• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BroderickCalpe

What does 2.5D actually mean?

21 posts in this topic

Hi!

 

I've been trying to figure out what 2.5D actually mean in games.

Do they mean that all objects are rendered in 3D but collisions and movement only occur in 2D space (x,y) ??

 

I've been trying to find any good information how to achieve 2.5D using OpenGL.

Any suggestions?

books?

Tutorials maybe?

 

Thanks

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to figure out what 2.5D actually mean in games.

Do they mean that all objects are rendered in 3D but collisions and movement only occur in 2D space (x,y) ??

 

That's what I usually take it to mean. I believe isometric style games are what is being referred to.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SiCranes description is good. I'd also say the simulated 3rd dimension has to be somehow part of gameplay for it to be a proper 2.5D game.

 

For example, mario world is not 2.5D even though it has a parallaxing background.

But say you have a shooting gallery game, using parallaxing 2d backgrounds when you move your gun to give an illusion of depth, and you have a 2.5D game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SiCrane is correct.

 

It is nothing more than a 2-D game that tries to look isometric

From there, sufficient-enough information has been provided that I don’t know what else I can add that was not already mentioned.

 

 

L. Spiro

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think saying 2.5D has become a way to describe what a game feels like without actually taking the time to say how it works.

Ultimately, in graphics, our games end up being shown 2D. How they get there is, even today, perspective or ortographic projections.

Billboards and 3D meshes. The bar for how much it takes on the graphics side to be qualified as 3D is probably changing, although I still regard Wolfenstein 3D as being a 3D game. It has what appears as perspective, and in a way, that's enough to describe 3D graphics it for me.

 

Its gameplay mechanisms are pure 2D, though. Simcity 2000 and up are regarded "2.5D" by some. Sure, a change in terrain height can mean higher land values, but you could emulate that in 2D as well. I like to work in integers when describing D. I cannot imagine half a time axis, or half a color or geometry axis. It's just plain silly, or maybe I'm not bright enough. I'd say simcity could just as well be shown/understood as a 2D game with 2D visuals.

 

Everything can be spoken of in as many D as you like, only after a certain count it stops making sense to me. I have this tile which travels in time. Now, it's condition dimension is 100%. It's ownership dimension is 1, for player 1. It's temerature dimensions is 20 deg celcius. Oh, and it has X and Y coordinates too, but I'm somehow still able to describe it as a line on graph, with alternating thickness, transparency and rgb values.

 

If it makes sense to you, go ahead and use that half dimension, -but please try to explain where I can find this dimension, and how it's actually represented in the game.

I'd still say that if it makes sense to have an altitude for objects, the game would be 3D from a geometric point of view, not 2D, even though the isometric projection results in a 2D image. All the projections I work with in GD do.

 

The guys on the wikipedia article seem to be all over the place. Where I'd say 2.5D doesn't mean anything really, these people apparently have a lot of opinions on the subject, changing from describing projection types and gameplay, to talking about parallax scrolling, 2D gloss effects and bump mapping. It's probably safe to say that they're not completely sure either, although overall it seems to have something to do with pseudo 3D, and making things appear to have more depth when shown in the plane.

 

I've never come over a paper that describes an improvement to creating lifelike geometry as "improving 2.5D graphics" or "for applications in a 2.5D environment"

Edited by SuperVGA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its gameplay mechanisms are pure 2D, though. Simcity 2000 and up are regarded 2.5D by some. Sure, a change in terrain height can mean higher land values, but you could emulate that in 2D as well.

 

I hold to my definition that if the 3rd dimension affects gameplay, it is counted as half a dimension if the rendering technique used is not full polygonal 3D.

Though it definitely is connected to the visualisation you choose to use.

 

Sim City 2k graphics is 2D, and the "emulation" of depth is achieved by isometric techniques.

 

If you would add terrain height change to any 2D game, you would need some way to show that the terrain height change had happened.

 

If you do this with some graphical effect, like some shading, a scaling, fog, etc, that give some illusion of depth, the game would then become a 2.5D game.

If you just have a number "5m above ocean" on every tile, then it remains a 2D game.

 

 

 

I must say though, that I'm a bit confused about the "3D games with 2D gameplay" though, that is, full polygonal 3D, but gameplay limited to 2D as the OP describes.

I'm not sure I would like to call that 2.5D, but I'm also not sure what I would want to call it smile.png probably something contrived like "2D game with 3D graphics"...

Edited by Olof Hedman
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its gameplay mechanisms are pure 2D, though. Simcity 2000 and up are regarded 2.5D by some. Sure, a change in terrain height can mean higher land values, but you could emulate that in 2D as well.

 

I hold to my definition that if the 3rd dimension affects gameplay, it is counted as half a dimension if the rendering technique used is not full polygonal 3D.

Though it definitely is connected to the visualisation you choose to use.

 

Sim City 2k graphics is 2D, and the "emulation" of depth is achieved by isometric techniques.

 

If you would add terrain height change to any 2D game, you would need some way to show that the terrain height change had happened.

 

If you do this with some graphical effect, like some shading, a scaling, fog, etc, that give some illusion of depth, the game would then become a 2.5D game.

If you just have a number "5m above ocean" on every tile, then it remains a 2D game.

Yes, it seems that to many, a game being 2D, "2.5D" or 3D is directly connected to how it's rendered.

Personally, I wouldn't say using or not using polygons should have any impact to whether a game can be considered 3D or not.

 

A heightmap is a good example of something 2D which just as easily represents something 3D. The third dimension being the intensity of each pixel.

Had I been comfortable with viewing a heightmap myself, while playing an otherwise 2D rendered game, its mechanisms could be just as 3D as Simcity 2000.

Changing the terrain would be nothing more than altering these values, and if my brain decides to view and understand the heightmap as being 3D, then I percieve the game as 3D. (I may use bump-mapping or similar, but it won't be a fancy projection)

 

It always ends up as 2D, and it's up to us to have the users perceive depth, if we want them to.

I'd say that the text "5m above ocean" displayed on a tile is just as clear an indication of 3D as a heightmapped terrain.

 

I completely agree that you can, and should, fool the user into seeing 3D, even with the effects you mentioned, but I think the idea of 2.5D is very vague.

Edited by SuperVGA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok very good explanations all of you. I guess the bottom line is that there is no clear definition.

 

What about a game like this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Tf0aYRmHQ

Is that considered 2.5D ?

 

Are they handeling the collisions in 2D like Box2D or 3D collisions (Bullet maybe) ?

 

and this game:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RVmLJrP6Ec

Is that purely 3D ?

 

Thanks

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to figure out what 2.5D actually mean in games.

 

Did you try Googling it?  The first entry is the Wikipedia definition, which explains it clearly.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I've been trying to figure out what 2.5D actually mean in games.

 

Did you try Googling it?  The first entry is the Wikipedia definition, which explains it clearly.

Depending on your definition of "clearly", obviously. But yeah, googling first often yields some good answers.

Edited by SuperVGA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have googled it and asked around and everyone has there own definition. That is why I asked here. :-)

 

We all have our own definitions as well :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that it had two definitions but I guess the wiki is right.

 

2.5D ("two-and-a-half-dimensional"), 3/4 perspective and pseudo-3D are terms, mainly in the video game industry, used to describe either:

 

2D graphical projections and similar techniques are 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.

 

Until today, I was only aware of the latter.  Live and learn.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trine and Trine 2 are great examples of 2.5d games.  They are also very beautiful games.  I think Trine 2 has the most beautiful artwork ever in a game.

 

Difference between 2.5 and 3d is that in 2.5 there is a side of a 3d model that is never view able due to control of the camera angles.  Since this side is never viewable, it doesn't need to exist, so they can display a 3d model with some of it missing and you never can tell, this is a big optimization.

 

With the resources saved they can either add more detail to the view able sides, or not and keep the hardware requirements for the end user lower.

Edited by EddieV223
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doom was definitely 2.5D, yeah there was a floor height (and a ceiling height) but all the collision was done in 2D (you could even punch demons from the top of a cliff that were at the bottom of the cliff! All the guns and rockets just did 2d collision, the rockets and fireballs when travelling were drawn at interpolated heights between you and the target though), you couldn't have a tunnel where you could go underneath a bridge (since there was only one floor height per collision polygon), although you could sort of do that by swapping areas of the map for other ones when you went round a corner (they did that in the N64 version at least once IIRC).

 

That's why it was fast on ancient hardware.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that it had two definitions but I guess the wiki is right.

 

2.5D ("two-and-a-half-dimensional"), 3/4 perspective and pseudo-3D are terms, mainly in the video game industry, used to describe either:

 

2D graphical projections and similar techniques are 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.

 

Until today, I was only aware of the latter.  Live and learn.

 

The second definition is coming more and more into use for describing current games. Because 3D is still preferred for artistic reasons, but the design of the game applies a limited degree of movement as in 2D, there have been more games showing up that want to offer a "classic" gameplay experience but with modernized graphics.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since i'm working on what i suppose it's a 2.5D game i thought i could give my very honest opinion. In my game everything it's 3d except that since it's a space shooter and camera angle is fixed i work out all the collision and "physics" in 2D because it saves a LOT of computation time even though i have to "manually" project the points.

 

I still think that Trine & Trine 2 ( great games btw ) are another interpretation of 2.5D and Sacred ( if i remember correctly ) is isometric but with 3d models and i personally consider it 2.5D. 

 

Doom... i wouldn't consider it 2.5D it's neither 3D nor 2.5D. I would put it in the Raycasting/fake 3D category.

 

 

 

Difference between 2.5 and 3d is that in 2.5 there is a side of a 3d model that is never view able due to control of the camera angles.  Since this side is never viewable, it doesn't need to exist, so they can display a 3d model with some of it missing and you never can tell, this is a big optimization.

 

With the resources saved they can either add more detail to the view able sides, or not and keep the hardware requirements for the end user lower.

 

Of course it depends on the game, but for some 2.5D games if a part of the model is "missing" it can be gamebreaking for performance.

 

 

Just my two cents, please correct me if anything is wrong.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a horrible term that I first saw used in relation to games with 2D gameplay but 3D graphics. The term seemed to become really common when Nights into Dreams was released on the Sega Saturn.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0