>No I’m not. Your point was that 3D games weren’t 3D. yes you are, and now you're insisting what I wrote is what you interpreted it to be. You really want to a

>No I’m not. Your point was that 3D games weren’t 3D. yes you are, and now you're insisting what I wrote is what you interpreted it to be. You really want to argue that you know what I said better than I do? >The point of 2.5D is that the game has 3D-like visuals but the gameplay actually only happens in 2 axis. I stated very clearly I'm only counting it if the 3rd positional variable is actually required to implement the game. There's a very subtle distinction on if this definition counts a given 2.5d game: if something is in mid air is it possible to pass under it? Will a falling object land on something trying to pass under it (or will it screw up and clip through instead)? If the answer is no to either, then its not 3d. Its just drawn like its 3d but is still 2d (such as your DK example). If the answer is yes to both, then its 3d. There are games, that are not examples of 1st person AAA modern 3d engines, often rendered in isometric or some other projection, which none-the-less pass this basic criteria of being 3d. If gameplay in which the third dimension is literally a relevant variable is still just a "simulation of 3d" and not "real 3d", then no other method of projecting a simulated 3d world to a 2d screen should count either. That excludes pretty much everything prior to VR (and and as you pedantically argue, maybe also VR).