>>55304056>poor criterion because of paper marioAgain, as I already explained, that’s because the main difference between half of Mario games lies in movement, not models vs sprites. Between SMW (all 2D assets) NSMBDS (mixed assets) and SMBW (almost completely 3D assets) they’re all considered 2D by fans because of the style of gameplay being distinct from 3D Mario games like Galaxy, 3D World/Land, Odyssey, and even Paper.
The standard is different with mainline Pokemon games because they all simulate 3D movement using different assets with the main focus always being two dimensions, so we have to find another distinction to fit when people say 2D Pokemon vs 3D Pokemon. And how the Pokemon and people are represented, as well as them moving in 4 directions, tend to be the most obvious way to seperate the games into 2D and 3D eras, as well as being able to actually play in a 3D mode.
>not the case in Gen 5But it still isn’t even consistent with its own definition as well as yours, which is my point. It’s Wikipedia.
> there are no 2.5d pokemon games in my perspectiveEven though Gens 1-3 fit your own retarded definition of 2.5D? Sure.
>revisionismNice try
