2D Vs. 3D

[snabbott]

1-D games RULE!

[crayauchtin]

1-D games RULE!

....and you're on your own with that one.

[stika]

1-D games RULE!

....and you're on your own with that one.

you win those by moving a dot up and down 

[Neonivek]

If I remember right, the game Sacred was 2.5D but they had a 2D background/landscape and 3D models on it which is backwards from most 2.5D games which use 2D models (like MegaMan) on a 3D background. Watch that trailer again, and look at MegaMan -- not the screen, just the one little guy that you're playing. That is not 3D.

They also used 2.5D graphics with their sidescrolling game Sacred Citadel but I have to be honest, I know literally nothing else about that game.

Wikipedia has a list of games that use 2.5D graphics as well.

Anyways -- in the idea behind this discussion, 2.5D has to be its own thing. The question is, which do you like better, 2D graphics or 3D graphics? If you like 2D graphics better, you don't like 2.5D because they use 3D. If you like 3D better, well, you don't like 2.5D because they use 2D.
THAT is why, at least for the purposes of this discussion, 2.5D has to be its own thing. We're not talking about the science of graphics. We're referring to which one we like better. Saying 2.5D isn't a valid answer is basically saying either that it doesn't exist or that it actually defies the laws which hold the universe together to like a game with 2.5D graphics. Neither is the case.

Yes but that is easily rectified with one counter.

Doom

Doom is a 3d game that uses 2d sprites. Thus is also 2.5d yet is functionally completely different then your version of 2.5D

[crayauchtin]

....that doesn't "rectify" anything at all that I said, Neonivek. In fact, I specifically said that the Sacred games are backwards from most 2.5D games. Right here:

but they had a 2D background/landscape and 3D models on it which is backwards from most 2.5D games which use 2D models (like MegaMan) on a 3D background

And it still begs the question -- if one prefers 2.5D graphics what are they supposed to answer the question posed in this thread with? They can't. 2.5D graphics STILL have to be their own separate thing.

Basically, you successfully proved every single word I said in my post. Thanks!

[Neonivek]

Except I realised that and found that 2.5D Is TWO!

2d images in a 3d background

Or 3d images in a 2d background

Except that is in no way actual graphics. Those are Styles not an actual graphical representation.

If I am to accept 2.5D then I have to bring in every single aggrigate of representation.

Such as Isometric 3d and Cell shaded 3d... Both which are entirely distinct from traditional 3d (In fact Isometric 3d is 2d)

[stika]

actually if wikipedia is to be believed isometric graphics are also considered 2.5D

[crayauchtin]

Firstly, yes, isometric is considered to be 2.5D. And cell-shaded graphics is considered 3D graphics.

More importantly, Neonivek, the question was this: Do you prefer 2D or 3D graphics?

Answer that as someone who likes 2.5D graphics, without acknowledging 2.5D graphics as a type of graphics. Try.

You can't. Not possible.

Do you know why? Because 2.5D don't fit with 2D graphics or 3D graphics. Which means it HAS to be it's own thing. 2.5D is not two separate things. It is a middle ground in-between 2D and 3D. And I'm honestly finding it a little bit obnoxious that you can't acknowledge that.

[Neonivek]

It is because 2.5d is 3d graphics being used on a 2d plane.

It doesn't have to have to use any 2d graphics and thus doesn't enter into the discussion.

2.5 in fact represents a wide array of styles many of which do and do not use 3d or 2d.

It isn't a seperate thing because it isn't in the same category in the same way that a book is not a sport. Sports include books but reading is not a sport onto itself.

Likewise 2.5d is not in the same category as 2d and 3d, it just represents a host of styles and not an actual graphical type.

It is a middle ground in-between 2D and 3D

2.5d includes games that include both 2d and 3d representation. It also includes games that use 2d to create 3d perspectives. It is also games that use 3d on 2d planes... It is also games that use 3d on games that play in only 2 dimensions.

It isn't a middle ground because it isn't inbetween.

If it is to be accepted and I am wrong about it being an entirely different category then it isn't a middle ground but both grounds. It is using 2d and 3d and thus it would simply be "both" and not "Neither" and that is the major seperation between our viewpoints.

-

As well sorry if I seem obnoxious, I am trying to make conversation and this seemed like an interesting topic to try to discuss especially since ultimately there really is no answer to the question since games use what best suits them and that for some games 2d works best and for others 3d works best and it really comes down to preference, a preference that cannot really be expanded upon. If it is causing you strife I appologise and am more then willing to drop it.

[snabbott]

Technically, since it's being displayed on a screen, it's ALL 2D!

Seriously, though, whether or not 2.5D is its own "thing," I think it's a pretty commonly accepted term. I believe Sierra considered their games to be 2.5D (2D sprites on a 2D background with the illusion of a 3rd dimension achieved by sprite scaling and layered backgrounds).

As well sorry if I seem obnoxious, I am trying to make conversation and this seemed like an interesting topic to try to discuss... If it is causing you strife I appologise and am more then willing to drop it.

As long as you can discuss in a respectful manner and it doesn't degrade into "Yes it is!" vs. "No it isn't!", I think it's ok. You will probably just need to agree to disagree, though.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, I reread what I wrote there and it sounds almost completely insincere. I was sorry and only explaining what I was trying to do. As well as saying that I'd drop it if asked to.

[crayauchtin]

Oh, we don't have to drop it, it's just you STILL haven't been able to answer the question that's the entire basis of my argument.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who finds 2.5D to be the most appealing graphics. That is, a game which uses both 2D and 3D graphics.

Now, keeping in mind that your preference is 2.5D graphics, answer the question: What do you prefer, 2D or 3D graphics?

Please answer that.
If 2.5D is truly not relevant to this thread, if it isn't something different than 2D or 3D, answering that should not be complicated. It should be entirely simple.

[Neonivek]

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who finds 2.5D to be the most appealing graphics

I cannot accept logical fallacies internally.

The issue is that there is no "One" 2.5d so that person would need to describe it.

[stika]

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who finds 2.5D to be the most appealing graphics

I cannot accept logical fallacies internally.

The issue is that there is no "One" 2.5d so that person would need to describe it.

there is no "one" 2D either, one could say he/she prefer animated sprites or digitized sprites, or that he/he prefers side-scrolling or top down graphics

[Blackthorne]

I prefer 2D.  Almost exclusively.  Just a personal preference.


Bt

[crayauchtin]

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who finds 2.5D to be the most appealing graphics

I cannot accept logical fallacies internally.

The issue is that there is no "One" 2.5d so that person would need to describe it.

As stika said, there is also a wide variety of both 2D and 3D graphics. So this argument you're making? Invalid. Please try again.

[Neonivek]

Sort of, except with 3d and 2d it is styles. With 2.5d it is types.

[stika]

Sort of, except with 3d and 2d it is styles. With 2.5d it is types.

that really doesn't tell us anything. Can you provide a few examples? or at least explain your point a little better?

[crayauchtin]

Sort of, except with 3d and 2d it is styles. With 2.5d it is types.

Uhm...so I spent a minute on Wikipedia, and this is what I learned about graphics:

2D graphics can use "vector graphics" (which is basically shapes as far as I can tell, but I think handpainted graphics falls under this?), digital images or "bitmap" (which is constructing the images out of pixels, I think?) -- oh, and did you know that text is technically considered a type of 2D graphic?
There's a big, not stylistic difference between the two:


Also, and I'm a little confused about this, but there seems to be two kinds of 3D graphics too -- apparently, the way you make stationary 3D graphics is totally different from how you make 3D graphics which move?

.....so, those are styles?

[Neonivek]

Yes those are styles at least as far as concerns this subject. In a similar way Cell Shading is a graphical style of 3d.

They are different ways of representing 2d graphics.

While with 2.5d we have to first establish what type of 2.5d it is BEFORE we even get into styles. Since 2.5d is both 2d, 3d, and 2d with 3d but never at the same time.

When Street Fighter 4 (Pure 3d) and Megaman (Pure 2d with isometrics) and Doom (2d with 3d) are all considered 2.5d there is a larger issue. Mostly that liking 2.5d becomes more and more meaningless in light that there is no strict definition even when there is one.

It is no longer about representing what is essentially the same thing in the same way the Bitmap and Rastor both create 2d images.

What type of 2.5d creates entirely different things that do not come anywhere close to resembling it. Thus the need for the expansion of 2.5 graphics become nessisary in light of a lack of strong definition even when a definition is applied.