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

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.

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.

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"

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 probably something contrived like "2D game with 3D graphics"...

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.

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:

Is that considered 2.5D ?

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

and this game:

Is that purely 3D ?

Thanks