Talk:2.5D

message: The writer claims that "while optimal cutting tool paths for true 3-dimensional objects can be NP-complete, although many algorithms exist", I don't know where did the author get that knowledge, but based on my years' of study on path planning problem, unless you only allow the cutting tools to move along finite directions, for example, only along x or y directions on a grid, you cannot proof this problem is NPC.
"Gimbal Lock" is a nice buzzword, but in how far is it related to the subject? Apart from that, Quake (like most ego-shooters) has only 5 degrees of freedom (or 4.5 DOF, if you account for jumping as only 0.5), so gimbal lock should not be of such a big issue anyway? How do you rotate around 2 axes and produce gimbal lock?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.163.234 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NP-complete

message: This article needs a photo.
*Exactly my sentiments. --W3stfa11 06:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I don't think that the lack of "room over room" is related to be a 2.5D game. The well known example where this is the case is Doom, though this limitation is due to its 2D BSP tree and not the 2D sector structur. Also well known are the Jedi engine (Dark Forces) and the Build engine, which don't use BSP and are in fact able to let sectors overlap, so you can in fact have rooms over rooms. Yet they are both considered 2.5D. Overlapping sectors can even share the same height in space which would be impossible in a true 3D environment. One of the DM levels in Duke 3D actually makes use of this "feature", and in the 6th Dark Forces level, there is a room crossing an elevator shaft (probably an oversight by the designer). I'd say, it comes all down to the vertices, which have 2D coordinates in all those 2.5D engines, and 3D coordinates in true 3D engines.
LogicDeLuxe 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First-person shooters 

message: Wouldn't this better be suited for a "multiple meanings" page leading to different articles?
This would maybe make the photo problem easier as well. I agree, a photo would be nice but to what topic of the many?
(Sorry for the bad english) 80.135.100.134 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be split? 

message: The Pseudo-3D article covered the same information so I merged them. The choice of 2.5D over Pseudo-3D as the main page was based on three factors:
# the 2.5D page has foreign pages associated with it (JA, PL, ZH) while Pseudo-3D had none
# the 2.5D page had more "What links here" links (61 or so vs 22)
# the 2.5D page already has redirects, so I would have had double redirects to fix up; the Pseudo-3D page had none
I have no passion one way or the other on which page name is used. The resulting merged page does still need cleanup, however. --Ishi Gustaedr 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs to be undone. Pseudo-3D and 2.5D are entirely different things. In fact, they are exact opposites. This article incorrectly presents pseudo-3D as being an alternate term for 2.5D, and states that the terms can refer to one of two things. The first of these, "Gameplay or movement in a video game or virtual reality environment that is restricted to a two-dimensional (2D) plane with little to no access to a third dimension in a space that otherwise appears to be three-dimensional," is 2.5D, the second, "2D graphical projections and similar techniques used to cause images or scenes to simulate the appearance of being three-dimensional (3D) when in fact they are not," is pseudo-3D. These terms and respective definitions are strictly separate, and should not be equated on this article. Jack.P.Valentine (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of pseudo-3D 

message: I believe that at the very least, this article should be split between 2.5D in terms of graphics and 2.5D in terms of gameplay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.222.51 (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I too think this should be split. 

message: This should be more organized.  The article tries to mention road engines, isometric projection, parallax scrolling, and other techniques all jumbled together.  This makes for a very confusing read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.216.39 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organize Into Categories 

message: The image :Image:Outrun-arcadescreenshot.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Outrun-arcadescreenshot.png

message: I did a fairly major rewrite to the article, fixing a lot of grammar mistakes, reorganizing topics into sections, and merging the "3/4 perspective" section from Auxiliary view. I also paid special close attention to the "Axonometric projection" (now "Parallel projection") section since it contained a lot of inaccuracies. The article in general still needs to be better sourced. SharkD  Talk  06:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite 

message: The section on visual perception and cognition can probably be split into a different topic since it is not really related in any way to the rest of the article as far as I can tell. SharkD  Talk  06:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual perception and cognition 

message: Can someone fix the example image? Because it's scaled down from original, it only displays a single frame, so it's not a very good example of parallax scrolling! David (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... It used to be that GIF images would remain animated even after scaling. I don't know what changed. SharkD  Talk  06:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example animation 

message: Quote: "The advantage of these perspectives are that they combine the visibility and mobility of a top-down game with the character recognizability of a side-scrolling game."
I don't disagree with this statement, I just think it sounds like crap. Any rewordings to suggest? SharkD  Talk  19:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording needed 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.dreams-game.com/profile/president.html
** In 2.5D on 2011-05-25 06:56:10, 404 Not Found
** In 2.5D on 2011-06-10 04:46:12, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I suggest merging Isometric graphics in video games to here. A lot of the content is already duplicated, and I don't think there's a need for two articles. SharkD  Talk  18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Counter-proposal: merge 2.5D into Isometric graphics in video games. Reason: 2.5D is just a colloq term, there are no "half" dimensions. -- Kays (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: :«The reason for using pseudo-3D instead of "real" 3D computer graphics is that the system that has to simulate a three dimensional looking graphic is not powerful enough to handle the calculation intensive routines of 3D computer graphics, yet is capable of using tricks of modifying 2D graphics like bitmaps.»
I object to this statement, which claims that technological limitations are the only reason to employ pseudo-3D visualization. This would be like claiming that the only reason for a movie not to be filmed in 3D (or color, for that matter) is if its creators were not able to. It is clear in both cases though that these are fundamental artistic decisions that heavily influence a work, particularly in video games where it does not only affect the look, but also the interactivity. I think this paragraph should be reworked and/or extended; maybe it could be reworded to make it clear that, according to the section heading of "technical aspects", it is not the only reason for pseudo-3D, but the only technical reason. 84.227.27.182 (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. Go right ahead. SharkD  Talk  20:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical aspects & generalizations 

message: Are games like Resident Evil 2 and Grim Fandango 2.5D games since they have 2D backgrounds with 3D characters moving in them? --Mika1h (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are fixed 3D, not 2.5D. SharkD  Talk  19:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D characters & 2D backgrounds 

message: This article contains a wide variety of valid information, but it's not particularly clear why it is collected together. 
There is little to no linkage between these topics. What does parallax have to do with bump-mapping? Or axonometric projection with Trine 2? If these are different concepts that all share a term, we should have a disambiguation page that points to "2.5D graphics", "2.5D engines", "2.5D gameplay", etc. If this is supposed to be a catch-all page to describe all means of representing 3 dimensions in 2, it should be titled more appropriately ("Pseudo-3D" might work) or some sources need to be be cited as evidence that "2.5D" is indeed used in that catch-all sense.
The colloquial term "2.5D" as it is used in the current gaming discourse *almost always* means "2D sidescrolling gameplay in a 3D environment". See 
http://www.giantbomb.com/25d/3015-660/games/
http://www.raywenderlich.com/4551/how-to-make-a-2-5d-game-with-unity-tutorial-part-1
http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/2.5d
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1723480
And that's all from the first page of a Google search for "2.5D games". If that is the most popular current usage of the term, why is Wikipedia evidencing something different? 
It seems clear that 90% of this article is about various topics (such as graphical projections of 3D environments into 2D), which - even if it has been called 2.5D, which none of the sources suggest - are clearly separate from the topic of games set in 3D spaces that restrict movement to a 2D surface. I cannot see any reason that these topics should be combined under the banner of "2.5D" when no cited sources combine them. This seems very close to Wikipedia inventing/redefining a term. If I'm wrong, we need some citations using the term 2.5D to describe both games like Lincity AND New Super Mario Brothers in the same breath. 
Otherwise, they are two separate topics and this page should be divided at the very least into two articles, one for "Pseudo-3D graphics" and another for "2.5D games".
Yourself In Person (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely confusing article that collates far too much information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2.5D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007223458/http://mos.futurenet.com/pdf/net/NET165_tut_flash.pdf to http://mos.futurenet.com/pdf/net/NET165_tut_flash.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401041713/http://www.dreams-game.com/profile/president.html to http://www.dreams-game.com/profile/president.html
*Added  tag to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3181467
*Added archive https://archive.is/20110615221817/http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gamings-most-important-evolutions/a-20101008102331322035/p-3 to http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gamings-most-important-evolutions/a-20101008102331322035/p-3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi. I dunno if this is the right place to ask (sorry in advance if its not). Should this "HD-2D" style, that was arguably popularized by Square Enix's Octopath Traveler, be given a subsection or atleast a mention somewhere here? 
With Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes, Triangle Strategy, the Dragon Quest III remake and now the Live A Live remake (and other games I forgotten or don't know about using the same or similar style) I feel the use of "HD-2D" has become kinda like a thing now. Thanks in advance for the reply.--37.123.169.90 (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD-2D