allright, time to settle this
QUOTE(System Error @ Jul 26 2006, 05:50 AM)
No. Think of it this way. What would that house look like from the side? Now, look at the front of the house. The roof overhangs in your screenshot, although only slightly, but as for others, the roof does not hang over at all. So like the front of the house, the back of a house should have brick right below where the roof should be, but even in your shot and taking isometricness into account, the angle is still not enough to warrant the whole tile behind it being able to be walked on. An 8x16 strip, yes. But not a full 16x16 one. The most recent Pure update (and not the crappy 2.10 one) is an even worse offender, as the entire roof of a building is set up to be layered over things, which would give the building a flatish look when viewed from the side.

first off, NoeL said nothing about having a full 16x16 walkable tile behind the house. even then it would make sense. it looks as if it's a 16x16 tile for the front of the house, then the tiles for the roof. imagine that the screenshot was a true top-down perspective. if Link had a full tile behind the house to walk on, he would be right next to the wall on each side. if he only had a half tile to walk on behind the house, he would appear 8 pixels away from the back. now, I think most of us remove half of the tile's walkable areas simply to prevent Link from being hidden back there
second, it looks like a cliff and water behind the house, so it dosen't matter how much space Link has to move back there; he can't get there anyway. even if he could, the house would be raised up from the water, allowing even more space behind the house for Link to move behind