time you gib an enemy or "activate" one of the many strippers throughout the game.

Well, that's all the ones I can think of, and I know what I'll probably be spending my evening doing now...

[irons]

Minotaur.

[treellama]

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

No it doesn't.

It does, however, have a quite consistent and useful definition.

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]

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?

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. You posted a link of you giving examples of "how people use" the word, which is exactly what I said: people USE it incorrectly. I hope you realize simply saying "No it doesn't" is a pretty lousy argument. I did not make up 2.5D or its definition so it does not have a specific meaning to me. It has a specific meaning to people who know what it means, and clearly you are not one of those people. Giving examples of people using a word the wrong way does not at all prove or even suggest the word itself is undefined.

[irons]

verses

endtrails

[treellama]

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]

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?

I'm definitely not a "Wikipedia is meaningless" person, don't worry. However, they can be wrong about stuff and I wouldn't use the fact that their 2.5D article is a bit aimless and inconcise as proof that the term itself is ill-defined. It probably came up in many different areas of study and came to take its own definition in different areas (similar to how many things are defined a little differently in physics than they are in math).

I already did my best to explain what 2.5D means, which can be found in that "A1 didn't find something lib" topic over in A1 discussion. I am going to guess what your response to it is going to be, so let me assure you now I did not pull that stuff out of my ass. Also, if you think 2.5D is not a well-defined word, then how about defending that instead of simply posting "It's not a word". My responses have been much more than "Yes it is".

[treellama]

My responses have been much more than "Yes it is".

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]

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."

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.

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. Well it's not my definition! 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. Doesn't the mere existence of a wikipedia article (especially one that long) suggest that it is a legitimate term. One thing wikipedia is very strict about is deleting unneccessary pages.

I just skimmed over the wikipedia page and I actually think it describes quite well what it means. It describes both kinds of 2.5D that I talked about (2D engine with 3D gameplay and 3D engine with 2D gameplay) and does a pretty good job of removing any possible contradictions. And I still await something from a respectable source other than you that claims 2.5D is a self-contradictory term.

[RyokoTK]

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.

[irons]

no one should ever say anything because we'll never understand each other.

I thought this was true anyway?

[sweatervest]

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.

Yes I read his post already.

Well at least you took my advice. 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...

Irons: I kind of agree with you there.

[RyokoTK]

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.

[patrick]

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.

'trolling' as the demonstration of thinking so muddled that it simply must be a put-on--it's either that or untreatable mediocrity.

example: beating out a tattoo of 'yes it is' and criticizing one's interlocutors for lowering(!) the level of discourse in the thread.

[RyokoTK]

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.

[irons]

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."

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.

I haven't seen crazy shit like this since coolege class. Now I definitely want to go back! Thanks!