TwinkieGorilla
does a good job.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2007
- Messages
- 5,480
You're right.
About what?
You're right.
Even Cleve did a quest in Grimoire that you have to find a shell for a hermit crab...You're right. Who's ever heard of hermit crabs? Every fucking child, apparently (the scientists of tomorrow!).
The idea that radiation produces giant monsters is pure fantasy though - a pulp "sci-fi" staple.The funny thing is that even the stereotypical, "wacky" and unscientific idea of a post apocalyptic wasteland is based on science.
The idea that radiation causes mutations comes from science. It's not fantasy, it's not magic.
My point was that hermit crabs are hardly an obscure creature and giant crabs near watery areas are hardly a novelty concept - they are second only to giant rats. TES games, Wizardry, RoA and Drakensang, Risen 2, Pathfinder, etc.But hey, according with VD everybody could come up with that anyway because LOL LOOK KIDZ BOOKZ HAHAHA GET IT EVEN KIDS COULD COME UP WITH IT ITZ SO OBVIOUS.
How a tiny crab would evolve in a giant fucking crab who will need tons of food in a low-food environment because most species would be dead?Also scientists are hacks who can't really tell how a creature would evolve...
which is that they could have come up with that hermit-crab idea on their own
It's based not on the 50s but on the 50s sci-fi - how people in the 50s imagined the future.which is that they could have come up with that hermit-crab idea on their own
Well, the fact that someone could come up with something is not really an argument. The question is not if they could have but if they would have. I'm sure plenty of people could have come up with the 50s look for Fallout. Because hey, everybody knows the 50s existed, right? I bet there's even kids books about the 50s.
Are we still taking about giant creatures here?But an idea is nothing without the proper execution.
It's based not on the 50s but on the 50s sci-fi - how people in the 50s imagined the future.
Are we still taking about giant creatures here?
"We used radiation as a very simple gaming mechanism to argue that it makes animals super large, because everyone knows radiation makes things super-large... we'll just take that one as a granted,"
The idea that radiation produces giant monsters is pure fantasy though - a pulp "sci-fi" staple.
Then why talk about the look of 50s?Wow... thanks... that's a revelation.
And bring new ideas they did.Only that I don't see how it can hurt and that it can bring in new ideas ...
What's your point? Is anyone arguing that not a single scientifically correct idea should be present in games?The idea that radiation produces giant monsters is pure fantasy though - a pulp "sci-fi" staple.
But that idea wouldn't exist without that universally recognized scientific context.
I stand corrected.Well, Fallout did use FEV to explain most of the mutations, including stuff like radscorpions. Of course, most people missed that and just assumed that things grew big because of radiation.
Then why talk about the look of 50s?
And bring new ideas they did.
The analogy is silly. There is a huge fucking difference between skills required to come up with the giant crab idea and skills required to model and animate one.Well, see, this is what I'm talking about. In case you didn't figure out my analogy with classically trained artists it goes something like this:
- InXile ask for scientist advice
- LOL FOR CRABS HAHA
- Interplay hires artists with classical training
- LOL TO DRAW SKELETONS HAHA
Like I said in the other thread, there were two possibilities: either the scientists would go with scientifically realistic flora and fauna, which would be boring, or they would go with wacky shit like giant crabs, in which case their involvement isn't necessary at all.Look, I don't know in the end how useful their scientist advice will be, but your dismissal is based on just supposition. And don't tell me it isn't, you dismissed it even before they gave this example with the crab, because hey, you just know it won't be useful.
either the scientists would go with scientifically realistic flora and fauna, which would be boring,
The analogy is silly. There is a huge fucking difference between skills required to come up with the giant crab idea and skills required to model and animate one.
Seriously?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNLfNe12BKE
Fucking boring man. Where is that robot with spinning knives? That's SO exciting.
Should I dismiss the "single thing" - the first and only example given - and assume that the rest will be totally awesome instead? Would that be a better approach?Still don't get it. What I mean is you're dismissing the whole thing based on a single thing.
While the benefits of classic art training are clear, the benefits of science consultants aren't.Like it would be dismissing classical training, because hey, who needs that for drawing skeletons?
Seriously?
While the benefits of classic art training are clear, the benefits of science consultants aren't.