It feels like there's a fundamental difference between stuff like Kirby 64, Pandemonium, Klonoa and Crash or Pac-Man World though, no? You are locked to an axis of horizontal movement in games like Kirby or Klonoa whilst you can move freely around the established play area across all 3 axis in a game like Crash or Pac-Man World. The only real difference on a structural level would be that games like Mario 64 or Spyro have far larger play areas.that's a good question.. i feel like "2.5D" was a term used by gaming magazines at the time (i read a lot of them, nintendo power, gamepro, gamefan, EGM and EGM 2 so i cant remember where i saw that term...)
i feel like it was used to describe a variety of games which were 3D, but most of the action took place on two axes (which didnt necessarily have to be static)... so examples of 2.5D (according to me, at least) would be things like Crash, pandemonium, pacman world, etc
So, is the size of the play area a defining feature of something being called a 3D platformer?
I love genre discussion when it gets granular like this. "Do games with loading screens count as open world" and "Does Smash Bros count as a fighting game" are other examples I see brought up.
Post automatically merged:
Just on a visual level SPM looks so unappealing to me. The idea of perspective changing seems novel, but I can never get over how boring it looks to wanna actually try it out myself.WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT: I didn't like Super Paper Mario at all. I thought the visuals and character design were really ugly, the writing, while cute, was waaaay too self-satisfied, and the gameplay was agonizingly boring, especially by the Heaven/Hell chapter. That game asks you to do long, meandering, tedious tasks far too many times for my liking, and a lot of the "level design" is very confused and unfocused. I don't even like most of the music.
Last edited: