Wonktonodi said:
I thought in beat em ups just adjust the plane so the characters move(from the characters perspective) left right forward backwards instead up down left and right. If the jumping in them really do make then more comparable to games like lpb then I'd argue they were closer to being 2.5 then saying it doesn't exist. It's just really hard to show in only 2D. If a character jumping can be displayed in the same place as a charter on the ground but they aren't actually in the same place, that's more than 2D, just harder to show with 2D graphics.
Making levels in lbp requires making decisions in 3d of how to lay things out. So I don't think you can just call it rendering.
|
That gets into a grey area then what stops us from calling ALttP 2.5D then? When rendered in 3D, you're faced with the same 3D spacing problems. But we don't call it 2.5D just because of that; we call it top down. The same applies to LBP and old games that tried to simulat a 3D plane in 2D. It's not "2.5D." It's one or the other. We call Streets of Rage, and other games that follow those same rules of switching planes "Beat em ups." LPB is still a 2D platformer. It just interacts with 3D space, the same way a lot of more modern 2D platformers do. Even ones that are still rendered in 2D do similar things. Gameplay wise, LBP is still restricted by the mechanics of 2D platformers.
It's the same semantics I get into with games like SM3DW. It's not a 3D platformer, it's an isometric platformer. It's just rendered in 3D, and allows for the use of limited camera movement, because being rendered in 3D allows for that privilage. Jumping in fully rendered 3D space doesn't automatically give it the 3D platformer catagory, because mechanically, it is still confined to the rules of an isometric platformer.
