Except it's not inaccurate. The primary reason Doom is called "2.5D" is because it uses 2D sprites instead of 3D polygons to render objects in the game. You seem to be stuck on the idea that it's entirely because of limitations in the handling of levels/maps, which is certainly part of it, but not really the main point.

There are multiple meanings of "2.5D" - I tried to explain to you last page that it's not black & white, and if you'd read your own link you'd know this. But generally in the context we're talking about here, the .5D, ie: the dimension that's being "faked", is depth. From the point of view of you (the viewer). Objects are being rendered with 2D sprites with no depth, so depth has to be simulated by scaling the size of the sprites. Your inability to understand this point is also why you don't understand DArtagnan's references to the Z axis and moving backwards/forwards.

You seem to think 2.5D means there is no height in the game, only X and Y coordinates along the floor - which couldn't be farther from the truth. Most of those games tracked height.

I feel like you're talking to yourself here.

That's funny, because I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Did you just claim you not only understand 2.5D, but understand it better than I do? Again? In response to a reply I left you which illustrated, using your own words, that last night you didn't have the faintest idea what the term even meant?

Obnoxious. Big time. Everyone who disagreed with me in this thread was wrong. That's all there is to it. I pointed out early on this wasn't a matter of opinion. I'm certain DArtagnon realized yesterday at some point he was wrong, and instead of graciously admitting it when he had the chance he went the bullying route to try to cover up his mistake. You, though, Stingray, you don't even understand the discussion well enough to be participating in it.

Yes, not only do I claim I do, but I know I do.

Why don't you read the first sentence in your own link that you were so insistent we read? I'll paste it for you:

"2.5D ("two-and-a-half-dimensional"), ¾ perspective and pseudo-3D are terms, mainly in the video game industry, used to describe either 2D graphical projections and similar techniques used to cause a series of images (or scenes) to simulate the appearance of being three-dimensional (3D) when in fact they are not, or gameplay in an otherwise three-dimensional video game that is restricted to a two-dimensional plane."

The bolded part is the meaning I'm trying to help you understand here. The non-bolded part is the other, more secondary, meaning that you seem fixated on.

Haha. Wow.

Nah, I can guarantee you that isn't the case.

Right, well I guess you better go rewrite all those college textbooks to make sure they properly reflect your idiot opinion that it's possible to have legitimate rather than simulated motion along all 3 axes when you've only got support for 2 axes in the game engine.

I was going to say this isn't rocket science, but in a way it kinda is. I'm going to write this off as a lesson learned about discussing technology with people who don't have the intellect to comprehend it.

You must have missed where I mentioned that those games also track height. That's your 3rd axis, from the level/map perspective.

I don't remember your weird rants being mentioned in the graphics classes I took when getting my degree, so I doubt any textbooks have to be rewritten.

Right on, you do that.

You must have missed the part where I pointed out x and y without z is only two dimensions, no matter what stunts developers pull to make it seem as if it's three. By the way, one z axis issue these 2.5D games always had that's easy to spot is the way shots seem to automatically track sharply up or down to hit targets that appear to be above or below, even though the player has not changed their point of aim. And in fact the player usually cannot aim up or down, because up or down don't really exist. You see, it's only an illusion that those enemies are at a different height. They're really on the same plane as the player.

You ever seen anything like that, Stingray? :D

Graphics, again? Who here is talking about graphics, besides you? Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that you don't remember what your instructors told you in college. You don't even remember what you said yourself, last night. That's why you work graveyard shift at a gas station, isn't it?

By the way, have you noticed yet your allies have abandoned you?

Yeah, that's because everyone else has already realized you're a lunatic and not worth responding to. Count me among them now. I'm willing to forgive the ignorance, but the unwarranted personal attacks alone are proof that you're scum.

Typical of a bully to play the victim when he doesn't come out on top, isn't it?

Oh, so you need to have a "coded" Z-axis in your game to move in terms of depth. Are you saying you actually know how MM6 was coded? Are you saying they're not using vector calculations for player and camera positioning? Please provide proof of this, just for kicks.

That's pretending a "coded Z-axis" was necessary - which I think is quite amusing.

I guess that means when I move forward in real life without a coded Z-axis it's not really 3D space but 2D space, right?

You're getting more and more desperate and you make less and less sense.

Now we're getting a bit nasty and aggressive are we? Is that what happens with you when you're wrong in public?

Tell me, are you the sort of person who thinks shouting "I'm right, I'm right!" constantly without backing it up with logical arguments is going to change anything?

In that case, you've found the wrong person to carry a debate with :)

And look at you, trying to sound all fancy? Do you even know how vector calculations are done within a 3D space? I'm guessing you don't, or you wouldn't have thrown that out there like you found the IWIN button :)

What's so hard about saying you were wrong, bro?

… constantly without backing it up with logical arguments is going to change anything?

I offered the ultimate logical argument yesterday, and again today several times. X and Y without Z is a two dimensional plane. X,Y,Z together is a three dimensional volume. You seem to be disputing that, for some strange reason. And I say it's strange because as far as I know this has been considered to be fact for longer than either of us has been alive. Just because you keep glossing over "my" argument as if I haven't made it, doesn't mean that I didn't put it out there. I even provided a nice little tutorial vid about spatial geometry.

You mean there's a game that's not represented on a 2D plane? Please let me know so I can check it out on my 2D plane screen :)

Again, you seem to confuse vector-based math with dimensions. You seem to think that nothing can be 3D if it doesn't have a "coded" Z-axis.

Meaning we don't move around in 3D in real life - because I'm not seeing any Z-axis around here.

I don't really know if you understand what depth means - but it doesn't mean you need X,Y,Z in a coordination system. All you need is to simulate depth - which is all you can ever do on a 2D screen, and for that you need nothing but a convincing portrayal of depth.

That's why Dungeon Master is a 3D game :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master_(video_game)

Here's a quote:

Dungeon Master (short: DM) is an early grid-based 3D realtime action role-playing video game.

It's just not based on vector graphics and polygons. You really should understand the difference here.

I guess you ran out of arguments, then?

Wow, this certainly got blown completely out of proportions.

M&M most certainly has full 3D movement - you can move smoothly along any axis, X, Y or Z. The only requirement is to enter the menu and select "smooth movement" or some such thing, and the regular X degree movement is disabled.

Using the fly spell and smooth movement, it's as three dimensional as movement is capable of getting. And yes, it's tracking all three dimensions, as you can fly directly above enemies and they won't be able to hit you.

Hehe, Dungeon Master isn't a 3D game according to CraigWB - because it doesn't use vector graphics. Apparently, he thinks that three dimensions are exclusively about math - which is funny, because what kind of world were we running around in before math was invented? 2D I guess :)

Also, he thinks that 2.5D is a technical term referring to actual dimensions, and not the nature of how the engine displays its visuals. In fact, it's mostly used in reference to isometric graphics, but that's another story.

So, according to CraigWB - MMX Legacy is a 3D game because it uses vector based graphics - but Dungeon Master isn't a 3D game because it doesn't use vector based graphics.

So, remember that folks!

When you move forward in a dungeon in Dungeon Master - you're not simulating a 3D environment because there's no "coded" Z-axis, but you ARE simulating a 3D environment in MMX Legacy - because they use a "coded" Z-axis.

Now that IS humor!

Thanks, Craig :)

You're the one who brought vector calculations into the discussion. I ask you again: do you know how vector calculations are "coded"? It seems that you don't, or you would realize that you're trying to refute terms I'm using with terms that mean exactly the same thing. Which is absurd.

Mind numbing. Really.

So after all this, you are agreeing with me that 2.5D games are only simulating the third dimension? Is this your way of admitting you were wrong without admitting you were wrong?

It's not 3D. That was just a marketing gimmick being used to set it apart from textmode games. It's not even fully 2D. It's a step-mode grid movement game just like the early Might & Magic games. Here's proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho5E05Bi3bU

The first 3D game was Ultima Underworld. I provided a link up above, but the "fully 3D movement" is better seen in System Shock.

You're the one who keeps talking about vector graphics and polygons. That's completely irrelevant. What's up with you and your bud changing the discussion to graphics, all the time?

Hehe, Dungeon Master isn't a 3D game according to CraigWB

It's not a 3D game according to anybody, including the people who started this thread complaining that MMX didn't use the "fully 3D movement" of MM6. You do realize that Dungeon Master works the same way the early Might & Magic games worked, right?

Anyway, I changed my mind. You don't grasp these concepts. It's very possible that you aren't aware that you are wrong.

Maylander, I don't want to argue with you. I never did. Honestly, I don't even care about this stuff at this late date. What they did with the game engine in MMX doesn't bother me a bit. If they'd used what you call the "full 3D" of MM6, that'd be fine by me too. Sorry you got dragged into this. I'm just here to defend myself from some obnoxious people who won't let me walk away from having to prove them wrong, and who can't be bothered to educate themselves on the subject matter they're pretending to be expert in.

If you can come up with a rational reason why that's relevant, I'll gladly answer that question.

All games that include the third dimension are simulating the third dimension, because it's a 2D screen we're looking at.

It's 3D - and that's why the wiki says it's 3D. You're talking about vector graphics again. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're the only one in this thread that would claim Dungeon Master isn't a 3D game. It's not a VECTOR based 3D game, but that's something else.

No, that was definitely NOT the first 3D game. IF you're talking about vector graphics and polygons, you'd have to go way back in time for that. I remember playing Mercenary many years before - and I'm sure there are vector based 3D games that are much older.

If you're talking about texture mapped polyons, Wolfenstein 3D came before it.

You don't really understand what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

You're confusing dimensions with movement again.

You don't need full 3D movement to simulate a third dimension. You should have understood this by now.

What would be my motive if I was aware of it?

I'm guessing you'd be the one to ask.

Awww, the victim card played by the only aggressive person in this thread.

That's sweet.

It's still "full 3D movement" - though I guess you deliberately taking that last word out means you know you're wrong.

Which brings me back to my question, what's your motive for not just stopping?

You don't have to admit you're wrong - as such a thing doesn't matter to me.

The reason I even bother having a debate like this is that it's in public - so people can read what we're talking about - and that's how we learn about things and each other.

It's rarely because I want to convince the person on the opposite side, because that's all but impossible in an online and mostly anonymous environment.

It almost never happens - and when the person in question is as aggressive as you, it's not exactly more likely to happen :)

No, that was definitely NOT the first 3D game.

Ultima Underworld Underworld was not the first 3D game? So the whole history of the PC game industry is wrong? Doom took a hit for being only 2.5D, for no reason? System Shock didn't have a mindblowingly advanced 3D game engine years before anyone else was able to match it?

Do you seriously believe the only person you're disputing with when you make these claims is me? And boy, that part where you say it's possible to represent three dimensions without a z axis…. damn, dude… you need to get a nobel prize for that, because you know more than every college professor who was ever born, combined. Even Einstein never figured that out!