Topic: Konami is already thinking about the next Castlevania game

[chainsawmidget]

Most people like to use short words and to shorten words because its more easy this way (lazyness around the world), like BRB, AFK, IIRC, etc. So I can see "2.5D" being very common.

Those people should not be encouraged. 

Whenever I see somebody type those, I deliberatly misinterpret them and run with it until the person explains.

[Lelygax]

It seems that we will get along pretty easily then, I ove to misinterpret things on purpose with some of my friends, but only when its really funny.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

I may be mistaken here, but I think I the first time I read the term 2.5D was way back when the original Klonoa was released. I always thought it was rather fitting? Then again, "3D sidescroller" might technically be a better description.

I heard of it way back when Yoshi's Story for N64 came out.
As you know, that's a sidescroller platformer peppered with some isometrics coming toward the camera to give the illusion of a full cardboard/denim world:
First Level - Yoshi's Story
(notice around the 2:00 mark, when Yoshi has to groundpound near an Pach.E.Derm enemy in order to take the alternate road.

IMO, the term "2.5D" is both silly and misleading.  There is no 2nd.5 dimension.  There's length, height, and depth.  There can be more dimensions than that according to the laws of Physics, but there cannot be 'half' of a dimension.  I get that it's supposed to mean "giving the illusion of a third dimension", but if you think about it that way, there are many games since even the NES that achieve such things.

Technically, the floor effect on the old arcade/SNES Street Fighter II games is an example of that:
Street Fighter II: The World Warrior (SNES Walkthrough - HD)
The floor in this dojo moves to give a pseudo-depth effect.

If you wanna go further back, even Kirby's Adventure did it with the Butter Building:
Kirby's Adventure: Butter Building 2
Around the 0:15m mark you can see an effect on the building giving the illusion of depth/roundness.

A way in which things get confusing is this:  Technically, you're moving in 3D in Beat 'em Ups.  So is "2.5D" restricted only to platformers?  After all, in a Beat 'em up, "Up" is replaced by "going in/out of the playfield' and height is represented by jumping.

What about Isometric platformers like Super Mario RPG?  What are those?

This is in my opinion what makes the term "2.5D" a superfluous buzzword term, rather than an actual term.  Yeah, people will kinda 'get' what you're talking about when you say it... but if you're restricting it to platformers... why not just say "Polygonal Sidescroller" (like Kirby & the Crystal Shards, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow: Mirror of Fate, or Bionic Commando: ReArmed), and say "sprite-based sidescroller" (anything made with sprites and tiles instead of polygon models)?

It's simpler and everyone will be on the same page when they hear what you're saying.  The term "platformer" can be tacked on at the end of 'sidescroller' to further explain what kind of game it'll be... so you can say "polygonal sidescroller platformer" for New Super Mario Bros., "polygonal sidescroller fighter" for Super Smash Bros. "sprite-based sidescroller puzzle" for Krusty's Super Fun House or A Boy & His Blob, etc.  Symphony of the Night would be a 'sprite-based sidescroller adventure', even though it is peppered with polygonal elements.

You can also use pixel-art instead of sprite-based and everyone will know what you're talking about.

Games that mess with you in that regard would be very few...

I can think of "Fez" as messing with things a lot, as it's a pixel-art sidescroller puzzle.. but its main mechanic is switching dimension perspectives (but honestly, unless you're in the middle of flipping or are on NewGame+, you're going to spend most of your time in sidescrolling mode).

Super Paper Mario is another odd animal in that it's using pixel-art visuals for the characters, but they're using polygon models for everything else.  You've also got full movement in all three dimensions, but only when flipping... so really this is not always a sidescroller, but it IS a platformer, you get it?

[Pfil]

Both Prinny games for PSP mix 2D gameplay with 75 grades angle cameras rotations every time you shoot in the air, so it is in 2.5 with 3D backgrounds but plays totally in 2D with sprites and includes 3D parts, all together.

[Inccubus]

I heard of it way back when Yoshi's Story for N64 came out.
As you know, that's a sidescroller platformer peppered with some isometrics coming toward the camera to give the illusion of a full cardboard/denim world:
First Level - Yoshi's Story
(notice around the 2:00 mark, when Yoshi has to groundpound near an Pach.E.Derm enemy in order to take the alternate road.

IMO, the term "2.5D" is both silly and misleading.  There is no 2nd.5 dimension.  There's length, height, and depth.  There can be more dimensions than that according to the laws of Physics, but there cannot be 'half' of a dimension.  I get that it's supposed to mean "giving the illusion of a third dimension", but if you think about it that way, there are many games since even the NES that achieve such things.

Technically, the floor effect on the old arcade/SNES Street Fighter II games is an example of that:
Street Fighter II: The World Warrior (SNES Walkthrough - HD)
The floor in this dojo moves to give a pseudo-depth effect.

If you wanna go further back, even Kirby's Adventure did it with the Butter Building:
Kirby's Adventure: Butter Building 2
Around the 0:15m mark you can see an effect on the building giving the illusion of depth/roundness.

A way in which things get confusing is this:  Technically, you're moving in 3D in Beat 'em Ups.  So is "2.5D" restricted only to platformers?  After all, in a Beat 'em up, "Up" is replaced by "going in/out of the playfield' and height is represented by jumping.

What about Isometric platformers like Super Mario RPG?  What are those?

This is in my opinion what makes the term "2.5D" a superfluous buzzword term, rather than an actual term.  Yeah, people will kinda 'get' what you're talking about when you say it... but if you're restricting it to platformers... why not just say "Polygonal Sidescroller" (like Kirby & the Crystal Shards, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow: Mirror of Fate, or Bionic Commando: ReArmed), and say "sprite-based sidescroller" (anything made with sprites and tiles instead of polygon models)?

It's simpler and everyone will be on the same page when they hear what you're saying.  The term "platformer" can be tacked on at the end of 'sidescroller' to further explain what kind of game it'll be... so you can say "polygonal sidescroller platformer" for New Super Mario Bros., "polygonal sidescroller fighter" for Super Smash Bros. "sprite-based sidescroller puzzle" for Krusty's Super Fun House or A Boy & His Blob, etc.  Symphony of the Night would be a 'sprite-based sidescroller adventure', even though it is peppered with polygonal elements.

You can also use pixel-art instead of sprite-based and everyone will know what you're talking about.

Games that mess with you in that regard would be very few...

I can think of "Fez" as messing with things a lot, as it's a pixel-art sidescroller puzzle.. but its main mechanic is switching dimension perspectives (but honestly, unless you're in the middle of flipping or are on NewGame+, you're going to spend most of your time in sidescrolling mode).

Super Paper Mario is another odd animal in that it's using pixel-art visuals for the characters, but they're using polygon models for everything else.  You've also got full movement in all three dimensions, but only when flipping... so really this is not always a sidescroller, but it IS a platformer, you get it?

I've never heard any of those examples called 2.5D. As you said, those are all examples of 2D effects used to create the illusion of 3 dimensional movement or 3 dimensional objects without the use of actual 3D processing. I remember hearing that called pseudo 3D since the 8-bit days. Calling these example 2.5D is a very broad interpretation of the term especially when we're talking about singular elements within a game as opposed to the game as a whole.

I specifically remember in the PSX era 2.5D used for games that have a combination of 2D and 3D. Doom has a true 3D environment with scaling 2D sprites for the enemies. Klanoa, Toomba, Strider 2, and others use primarily 2D game play with 3D graphics for most or all elements. Those are the games I remember called 2.5D and I remember the term being explained this way in magazine articles.

I can see how someone might find the term "silly" if they are coming from a strictly physics perspective. But that would be a literal interpretation that takes the term out of context and misses the meaning as being neither fully 2D nor fully 3D. There's no intention in the use of the term to imply a half a dimension since that is nonsensical and would be outside the scope of the term. Thus, taking it from a physics point of view would be pointless.


EDIT:
Checking out the Wikipedia article it seems that the meaning of 2.5D has been debated for quite a while with numerous discussions about whether or not to merge the page with the one for pseudo-3D. Interesting read.

[Kale]

THQ is totally gone or it has been absorbed by some other company? Ateast Darksiders is safe with some group/company? Sad to know that, I've heard some rumors but it passed so many time that I didnt even remembered about that and thought it was not real.

I think it was... THQ went bankrupt and sold their IP. Darksiders went to a company that has people who worked on Darksiders.

Funny tidbit. THQ is being sued by, iirc, Sega, for money that THQ made from the IPs that Sega bought. I don't know the full detail, but I think it was a deal that was made before Sega has the IP but got paid after or something.

[Pfil]

Darksiders is a very good game, but it doesn't scream Castlevania all the time.
If anyone would make a CV based on DS, some things should change, music amongst them.